Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigan Down[edit]

Mayodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article and it appears to be a completely unverifiable hoax. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No google hits. Feezo (Talk) 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author appears to be obsessed with it. Royboy crashfan 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and unblank this page (which someone, probably the creator, had blanked). —Cuivi é nen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 00:11 (UTC)
Delete pn, the so called cable channel returns no google hits T K E 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm calling WP:SNOW on this one. Yes, a show that aired for the better part of a decade is so obscure, that no one can find anything about it. Why people waste time with hoax articles, I don't know. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC); amended 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, they're funny! T K E 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not. Royboy crashfan 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure. T K E 01:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why should this drivel keep hanging around? ~~(I couldn't find blanking in the page history, but it would seem a good idea.)~~ Lambiam ^Talk 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the AfD page had been blanked. Look at the user's contributions, clearly a troll (Mary K. Sponze?) Lambiam ^Talk 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism. User's other edits are also vandalism, such as pasting the article over legitimate articles such as Aussie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Starblind, especially considering this was used to vandalize regular articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tobyk777 00:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Do I need to point out that any article containing the phrase "liberal media assholes" in the first sentence will, with probability one, qualify for a speedy? --Deville (Talk) 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this obvious nonsense. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (unanimous). — FireFox • T [21:30, 6 April 2006]

City Limits[edit]

Not notable. It doesn't even describe a Flash cartoon that exists; it's "in production". Fails Google test. -Branddobbe 00:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe in a few years when/if it is well known this can come back, but while it is unavailable to the public it's non-notable. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-production flash cartoon with no IMDB entry. After deletion, redirect to City limits (United States) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. Bucketsofg 01:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until this movie is posted this is unverifiable crystal ball. Alba 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Vulcanstar6 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, crystal ballness of non-notability. Fagstein 03:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.YellowPigNowNow 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- DocSigma 17:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rory0 96 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tyrenius 01:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, not yet notable. ~MDD 46 96 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NTK 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Robinson[edit]

Searching for this person's name yields a single mention of a faculty position. Possible vanity page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Hirsh (talk • contribs)

Delete, non-notable. The author's name does not suggest vanity, but keep in mind vanity does not just mean "written by the subject". Keep, which I was about to say before. Royboy crashfan 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable classical musician with international touring/recital record. Principal bass with notable symphony orchestra as well as solo/small group performing career. At least as worthy of inclusion as Bulbasaur. He's also listed as notable in the often-edited double bass article, which signals that editors who actually know something about the relevant music find him notable. Monicasdude 00:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got a lot more than [one ghit. Of course, I'm not sure this guy is notable even so... --Deville (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable classical musician, if he were part of a pop, metal, or rap group of similar fame there would be no question about deleting. That said, I have no idea where the Bulbasaur comparison comes in... maybe a private joke for those more familiar with Mr. Robinson. Definitely keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If wikified, cleaned up, and verification T K E 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sounds pretty notable, esp. with all the connections to big-name orchestras. -- Tangot a ngo 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude and Andrew Lenahan. dbtfz ^talk 01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, unlike the baseline for pop-cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the usual over enthusiastic deletion of things people have not heard of. For great justice. 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable musician. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Significant member of the classical music communityYellowPigNowNow 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I know I don't have one of your fancy-pants usernames, but I am a double bassist and probably know more about this than most of you guys. Hal Robinson is very notable, and is certainly a legend in the bass world. If anything, this article could use some serious expansion. 24.18.102.215 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, clean it up! T K E 05:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable musician meets WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the best-known classical bassists. Plenty of search results, I don't know where this NN stuff came from. Agreed that the stub needs improvement. ProhibitOnions 10:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 18:56
Keep per WP:MUSIC Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep nothing to suggest it should be deleted at all. Should be relabled as a stub though. :) Lonesomedovechocolate 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 03:55Z
Keep notable 'nuff --MrFizyx 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden enema[edit]

Dictionary definition, not sourced, notability questionable. This was proposed for deletion and contested. Do we really need an article for every different liquid substance that people choose to force into their bowels? Brian G. Crawford 00:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT/WINAD. Royboy crashfan 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No. No, we do not. --Deville (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sexual slang dicdef. Please let's not be Enemapedia. -- Mithent 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Really unnecessary. -- Tangot a ngo 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with others. (Now I have to go blind my mind's eye.) Bucketsofg 01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with others. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Klismaphilia YellowPigNowNow 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. EsonLinji 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikpedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Klismaphilia Prometheus^-X303- 16:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, pass the Brain Brillo. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not notable enough a paraphilia to be merged with Klismaphilia. JoshuaZ 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. That's where dicdefs are supposed to go, you know. --Rory0 96 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
637 Google hits, and not just mirrors of this site, this term is clearly in use. However, I agree with the above that this may not be worth a stand-alone article suggest merge and redirect with klismaphilia. -- The Anome 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 637 is almost none for a generic term, and this is a sex term. If something is at all a notable paraphilia it will have easily 1000s of google hits. As an example, I just googled "zombie rape" and got over 10,000 hits.JoshuaZ 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Right up there with "grapefruit juice enema." Fishhead64 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Icarus 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipeida is not the urban dictionary. --MrFizyx 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was A7-again. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kight[edit]

This article has been speedied as CSD A7, although the creator objects that it does not meet A7 criteria, as this person is notable to 500 people at a school (See the talk page.) light darkness^(talk) 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio. Doesn't meet WP:BIO --light darkness^(talk) 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Middle school principals are not inherent notable on their own; they should be mentioned and unlinked at their school's article. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no matter what weird rationales the article creator keeps coming up with ("The user adding the SD tag isn't an admin"). --Calton | Talk 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Allowing only admins to add SD tags would rather defeat their purpose. SD tags are meant as a way of saying "I think this article has to be deleted, but I am physically unable to do so, so I want an admin to come by and delete it for me". If an admin finds an article that he/she thinks has to be deleted, he/she can go right ahead and delete it. JIP | Talk 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Article 7 of the CSD which states "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" should be removed, and I feel that the person in question is of enough importance considering their prominant position in one of the best middle school in Viringia's capital to be spared a few bytes of memory on Wikipedia's servers. But, hey, I wrote the article. I'd be happy with a formal democratic decision either way, I simply objected to the almost instantatious deletion of the article without a proper discussion or vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigoe (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete. A receptionist at a large office would be known by 500 people too, but that would hardly be the basis for an encyclopedia article either. Suggest that author read up on the relevant Wikipedia policies (for example, WP:BIO) to prevent this from hapenning again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article doesn't begin to explain why he is notable. Royboy crashfan 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, NN as per others --Deville (Talk) 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom and others Bucketsofg 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy a7 - what is the assertion?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above YellowPigNowNow 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if a redirect to Michael Knight is not appropriate. MLA 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 --Ter e nc e Ong 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep, world-famous TV show character. Sorry, I read the title as Michael Knight. Delete, non-notable principal. JIP | Talk 09:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, NN. ProhibitOnions 10:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nn teacher. Deizio 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki and delete. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organización internacional[edit]

Non-english article. And we already have International organization Wh e re ^(talk) 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe send to es. --Deville (Talk) 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I'd say that this needs to go to Pages Needing Translation for two weeks before coming to AfD, but it's not worth translating or keeping. Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to es per above. Royboy crashfan 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to es, if its not already there. Not sure what happened with this one, there are a whole bunch of interwiki links... Grandmasterka 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note in Spanish on the creator's talk page. He/she's also removed the AfD notice. Grand master ka 02:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, To ES as per above Vulcanstar6 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above and delete. Fagstein 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to es, this is English Wikipedia not Spanish Wikipedia, for goodness sake. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above and delete. Jonas Silk 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by AYArktos as patent nonsense, a hoax. -- JLaTondre 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Five A Muslim Day[edit]

Not suitable for wikipedia. WP: NOT Sir Isaac Lime 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense and hoax, tagged accordingly. Brian G. Crawford 01:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Crawford --Deville (Talk) 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsure if it's actually patent nonsense (there's a website linked) but certainly just someone's non-notable idea/joke. -- Mithent 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nn-bio Prodego ^talk 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League of Villainous Evil[edit]

Not notable. Google returned 22 hits. Sir Isaac Lime 01:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly even speedy as A7/nn-group-bio. Doesn't even make clear exactly what the group even is... maybe some sort of gaming clan, maybe just WP:NFT silliness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, and WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tagged - no assertion of group being notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On rye[edit]

Vanity, not-notable. Google search: 14 unique hits. Sir Isaac Lime 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the claims in the article can be verified. For great justice. 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, something tells me they have potential. Delete, WP:VSCA Royboy crashfan 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No IMDB entry, either for the group or its members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn/vanity. Geogre's Law confirmed for the billionth time. dbtfz ^talk 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolute crap with delusions of grandeur. Brian G. Crawford 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no credible assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. YellowPigNowNow 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing of note here Deizio 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename (move) as Amateur film groups to chronicle the phenomenon of such groups on the internet and elsewhere. Tyrenius 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have to agree its Vanity. There are no sources cited. Perhaps flag to add sources but if none show up, then Delete. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fishhead64 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jonas Silk 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, them kids are havin' fun though. --MrFizyx 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Wizardman 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Proto. --Rory0 96 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The november iris[edit]

Not notable. Doesn't seem to have any recorded output, unsigned. Sir Isaac Lime 01:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Fagstein. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, band has not actually released any records or records that have been in mass production. Totally non-notable. - Erebus555 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7, tagged as such. --Rory0 96 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even if cleaned up (a bit of a task), certainly currently fails WP:MUSIC. Colonel Tom 22:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected by Fagstein --Rory0 96 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly duckling presse[edit]

A copy of the page Ugly Duckling Presse Sir Isaac Lime 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Ugly Duckling Presse. Royboy crashfan 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion not appropriate, redirect. For great justice. 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Royboycrashfan. Fagstein 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrashfan. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I don't think you undersand. Royboycrashfan is proposing a redirect. Not deletion. For great justice. 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. Wouldn't even need AfD, just do the redirect if you spot a clear dupe. Weregerbil 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Ugly Duckling Presse. No need for AFD, this AFD should close by now. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirected. The two texts appear identical. Fagstein 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close please. Now redirected to Ugly Duckling Presse which doesn't have an AfD tag, so it either needs to be tagged or the nomination should be closed. Regarding notability and verifiability, Worldcat lists a number of UDP books; they seem to specialize in art books and poetry. Thatcher131 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oscillating Fan Club[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unsigned. Sir Isaac Lime 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:MUSIC, WP:VAIN, inspiration explanation. Royboy crashfan 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We'll recreate the article when they become the next hot thing (which is, of course, obviously going to happen). Fagstein 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was this not tagged {{db-band}}? WP:Music violation for albums, singles, chart positions, notable members. (aeropagitica) 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn band, vanity, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Lonesomedovechocolate 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their tour dates are all in their home state. Fails WP:MUSIC.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On suuri sun rantas autius[edit]

Not English, Possible Copyvio (from http://www.musicanet.org/en/texts/01/133en.htm), Unencyclopaedic, Importance not explained, Boring .... jmd 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable song. Royboy crashfan 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if cleaned up. Google seems to suggest it's a notable-enough folk song, though the content at present is mostly just lyrics, which may or may not be under copyright (based on a V. A. Koskenniemi poem). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't know if the English translation is accurate, but it's only a hair's width from patent nonsense. jmd
Delete per jmd. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Veikko Antero Koskenniemi. This is a famous Finnish folk song but I don't think it deserves its own article. JIP | Talk 09:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Finnish poetry. I find it passing strange that there isn't even an article on Finnish folk music. Another example of jumping to the particular without first expounding the general. Fishhead64 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - does not warrant an article on its own Gardar Rurak 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rikki Lee Travolta [edit]

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Fractured Life[edit]

Creation of Rikki Lee Travolta, self promotionist as above. Arniep 01:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several websites suggest notability. Royboy crashfan 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were likely all edited or misinformed by this person. Arniep 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though if the author isn't notable, then neither is this....Delete.Roy boy crashfan

02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given in AfD for Rikki Lee Travolta, if that really is his name. Brian G. Crawford 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the arguments on its author's AFD. The book is published by Infinity Publishing, a self-publishing concern. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Published by Infinity Publishing, a vanity press. Amazon rank 400,000. Fan1967 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are listed as an employee of a marketing firm here which describes them as a "Top Ten Amazon.com recommended author" and "an internationally published journalist" while making no mention of their acting career???? Arniep 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that on Amazon. What I did find there was a whole bunch of glowing, extravagant reviews by people who had never reviewed anything else. (What's the Amazon term for sock puppet?) One reviewer had reviewed one other book, Don Quixote. The only reviewer who actually had multiple other reviews described this book as "Schlock. I give this book 1-star because zero stars is not an option." Fan1967 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that. Actually 400,000 isn't the lowest of the low. It comes up second when you type in Travolta in books (something the author no doubt realised that people would find it when searching for info on John Travolta). Arniep 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sam67fr 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Fan1967 Deizio 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ehheh 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - flag for Cleanup I started the Annie Travolta page and have been a contributor to many of the Travolta family pages including Margaret Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta, Annie Travolta, and John Travolta. Many of those changes are reverting vandalism. It is right there in the history. There is no way, shape, or form that could remotely be confused as being in an “advertising scam”. I have NEVER removed members of the Travolta family from listings. I have worked hard to keep the integrity in tact. I think upon closer inspection you’ll see there was an influx of attempts by an anon (66.121.40.132) to vandalizing different Travolta family sites [1] (changing facts without providing sources or citations). When the anon seemed to be starting a revert war with different users I followed Wiki policy [2]and contacted them on their discussion page [3] to request documentation for the changes being made.

Its been noticed that you have made several repeated changes to the family elements of the John Travolta page and related pages. The policy at Wikipedia is to try to avoid revert wars going back and forth over the same territory. As follows are what we have confirmed as members of the Travolta family: Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Helen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvatore Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. In respecting Wikipedia policy it is always necessary to approach differences of opinion in good faith. Although we have documented each of these individuals as relatives (of different levels of removal or closeness of course) within the extended Travolta family, ff you disagree with any person(s) on this list please provide the documentation and we should be able to come to a simple understanding relatively quickly (no pun intended). We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The anon (66.121.40.132) did not respond. I assumed the matter was dropped but now I find out I am being lumped in some kind of witch hunt accusation by Arniep who seems to have some vendetta [4] based on feelings and assumptions without citing any sources and discounting such sources as TV Guide [5] and The Chicago Sun Times [6] as "just sites used by agencies".[7]

Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign (for Bond) on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Who told them that? Probably an agent. Secondly, the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Thirdly, the person you contacted had removed Rikki Lee Travolta from all the Travolta pages saying "Rikki Lee is not part of this clan" and then you reverted them (see Special:Contributions/66.121.40.132). Arniep 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun-Times article actually looks genuine, but is worthless. Stella Foster reports on local Chicago people and events, and if you check her current columns [8] you'll see she often writes about people who are only marginally notable even on a local basis, and unknown nationally. She is not the celebrity reporter; that job belongs to Bill Zwecker. Fan1967 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Arniep's talk page [9] you see a long history of jumping to conclusions and waging war on opinions that are different than Arniep's. Not the spirit of good faith [10] that is intended and required for successful interaction. Sorry - one person's opinion shouldn't outweigh the facts. And Arniep is trying to make wide sweeping changes purely on opinioin without citing facts and ignoring the facts that do exist. The Rikki Lee Travolta [11] page appears to (now) have good documentation. The other page named: My Fractured Life [12] needs to be cleaned up and is so marked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt if you ask me and I'm offended to have been included in it because I was the one who tried to follow Wiki policy [13] to avoid this kind of pointless McCarthyism. Paramountpr 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are obviously a sockpuppet of the many other user accounts each used for a short time to edit the same articles and push the same point of views listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam . Arniep 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep gets into it, it's true, and he comes off at times as hard-nosed and fixated on certain things - but take it from one who has battled him hard and long, his interest is in Wikipedia, and I have found that he knows what he's talking about. The focus should be on this book, which does not seem to belong on Wikipedia, at least at present.Chandler75 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this long dialog may be more relevant to the Rikki Lee Travolta debate above. Regarding the book, I think it may be more important to concentrate on a copule simple issues: it's from a vanity press, and it appears not many people have bought it. Fan1967 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity published nn book or so it seems.... Marcus22 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Marcus 22 above. Also, a careful look at the reviews shows an inordinate number of hits finding the reviews "valuable" - in the hundreds. For a book that's 400,000 on the amazon.com site in sales, the numbers of people reviewing and looking at the reviews seems large. Down lower are people who seem to have believed the publicity and purchased the book - uh, they don't agree. Would be curious to see what else the commenters have commented on.Chandler75 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can click on the links for "See all my reviews". All the people who gave glowing, over-the-top praise ("A human adventure with the intensity of THE DA VINCI CODE, LOVELY BONES, and FATHER JOE.") had never reviewed any other book. Hmmmm. Fan1967 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity publisher and Google search on sales shows it ranks 387,954th on amazon.com. I'd say that qualifies as non-notable. Fishhead64 05:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcus22 and Fishhead64, regardless of what happens with Rikki. Thatcher131 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity press + low Amazon ranking = no article. As icing on the cake, those Amazon "customer reviews" look awfully suspicious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suspect him of astroturfing the "grassroots" campaign in 2005 and the anglefire poll in 1999 to be named fan favorite to be the next James Bond (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta), an astroturf campaign on Amazon would be entirely consistent. Thatcher131 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity press non-notable book and a keen little marketing push by author or his agent(s). RasputinAXP c 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From Barnes & Noble "How often do we witness a revolution in literature? TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD...CATCHER IN THE RYE...ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - when was the last time we saw a little book pack that much impact? We're witnessing it now.". Unbelievable. Arniep 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity press/nn. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundaism[edit]

Another invented religion. I proposed deletion and advised the author on his talk page, he reverted without comment.

Delete. Gazpacho 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A religion based on looking at people's butts at the beach? Author should look up "silly" and "funny" in the dictionary and note that their meanings, while similar, are not identical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, five whole members, according to their website. That's more than some of the new religions we've seen lately, but not enough for notability. Fan1967 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax, patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT delete Bundaism is a new movement, and I hope the community of Wikipedia will embrace it. Wikipedia should have a reference to this most excellent of spiritual practices, to document all of humanity's contributions. While you may not be as dedicated to the Bunda as others, there are people who are devoted to the beauty of the bunda, and you should respect that. I do have to thank all of you for reading the article. If any of you care to join please let me know.Boomboomlama
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, nonsense, WP:NFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete Please don't delete. The article does not claim to be a religion. Appears to be more of a "Practice". Has merit.tobinu

Comment When I go to the beach, I also look at women, when my wife's not watching me. I do not, however, consider this "practice" to be worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fan1967 14:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... when the author himself regrets posting the article, it's safe to say it has no proven value. I'd be a bit more discriminating about my assertions of merit. RGTraynor 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it actually has 6 members but the pickings are slimmer on the Porto Metro than the beaches of Brazil... Deizio 16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on the beach one day. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7, nn club. --Rory0 96 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even any content on their web site. Tyrenius 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --Icarus 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Ironically what Boomboomlama said is probably a better argument against this article than for it. Delete per OR, NN, neologism, and nonsense. --Bachrach44 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already He has now copied the article to his user page. I 'spose he can preserve it there, fair 'nuff. --MrFizyx 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Street (Road)[edit]

purely nn road, bad name doesn't even tell where the town is, some town in England I'm guessing, anyways Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient context, possibly intended as a bad joke. — Apr. 5, '06 [03:17] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:freakofnurture. JIP | Talk 09:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every extant thing is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Fishhead64 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per freakofnurture. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a street called 'The Street' in Carlton Colville (try: http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=650000.625542191&Y=290000.888988444&width=700&height=400&gride=651064.625542191&gridn=290318.888988444&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&keepicon=true&zm=0&scale=10000&right.x=1&right.y=141 ). I agree the article could have a more informative name. Markb 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

searching for "Carlton Colville" and "The Street" on Yahoo gives 811 hits. It is therefore noteable.Markb 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably not a joke but we can't document every non notable street. WP:V also applies. --kingboyk 17:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk. Fishhead64 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPPerfectly good article of a well known road, no need for deletion
Delete there are many streets in the world, not all merit an article. Jonas Silk 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN delete. This doesn't seem so malicious though. This seems to be the creation of some young newbie--Maybe it's important in his world, but he hasn't made the case to us. Y'all be nice. --MrFizyx 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phajje ke Paye[edit]

Non-notable. All google hits from Wikipedia and mirrors/forks. Half the article talks about the food, not the shop itself. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nominator. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be notable in that it's a popular restaurant in the "cultural center" of Pakistan... food is culture too ;) - lack of internet hits/sources could be due to a lack of connectivity/web design firms in Pakistan Hoopydink 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And you know it's notable how? This article is unverified and unsourced. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn restaurant, per nom. Deizio 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 virtual reality. Royboy crashfan 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3d simulation[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, there is already an article for virtual reality which is better than this one, NPOV.--Zxcvbnm 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to delete - should redirect to vr. For great justice. 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to virtual reality. Royboy crashfan 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to virtual reality.YellowPigNowNow 03:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Virtual reality. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to virtual reality. No need to have an ad in the edit history. --Rory0 96 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect - 3d simulation covers things other than virtual reality. 3D CAD and 3D molecular modeling, for example, are not virtual reality, but they are 3d simulation. Johntex\^talk 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Rory096. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 03:57Z
strong keep at face value this may look like a fork to 3d or virtual reality but I think is is its own class so strong keep. --CyclePat 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Rory 096. Fishhead64 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion by Royboycrashfan. -- JLaTondre 02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Trap[edit]

This is a page for a D&D spell. The spell was never notable enough for the encyclopedia to begin with. It is now a redirect to Spells of Dungeons and Dragons, and the list at that article now includes the skull trap spell. The spell isn't significant enough for inclusion in that list, however (we're trying to keep the list to the most iconic), but I'm told I can't remove the spell from the list as long as this page redirects to it! So I'm asking for this redirect to be deleted so I can remove its merged text from the target article. I'd previously proposed the deletion of this article but User:TigerShark removed the tag. Powers 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at WP:RfD. Royboy crashfan 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titans(Mage Knight)[edit]

Poorly written gamecruft--Zxcvbnm 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. Royboy crashfan 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no information on the release or whether it was released. - Erebus555 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant information, not even clear enough to be Vanity. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ken Baldwin Show[edit]

Page for an internet radio show, created by User:KenBaldwin. Contested prod. Oddly enough, gets an extraordinary number of google hits, but only the first handful seem relevant. Seems like non-notable vainty unless proven otherwise. Delete. Grand master ka 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete embarrassing vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. The first hit on Google search is MySpace...? Royboy crashfan 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show is in the embryonic state. We really like Wikipedia so we thought we would start an article. If it is to soon we would not mind a delete at this time. We can always start an article after the show builds up a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenBaldwin (talk • contribs)

If you say so, we can speedy delete it under WP:CSD#G7. Royboy crashfan 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, but I'm in over my head I got lost reading the speedy deletion link!

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article needs to be notable before the article is created, rather than to have an expectation to become notable once the article comes in to existence. How many dead student bands would have articles here if that was the criteria for inclusion? Best to build up a reputation before creating an article. (aeropagitica) 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn, probably Speedy per author / subject above. What the hell is up with that google search? Deizio 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesterday, it got about 3 million hits. Today, the same link gets 45. Go figure. Grand master ka 03:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KenBaldwin. Lbbzman 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't discount it for being an Internet show. I have to discount it because it is a planned Internet show with no other substantial link. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional material. Fishhead64 05:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboy crashfan 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship high in transit[edit]

Dates show it wasn't an April 1 joke, but one had to wonder. Not even a good joke. Moriori 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Redirects for deletion. Alba 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete joke Tony 04:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN as simple as that. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' joke. Lonesomedovechocolate 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad joke. --Bachrach44 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scatalogical humor --MrFizyx 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NTK 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Corbett Broad[edit]

~~Non-notable~~ Keep per reecent update. _→AzaToth 02:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like her resume. Article does not suggest notability. Keep, current revision seems well written. Royboy crashfan 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was president of the University of North Carolina system for almost a decade, until being replaced by Erskine Bowles a few months ago. She could certainly be considered notable, but there's nothing here about her. This reads like the summary page of a résumé. She could be the subject of a decent article. This isn't it. Fan1967 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the president of a major university is notable. The article needs work. I'm going to try making some edits. Anirvan 03:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough, its just a lousy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2006
Keep and cleanup. Alba 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve, expand and cleanup. The president of a university is usually notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep definitely passes the WP:KIT test. Molly Corbett Broad is more notable than Nidorino or any other random Pokémon, so if Nidorino gets its own page, she can have her own. But the page does need to sight its sources. I'd flag it. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per update. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 03:58Z
Delete Still looks like a resume to me. Not a notable person Jonas Silk 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per Anirvan Gu 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by me. Pepsidrinka 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squares[edit]

Speedy contested, prod contested, trifecta acheived. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Grand master ka 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSIC. Air play on one student operated Federally authorized radio station does not equal nationally or national radio network.--blue520 04:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 04:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:VANITY. Royboy crashfan 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members. Rotation on one radio station doesn't satisfy the half-hour or hour-long broadcast on a notable radio station criteria. (aeropagitica) 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The radio station in question is a 100-watt college student station. Fan1967 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, per all above. --light darkness^(talk) 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Also, from the speedy tag itself:

If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.

(Emphasis mine). Speedy deletion is NOT prod. It cannot be contested (unless it's obviously wrong and added mistakenly or something). --Rory0 96 22:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Malmqvist[edit]

Non notable, vanity article Tony Bruguier 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Asserts some notability, but provides no reference. Fagstein 04:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline notable YellowPigNowNow 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fagstein. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, potentially useful. For great justice. 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't spot claim to notifiability. Was in a demo crew and worked in a few companies. Only thing that approaches notability is award-winning documentary — which draws nothing related on google [14] [15]; which notable verifiable awards are those? Weregerbil 09:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even were references supplied, how is this notable? RGTraynor 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a resumé -- Astrokey44|talk 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P199 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Marcus22 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nn. Fishhead64 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carebears (demogroup)[edit]

Non notable, possible vanity Tony Bruguier 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is unverifiable. Fagstein 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep I've never heard of a demo group, there do seem to be many related articles here though and the original author appears to have some expertise. Google does bring some non-wiki hits, one ATARI.org site mentions "AN Cool (Anders Nilson) of the famous ST demo group The Carebears." Does anyone know what the hell this is all about? --MrFizyx 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of actual releases. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, again. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Stephen Dare[edit]

An article for this person was deleted last month. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Dare. Not a speedy, because it's new content. - EurekaLott 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am writing this note to record the fact that my first experience in creating an article has exposed me to ridicule, offensive behavior and a systematic pattern of argumentation from one of the wikipedia editors, "calton" whose comments are on this page. I was told by several friends and colleagues that wikipedia was untrustworthy and unreliable and a place so contentious that it wasnt worth the bother, since you merely ended up combatting spiteful and immature people more interested in proving their points than in creating a worthwhile body of knowledge. While I was making minor edits, I only occaisonally found this to be true, but when I posted an original article, I was made the subect of namecalling and defending my entries against systematic deletion with little or no positive input into the process.

I will now spend my time erasing all contributions that I have made to nuance the subjects upon which I have contributed, both as an unregistered user and a registered one.

This exceedingly sharp process of harrassment has not been limited to this page, but has been conducted on multiple forums where my edits were immediately nominated for speedy deletes while I was actually still in the process of posting them.

I have no problem with input, constructive criticism, or an honest difference of opinion, but being called a liar and having hours of my time wasted,---not out of a desire to improve the project but merely to assert dominance over another persons thoughts goes far beyond that pale.

The merits of the individual which I listed in this entry are obvious and many, and the consensus process is obviously free to come to whatever conclusions it likes regarding the entry's eventual inclusion or deletion, but I acted on behalf of perceived unfairness meted out to the very clever and entertaining author at hand. I had asked for the opportunity to edit the post in such a way as to make it a proper entry, replete with over 25 printed references to his preinternet published work, but Calton has been so aggressive and offensive that I doubt this will be very likely.

The bigoted motivations which prompted the original deletion discussion motivated me to take action to correct this basic injustice, but I see now that this organization is sadly the victim of its trolls.

Calton, and the people who share his approach: You win. I won't be posting anything else, and I will remove all of the content which I have provided so that you can be free from opinions which diverge from yours.

To the several people who did offer advice and sympathy, thank you: your comments were decent and very helpful, I wish you well in your endeavors.

Yours in bitterness, Carsten Boswell. Carstenboswell 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.[reply]

Comment This is an all new article which clearly outlines notable contribution on the part of the subject. Not to mention that there is good reason why Dare should be retained on wikipedia. (Besides the overwhelming mantra that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia) A previous post was defaced on numerous occasions and then nominated for deletion in what clearly arose from homophobia. I have taken the time to accurately research and document this individual, being a bit of a buff on witty writers. The original article was a mess, and very inaccurate. I have cleaned up all of the inaccuracies, and am glad to have this article reviewed by other wikipedians.Carstenboswell 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]
A guy so widely published that he gets all of 5 Google hits -- which includes the Wikipedia article itself. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously thats my opinion!) wow calton, you are systematically offering all of my edits and articles for deletion. If I wrote the article on Tokyo, would you delete that as non notable as well? Your page is full of complaints about your mean spiritedness, I can't imagine why. There are actually 14 pages of google references to the subject under 'stephen dare', and another hundred or so articles mispelling his name as 'Steven'. Lexis Nexus pulls up another 70 articles not included in the google search engines. Thatcher, you're right about much of his material being pre-internet, I didn't realize that you could cite paper articles. Do you simply cite according to research paper format? Thank you for your feedback!Carstenboswell 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.[reply]

am glad to have this article reviewed by other wikipedians Man, your about-face was quick. As for your bogus charge, I look at New Pages each morning, and I tag obvious schlock: I feel no special responsiblity for the schlockees. As for "all the mean-spiritedness complaints" from my Talk page, I'm seeing griping from an axe-grinding Scientologist (see his RFC and ArbCom case) and a multiply reverted POV pusher (read his User page for a taste of his attitude)...and that's it. And the less said about your clumsy and inapt Tokyo false-comparison, the better; though I will say that when you're in a hole, guy, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I really dont know what your trying to say, but you sure seem angry.Carstenboswell 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]

Possibly at your personal attack. RGTraynor 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a number of methods under WP:CITE. My favorite for the moment is the WP:FOOTNOTE method, in which you place the note at the spot in the text where you want it, enclosed by <ref> and </ref> tags, and a <references/> tag at the bottom of the page creates a auto-numbered footnote list. What you enclose at the note could be a url, a free-form text note, or a citation template. Research paper format (author, article title, publication title, volume/issue, date, page) is fine. There are citation templates to do that automatically or you can write it free-hand. Thatcher131 05:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I really don't see anything in this article to prove that the fellow is prominent in any of the fields asserted. Delete. RGTraynor 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember looking through Lexis/Nexis the last time this came up and finding a few articles from Jacksonville newspapers that mentioned Dare and/or the Boomtown Cafe in the context of urban revitalization and creating an "artsy" downtown (for lack of a better word). I did not find evidence supporting other claims, such as a series of essays on urban redevelopment. In addition the article lacks an encyclopedic tone with comments like "by far his wittiest writing." Was Dare really "the first in the United States to identify computerization of the workforce as the driving factor of urban decline in the 80s and 90s, and to chronicle the various efforts of American cities to counter urban blight"? I have added {{fact}} tags where I thought they were most important. Many of these claims are pre-internet but newspaper and magazine articles can still be found in libraries (remember them?) and the citations added (title, author, date, volume, page number, etc) I would support a keep provided the article was trimmed to include those things for which Dare is verifiably notable, which so far only includes the Boomtown Cafe and related urban revitalization in Jacksonville. Thatcher131 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the article is kept, Stephen Dare should be unprotected and turned into a redirect. Thatcher131 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous vote and complete lack of credible notability in article. Fagstein 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most of the claims are not verified or referenced. E.g. it says This series of essays 'The Dance of the Fireflies' is probably what he is best know for,... but searching Google for the title and his name finds only the Wikipedia article. Gu 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I get the same result [16] even if the name is Stephen Dare and even just using Dare [17] doesn't give any relevent hits Gu 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gu. -- Kjkolb 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there was a concern about him being called just "Stephen Dare", which would affect Google results. However, "stephen dare" -wikipedia -wiki -gnu only gets 111 unique results, only about half of the results on the first page appear to be about him and very few results are about him after that. -- Kjkolb 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elf-friend 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure - just because there are not a great number of online references, there are some paper. SECProto 01:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Social Policy reference? I dug up the abstract:

Deifell notes how From the Hip assigned 280 writers and photographers aged 25 and under to document how young people are defining and doing service in their communities. By providing a description of a wide range of service activities and perspectives, From the Hip hopes to promote an understanding of the diversity of opinions on service. (SH)

I suspect Dare's name is mentioned, at best, as one of the collective 280 young people that are the real subject of the article.

Or maybe you mean Social Issues, a journal which seems not have left a trace of its existence anywhere, nor does any article called “The Eternal Cities” seem to be anywhere found.
Let's face it, about the only reference that checks out is being quoted in a Jacksonville buiness journal -- as a café owner. This article doesn"t seem to be full of unverified information -- it looks like it was mostly made up. --Calton | Talk 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn - I have more Google references, and I'm just an ordinary shmoo. Fishhead64 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, tagged for cleanup if it survives AfD. No Opinion on AfD.--Isotope23 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uvaduck 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm an urban planner and a new urbanist. This guy may be commendable but he's not notable. Jonas Silk 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy's artistic contributions may have occurred moreso in the offline world. Give the author a bit more time to verify/provide sources. --MrFizyx 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the author continues to fail to provide sources and to bemoan his treatment here, I'll go along with the call to delete. I'm something of a newbie here, but I think wikipedia could stand to have better coverage of some obscure art and culture scenes. Nobody really needs Wikipedia to learn about Britney Spears (although we may end up with a better article than will be found elsewhere). This, however, is not the place to argue criteria so I'll yield to the majority. --MrFizyx 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per applicable last AfD; he hasn't become more notable since. Sandstein 16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Weak no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Hippel[edit]

Non notable, gateway to a web of vanity articles Tony Bruguier 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand, as he seems to have created music for a few notable video games [18] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't satisfy criteria for me yet, but sounds as if there's a possibility he might. Fagstein 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, potentially useful. For great justice. 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pretty borderline on notability, certainly the stuff claiming he played a prominent role in computer music during the 16-bit era seems POV if the list from the link at the bottom is complete, as it only lists a dozen games, none of them major titles even in their time that I know of. -- Sfnhltb 07:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jochen Hippel (AKA Mad Max) was a pioneer of chiptunes on the Atari ST demoscene and contributed some major innovations with using the YM2149 sound chip Ae-a 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fagstein. I owned my Atari ST through to 1996, and I never heard of this fellow, the games for which he worked, or "chiptunes." RGTraynor 15:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P199 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't hit WP:BIO for me. Maybe a mention at one of Ae-a's articles. Deizio 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for music in the demoscene. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possible mention elsewhere per Deiz. JoshuaZ 22:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deiz. --Khoikhoi 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Should be expanded. Fishhead64 05:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Jonas Silk 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ae-a. This guy is one of the most represented artists at http://kohina.com/playlist.html Gruntbuggly 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENT-HEADS[edit]

Non-notable, unverified term. Delete Ardenn 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier
Delete or Merge into Rent (musical)YellowPigNowNow 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanilogism. Nothing worth merging without references. Fagstein 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified and name-drops celebs based on self-confessed speculation. Worth a mention on parent article IF verified. Deizio 16:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no information on whether this is an organized group or just a group thrown together. - Erebus555 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a bit on the fence. I think the term Rent-Head is in modern vernacular enough to warrant a page, but the whole Celebs who Might Be Rent Heads thing is just name dropping (as indicated by the Might Be) aspect. I would Keep, but cut it down to a Stub. Lonesomedovechocolate 02:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [19].--Jersey Devil 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We might as well add an article for 42-ism and obsessive fans of everything imaginable. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 20:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above LuckyJoeMagic 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Chand Patel[edit]

Non notable, "Syed Chand Patel" resulted in only 17 results on google _→AzaToth 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article makes incredibly vague notability claims, which seem difficult to verify. Might be worth sticking wikify and India-bio-stub on this, if there's ambiguity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirvan (talk • contribs) 2006-04-05 04:35:33
Delete, possibly speedy due to lack of assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fagstein. Metamagician3000 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings and statues that are shaped like animals, plants or people[edit]

This is far too broad of a category. If all the statues shaped like people were listed it would be huge. I tried to initiate a discussion of how this category could be pared down or split but got only one response that half agreed with me. JeffW 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just remove people, or restrict to people over 50 feet tall. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: I don't have a problem with the list in principle, I just can't figure out what it's supposed refer to. Wouldn't this just about include every statue? Maybe something like List of non-human statues, or List of statues of fictional people would be more useful. Peter Grey 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Interesting idea, but it does need to be narrowed down. YellowPigNowNow 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You've got to be kidding me. Do you realize how many statues of living things there are in the world? Use a category for this. Fagstein 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A list of every single statue of an animal or person? Are you kidding? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this looks fascinating. And verifiable. For great justice. 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete assuming good faith, this is a noble but hopelessly impossible endeavour. There are probably at least hundreds of thousands of statues that look like people - because they are of people. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_charities was very similar. MLA 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too general topic, this would include literally thousands of statues, which would make it listcruft with no real point. JIP | Talk 09:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete statues is way too broad. Alternatively, Rename to List of roadside attractions (ala [20] ) and remove the statue references and historical examples completely. Ziggurat 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't roadside attractions cover something slightly different? Where for instance would Nelson's Column fit? MLA 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items listed are roadside attractions - the only exceptions are the Statue of Liberty, the Sphinx, and the Christ. Remove them and you've got a list of roadside attractions: a companion to Category:Roadside attractions that is sorted by location. Ziggurat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite I like the article and how interesting it is, there are too many statues of such things (probaly a few million) and we cannot have the whole list here, this is some type of cruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that the author or authors meant small life-size or even double life-size statues of people (life-size plants or animals might be okay if they are very large, like whales). A size restriction might help clarify things. A category might be better though, as there would be less temptation to create non-notable articles. -- Kjkolb 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crazed listcruft. What's next, a listing of city lampposts shaped like penises? RGTraynor 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be fascinating. For great justice. 16:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but maybe mention the interesting ones at Novelty architecture -- Astrokey44|talk 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of statuary is not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lists of many things on wikipedia, such as dams, bridges, buildings, etc. Where does deleting these stop and start? Kukini 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We start by deleting this one, and we stop when we've deleted all the "List of something spurious" crap that has somehow got into Wikipedia. --kingboyk 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a shame. Obviously, as the size of the encyclopedia is going to be much larger than conventional ones, different ways of organizing information, including lists, will be needed. Your approach ends up with Lowest Common Denominatorpedia, where only stuff that most people are interested in stays. For great justice. 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but this isn't the way to do it imho. --kingboyk 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seen worse listcruft but this is far too ambitious and would be permanently incomplete. Deizio 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. --kingboyk 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and interesting. It should only list structures that have their own articles, or are detailed in other articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 19:02
Delete you have got to be joking me ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unmaintainable, impossible to even complete (what about statues people have in their houses shaped like an animal? What about Oscars; should we list every one of those?). --Rory0 96 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - what the...? --Khoikhoi 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Listcruft - unmaintainable and unreadabe = unencyclopedic. Johntex\^talk 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheer pointlessness. Fishhead64 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...statues that are shaped like ... people"? u p p l a n d 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, per most of the above. Sandstein 06:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - misguided in current form. An article restricted to buildings might have been amusing enough to get a keep vote from me. Metamagician3000 08:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by me. Pepsidrinka 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Haylie Baudelaire[edit]

Vanity Tony Bruguier 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. Only 1 Google result [21] (Wikipedia) --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. Bucketsofg 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as (probable) hoax. Violet Baudelaire is a character in A Series of Unfortunate Events (don't you guys go to the movies?) Thatcher131 04:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is a slight possibility someone in this world of more than 6.5 billion people is also called Violet Baudelaire, so this doesn't qualify as a hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy due to lack of assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7; I see no claims of notability, even if it's not a hoax. --Rory0 96 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Boldly redirected to Adsorption. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absorption isotherm[edit]

There is already another page that contains this informatin in a more complete and acurate form Simsea 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And which article would that be? Fagstein 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: The nominator seems to think (as per the talk page) that this is a content fork of Adsorption. I'll let the resident scientists decide that, as I have no clue about physics, but unless the information is indeed replicated in full, it probably warrants a merge at most.

Comment 2: Note that the nominator has also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansivity (but not linked to it on the article or AfD page), which seems to raise the same concerns about Expansivity with regard to Thermal expansion. For the sake of expeditiveness, we probably should deal with both issues together here.Sandstein 05:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adsorption per Sandstein. Note also that the article name is misspelled. Fagstein 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is indeed a content fork of Adsorption, which covers both the Langmuir isotherm and the BET isotherm. A merge would not be appropriate because 1) This information is replicated entirely on Adsorption and 2) information here is incorrect, namely the discussion of a desorption isotherm. An isotherm is derived by setting rate of adsorption equal to rate desorption, so there is no desorption isotherm since desorption is already contained in the adsorption isotherm. This article really just needs to be deleted. Simsea 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsea, in such cases, AfD nomination is not really necessary. Just replace the entire text of Absorption isotherm with #REDIRECT[[Adsorption]]. This will create a redirection page to Adsorption. If the original author of Absorption isotherm has problems with that, he or she will bring them up with you. No need to involve the wider community at this point. However, now you should probably wait until the AfD is over. Sandstein 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Masters of Disguise timeline[edit]

vanity page Buridan 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable history of a non-notable band --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Fagstein 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vanity. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per speedy deletion of The Masters of Disguise. (See the entry below, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Masters of Disguise.) If the band is not notable enough to have an article, there is no reason to have an article about its timeline. As a second choice, strong delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {{db-band}}. (aeropagitica) 06:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Masters of Disguise[edit]

vanity page of teen rock band Buridan 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier
Speedy delete. Next time use {{nn-band}}. Grand master ka 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as {{db-band}}. (aeropagitica) 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. It's been merged to whitewater, so I'm leaving the necessary redirect. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewater recreation in Vancouver, Coast and Mountains[edit]

listcruft Tony Bruguier 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; listcruft --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Delete as listcruft. Fagstein 05:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Dogbreathcanada 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG MERGER merge to the bottom of whitewater. Please can someone add merge this, this appears to be very usuful information that should be merged. I will be watching this discussion. --CyclePat 04:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with whitewater per CyclePat. That article lists notable whitewater rivers in Canada. Fishhead64 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note non-redlinked rivers added to whitewater. It's messy, but it's there. Fagstein 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CycePat A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of W Lovers[edit]

First AfD archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association of W Lovers 1 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable sketch from a TV show. Pugs Malone 03:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely non-notable fictional club. (And I'm a member! I ♥ W!) dbtfz ^talk 04:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It doesn't deserve its own article, but it is a relatively famous bit on Sesame Street. It probably should be merged with the Sesame Street or Sesame Street songs page. YellowPigNowNow 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Blogs For Bush~~ Merge per above. Sandstein 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cultural phenomenon, possibly merge. For great justice. 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
W-W-W-Week Keep - That vote made by my inner child only because when I was four my favourite letter was "W" (I really liked Wanda The Witch on Sesame Street!). Fluit 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge with other sesame street songs, but definately not delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per YellowPigNowNow. --Khoikhoi 22:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or week merger/redirect to sesame street if sesame street isn't cluttered to much. --CyclePat 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Republican National Committee :) Fishhead64 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete if you must, but it did make me laugh. Not at all what I expected. --MrFizyx 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Connolly[edit]

Vanity Tony Bruguier 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomYellowPigNowNow 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DarkHat and his name don't find any relevant hits in Google, nn-bio, vanity Gu 11:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, hoax. --Rory0 96 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lame. --MrFizyx 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lodge[edit]

Non notable, too few google results Tony Bruguier 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This guy is a virtual legend in the puzzle community. Perhaps more detail should be added to the article.YellowPigNowNow 04:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usual, notability fails the 'common sense test'. For great justice. 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability standard for published authors as regular contributor to magazine with circulation way, way in excess of 5000. Monicasdude 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed. Circulation is at least 16 times the minimum number suggested by the standard. YellowPigNowNow 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless references and stats are added. -- P199 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:KIT and should be easily verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 19:04
Keep - per Brian0918, passes the WP:KIT. If Nidorino has its own page, Bob Lodge deserves his own page. Lonesomedovechocolate 02:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but should be expanded and referenced. Fishhead64 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not notable. Jonas Silk 21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep for now — if article not significently improved in the next 90 days, it should be renominated for AfD -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sargent a.k.a god tha lowercase G[edit]

Subject of the article clearly fails WP:BIO. Prod was contested, so here we are. dbtfz ^talk 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bringing this to AFD was on my list of things to do tonight. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 04:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom YellowPigNowNow 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly good obscure art, but fails WP:MUSIC due to lack of status outside of local appearances. Also music is on self-lable, & he's the only artist so far. --MrFizyx 23:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aka god of the lowercase D per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Meier[edit]

Not notable - please see article talk page for extended reasoning. -- Argon233 ^T _@ ^C _¶ ^U _∠ 04:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 05:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 11:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, low googles but can't help noticing the press coverage. [22], [23], [24] and there's more. Article sucks and is out of date but, as many will point out, that's not a reason to delete a notable topic. And hey, I beat Monicasdude to a "keep" :-0 Deizio 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low googles, and although there is press coverage, not enough to really be striking. If more coverage in the future maybe this person would warrant a page. Not now. :( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as listcruft. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bays in Barbados[edit]

listcruft Tony Bruguier 04:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Possible Merge with Barbados YellowPigNowNow 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't care what you do, it's just my one improving everything on Barbados. I can't be everywhere at once. Delete/keep I'll let the board decide. CaribDigita 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, no merge. Royboy crashfan 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_Cities,_towns_and_villages_in_Barbados. MLA 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list. It could go in text of article (but not as list). Tyrenius 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - could be better served using a category (Category:Bays of Barbados). I can understand wanting to keep a list to show redlinks to articles not yet done, but this is a fairly truncated list (three?), so I doubt it would help much in this case. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- followup - I've written stub articles for the three bays and a handful of other Barbadian bays, and put them in a category. I've also added them to this list, though I still think the category is the better way to go. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geography of Barbados. --Metropolitan90 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. I like Grutness' idea of a cat, as well. Fishhead64 05:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Jonas Silk 21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akai rice company[edit]

Personal essay on experience of eating rice, unencyclopedic. Failed PROD. Flying Canuck 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom YellowPigNowNow 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Royboy crashfan 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gwernol 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, Wikipedia is not an essay. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR or promotion à la WP:NOT a soapbox. See also Health foods in the same vein by the same author, which I've tagged {{prod}} Tonywalton | Talk 20:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's now a speedy tag. I can't see which CSD criterion it meets, myself, but I'm happy enough to leave it there. Tonywalton | Talk 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT :( Lonesomedovechocolate 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 written, made no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Stowe[edit]

Vanity (see author in history) Tony Bruguier 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good artist though. YellowPigNowNow 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Royboy crashfan 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vanity. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Erebus555 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Baumann[edit]

Really, is an article about a shooter who placed 8th in the Olympics a century ago really notable? Pal5017 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a category for 1896 Olympic shooters, and most of them are even less notable than this guy, as in they didnt finish the competition or their finishing place was not known. I am adding those as we speak, so please do not point that out as some sort of double standard.--Pal5017 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 26 of the 39 articles in that category have been linked to this deletion at this point. -- Jonel | Speak 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add those names, but my list was lost, and Im not about to redo it. Either way, the others are even less notable than Baumann. They have no dates of birth or death, most only have one name given, and most of their finishes are not known at all, or atleast only to the extent that they didnt finish very high. If there was more biographical information known, or they received a medal, I would say differently, but as it is now, they didnt, so I continue to support my AfD.--Pal5017 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Keep per TBC ~~The name could be added to a list of shooters, but no way does this person deserve his own article.~~ YellowPigNowNow 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Olympians are notable. There's plenty of precedent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte is the most recent one I'm aware of. -- Jonel | Speak 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Clearly, Albert Baumann is more notable than Nidorino, so if Nidorino gets its own page, why the heck can't Albert Baumann? But seriously, anyone who participated in the Olympics (regardless of rank), can be qualified for a Wikipedia article. As quoted from WP:BIO, "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm changing my vote YellowPigNowNow 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to support "keep", but it should be noted that the fact of one's competing in the Olympics in 1896 (or even 1900, 1904, or 1908) surely doesn't resolve the question of notability as might the fact of one's competing in, say, the Athens or Turin Games. Importantly, few countries participated in the first several iterations of the Modern Olympics, and, in some cases, all competitors in a given event hailed from the host country. One's participating, then, didn't necessarily mean that he/she was at the top of his/her sport internationally, only that he/she was in the right place at the right time (see, e.g., Tennis at the 1896 Summer Olympics, where the singles competition was won by an Irishman on vacation in Greece who was entered by a friend on a whim and where the doubles competition was won by that Irishman and his first-round singles opponent, who was at the games to compete in athletics). While medalling in an Olympic event is notable per se (such that the Irishman, John Pius Boland, irrespective of his competition at the Games or of his general tennis history, merits an article), it is probably fair to say that an athlete who competed in the an early Summer Games is not necessarily notable solely for his/her having participated. It's a close call, though, and I certainly understand that some may think it best to consider participation in the Olympics as passing a bright-line rule. Joe 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my strenuous argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte. I wouldn't go as far as Jonel though, but top ten finishes are most definitely strong enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TBC. Royboy crashfan 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TBC and Jonel. Sue Anne 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, about ten thousand athletes have competed in each recent summer Olympic games and about three thousand in each winter games. I don't think that they are all notable enough for an article. I think that the medal winners is enough. -- Kjkolb 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TBC. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not everyone gets to be in the Olympics. Should a person who placed 8th in the Olympics last year have their article deleted in 100 years for no particular reason except that 100 is a big number? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 19:06
Keep or better still put the info with other similar figures in an article and use the page as a redirect. It should be possible to search for any Olympic athlete on Wiki and find something about them. It's history and historical information is valid. Tyrenius 01:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' When I go to the Olympics maybe I'll think different, but I think anyone who goes to the Olympics passes the [WP:KIT] - Any Olympian including Albert Baumann is more notable than Nidorino [or any other random Pokémon, so if Nidorino gets its own page, then Albert Baumann gets his own page. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 04:00Z
Keep All Olympic competitors. Scranchuse 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per kjkolb. Fishhead64 05:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep As I wrote in my comment above, participation in an early edition of the modern Olympics didn't necessarily denote anything about a participant's athletic proficiency; many participants in the first few modern iterations weren't athletes by trade and weren't required to qualify in the contemporary sense, such that one can't infer anything about an athlete's general level of participation in international (such as it was) or national competition from the fact of his/her participation in the Olympics. That said, I am inclined to think that participation qua participation is sufficient to establish notability, and that, given the difficulties one would have in establishing which of the "modern Olympics" should be treated with the reverence with which we treat "recent 'modern Olympics'", it is perhaps best that we err on the side of including any participants for whom any information is available. Joe 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — content might qualify as a footnote on another article, or as part of a list, but this article not notable as written -- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠} 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past precedent; all Olympic competitors seem to clearly qualify under the criteria for sportspeople, since there isn't a level of competition in their sports higher than the Olympics. This seems like a textbook "Wikipedia is not paper" situation. -Colin Kimbrell 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global interest[edit]

The text of this article makes little or no sense. The sources of references suggest that it is little more than a self serving neologism. jmd 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO unless online sources are provided to indicate that it is, in this specific sense, a genuine and notable research topic. Google indicates that it is not. Sandstein 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Soumyasch 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important concept. Many sources are cited and unless they can be disproved, they should be respected. Google is not the only tool of validation. However, I think it should be marked as needing both expansion and closer ties to its sources. Tyrenius 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and protect - same as Tray Sliding. -- RHaworth 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallway Tray Sliding[edit]

Originally {{prod}}ded by Calton, removed by anon without reason. Delete, WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT, though I have to admit, it certaintly does sound interesting --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:NFT. Sandstein 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KTIM Online[edit]

Apologies in advance for the length; from what I can gather, this one has a bit of a backstory. The subject of the article is a short-range radio station broadcasting from a summer camp, with a listenership that, by the nature of the station, as the article readily concedes, does not exceed the membership of the camp. The article's creator has on several occasions appended the information to the article about the camp (Camp Timberlane for Boys), but his edits have been reverted by User:BaronLarf on the grounds that the information is insufficiently notable and, in any case, rather unencyclopedic; having inferred that BaronLarf meant that a new article on the topic should be created, the user created this article. I explained to the user that he might remove my PROD tag, and he did, although he seems amenable to merging. Of course, if the information doesn't belong in the original article (I think it does not), that isn't much help; I think, then, that here delete surely is in order and that the debate about the inclusion of the information in the original article should likely be had by those editors most familiar with that article and general Wikipedia guidelines. Joe 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I think I should briefly mention KTIM Online in the Camp Timberlane for Boys article, but significantly shorten it into only a few sentences in the History section of the Camp Timberlane article. After all, the podcast is a large part of the camp, and deserves a brief mewntion (but not a full article, or even a full paragraph) Sounds good? Ccool2ax 11:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (same user who made all those edits last night, diffrent rotated IP)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Baron Larf 12:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it can't be merged, which is the obvious thing. It merits a paragraph in the main article, if the main article merits keeping at all. Tyrenius 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah. It's not notable (even though I don't like the notability guideline at all), and the summary in the main article is decent enough. I still thinks that WIkipedia is "the combined sum of all human knowledge", as it's fundraising slogan says. But this article is well-enough represented in it's main article that this can be deleted. 66.82.9.89 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Klein Four[edit]

No evidence of meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC. JeremyA 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Royboy crashfan 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough of a novelty act to be marginally notable, and Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep v. For great justice. 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being Internet meme on top of musical group. (There ~~are~~ were other single-paragraph Collegiate a cappella groups articles that didn't make the cut.) --Christopherlin 07:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somehow its notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgue file[edit]

Previously deleted by WP:PROD, this article has been recreated so I am moving it to AfD. As it stands the article is just an advert for the linked website. Perhaps it can be rewritten without the advertising, but the resulting article should really be in wiktionary and not here so delete. JeremyA 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and cleanup. If the article can exist without the advertising material then fine, as the website has an Alexa rank of 6,184. If it is advertising and nothing but, delete. (aeropagitica) 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as aero. For great justice. 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep as per Aeropagitica. Needs to be wikified. -- P199 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per (aeropagitica). The link to morguefile.com is just an advertising link -- although if it could serve as a legitimate free image source for Wikipedians, we could mention it in Wikipedia:Free image resources. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per (aeropagitica). -- Zanimum 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinci & Arty[edit]

Non notable webcomic, prod removed without comment. Alexa ranking is 472,344. Rory0 96 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-The article should not be deleted. It's just as good as other mentioned comics such as Penny Arcade, Sabrina Online, and VG Cats. Not to mention that the artists are active and host a weekly radio talk show. They put time and effort in to their work, and it deserves notification. ~ Wovstah

How good it is doesn't matter. What matters is how notable it is. --Rory0 96 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-This comic does have a following and is updated regularly. I made this page of information with the consent of the authors. The fact it is also listed on the Furry Comics List makes it notable enough to stay. There is no excuse for marking it as a non notable comic when it IS notable. --Vidyaranya 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redlink on List of furry comics does not necessarily indicate notability. Please clarify why this webcomic is uppercase notable. -- Samir (the scope) 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I just told you why this comic is notable. The website is given, and on the website you can see that is regularly updated. Furthermore, the Livejournal Community 'cakepieces' shows that it has a good amount of viewers. Lastly, the fact they host their own radio show which, to my knowledge neither VG Cats, Sabrina Online, or PennyArcade do, shows notability. --[[User:Vidyaranya}Vidyaranya]] 05:52 5, April 2006 (UTC)

Just because a website is there and regularly updated doesn't mean it's notable, even if it has a radio show. How big is this following? Why is the Alexa ranking so low? By the way, you can sign posts with ~~~~ to produce your signature and timestamp. --Rory0 96 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I am still new with the entire system of Wikipedia. I am not sure what is ment by the ranking. There is no definate way to say how big the following is, but judging the IRC chat, which is also held, it has a generous sized following. What does it matter, really, if its notable? A lot of entries on Wikipedia contain only one or two lines about things which are even less known than this comic. -- User:Vidyaranya

- Delete per nom. The notability of a webcomic has nothing to do with how often it is updated, how hard the writers work at it, whether or not they host a self-referential webcast or whether the web page has a forum (don't they all?). It's how many people read it. With an Alexa rank in the 400,000s, the answer is "not damn many." Wikipedia has standards for notability that this comic doesn't meet, however much you like the comic yourself. RGTraynor 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not convinced of notability as above. Fails WP:WEB -- Samir (the scope) 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Instead of just passing judgement, why don't you research yourselves to see how notable it is since you're not listening to me? 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Vidyaranya

- Comment Sorry, but the onus is on proving notability, not on us to research it. Put notability per WP:WEB into the article, and it stays. We gave you a chance to clarify above. -- Samir (the scope) 06:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Hetar 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not sorry at all, so don't say so. I don't know how to clarify it to you, and further more I damn well know its notable and if you can't see that then you must be blind. You say its not notable, tell that to the hundreds of fans. Tell that in their face and they'll beg to differ. Wikipedia is about providing information, not being facist about it. Vidyaranya 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Vidyaranya[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. (Viyaranya: it is not personal. It's just that one of the standards by which we judge whether an article is worth having in the wikipedia is whether the subject is sufficiently notable. The best way to demonstrate this is that the subject, in this case this web-comic has been noticed elsewhere--especially in the main stream media or by lots and lots of other webpages.) Bucketsofg 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Sabrina Online, PennyArcade, or VG Cats in mainstream media either. Vidyaranya 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Then propose them for deletion and I'll give it some thought. For now, the article at hand is V&A, and I fail to see that it is notable. Bucketsofg 06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vinci & Arty was nominated for the 2003 Ursa Major Awards under the Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip section. GreenReaper 07:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Notability guidelines for Wikipedia are held at WP:N. Further guidelines specific to web notability exist at WP:WEB. Notability is a key feature of wikipedia articles. If something cannot be shown (verified - WP:V) to be notable then it is likely to be deleted. I'm not one for stricly codified rules but the guidelines might help Vidyaranya to clarify the case for Vinci & Arty MLA 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Since you guys are so adamant about Alexa, may I ask one thing. On Wikipedia's own entry for Alexa, it says:

Alexa themselves admit several sources of bias - for instance, sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked, nor sites with a disproportionate amount of users who use non-IE browsers; and subdomains are included in the main domain's rank/trend figures. [2]

How do you know it is being accurate in this particular case? Vidyaranya 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No tool is perfect. However, on average it does give a reasonable estimate for the majority of sites that have no particular reason to be visited predominantly by non-IE users. If you look at their graphs, then Jack has around 10 times the traffic of Vinci & Arty, as does Sabrina Online, while VG Cats is more like 100 times. I do not think that it is likely that the readers of these comics have statistically significant differences in browser use.

I noticed you edited Sabrina Online to include the AfD template, perhaps in response to Bucketsofg. I would suggest that you read the instructions, as that is not the only thing that you have to do in order to list it for deletion. Personally, given the above Alexa ranking, 50,000 google hits, and the fact that it's been running for so long, I think you are wasting your time by listing it, but you do have the right to do so. GreenReaper 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend against it, though. User credibility is important in AfD debates, and opening oneself up to impressions of filing AfDs out of revenge or spite can do that credibility no good. RGTraynor 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the incompleted AfD from the Sabrina Online article per WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close in comparison to Penny Arcade (Do this strips authors host one of the largest video game charity's in history, or regularly engage in political activism?), nor VG cats which, like PennyArcade is published in print.Not notable in the slightest as noted by Alexa. What's with the onrush of pro-furrys demanding their articles are notable????? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure - there could be many reasons. Somewhat over-zealous use of the new prod template? New users coming here from WikiFur (now one of the larger non-Wikimedia wiki projects out there)? The ever-increasing rise of furry fandom itself? GreenReaper 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must've missed that flood somewhere along the way...Tony Fox 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know why there's an increase in the fandom's demands its because the community has been heavily discriminated against. Even some of the material that is in Wikipedia about the community is negative and upsets people who are true to the fandom. Quite basically, a lot of people who are part of the fandom and have been persecuted for being so are fed up with it to the point they don't tolerate resistance. I still question Alexa since there is controversy about it. If you're going to get reliable statistics, then you should use a system that covers all broswers instead of just IE. Now, I don't about you guys, but when I first came here I was lead to believe Wikipedia was for the providing of information about everything. This entire notability issue, especially with an established comic which has been nominated, as GreenReaper point out--still it seems even that was ignored. But the fact there is a policy on notability denotes a form of elitism.

Now, I'm not attacking anyone by saying this, but is it right to only include things that thousands of people are aware of? What matters to most people is the fact an object is out there and there is information on it...not how notable something is. The level of notability does not change the fact it still exists. The purpose of an encylopedia is to provide truthful information regardless of how well known it something is. I'm sorry I ever believed in this place's credibility. I don't intend assisting the mainstream wikipedia section any longer due to this issue. From now on I'll stick to the WikiFur and make Fandom based pages on what is important and known to the fandom.

I heard how Wikipedia even gave WikiFur, at one time, trouble when it first started out. I've made this decision to fully support WikiFur's prominence to the benefit of WikiFur, not Wikipedia as a whole. Vidyaranya 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "But is it right to only include things that thousands of people are aware of?" Pretty much, yes; that's what makes Wikipedia an encylopedia and not a blog or a bulletin board. I'm sorry you presumed Wikipedia was something other than it is, but I'm likewise sure you understand that (as with any online website, blog, project, whatever) it is far less likely that Wikipedia will change its rules and practices to accommodate your personal preferences than the reverse. I note, for instance, that WikiFur has its own set of policies and guidelines [25] to which I imagine I would be expected to conform on that site. RGTraynor 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, unfortunately, not notable enough to keep. Wow. Vidyaranya, I was going to post on your talk page, but you indicated not to; please, understand that this is a process that ensures only truly notable and encyclopedic topics are part of Wikipedia. As much as I myself enjoy V&A, read it all the time and think its creators are great, if Wiki allowed it to remain with little in the way of notability - and as much as there is a large following, there's no way to gauge it and no indication of it in referrable sources - it would open the floodgates to all kinds of crap that I've watched being deleted lately. Don't take it personally that it's being considered here. (And as a furry, I'm fine with the efforts that other furries have given to keep the related articles NPOV, for the record.)Tony Fox 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Despite the Ursa Major Award nomination, not notable enough (would have been a weak keep if I could find some evidence website received more visitors than various webcounters would indicate. MikeBriggs 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah (Generalization thereof)[edit]

Delete - seems like an attempt to define the word "huzzah". Also contains Spanish conjugations. Really I don't know what this is supposed to be... Wickethewok 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much of a jumble to transwiki to wiktionary. Agree with nom. -- Samir (the scope) 06:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef plus original research. Feezo (Talk) 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is very "un-wikipedia-like", and makes no sense.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part-dictdef, part-original research, all rubbish. "The creators of the verb 'Huzzah'...". (aeropagitica) 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gibberish. Bucketsofg 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So many reasons to choose from - I believe I'll pick POV-fork of Huzzah. Peter Grey 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JIP | Talk 09:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but not as an article. Move it to the page of bad article examples. It's hilarious and surreal. Made me laugh out loud. The title is a classic! Tyrenius 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean : BJAODN? ;) - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagong Xperience (Samantha)[edit]

This article serves no purpose, there's virtually no infomation, it's not notable at all, contains original research and seems to be a vanity page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (each of the six reasons given in the) nom. Joe 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep if the article is really featured on tatukFarut and Google Groups as the article contends; that might make it verifiable. - Draeco 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draeco I've done a search on the site ([26]), and found nothing. As for google groups, there's no way to know whether, or not.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Feezo (Talk) 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. If there's any place for it, it's in an article on the author. Tyrenius 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SKJ[edit]

NN high school band whos closest claim to notability is being played on 1 radio station, and distributing a few t-shirts. They don't have their own website, but do have a page on Myspace. A Google search turns up nothing else relating to the band. Delete. --Hetar 06:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all for fun dude, that's it, trying to claim the fame -somehowstrangely
Delete Non-notable band, as per WP:Music - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours. You can't claim fame on WP - an article should exist to record the notable status of its subject. (aeropagitica) 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a clear vanity page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the whole "vanity" page, interesting, well i guess this page is gonna go, even if i took away all the funny stuff i guess we were not important enough to stay around huh, so I guess its goodbye to the skj on wiki - somehowstrangely

Pretty much. Thank you for playing. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC; speedy if possible. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Black[edit]

Dead-end, totally non-notable page. Poorly written, too. Edit history shows that the article was dropped in one fell swoop... probably some vanity page. This might even be speediable. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though my knowledge of motorsport isn't what it used to be, I don't think that Forumla Woman is notable and so a claim of notability based on being a competitor in such a series doesn't appear to be notable. On a note of process, pls ensure that AfDs are added to the bottom of the list on the log file and not the top as otherwise editors who are browsing recently added AfDs may miss it. MLA 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted (aeropagitica) 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate_89/exit_table[edit]

I created this page to temporarily host an exit table that has now been implented in the main article Raj Fra 06:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Delete--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G7. Raj, if you put the speedy template on, I think it qualifies per G7. -- Samir (the scope) 07:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Rae[edit]

Nothing turns up on Google (not counting an uncyclopedia.com article). On grounds of Wikipedia:Verifiability, unless we can get some references this should be deleted. -- Curps 06:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some hoaxes are quite clever, but this one isn't. Moriori 06:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a late April Fools joke, and the link and the bottom, just seems to be spam.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that it is unconvincing fiction. Tyrenius 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, however, they can qualify for CSD A1/3. There seems to be a consensus to delete a few of them though. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noriko Ito[edit]

This person and several others are stub bios for non-notable authors who were listed in the Aozora Bunko database. Aozora Bunko is a website for copyright expired Japanese works, and works that authors have decided to share, including non-notable ones. Of the list of names that come from Aozora Bunko, the following have less than 500 Google hits when I search for their native Japanese names. I am nominating all that are listed below for deletion. —Tokek 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google count of Japanese name	Article	Japanese name	Availability	Comment
22	Noriko Ito	伊藤乃理子	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	was on Aozora Bunko but got delisted
88	Tsuno Jun	津野潤	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	was on Aozora Bunko but got delisted
170	Tsukahara Watashi	"束原和多志"	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	wrote "いないないヴァーチャる" which receives 14 Google hits
232	Masato Uematsu	植松真人	ja:植松真人	about a dozen fictional works published
245	Nishikawa Mitsuo	西川光男	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	posted two works of fiction online. "メガネをかけたフクロウ君" receives 15 Google hits, {"砂の惑星" "西川光男"} receives 15 Google hits.
267	Morino Mitsuru	森野光	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	wrote a travel log [27] for his website
279	Kikuchi Yoshinori	菊池美範	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	wrote an online journal on Macintosh hardware [28]
328	Tokunaga Shinichi	徳永真一	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	wrote "最後の、そして始まりのエデン" which receives 14 Google hits
408	Takano Atsushi	高野敦志	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	wrote "漁火". {"漁火" "高野敦志"} receives 29 Google hits
444	Kozo Suzuki	鈴木行三	Available on Amazon JP, not on Wikipedia JP	listed on Amazon.co.jp as a coauthor of a dictionary, lists about a dozen works on Aozora Bunko
478	Sano Ryoji	佐野良二	Available on Amazon JP, not on Wikipedia JP	two works listed on Amazon.co.jp. 5 works listed on Aozora Bunko
495	Tachibana Minoru	立花実	Not on Amazon JP or Wikipedia JP	{"ジャズへの愛着" "立花実"} receives 30 Google hits (a critique on Jazz)

Delete, on all cases, none of the articles even qualify as sentences.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Masato Uematsu. Check to see if either Kozo Suzuki or Sano Ryoji's books are self-published. If not, then weak keep. And finally, delete the rest. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uematsu, Suzuki and Ryoji - but perhaps relist separately later, the interwiki link and Amazon ref means they should get separate nominations. Delete the others -- Astrokey44|talk 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uematsu, Suzuki and Ryoji per above. Delete the others. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all without prejudice; relist separately if appropriate. All apparently verified as published authors per source, need separate explanations as to why each doesn't meet notability requirements. Not enough common elements for group nomination. Monicasdude 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah, they have "published" their works, but any columnist or a kid with a website has had his or her works "published" as well. Not all are authors of works that have actually been physically printed, such as into a book, and distributed by a company. Also, for the first two on the list, they were delisted from Aozora Bunko's database because their URLed works could no longer be found, and judging from their Google count, they've only reached notability in Aozora Bunko mirrors that are slow to update their lists. The common elements I've already mentioned previously so I won't repeat. —Tokek 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I think the information would be better collected in one article rather than several bio-stubs and the stubs changed to redirects, until such time as someone chooses any individuals to write about at length. Tyrenius 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The article should be enriched with more information, or just be collected in Aozora Bunko. Deiaemeth 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Kusunose 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Uematsu. Bueller 007 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -O bli (Talk)^? 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Asher[edit]

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}}.

Created apparently as a vanity page; Nagle reports an email from the subject denying this but the evidence is strong. This alone not grounds for deletion. Not much in the way of sources. This alone grounds only for cleanup, not deletion. I inclined to support this article for inclusion; I considered researching the subject and making it a proper article, eliminating the taint, etc. But I did a Google test with surprising results: 60,200 hits and only 425 of them unique. This smacks of relentless self-promotion by a small-timer and utterly undermines any claim to true notability. Combined with the weakness of a vanity article, charges of sockpuppetry, and lack of sources -- sorry, delete. John Reid 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. See Talk:Lee Asher for discussion of notability, possible sockpuppet issues, spamming of other Wikipedia articles, etc. Phr 06:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither the alleged sockpuppetry nor spamming of Wikipedia articles is relevant as to whether this article should be kept. --David.Mestel 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable magician, and a bit of a vanity page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article isn't very well written, Lee Asher is a very well known and respected magician. His work wouldn't be listed in amazon (as remarked on the talk page) as most magicians work isn't released in general book stores. 70.60.152.14 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lot of people that aren't really notable are on Amazon. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a PR vehicle. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 69.219.154.4 11:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's unfortunate that some of the shenanigans is distracting people from discussing the actual issues. Lee Asher is undoubted a well-known close-up magician; it's a discipline that is very difficult to make a regular living in, let alone get your name recognized, even if you are very good. The fact that his tricks are carried by major magic supply houses and that he is a somewhat sought-after lecturer should clearly show he is somewhat noteworthy. On the other hand, I'm not sure if in analogy to university professors and the "professor test", he is far enough above the average recognized magician to merit inclusion. I don't know, as I no longer keep up with the magic community (although I used to as a teenager). Nor do I know if we should apply that kind of stringent criterion here (as I think people are). I would say that winning IBM close-up champ twice in a row is a notable feat; however, web searches show it was probably junior close-up champ which I suspect has a lower level of competition. There's also the issue of whether he won the actual IBM international competition or some local Ring version.

Comment (continued): I should add that a magician's credentials are not really suited to Wikipedia: Verifiability, unfortunately. It's true that many magic manuals are for those "in the trade"; thus one has some extremely well-known and influential books that don't have ISBN numbers or are known outside of the magic community. Using the analogy with professors, one can imagine a pretty famous physicist that publishes in very specialized journals whose names or fame aren't known by those outside of physics. If you were to take a very famous close up magician such as David Roth, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to verify he was famous without knowing a lot about magic. One might get a suspicion he was when one notices his books are sometimes very prominently displayed on some magic store webpages, but that could easily be dismissed by someone who wants to paint Roth as just "someone good at self-promotion". Another clue would be when one searches say, Hank Lee's magic factory's webpage (a pretty well known magic supplier), one finds that on various product descriptions of various magic products, there is included a quote by Roth saying this product is the finest such-and-such he's had the pleasure of using. These endorsements by Roth indicates, to someone who knows what to look for, that he is pretty influential. On the other hand, searching for endorsements in ads is not the way we usually establish notability. Anyway, this long diatribe is just to point out something I think has not really been understood by everyone: Wikipedia has very little experience in verifying magician's credentials. In conclusion, my own feeling is that if we were to have a reasonable bar for inclusion for magicians in Wikipedia, Asher would probably make it, even if by a thin margin; on the other hand, there are plenty of famous guys like Roth that don't have bios. I feel we should be working on those as in the end, they add more to Wikipedia. --C S (Talk) 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this mess, and I still don't know. I searched the major trade magazines in magic, The Linking Ring (the International Brotherhood of Magicians) and Genii, and Lee Asher has one hit in each. So he's at least known. I can't judge "notable". I'm inclined to let him have his article, but I think the product list needs to come out, on the grounds that it's advertising. Wikipedia ordinarly doesn't allow vendors to post their whole product line. --John Nagle 06:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Nagle's and Chan-Ho's recent posts are very helpful. Wikipedia already does have guidelines for notability of performing artists, e.g. WP:MUSIC, and for authors (WP:BIO). Being mentioned a few times in trade mags doesn't seem to be enough. People who develop magic effects are maybe more like instrument makers; Roger Mayer (developer of guitar effects used by Jimi Hendrix), is very easy to find verifiable cites for, Stradivari is still famous after many centuries, etc. As for David Roth, a ProQuest search found numerous national newspaper hits for him (with the keyword "magic"), e.g., an NYT article about David Copperfield (1996-12-26 p. C11) described Roth as "commonly called the best coin man in the world". But it found zero hits for Lee Asher with "magic". So I'd say David Roth is reasonably notable but Lee Asher's notability is marginal at best. I agree with John Nagle that if the article is kept, the product list has to go. I thought magicians wanted to keep that kind of stuff out of view of the public anyway, so it's odd that he's trying so hard to flog it on Wikipedia. Phr 08:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found some more cites indicating notability:

* Lee Asher at Las Vegas Magic Invitational, 2006

* Lee Asher at UK Session (magic) Convention, 2006

And he's apparently a regular performer at the Magic Castle, the private magician's club in LA. All that indicates that other people in his field think he's notable, which is good enough for Wikipedia. --John Nagle 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above sources show his notability, and ""Lee Asher" magic" renders 58,600 Google hits. In combination, that's good enough for me. --David.Mestel 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of relativity[edit]

Seems to be original research of the "Einstein is wrong" variety. Doesn't cite any specific sources for claims like "Experimental invalidation of special relativity from 2003-2005" --Carnildo 07:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. - CorbinSimpson 07:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated before WP:OR.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 07:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now give it time to be sorted out. It was on wikipedia for just over 1hr before being AfD listed. I'm not sure whether relativity should redirect there and it would be useful if the physicists could sort out the process for Law of relativity and related relativity articles. There is an attempt to begin sourcing, hopefully it can be expanded upon. MLA 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks relevant sources for major claims; misleading title; lack of context; most likely WP:OR. --David Edgar 11:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With out verification (references/data sources) it is WP:OR.--blue520 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only verifiable info here is the reference to Cahill, a real and published professor, but he is already mentioned at Anti-relativity as he should be. Gazpacho 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and REDIRECT to gravity/ 132.205.45.148 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -O bli (Talk)^? 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor G. Browne High School[edit]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable "school" vanity page, not enough info to be a stub.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with all school articles on AfD, keep,cleanup, and expand. By the way, as long as the article consists of one or more sentences, it does qualify as a stub. Please see WP:STUB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, should I remove the AFD? And I know it's enough, I just exaggerated a bit.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 07:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to remove the AfD, keep it here and wait for some more community consensus. --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, thus delete. Elf-friend 13:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per School keeping precedent. --light darkness^(talk) 14:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per overwhelming need to kick schoolcruft habit. John Reid 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phoenix Union High School District. Currently this page has nothing that isn't already on the school district page. No reason to keep it. — RJH 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no longer the case. Scranchuse 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep — RJH 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forget my other vote, I'll second Redirect.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for that suggestion no longer applies. Scranchuse 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as schools are (sigh) inherently notable. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion of the words "high school" asserts notability. I've added a link and a couple of details.Scranchuse 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Reid. There are literally millions of high schools in the world. Unless there's something notable about the school, I'd say this was indeed schoolcruft. Fishhead64 05:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RS Vegaswikian 21:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on well establsihed precedent. --Rob 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Beltei[edit]

Article does not assert notability of the artist Koffieyahoo 08:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, article reads like a vanity page. JIP | Talk 09:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet established WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Winstein[edit]

He seems like an interesting guy and a very accomplished person;however, I'm not sure his accomplishments to date are significant enough to make him a noteworthy journalist or computer scientist according to the usual criteria for these subjects. For now, I recommend delete, but I think this is a particularly interesting case for AFD and I may change my mind based on ensuing discussion. C S (Talk) 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, i don't see anything more notable than 10000 other mit alumni that aren't listed, give the gentleman a few years to develop his fame and then he can might qualify.--Buridan 11:52, 5 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!
-O bli (Talk)^? 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was that the image (Image:XWRogueSquadron.jpg) was erroneously listed. Relisting elsewhere for speedy deletion per author's request. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XWRogueSquadron.jpg[edit]

This file has been incorrectly uploaded. It does not match with the tag.

This image really belongs at WP:IfD, but, unless you've spelt the name wrong, it doesn't seen to exist. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe eyewear[edit]

Advertising, less than 400 google hits, fails WP:CORP Dismas|^(talk) 08:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --Hetar 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notalbe corp.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 09:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Williams (pastor)[edit]

24.171.16.151 (talk • contribs) apparently tagged this for deletion and followed the link to the previous discussion, which I reverted a couple of times, as that discussion was closed. I have no opinion on Mr. Williams' notability, so no vote. — Apr. 5, '06 [09:34] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Delete: per Aryan Nations Jonathan Williams, is a Fraud, and he and the whole 12 year imposters are all fakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Nations (talk • contribs) New user Thatcher131 11:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parishcruft. nn guy, just a bigot with a theology degree and the title of "pastor", if a parish priest is a bigot does he get a WP page? NO! Carlossuarez46 18:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the third nomination. First nom closed Feb 28, 2006 no consensus. Second nom closed March 7, 2006 no consensus. This third nomination derives from a content dispute on Talk:Aryan Nations in whch some editors feel they are "real" members of the Aryan Nation but Williams is not. The leader of the revert war seems to be 24.171.16.151 (talk · contribs) (see below). Regarding verifiability, Williams is quoted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press in articles dated October 2004 and October 2005 as "Jonathan Williams, Aryan Nations communications director in Atlanta" and "senior pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations." It seems like there has been a split within the organization and this AfD is the result of one faction trying to suppress the other. Based on the newspaper quotes I believe he is notable as well, although I can see why it was a no consensus previously; its a borderline case. Keep. Thatcher131 17:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifable. -Will Beback 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The appears to be a content dispute between a group that considers itself to be the "true" Aryan Nations and a splinter or dissident group that also self-identifies as Aryan Nations; Williams is part of the latter group, see Talk:Aryan_Nations. Thatcher131 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per 24.171.16.151 Williams is not only not a member of the group of wich he claims muchless a pastor or leader of the Aryan Nations but he is a 20 year old kid with no recognization be it News, net, etc, etc. 20 year old kids don't get famous for lie.
Keep per Thatcher, and note to closing admin to disregard the new users. JoshuaZ 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt pass Google page test. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand where you might get nn from, but where are you getting unverifiable from? JoshuaZ 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually there's an awful lot in the article that is at least unverified. "His views differ little from those expressed since the 18th and 19th century," or "His Pentecostal beliefs weakened as he became more involved with Conspiracy theorists" or "Williams holds degrees in theology, as well as political history, which makes him seem easier to stomach than some of the same element." For a more notable person his views on religion, politics, and so on might be recorded in multiple media interviews or published biographies. In this case I'm not sure what we can rely on; someone listening to his radio show I guess, or hearing him in church. Which I why I think this is a borderline case; he seems to be quoted in the local papers and is verifiably a Christian Identity minister, but can we verifiy his other statements and beliefs? Thatcher131 20:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per 66.165.90.125 Jonathan Williams is a Fraud.... Kid only put in a request for page to try & gain page rank for his new bogus website claiming AN of wich he is not (Obviously). New user Thatcher131 11:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search only brings up 3 pages with mention of his name all of wich are the same articles written by himself on noncredible sites. Does not merit article. -Yahweh- New user Thatcher131 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigboy5 (talk · contribs) needless to say, new user Thatcher131 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Not only a Fraud but not popular enough. The only reason Williams would have ever been even in a local newspaper "if that's even true" is because of his fraudulent claims, Williams only fame is being a Fraud. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.37.104.200 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment That is all hear say, Thatcher you act like you have some personal ties to this Williams Fraud, please refrain from posting POV's, need not comment everytime someone votes to delete this kid, people do not need your persuasion here. Williams openly admits is not & never has been a Member of the Aryan Nations. And is not & was not @ anytime a Aryan Nations pastor as to be a Aryan Nations Pastor you must be ordained by the Aryan Nations therefore he can not even claim to be what he's trying to be known famous for. Williams is just a highschool kid, he don't no Degrees in Theology LOL & that's besides the fact he's never even met a Aryan Nations Pastor or Leader. Jonathan Williams is a 20 year old kid who lies & has not only no credibility but no proof or fame @ all. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.171.16.151 (talk •

Keep per neutrality! The above comments, other than maybe 2, were all posted by the same user. Williams is cited in just as many articles as Kreiss. The fact is, if you go to other racial websites and see who they acknowledge as successors, it looks as if they think Kreiss is a "joke". Nonetheless, I say keep both sites listed and both individuals listed out of fairness. Everyone involved watching this revert war take place is fully aware that it isn't going to end unless these pages are permanently protected. 24.171.16.151 is the only person vandalizing these articles. If you follow the history of this IP address, you see that this person is a "Daily" VANDAL. Besides, the aryan-nations.org site isn't even White supremacist, it is Islamic it looks like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.35.56 (talk • contribs)

Delete per NO! Carlossuarez46. Looks like a lot of socks but the nn is clear to me. Parishcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per above: I only made one vote you retard, admins of the site can look this up & verify. Everyone see how this kid is!!! I'm not even stooping to your level kid & for anyone wondering who the above person is Jonathan Williams himself" The same person who's been vandalizing Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, Richard Butler & August Kreis III, Neo Nazi, etc, etc for the last few months" he has been banned I don't know how many times in the last two months from this site. Look him up, his ip address is 66.110.197.20 here's some of his work http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Kreis_III&oldid=44738998 here's another one where he blanked a page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Kreis_III&oldid=44739215 & where he changed the link to the AN website on August Kreis page to his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Kreis_III&oldid=44908320 he has been banned more times than I can count & now has even submitted a deletion for August Kreis III page aswell out of spite. I'd like to request his vote be pretermit & deletion of August Kreis III article be be removed. 24.171.16.151

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. I'm a cleric - where's my article? :) Fishhead64 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a cleric, but I play one in D&D, do I get an article too? :) --Isotope23 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a Hobbit! teehehehehehehe Thatcher131 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn ALR 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable pastor. Fifteen minutes of fame ended sometime last February. Stifle 12:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the IP address listed above as 24.171.16.151 has been told repetitively NOT to vandalize pages, and to leave this page and others alone. He writes mainly vanity articles, and lists ridiculously unverifiable material. He/ She needs to be deleted out of fairness to serious users. accuratehistory

Comment yet another sockpuppet. Less than 20 total edits. JoshuaZ 13:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else above. I've had more fame than this kid, I want a article if he gets one. MLando

Delete pastorcruft ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Accuratehistory: Accuratehistory is ideed a sockpuppet, he is also personal friend of Williams "maybe one of his two followers" aswell. AccurateHistory & Williams have been continualy rewriting the Aryan Nations article to something that did not happen in an attempt to get people to beleive there ludicrous claims but removing our link & replacing with there's to there new fraudulent site. All I ever did was revert it back to what it's real history has been & always has been for the last I don't know how many years it's been here on wiki. Therefore if anyones vandalizing its Accuratehistory. As you can see by looking up Accuratehistory history you will see accuratehistory he is not only the one who created this Williams page, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Williams_%28pastor%29&offset=20060322011446&action=history but even admits taking his picture & uploading it to the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Photo_-150.jpg I'd like to request AccurateHistory vote be excluded. With a Current vote of 16 - 3 saying Delete most of wich Votes made by Moderators & Admins of this site, I rest my case.24.171.16.151

Delete nn self-styled cleric.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this is really the third time not second Yuckfoo 05:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn SCowboy 05:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - user's first edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and utter lack of WP:V sourcing of this article.--Isotope23 14:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boodu[edit]

This article contains original research, is written as a definition, instead of a encyclopedia article,and the author doesn't seem to know how to spell the word (s)he is defining. Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 10:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly OR, seems more like a neologism. I can't find relevant Google results for it. --^demon 10:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.", sounds like OR to me.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib |

13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suppose neologisms fall under OR then. My mistake --^demon 14:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Moved back to user space and user warned against moving it back again. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam D'Souza[edit]

vanity entry --Gnosticgnome 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name is familiar, was this deleted before? Thatcher131 11:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Speedy Delete Thatcher131 12:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thatcher we have articles on several people with vaguely similar last names inclyeding Alexsandro de Souza, Marcelo Moretto de Souza, Adelaide Filleul, Marquise de Souza-Botelho, Edward de Souza, Steven E. de Souza, etc. Are you certain this isn't why the name seems familiar to you? Just to make certain User:Dimadick
  - Comment See the link I had provided below. Шизомби 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Yes, it has. Re-creation of vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G4 as recreation [29] per Thatcher 131 Шизомби 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion; userfication warning issued to user Given the content of the page and a redirect, it appears that this person is identical with User:Westcountryinfo. As a result, I have informed him that his biography belongs on his user page per community consensus. Alba 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pure vandalism, after creator admitted to hoax. CLW 18:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Purfleet[edit]

Uh oh. Cleanup on aisle Austin Purfleet. Nominating this walled garden:

Austin Purfleet
Bella Fisher
Moonface Fisher (a 187-year-old cryogenic defrostee harpist-contortionist no less)
~~Purfleet~~ sorry, not nominating this for deletion, collateral damage only.
Summer of Elevenses
The Purfleet and Fisher Variety Show (I've added this one to the list so it doesn't get missed when closing this one. CLW 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, nothing on any of this on google. Created by Rupertknowles64 (talk - contribs) and AndyS_UK (talk - contribs) with a bit of collateral damage all around Wikipedia. Weregerbil 11:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this page is being considered for deletion. Are articles such as this, featuring even the most obscure yet important characters in history, what make Wikipedia the comprehensive source it currently appears to be? J M — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMcFurlong (talk • contribs)

In Luton Purfleet is actually fairly well known. I am quite surprised there is no reference to him on Google. The writers of this page should set up a website about him. Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman66 (talk • contribs) — (The preceding is user's first edit on Wikipedia.)

Ok, granted Austin Purfleet is not the most famous of 19th century figures, but I don't think he deserves his entry deleted. The books mentioning Purfleet I've cited are by Nick Grene and Leon Green (coincidently enough) neither of which are high profile authors, but i'm trying to find other sources that mention him, as well as trying to get in contact with the two authors. My interest in Purfleet stems from the fact that my father claims that we're descended from him. Green's book makes mention of Purfleet's children with his second wife, but until this disbute is all sorted out I don't really want to go to the trouble of typing it all into wikipedia just for it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupertknowles64 (talk • contribs)

Hi! Do you know of some verifiable sources for the information in the articles? Thanks in advance! Weregerbil 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for not including them earlier. They have now been added. James McFurlong 13:48 5 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.114.89 (talk • contribs)

Can't find two of the three books on google or amazon; can't find verification the third one mentions Austin Purfleet. Still delete as hoax. Weregerbil 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax, Massive, Screaming, Mauve-with-Pink-Polkadots HOAX. Read the bottom of the Moonface Fisher article and say it's not a hoax, I double-dare you. A pretty good, well written, funny, hoax, but clearly a hoax. Congratulations, Mr. McFurlong. GRuban 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also compare the mugshots of one Michael Lazar Biedermann and Austin Purfleet. Separated at birth? Weregerbil 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All excluding Moonface Fisher as un-verifiable WP:V. Speedy Delete - Moonface Fisher as CSD G7, excluding the fact that it clearly a hoax, the only contributer Rupertknowles64 blanked the page and may me seen as author requests deletion (WP:CSD, General, 7, "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request"). --blue520 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I missed one article: The Purfleet and Fisher Variety Show. A circus act where an elephant crushes a horse by stepping on it, then juggle the horse's head — that's ...unique. Weregerbil 13:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the "collateral damage" here in support of this hoax is impressive:

* Purfleet (noted above)

* Luton

* Henry Fuseli

* Henley Royal Regatta

* 1790

* 1798

* 1806

* 1826

* 1839

* Tromlitz - seems to be a rare exception, an actual article about a real person created by the below trio, just to insert an Austin Purflet reference.

... there may be others. I don't know where the right place to nominate this is, but I strongly suggest that each and every edit made by AndyS UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JamesMcFurlong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Rupertknowles64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be considered for reversion. This hoax has been taken a bit too far. GRuban 14:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Tromlitz, which seems to be genuine at first glance (although the title should be the full name...), I've reverted their edits (along with those of User:81.6.228.171, which seems to be part of the game. I've also given them warnings that they'll be blocked if they carry on. CLW 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Of the "references" cited, the first and third get zero Google hits. The middle one does appear to be a genuine publication, but I'd imagine it's been thrown in for fun. CLW 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin purfleet is a legend, I can't believe you are considering deleting him? If you want to know more about him, just visit the British library and look him up.

Not surprising, the British Museum library (the equivalent of the US Library of Congress) has never heard of him. Delete Thatcher131 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the end of Austin Purfleet's short-lived life Ok on behalf of the others I will confess: this is a huge hoax, I can see how much damage it has caused our dear country. I can confirm though that Tromlitz is a real flautist (according to the linked website at least) so his article should remain (although be renamed to Johann Tromlitz - I realised too late and could not see how to revert this). I appologise to Biedermann for using his image. I have checked all "collateral damage" (good film btw) I personally caused (or can remember causing at this instant) and all have been reverted. We can rest pleased with the following comment above: "A pretty good, well written, funny, hoax, but clearly a hoax." I am glad we weren't the only to enjoy this article. I leave it up to the appropriate people to take the necessary action. AndyS UK 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* So, are you one person or three? (or more?) And do you (singular or plural) have any intention of sticking around and doing useful work? -- GRuban 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get it pumped[edit]

Protologism invented last month on a web forum. Prod-ed (thrice no less, oops), tag deleted with edit comment The term is widely used by tens of thousands of people, a wikipedia article will help others understand. Weregerbil 11:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been used for months ad is now featured used by some of the print media and is now a daily phrase for many Scots therefore it merits a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.94.206 (talk • contribs)

Can you please cite some verifiable sources? Preferably some that verify the phrase originated in March 2006 on the chat forums as described in the article. Weregerbil 12:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://followfollow.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=1143250407 (membership required) 500 people using "get it pumped". Maybe some of you trying to delete the article need to, as they say, "Get it pumped"

Delete Google mainly returns this phrase in conjunction with emptying septic tanks. If it was really as popular as suggested, finding references would be easy. Seems like WP:NFT and WP:BALLS. Gwernol 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DMG413 14:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless actual evidence shows up. RGTraynor 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as a user of the web forum in question, I have seen it, it is funny but is not widely used. Bill the bear 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - If you are indeed a member of Follow Follow then you cannot have looked at it in a while as get it pumped is fecking huge

Delete it is a joke but it is WP:BALLS. Alibabs 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a joke, many people subscribe to the get it pumped philosophy.

Delete not just is the phrase a protologism, but the author was a real jerk to another user on Talk:Get it pumped. -- Kicking222 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, just because some anonymous kid on some internet forum made up an expression doesn't make it wiki material. -- Ritchy 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fukkin keep it! GET IT PUMPED! —This unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.16 (talk • contribs) .

Strong delete, 500 people using a term is certainly not notable. Also note that the anon who has been commenting in here is a vandal and a violator of WP:NPA. --Rory0 96 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Big Jock Knew 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable neologism. If its sole reference is a pseudonym on an Internet forum, then it isn't encyclopedic by a long shot. JIP | Talk 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get it pumped out into the Clyde like the utter cruft it is Deizio 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no claim of note. - Mike Rosoft 12:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiharu Sato[edit]

Delete. Non notable biography. Doesn't generate any relevant google hits. Soumyasch 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSSB Comics Central[edit]

We're a "non notable" comic website. Mjc0961 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DSSB_Comics_Central&action=edit&section=1JRawle (Talk) 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail at life - Mjc0961 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboy crashfan 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Serenade[edit]

Probably a ghost production to give actors something on their resume as it claims it was made for video but doesn't seem to be availiable anywhere. The IMDb entry shows that most of the actors and producers have only appeared in one entry. Stars Rikki Lee Travolta nominated for deletion above Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta. Arniep 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the actors have a number of films to their names. JRawle (Talk) 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well one of them was an Ewok, and another was in porn movies. Are we going to have entries for every extremely obscure (possibly non existant) made for video or TV production anywhere in the world? A lot of what is written in the article seems extremely doubtful. Arniep 14:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travolta! Caan! Cruise! Not John Travolta, James Caan, or Tom Cruise, but some nobodies using famous names to sell a piece of absolute crap. Some guy named "Peter Best" is also in the film. I wonder if he adopted this name because Pete Best was the original drummer for the Beatles or was he cast because he had this famous name? Who cares? Just delete this obvious promotion. Brian G. Crawford 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to an even vaguely notable film. JackO'Lantern 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brian. --Khoikhoi 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not even sure this movie actually exists. RasputinAXP c 17:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more Rikki Lee Travoltacruft. The imdb page's external links link to the Wikipedia page as its only proof of existence. Hardly anybody involved in this thing has ever done anything else in 7 years. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very odd lack of information on this anywhere--it does have an IMDB entry with very little info besides cast and crew, and doesn't have 5 votes yet despite having been in release for 8 years. Despite being listed as a direct-to-video production, it doesn't seem to be for sale at Amazon (or indeed anywhere else that I could find, either). At best, this is a real film that was made and released but just never got much distribution or attention. At worst, it's a hoax of some sort. Either way, delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RLTVSCA. Thatcher131 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazaua, Magellan's Port, The Great Geographical Enigma[edit]

Appears to be original research bjh21 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is most likely just a copy of the author's paper referred to here [30] so is original research. Article is wrong format for a Wikipedia article anyway. JRawle (Talk) 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:JRawle. JIP | Talk 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herschell Allendorf[edit]

Non-notable or made-up person. Can find no references to him, his alleged works or publisher; article was created by a user with no other contributions except one instance of vandalism. JRawle (Talk) 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, after fairly extensive Google searching I can't find any reference to the alleged books, which I would expect to find if they really had been on the Sunday Times "must read" list. Gwernol 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, WP:V. PJM 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything either Gu 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bollix[edit]

Delete Google contradicts this article's definition, see [31], [32], [33], [34] etc. Probable hoax. At best, should be a redirect to Bollocks which already covers this spelling. Gwernol 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to bollocks (cos that's what it's a load of) Sweetie Petie 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. PJM 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect so this isn't in the history. -- Kjkolb 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, delete and then redirect to bollocks. --Rory0 96 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incorrect dicdef Mcgahon 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chumke[edit]

Speedy deletion has been contested, does this article conform to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Elf-friend 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chumke is an established Australian band, and I would like to see people's knowledge of them grow. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and if there is any violation that I can remedy, please let me know and I will fix it. Thanks. Troylius 13:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should always list proper sources in your articles; see WP:V. Based on what I find, [35], I don't see this band satisfying WP:NMG. PJM 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete their only CD was released several years back, nn-band (also the text of the article is a copy from http://www.chumke.com/ and the one picture might be from [36] copyvio?) Gu 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn CLW 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this band is on the cusp as they have released an album and won a Triple J unearthed [37]. However, their significance has not expanded beyond Canberra. Capitalistroadster 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the non-notable. --Roisterer 12:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They rocked out Narooma", I have to laugh at that one. I'm sure this is what our speedy criterion was made for. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horribly nn.--cj | talk 06:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Tatarian[edit]

This article is about the unfortunate experiences of a high school baseball coach. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but there is a possible claim to notability. The coach played on a minor league team and played on a major league team during a strike. -- Kjkolb 13:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A load of nonsense. Delete CLW 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be cleaned up and referenced. There is a List of Major League Baseball replacement players, and only a few of the entries on the list had appeared in any MLB games prior to the strike. Lbbzman 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Delete based on Colin Kimbrell's clarification. Did not play in majors = not notable in my book and is consistent with WP:BIO. Thanks for the clarification. Lbbzman 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the page List of Major League Baseball replacement players, and the list contains only replacement players who played in MLB at some point in their careers, while Mr. Tatarian does not appear to have ever advanced beyond the minors. (Replacement players did not play any games of record; they went through spring training, appeared in exhibitions, and then were disbanded before the start of the regular season.) If the list included all replacement players, it would contain more than a thousand names, 95% of them redlinks. I recognize that the inclusion statement for the list was ambiguous in this respect, and have corrected it. I'm not offering an opinion on the notability of his minor-league career because I'm at work and I don't have access to any of the relevant reference materials, and it's not out of the question that he could've been a minor-league All-Star or a notable amateur, something like that. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged this as cleanup after a browse that took me from List of famous strike-breakers. I think my keep/delete vote would sit on the fence of how 'famous' this strike-break made him; if it was notable at the time, it would be suitable for inclusion. However presumably in order to be able to be a strike-breaker, there would have to be 17 other strike-breakers too; this page should then be summarised and included into a page on the more general strike-breaking, as it is too biographical in and of itself. --User:Firien § 13:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudowallerian degeneration[edit]

Delete. Term is not used in the scientific community or elsewhere. This is the second nomination for deletion of this article; the first one in May 2005 ended in a consensus of "keep", finding that "pseudowallerian degeneration" is a term used in neuroscience. Evidence presented at the time consisted of a single Medline abstract from 1976, translated from the French. It appears that the authors were describing an obscure phenomenon similar to but different from Wallerian degeneration and labeled it "pseudo-Wallerian degeneration" (just like one might call wikinfo a pseudo-Wikipedia, for instance) without the intent or result of creating a new technical term. No other Medline abstract has ever used the phrases "pseudowallerian degeneration" or "pseudo-wallerian degeneration" or "pseudo Wallerian degeneration". A fulltext search of 3 standard neuroscience text books at [38] yields no hits for those terms. At the time of the first nomination, Google yielded zero hits for those terms; today there are some 150 hits, all traceable back to Wikipedia. A Google search restricted to .edu sites yields nothing: [39] AxelBoldt 13:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-researched nomination. Sandstein 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The end of one[edit]

Non-notable band not reaching WP:MUSIC standards. Tagged for nonsense speedy but since improved. And recreated, completed with this AfD link... so I thought I'd finish the process.➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Non-notable band. Powers 14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band. No assertion to notability, fails WP:MUSIC --light darkness^(talk) 14:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also you don't have to list for deletion if you list for speedy deletion. Either one alone would suffice. Harvestdancer 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nip 'N Tang® Fruited Horseradish[edit]

A vanity page for a food item, apparently featured in the New York Times. Contested prod, brought here for your viewing pleasure. Grand master ka 14:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant ad. CLW 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE It's a world-brand that has the gourmet food industry all aflutter - shouldn't it be defined here?—This unsigned comment was added by 70.201.3.0 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete advert. And nasty sounding. Kuru ^talk 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. I remain un-afluttered. Fishhead64 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the keep comment in here was an ad... --Rory0 96 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, blatant, shameless advertising. JIP | Talk 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert for what sounds like an absolutely disgusting product? This isn't "Two great tastes that taste great together".--Isotope23 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sterkuš[edit]

Article states that he is famous, so I haven't speedy deleted it, as it at least asserts notability. However, he only get 17 Google hits as "Robert Sterkuš" and seven hits as "Robert Sterkus", which suggests to me that he isn't notable enough for an entry. Delete CLW 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn musician. That image is clearly a copyvio, too... --Rory0 96 07:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-hah game[edit]

Appears to be made up. Does not pass Google test. No references. An anonymous user removed the prod tag and said "Since the first rule of Hoe-down, is to not talk about Hoe-down, it proves very difficult for new players to figure out the game (which adds to the fun). Finding the rules online also proves difficult because of the secretive nature of the game." Weak excuse for placing original research on Wikipedia. Lbbzman 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hoe-down is a very real game, but most people who play it (engineers), have a weird desire to not tell anyone the rules. I expect this is the reason for people wanting this article deleted from Wikipedia.

Update: here are four outside references I found to this game http://www.utsu.org.uk/clubs_RenderPage.asp?clubid=1884&pageid=15492 http://www.mydrinkinggames.com/yeeha.htm http://uwesu.net/uwerangers/Drinking%20games2.htm (called cowboys and indians) http://www.geocities.com/mattcole2000/games.html (called the cowboy game)Ufiti 13:28, 6 April 2006

Delete per WP:NOR. Ardenn 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - pm_shef 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even less notable than The Game (game), and just as unverifiable. --Rory0 96 07:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epic metal[edit]

Not an actual genre in accordance with List of heavy metal genres, and contains only information already in other articles. Delete Spearhead 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. --W(t) 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deli nk 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - I'm not a prolific wikipedia user, but I found this article very helpful finding bands that I would like.--128.12.193.230 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the contents. Several sources cite it, such as BNR Metal Pages and Metal Archives. The articles contents shouldnt be lost. If the stub on the List of heavy metal genres article is longer, and more detailed i suggest to leave a redirect to the List of heavy metal genres article. If it isnt, i suggest merging the data from here into that article, as to not lose the information. Ley Shade 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Spearhead has done some good tidying up, but I don't know if this is suitable. --MacRusgail 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the contents as per Ley Shade. --IronChris 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moe ε 02:41, 1 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!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with possible merge per Ley Shade. Made up genre.--Isotope23 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough discussion to present strong reasons for either keeping or deleting; some recommendations such as deleting but keeping appear to be impractical. If a merge and redirect is what is desired, please explicitly state so. If the article contains information present in other articles, what is barring anyone from redirecting it to the most appropriate article (if I may enquire)? Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ley Shade. bbx 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCEgypt .The online computer mall . www.pcegypt.com[edit]

Wikipedia is not... dmoz.org ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It appears so, but don't we have List of shopping malls...? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not a shopping mall but an online shop directory, advertisment Gu 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Movies, Virgin Sports, Virgin Television[edit]

Speculation with no cited sources. Tagged for speedy, but not a valid speedy criterion. There being no need to scoop anyone and no deadline to meet, I think we can safely wait until after the launch before writing articles on these - especially since the Telewest -> Virgin rebranding might be best done as an article move Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well presented nomination. PJM 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--blue520 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Kiand 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goggle boy[edit]

Delete I cannot seem to find any verifiability of this being notable or not. Nothing on Google, and even the official web site doesn't seem to make a strong case for this either. It just appears to be someone's independent movie that was never finished. -- Ned Scott 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PJM 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is a movie and not even in production it is nn Gu 15:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gflor e s^Talk 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Optimale. JIP | Talk 08:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downrising, Matt Bieler, Paul Escandon[edit]

Delete - google search returns <500 results, most seem to be unrelated. Also nominating other articles such as band members, etc... Wickethewok 07:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. The band doesn't even have an allmusic profile. However, per Drshabazz's comments, weak keep Paul Escandon because of his work on The Outdoor Channel.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Response re: Paul Escandon - should NOT be deleted because of the following guidelines listed in WP:BIO - "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". Paul Escandon has edited over 30 tv shows that appear on a national cable network (The Outdoor Channel) with a viewership of over 26.7 million households in the United States alone. That alone meets the criteria to be listed in Wikipedia, and that is not even to mention his independant film work. This is verifiable. The "Google test" is listed as purely an alternative means to verify notability... in this case an alternate means need not be used. You nominated Paul seemingly because of his connection to Downrising, however, without the passage that related to his former band the article still merits inclusion. Drshabazz 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/Request - Could you perhaps link to some information regarding Paul Escandon? I can't seem to find any on the web about him and thus be able to verify what you are saying. Wickethewok 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: IMDB Profile - not all credits listed here yet but IMDB is generally considered reputable. Drshabazz 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to response - I only see one credit as an editor of some show. That doesn't seem to be notable to me. Wickethewok 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: You asked for an outside link that showed "some information on Paul Escandon" and that has been provided. IMDB has a long approval process and waits for individuals to submit show and credit information (just like Wikipedia) and as an effect not all credits will show up on that site in a timely fasion. You will note that while The Outdoor Channel has a Wikipedia entry, there are very few of its shows that actually have listings on IMDB. As previously stated, based on the acceptable publishing rules in WP:BIO, the fact that current shows he's edited have been viewed by over hundred's of thousands of individual times more than warrants an entry. If you absolutely require empirical proof to accept these claims, then you can watch the channel in which his shows air and you will see his name listed on official credits. Drshabazz 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response to response of response to original response, just to note, IMDb is not always the best way to prove the notability of a topic as movie information is based upon user submissions. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He didn't create the show, so the criteria doesn't apply. Fagstein 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:BIO - an editor doesn't create books (in a certain sense) written by authors yet editing gets specific mention as acceptable criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshabazz (talk • contribs)
    - I've read it, thanks. I'm pretty sure it refers to editors who compile works (and are hence the "author"). Simply editing a text or some video is hardly notable. Should everyone in the CNN control room get an article too?Fagstein 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know where you've obtained such a blase attitude about film editing but the fact of the matter is that editing episodic television or drama is incredibly creative and meaningful and the profession is essential to a finished work. I'm going to chalk it up to ignorance on your part as I'm sure you're not in the profession or even the industry...but editing is not "simple" and a newsroom editor has a far different task then someone who's job it is to tell a coherent story in episodic tv. Just my $.02 on the matter. 68.70.209.150 10:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So your response to my question is "yes"? I'm not dissing film editing here. I've edited film myself and I know it's hard. But that doesn't make this guy notable. Thousands of people will work on any feature film. Fagstein 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Response re: Downrising - Downrising was nominated under WP:BIO yet should be considered under the rules of WP:MUSIC as it is a band. They should NOT be deleted as per WP:MUSIC - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - in the article you will note that Aaron Rossi has been part of at least 4 notable acts that also have wikipedia articles. Also from WP:MUSIC - Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above - in the article it is stated that Mike Moss has created music for KRS One. Other comments - the band was featured in a segment on the KTLA Morning News in Los Angeles on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 that featured the band in the studio recording and their music and that also meets a big general criteria that the article is significant as it describes something well known and or interest. Drshabazz 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) - I have no idea about the Allmusic profile thing but it does definitely meet other criteria for inclusion (already stated). Drshabazz 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/comment - I've been searching the web looking for the term 'Downrising' in conjunction with the band members and can't find results that aren't Xanga, MySpace, or the band's website. Could you perhaps post a link here to some information about the band/members that wasn't written by the band/members? I would encourage others who would be voting to keep this article based on what they read here, to hold off until some facts outside of the band's own website are presented.Wickethewok 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Paul, Weak keep Downrising, Weak delete Matt Bieler. per Drshabazz. Downrising is linked to KRS one, hugely notable, and Paul Escandon is notable for other reasons ⇒
- Comment - Is being linked to something notable make something notable? Does everyone who is connected to KRS one in some way make them notable? Also, we don't even have proof that they have ever worked with KRS one. Wickethewok 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul, Abstain others JeffBurdges 12:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Escandon; Delete others Eusebeus 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, mostly per above, grouping nominations now appears inappropriate. Monicasdude 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Paul Escandon and Downrising more than meet the acceptable criteria listed in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, Bieler for his relationship to a band that deserves a WP entry. Bonjourno 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable, despite inappropriate grouping. Fagstein 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice you here, though it makes sense.68.192.25.106 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1 and 3, merge 2 with 1. Notability, in my honest opinion, is anything anyone can find useful, and in my view is that notability should not warrent an argument. However, the 1st is notable since they have performed, and thus gained their name on the program, meaning they are part of the world's collection of Rock Bands. The 2nd article is too small to warrent an article, and is really a sub-article of the 1st, so it should be merged. The 3rd article seems unrelated, and should be kept since it is a stub, meaning it is still developing.68.192.25.106 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your argument is based on the fact that you disagree with WP standards. Hmmm... Wickethewok 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on Comment No, that is outside of this. I disagree on notability issues, but that is not influencing this here. 68.192.25.106 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway - no information on the band is verifiable as to its notability as of yet imo, as the only source of info regarding the band is the band's own website. Also I'd like to point out that a search for Downrising on Last.fm yields ZERO results. I have more results searching for my own work on Last.fm than there is for "Downrising". Wickethewok 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Evan1975 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Evan1975 - Care to argue why a band that gets no relevant google hits except for their own website is notable? Wickethewok 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If/when this debate is redone for a clearer consensus, recommend two different nominations/debates. Seems kinda silly as anything on Downrising is not verifiable information from reliable sources, as the only information about them is their band website. Wickethewok 06:29, 4 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!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, except on the Escandon article, which we appear to have agreed to keep. Relisting, since I think it wouldn't be too hard to get more input on the other two articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Downrising is not notable. If they were notable, there would be revelant results for a google search besides their own website. There is no proof of notability from reliable sources. There are ZERO results for them on Last.fm. I don't really know what else you can ask for as proof of a non-notable band. I think we agreed above with the deletion of Matt Bieler. Wickethewok 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Levitate[edit]

Nonsense article. Claims notability. Google produces one unrelated hit. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he might have super powers but he can't be found by Google Gu 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Living in the current west coast of Scotland I have never heard of him. Plus, Google gets not hits; vote with Optimale and Redvers above. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.George Bluth 16:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. YellowPigNowNow 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax to me. ~MDD 46 96 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to wiktionary (now done, so article has been deleted) Proto||type 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshi moshi[edit]

belongs on Wiktionary ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Doh, forgot to mention that I'm asking for transwiki instead of delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think something can be tagged for transwiki without AFD. I wonder if there should be some mention of some common telephone greetings in telephone? Esquizombi 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep if the article's claim of numerous international bands, restaurants, etc. being named after the phrase can be verified and expanded upon. I'm pretty sure they're true, but they need to be presented, not just hinted at. --Hyperbole 21:07, 29 March 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!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's more to be said on this, as like Hyperbole, I'm pretty sure those claims are true. So let's make AfD do cleanup's job. :p Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Expanding this into a list of trivia about uses of the phrase would only make it less encyclopedic, not more. Brian G. Crawford 17:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Esquizombi's idea of an article about telephone greetings is excellent, and would support merging and redirecting this to Telephone greetings -- but I'm not volunteering to create it right this minute :-p bikeable (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we have an article on hello afterall. 132.205.45.110 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Earthquake[edit]

Non-notable individual, probably created for vanity or self-promotion. David Edgar 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn-bio Gu 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. George Bluth 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, nn. A radio show on a closed-circuit broadcast within a hospital. Doesn't get much more obscure than that. Fan1967 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity Gflor e s^Talk 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Post[edit]

Can not find any sources to verify the information in the article, except her participation in her only film (according to IMDB) Twilight Serenade. Non notable actress Gu 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting that in this one extant film today's bugbear, Rikki Lee Travolta, rears his ugly head once more. RGTraynor 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Part of the Rikki Lee Travolta cabal. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on google. Arniep 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnerman[edit]

False information, for instance, there is no such company as Finnerman Diversified Industries, Oyj. Dmitrei 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no source for the information can be found -- Snailwalker | talk 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mention I could find on Google was the wikipedia entry itself. YellowPigNowNow 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable WP:V.--blue520 04:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nageeb[edit]

Non-factual and non-neutral; nothing to verify. Looks like an inside joke. Rawlsian 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. George Bluth 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. No doubt about it. --Soumyasch 16:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. YellowPigNowNow 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Negev. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redemptive suffering[edit]

Appears to be largely duplicative of Sacrifice, and was abandoned by its creator. Delete unless expanded and rewritten. --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redemptive power of suffering is a real Catholic concept, but this article is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I don't think the topic is encyclopedic by itself. It may merit a mention in an article on euthanasia or physician assisted suicide when discussing the Catholic Church's stance on these issues, but by itself it has no meaningful context. Brian G. Crawford 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redemption (religious) which could really do with expanding itself. Fishhead64 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bratton[edit]

Delete as non-notable drummer of some non-notable bands. Prod tag removed. Aplomado - U T C 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Chain Of Strength may or may not be notable (AfD pending), Inside Out apparently is notable, and is not listing for deletion. As such, he is notable by default. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as his notability is only dependent on the band.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:06, 29 March 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 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notability is borderline, but having been in the band Inside Out with Zack de la Rocha puts him over the top (barely). dbtfz ^talk 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Several votes for merge but ~~albums~~ EPs generally get their own articles, so someone else can begin a merge discussion if they feel strongly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Till Death[edit]

See also the related articles up for deletion: Chain of Strength and Chain Of Strength (duplicate articles on band), What Holds Us Apart (record).

Delete non-notable record by a non-notable band. No notability asserted anyway. Prod was removed. Aplomado - U T C 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Chain of Strength. Notable record by notable band.Tombride 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Chain of Strength article on the band. This goes where the band goes (including deletion) -- Saberwyn 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Very Weak Keep and merge all related articles into one (Chain of Strength with a small of appears to be correct name). They've released 2 records via Revelation Records I'll leave it up to someone who knows about the American music scene to determine if this is a pass per WP:MUSIC. -- Saberwyn 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I removed Prod on both the record and the band. ~~The band is not up for deletion. Does the nominator agree with its inclusion?~~ If it's to be kept, then clearly the record should as well. NOTE: there are duplicate articles: Chain Of Strength and Chain of Strength - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, this goes where the band goes - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:30, 28 March 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 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Several votes for merge but EPs generally get their own articles, so someone else can begin a merge discussion if they feel strongly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Holds Us Apart[edit]

See also the related articles up for deletion: Chain of Strength and Chain Of Strength (duplicate articles on the band), True Till Death (record).

Delete as no notability was asserted. Prod tag was removed. Aplomado - U T C 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Chain of Strength. Notable record by notable band.Tombride 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Chain of Strength the article on the band. This should go where the band goes (including deletion) -- Saberwyn 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Very Weak Keep and merge all related articles into one (Chain of Strength with a small of appears to be correct name). They've released 2 records via Revelation Records I'll leave it up to someone who knows about the American music scene to determine if this is a pass per WP:MUSIC. -- Saberwyn 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This goes where the band goes - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:31, 28 March 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 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chain of Strength. Fishhead64 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics of Boards of Canada[edit]

This article consists of non-fair use extracts from lyrics and samples, and non-encyclopaedic original research with regards to the meaning. Furthermore, an article just about the lyrics to one band's songs is possibly non-notable. Jdcooper 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom Jdcooper 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Would still support delete, but vote for merge to different album articles and redirect to Boards of Canada. Jdcooper 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; listcruft --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with main Boards of Canada article. While I'm personally against excessive fancruft, this particular band has a unique, rabid following and their mysterious personas and hidden/backmasked/elaborate sampling techniques are part of what fuels their popularity. Perhaps some of the speculation aspects can be toned down, but I don't think the article itself needs to be deleted. -- eo 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire article is either speculation or of questionable copyright. In what way are Boards of Canada fans (of which I am one) "unique" or notably rabid? If there are any interesting or important factual points contained within here, then they could maybe be put in with the main Boards of Canada article, but this article should not exist. Jdcooper 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand what you mean. What i was saying was that I have seen, for example, fan websites that are not just about the band itself, but also sites specifically devoted to deciphering their messages. I love BoC as well, but I don't think I'm too off the mark by saying that someone who takes the time to listen to their music front-and-backwards, isolate samples behind the music, write down every word and research from where it is extracted, and then build/contribute to a website about what it all means is a "rabid fan". Don't see that kind of thing with too many other artists. Right? -- eo 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see that kind of thing with a whole lot of artists, and many far more prominent than BoC, but wikipedia is not the kind of place for any of that stuff, because it is all original research. If you want to mention the lyrics on wikipedia, have what lots of other bands have, simply a link to a lyrics site in the External links section of the main article. Jdcooper 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused These really aren't lyrics for the most part but samples that they have used. Most of the OR is patently obvious and it isn't making much of a analytical claim so I think it is safe under WP:NOR. It seems like it was spun off of the BoC article for being too long. kotepho 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep independently-written information, preferably merged to articles on the albums in question; send this article off to Wikipedia:Copyright problems to delete copyvio'd actual lyrics. Samaritan 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mwongozi 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, what's your rationale for that, out of interest? Jdcooper 22:38, 31 March 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 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself's existence is "excessive fancruft", but I will admit that there is probably harvestable information in there to be kept and merged into article for the relevant album. The article itself should probably be redirected to Boards of Canada. I will do all this if/when it gets consensus approved. Jdcooper 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep v. For great justice. 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete maybe after discreet merging into the album pages. But the reproduction of lyrics in their entirety is generally not fair use (even if they are, ironically, non fair-use samples themselves). — brighterorange (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some anoynmous reader who found this useful. 03:00 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is just like a normal band's lyrics. The words distorted and thrown throughout their songs are very cryptic and contriversial (see main BoC page). Merge into album's pages at the least, but I think it should be kept. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deffinetly Keep it.

Keep It's a special case. If it is deleted then at least merge to somewhere the origins of the samples for each track, not the lyrics themselves.Kansaikiwi 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a special case? What does that mean? Jdcooper 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Stater[edit]

There isn't really an article or potential article here, It's more of a dictionary definition which happens to be, incidentally, tendentiously worded Mcgahon 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. An abysmally-written article but the topic does have merit and could be expanded, along the lines of something like Roundhead or Know-Nothing. George Bluth 16:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's some merit to it, Perhaps it could be moved to Wiktionary or incorporated into the article on the Irish Free State or on Irish Republicanism Also, it's not even like this term is popularly used in Ireland. Mcgahon 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written, unreferenced dicdef. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Free state. -AED 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish Free State, alternatively. Sandstein 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NTK 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmiths of Western Africa[edit]

Appears to be original research JRawle (Talk) 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be Wikid and needs lots of work, but the core of a decent article is there, as are the refs Bridesmill 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done some wiki work and given it a cat. SilkTork 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. For great justice. 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does need sources but I know something of West Africa and I think this material is verifiable and is not OR. --Bduke 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several aspects of ancient West Africa (read Africa) such as traditional occupations may have no abundance of sources. As a native West African I can authenticate some of the material and will continually edit it. His Royal Highness
Keep, but rewrite to make less essay-like and cite sources. There are enough archaeological and historical publications to source and improve this article. — mark ✎ 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past teachings of Prem Rawat, Current teachings of Prem Rawat[edit]

this article has no added value and will have no added value to the set of articles related to Prem Rawat, among others Divine Light Mission, Wikiquote:Prem Rawat etc. All reputable sources are used in those articles already and there are very few reputable sources that summarize the past teachings of Prem Rawat. This article is now 95% original research coupled with very selective quotes and off-topic remarks about the Divine Light Mission. I had already asked for references here Talk:Prem_Rawat#Rawat_as_.22The_Lord_of_the_Universe.22 without result. I do not think that asking for references again will yield something that can be considered as added value to the other articles. Andries 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (amended)[reply]

Keep all. I agree that it may require some cleanup, but that is no basis for deletion. Like many other articles in Wikipedia, most certainly this article can be improved, and there is no problem in reusing sources cited in other articles. Note that the request for sources maintenance tag was placed today by the nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I asked you to provide references ~~some time~~ 24 days ago, but you did not give them. If this article survives vote for deletion then I will get rid of all the original research, off topic sentences, selective (mostly retrospective) quotes by Prem Rawat. At this moment, removing all of this will leave not a single sentence in the article. Andries 17:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives AfD, we will hopefully engage in a collaborative process of editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Adding Current teachings of Prem Rawat to the nomination for essentially the same reasons (and there's probably more similar cruft in the box at the page's bottom, but whatever). Sandstein 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as, what, gurucruft? Seriously, it's partially unsourced WP:POVFORKs of Prem Rawat, and part preaching (WP:NOT a soapbox), with all "sources" pointing to what looks like his own site, or sites affiliated with him. Not worth the effort to find out if anything is mergeable to Prem Rawat, which is inordinately long already. Sandstein 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not POV forks, but article spinoff, as the main article is already too big. See: content forking/spinouts ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references that are on the article seem to refer to speeches by this guru which happen to be stored at the guru's official website. That seems like an ok source to me. The article needs more sources. But this does not seem like a valid reason for deletion. The next charge is that it is gurucruft -- another way of saying that Prem Rawat is not notable enough to justify these large articles. That is possible, but needs to be argued for rather than simply asserted. It is deeply ironic and revealing to see User:Andries, who has made a career out of uploading vast reams of tangientially relevent negative data on gurus — and who once claimed that the objective of Wikipedia was to store all of the information in the world's libraries — now attempting to delete and suppress information. — goethean ॐ 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For quotes by Prem Rawat, we have Wikiquote:Prem Rawat. This article should contain summaries from reputable sources, not highly selective quotes by Rawat. It can never be neutral if it contains highly selective quotes. Andries 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it cannot be fixed, because there are no reputable source. Andries 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll just take your word for it. You've proven to be completely neutral on these matters. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that there are reputable sources.... 23:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reasonably reputable summaries with some length of Maharaji's earlier teachings that I have been able to find are by Reender Kranenborg in his Dutch language book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern Faith movements in the West". Other sources mainly describe the beliefs and practices of the Divine Light Mission, not the teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these are POV forks, what is the 43kb article Criticism of Prem Rawat? If there is no end to the amount of relevant negative information, why is there a limit to material that is arguably purely descriptive? In fact, the article under examination contains a section of "criticism"! Given these facts, Wikipedia's coverage of Prem Rawat seems POV, but opposite to the way that the nominator intended. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the description in this article is 95% original research, 3 percent quotes that belong in Wikiquote and 2% off-topic material. Andries 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may be a POV fork but it's pro-Rawat. Another Ex-Premie 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP does not need this article. nor the other one. Midgley 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, please lay off of Andries and keep to the subject at hand. Andries has a valid point about the article, which he's researched, and you know nothing about. The article is lacking in substance, and factually incorrect in spots. Btw, based on your user pages you do have quite an ax to grind with him because you have some personal attacks against Andries there. He is always as a gentleman even under pressure, wherever he goes on the internet. Thank you. Another Ex-Premie 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is always as a gentleman even under pressure, wherever he goes on the internet.

Oh...you have no idea how much I needed a good belly laugh this morning. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't understand why these articles need to be deleted. I am researching this subject for a paper and I found both articles interesting and comprehensive. -- Daniella 03:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniella has made only 26 edits in WikipediaAndries 10:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Like all articles in Wikipedia, this one began with a small amount of information that has accumulated. Much of it is claimed to be true by editors, and I am one of those. The record of these early teachings should be kept and verified when those sources are both re-found and documented. For example, for such a topical subject, written documentation might be light on; however, interviews with various people and other written, secondary sources may support what has been written. The point is that, simply because someone said/wrote it does not make it POV. It simply makes it unsourced. Errol V 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep of course this well researched and highly informative article.--Rainer P. 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete This whole section reads as if Prem Rawat himself had dictated it, except the use of language is more logically coherent than Rawat can manage. In itself, that would not be a problem if the content were comprehensive and accurate. However, the last paragraph in particular reads as something of a whitewash of the facts regarding the 'superdevotional' era of the late seventies and early eighties. There is ample documented evidence archived at ex-premie.org which tells a very different story to this account, which appears, above all, an attempt to rewrite DLM/EV history and re-assign culpability for decisions and practises that came *always* from the top. When I say 'delete', what I really mean is scrap the thing and start again. A well-researched and objective entry on 'the past teachings of Prem Rawat' has to be an essential part of the story. Without it, what story is there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigfitzroy (talk • contribs) Note: this user's vote is his only edit in Wikipedia

NOTE: This is not a discussion forum, or USENET. This is a page to vote for an article to be deleted or kept. Moving discussions to discussion page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Jossi, all the 'discussion' attached to people's votes should also be removed. Be consistent. This page does not belong to you; you are not the gatekeeper of Bree. ∞∞Errol V 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments are OK, Errol, but extended discussions should be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These articles can be very helpful for any researcher trying to get a perspective on how a guru child's teachings embedded in Indian culture have evolved into Prem Rawat's current work. Having more references and sources will improve the articles but they are already useful.Mariawiki 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user:Mariawiki has made only three edits in WikipediaAndries 10:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Note: See also User Mariawiki on Spanish Wikipedia [40] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This article is needed so that the Prem Rawat article can become a clear, concise, collection of facts and not be burdened by tit for tat debate over what his teachings are.Momento 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. It is interesting for every student who wants to know this movement. It would be a lack in the wikipedia that a person who is giving conferences all over the world included several important universities in the west wasn´t have any reference in this encyclopedia. It is a social phenomena important to Know for pchycologists and sociologists as well. It is important to know the spiritual influence in western cultura. I do not know moving in wiki, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.231.220 (talk • contribs)

"Keep all." This part of the entries on Prem Rawat is more valuable than the main biographical segment, going through in a clear way every area of his teaching and how it has changed or been modified. It begins to give a sense of the gravity of the teaching itself which is overlooked by critics who focus on the life and personality of the teacher.Marvin Khan 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuVIS, Inc. - Quality Visual Information Systems[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS

Non-notable corporation that is not made notable for (supposedly) being a NASA contractor. No sources or links, of course. Likely advert by User:Quvis, who also contested the PROD without comment. Sandstein 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this, but couldn't be arsed to stick it on AFD. Thanks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BW Technologies Ltd[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:NOT (advertisement)

Adspam for non-notable corporation, complete with contact details. At least partial copy/paste (is it copyvio with spam?) from [41]. Contested PROD. Sandstein 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the specific article, I will not deny that I have a personal interest in the specific company, but I do not have a personal profit out of it. The article does not describe my company or my website. My personal interest in the technology behind the company and it's products is no different to the interest of someone to, lets say, BMRT (arguably this is not a more notable technology to most than a very small percentance of people who use Wikipedia - but for very few is important indeed). My intentions are not different than these. Please dont overlook also that I personaly characterised the article as stub, inviting other people to add their knowledge in it. As you know I am new in wikipedia and I have to put effort to learn how to write properly according to all rules. I just had time to write a couple of sentences to learn how the system works! I will not be afraid to say that you were too quick in exercising your administrative rights and propose the article for deletion; I am afraid it appears like an intimidation strategy!! I think that according to the philosophy of wikipedia you should respect other peoples' interests and be more patient to judge other peoples' intentions. You could say that the article is spam if I had put links all over and no content, but this is not the case; only people who have direct interest to the company and its technology will search for it. So, wikipedia sysops, decide whether is a better policy to intimidate newcomers with threats or help them learn to write proper articles ... --Haiou Xu 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haio Xu. Please be assured that it was never my intention to WP:BITE you, or even to intimidate you with threats, of which none at all have been made. Please also note that, as per WP:AGF, this is not an accusation one should make lightly.

I am happy that you have joined Wikipedia as a contributor. I am also certainly not holding it against you as a person that you have created this article as part of your learning experience. However, I have simply followed applicable policy, in this case WP:CORP, to nominate this article for deletion as a part of our collaborative effort to make sure that only encyclopedic content is featured in Wikipedia. I encourage you to read WP:NOT in order to find out more about this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does receive many spam articles that often do resemble very much the article you wrote - with glowing descriptions of the company, phone numbers, etc. - so I hope you understand why I assessed it as spam.

By the way, now that you have stated that you are not affiliated with the corporation, I have to advise you that it is forbidden to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, e.g. from a company website. It even says so below the edit window: "Content must not violate any copyright." Please read WP:C to find out more.

My advice to you is that you chalk this up as part of a very normal Wikipedia learning experience - incidentally, my first article, as an anonymous user, was also nominated for deletion within a short time - and have fun continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Once again, welcome! Sandstein 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not appear to me that this company is particularly notable or worthy of inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia per the stated guidelines. If they were the first or the largest of something it would make them more notable, or if they developed a significant technological advance in water purification that changed the industry, or something like that, it would help. Thatcher131 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for continuing to argue against the proposal for deleting the article that I have started, but I think that the arguments against it are mostly untrue and, again, show too quick judgment. Please respect the fact that in a strange way the proposal appears offensive to me since it is like saying to me that I dont have interesting enough interests. Click any number of Random Articles and 8 out of 10, at least, will appear uninteresting to any one of us. As far as I have read in Wikipedia's 'policies' I haven't seen anywhere that articles have to be interesting to everyone or indeed that a company should be the the first or the largest of something or that has changed the world to be included in it. In fact most of the companies listed in 'Category:Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom' or indeed in manufacturing company stubs are not more 'notable' that the company I am interested in. The specific manufacturing sector has only a handful or two of players and BW Technologies is one of the strongest ones; it needs an expert to know, not just a look through the website. Again... I think the article was judged too quickly, before I had the time to edit it (I am sorry that I dont have the time to write the article only in one go, but I have seen hundreds of one-liner stubs in wikipedia).The only problem that I can see with my article is that is not edited very nicely but I think I have shown my interest to improve. In any case, if you decide to delete the article ... let it be, but I think that the reason will not be that the article is a 'vanity page' (as I think you call it) but rather that it was quickly judged. --Haiou Xu 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. How about writing/extending one on water purification, even water purification in Britain? THose are both encyclopedic topics. THis is not. That view, and the inevitable deletion, say nothing at all about the company or the author, just about what is an encyclopeadia. Midgley 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like 'Speedy delete' and 'inevitable deletion' demonstrate the reasons for feeling victim of an 'intimidation strategy'. Wikipedia is not a battleground. In wikipedia decisions should be made though discusion. There must be a neutral point of view, not personal attacks. The author may write in 'water purification' or about 'water purification in Britain' in the future if he is not too scared to do so. And in any case, wikipedia accepts articles about companies, which should not be judged by whom is the author. Any encyclopedia includes companies, and in wikipedia the notability of the company should be jugded by how nmany people are interested in it. Maybe at the and ot the day I must chalk this up, as Sandstein adviced, and accept the inevitable deletion since in wikipedia, at the end of the day, decisions are are predecided. --Haiou Xu 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you understand what Sandstein is saying. This process is not a personal attack against you - it deals with specific requirements for articles that are not met in this one. Yes, there are some corporations listed here, but they all meet the requirements of WP:CORP while the company referred to in this article does not. Please don't assume that deletions are pre-decided. They are considered on their own merit.Tony Fox 05:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
week keep : The problem I see is that this only has one source the company web page. Get some 3rd party quotes or facts. ie.: notability... (ex.: make filters for carnaval cruises etc... or sell to Walmart.) blah balh.... dunno just making this up. Perhaps then we'll be looking at getting some real keep votes. Sadly, wikipedia may seem like it's based on notability but really it's all about having the right sources and enought. Good nomination but I'd actually give this one a chance to develop, hopefully someone will be able to find some sources and facts. --CyclePat 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hetar --Arnzy (Talk) 08:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Doyle[edit]

He is only notable for an accusation of a crime. This is a wikinews item, not an encyclopedia item. The article didn't exist until his arrest. Move to Wikinews. --Tbeatty 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on Lauren B. Weiner for similiarity.--Tbeatty 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep in the news and completely verifiable. Meets WP:BIO. --W.marsh 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection this obviously shouldn't be a speedy keep, given the objections. --W.marsh 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikinews, NN. Do not believe this meets WP:BIO. Bridesmill 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiNews as nominated and delete. Brian G. Crawford 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and all votes containing "NN" should be ignored, notability is nebulous and not a criteria for keeping or deleting. Instead we are to focus on what is encyclopedic, which this guy is, was and shall be. Sam Spade 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One of my reasons was "unencyclopedic". It isn't clear to me how this person is encyclopedic so this is why I listed it. He is definitely news, but since he wasn't "encyclopedic" before the arrest, what makes it so now? --Tbeatty 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that he (as deputy press secretary for the United States Department of Homeland Security) was notable before this article was created. Sam Spade 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there other historical deputy press sectreataries of other departments (fourth in office of public affais in OHS) noted in Wikipedia? For example, is the fourth person in line at the office of public affairs in the Department of Transportation from the Nixon adminstration notable? --Tbeatty 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews, this is an ongoing matter, not an ecyclopedic issue. JoshuaZ 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews. It is certainly news, but, other then this issue, it doesn't really seem like there would be anything else worth noting. --Inaxdaze 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep please person is notable really Yuckfoo 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Meets WP:BIO under, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." If the whole thing turns out to be a non-issue in a month, then maybe it might be time to delete the article. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Deputy Press Secretary for the Dept. of Homeland Security is notable and encyclopedic, independent of the controversy (which, imo, makes him all the more notable). --Myles Long 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for his govt position without the arrest. --Wesman83 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W. marsh YellowPigNowNow 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person already had minor notability before the arrest, and the recent flurry of press coverage tips the scales well in favor of WP:BIO in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw no non-arrest references in his page. Are there any?--Tbeatty 19:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per W. marsh and Sam Spade. —A 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Might be a good idea to wait a week. If there isn't much development outside the charges, delete it. --waffle iron 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I like this idea, if there isn't much developement or there isn't any other noteworthy information then delete. Veluet 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor- or mid-level bureaucrat and already noted on Wikinews Dananderson 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not speedily, there's nothing wrong with this nom. Being in the news doesn't mean you can't have an article on Wikipedia, only one on Wikinews. --Rory0 96 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newsworthy = notable JackO'Lantern 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, especially in relation to broader administration issues. Eclipsed 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews and delete. While it might meet WP:BIO, not until we have articles on the first, second, and third ranking officers in the Dept. of Homeland Security Press Office should we keep it. GChriss 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep deletion improperly listed (nominee didnt even sign nomination). Besides that fact, he is a notable person outside the crime regardless. Public figure in a position of Gov't authority, NN my ass. ALKIVAR™ 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Improper listing is not a valid reason for speedy keep. JoshuaZ 02:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:GD "Unsigned contributions may be discounted at the discretion of the volunteer who closes the discussion." as the nominator themself did not sign, the nomination itself could be discounted and closed by any adminstrator who was so motivated. However as this is the posters first AFD nomination I decided to vote rather than close this nomination as a clear mistake possible WP:POINT. ALKIVAR™ 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is an interesting point which had not occured to me but I'm not convinced that it is meant to apply to the nomination itself. Is there prior precedent for that interpretation? JoshuaZ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. And it was obvious I put in the as it was signed on the page, the originator and the first comment. But I fixed it anyway.--Tbeatty 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What authority did he have? I didn't see his authority listed on his page. Also I haven't seen any wikipedia pages on any people that are "the 4th in line in public affairs" from any government department. Please point me to their pages. --Tbeatty 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't have pages on them. This isn't a surprise; we don't have pages on a lot of things, because we're a work in progress. Sooner or later, they'll be created, and in the meantime, there's no point in deleting useful content for reasons of cosmetic structure. -Colin Kimbrell 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just the sort of thing Wikipedia should build and keep after the newspapers have been thrown away. Scranchuse 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I don't think encyclopedias are collections of old newspaper articles. --Tbeatty 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fishhead64 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great example of why I hate "breaking news" encyclopedic articles. Nobody felt the "#4 guy at Homeland security" was worth jack until he got arrested for allegedly soliciting an underage girl (and Doyle didn't meet WP:BIO before this story anyway). This will be all over the news today & maybe tomorrow... and in 2 weeks nobody who isn't involved in this case will remember or care about Brian Doyle. Meets the letter of WP:BIO based on news coverage but basically just an utterly pointless article about a flash in the pan newsstory.--Isotope23 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm per #1 on WP:BIO "figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office" this is a Federal (National level) position in a public agency, that certainly falls under this categorization. ALKIVAR™ 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't hold office. He is a buearacrat. Counting federal workers of this sort would mean that every minor paper pusher would get an article. JoshuaZ 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes, JoshuaZ is correct, he still doesn't meet WP:BIO for his office. besides, you omitted the "Political" part from the beginning of your quote ALKIVAR™ . It's not a political office; he's nothing more than a mid-level bureaucrat.--Isotope23 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - High level bureaucrat + high sensitivity department + high level sex offense = more than notable enough by Wikipedia's excessively weak standards. I'm not an "inclusionist" by any means but this is a major event. Yes, sensational sex crimes and otherwise unremarkable people's misfortunes are notable. When you put all the elements together this is hardly a close case. NTK 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree; my point was that "High level bureaucrat + high sensitivity department = zilch" until you add "high level sex offense"... He didn't meet WP:BIO until his face was splashed all over the news.--Isotope23 05:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article hadn't been made up until this point doesn't mean he wasn't notable. Osgoodelawyer 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...no, but the fact that he didn't meet WP:BIO before the media covered his arrest does mean he wasn't notable; at least from a Wikipedia standpoint. It's a moot point because this article meets the letter of WP:BIO now, if not the spirit.--Isotope23 16:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newsworthy = notable. bbx 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Premature nomination; whether a newsworthy item is encyclopedic can only be judged in retrospect, and, as always, we should err on the side of keeping, as there's much less complication and bureaucracy involved in renominating an article for deletion than in undeleting it at Deletion Review. Also, from a purely practical standpoint, there's much, much more value to our readers if we have an article for this highly newsworthy topic on Wikipedia, and then provide a link to WikiNews here, rather than having a soft redirect or something confusing like that. Also, WikiNews and Wikipedia overlap in many places; there are some things on WikiNews that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and lots of things on Wikipedia that don't belong on WikiNews, but something being important for one does not, in itself, make it off-limits for the other. Almost all articles on criminals on Wikipedia wouldn't have existed before the crime; it's just a statistical fact that more (otherwise) non-noteworthy people commit noteworthy crimes than noteworthy people commit crimes (that would have been noteworthy enough even if they themselves weren't). Rushing to judge this article as only a temporary, brief newsworthy item is both hasty and forces Wikipedia to express an original-research POV: that this news entry, unlike many others on Wikipedia currently, is only a passing, transient article of minimal interest. We aren't forced to make such a judgment call, so I don't see why we should go out of our way to do so and risk inconveniencing hundreds of users who, like myself, randomly looked this up on Wikipedia to get the scoop after seeing dozens of references to it in all sorts of noteworthy media. -Silence 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: He is a very top level official in the Department of Homeland Security, who has, ironically, been accused of crimes that makes our homeland less secure. --Asbl 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are the three people above him in the department of public affairs alone?--Tbeatty 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And how do his crimes make the U.S. less secure... unless it was pedophilia with terrorists?--Isotope23 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant public figure who was the subject of extensive media coverage. Would probably qualify even without the crime, but it makes him an absolute slam-dunk keep. -Colin Kimbrell 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense, KEEP. This is a high-level official in one of the most prominent, security-conscious departments of the federal administration being charged with an attempt at child molestation. It's hardly crime-blotter fare. Needs wikinews coverage by all means but deleting this would be out of line with WP's practice with regards to notability. NTK 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above--Fallout boy 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NTK 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real bills doctrine[edit]

This article is in a real mess and appears to be at least partially original research. Further, the author claims ownership of the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

week keep Superficially it looks like an encyclopedic subject and is sourced, but obviously needs major cleanup. The author clearly doesn't yet understand wikipedia style, but don't bite the newbies for trying! — brighterorange (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up, per above. It's a legitimate subject [42]. If kept, it probably should be moved to Real Bills Doctrine. PJM 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not an alternative to improving. For great justice. 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I has a pretty rich history, and there were points were it looks at lot nicer than it does now. Jon513 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, whatever is (surely) wrong with the article, none of the nominator's assertions are valid grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Craig[edit]

Non notable person. While she is a Continental Counsellor in the Bahá'í Faith, she is almost completely unknown to the general populace Jeff3000 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Cuñado - Talk 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continental Counsellor in the Bahai Faith. For great justice. 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the position may be somewhat high, but unless there is some info floating around regarding her policy attributes, I can't see this being worth keeping.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, otherwise all Counsellors, present and previous, should be added to Wikipedia. Wiki-uk 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure I created this article, along with those for the other CBCs, when I was new to wikipedia. The original idea was to have an article for each CBC. CBCs have jurisdiction over ca. 50,000 Bahais each (5m/100), and have significant power. e.g. investigating covenant-breakers, recommending people for dısenrollment etc. The CBCs is also a stepping stone to the UHJ - and hence important to understand the workings of the Bahai admınıstration. Bahai loyalists want to delete because they want to play down the role of individuals in the BA - for predomınantly theologıcal reasons. I say 'not sure' because I don't know now whether they meet the criteria for inclusion as can be seen with a google test. AndrewRT 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above comment, I originally had a list of all present and past CBCs in the article Continental Counsellors but I now realise this has been removed. I would like to have this list reinstated for the same reasons as above. I would be happy with a compromise to remove the individual articles on CBCs if the list of names is re-inserted into the main article. AndrewRT 14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pelles[edit]

I prodded this page with the comment on talk:

The subject is non-notable. Google test for "Robert Pelles" gives 56 hits; for "Róbert Pelles", 58. That the images once present in the article are all probably copyvios is being dealt with elsewhere. Subject added to Wikipedia:List of potential subjects.

I now note that page creator and (essentially) only contributor is Pptamas (talk · contribs) who has no other interests, leading to suspicion that this is a vanity page. Delete. John Reid 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montco 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Elite Sounds Inc.[edit]

advertisement; created by User:DesiEliteSounds if it's not obvious enough. prod tag removed — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, advert. PJM 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement.--blue520 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. JIP | Talk 08:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Summerville[edit]

Non-notable political candidate. Only ran once in 2006 Federal election and wasn't elected. No other notable qualities. At most should be listed on NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (I've already moved the text there). Delete or Redirect Atrian 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - political candidate in 2006 Federal election. At worst, should be redirected to NDP candidates. No harm in redirect. For great justice. 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look through the candidate lists for the past two elections, being a candidate is not enough to achieve notability. Only those candidates who otherwise are notable in some other area deserve their own page. In this case (IMO), P. Summerville hasn't achieve this yet. Atrian 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the deletion guidelines, you will notice that notability is not in them. I think this verifiable, factual information should stay. I'm not necessarily arguing that there's enough here for a full article, a redirect may be in order, but not deletion. For great justice. 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a prerequisite for creating biographical articles: why in god's name should the standards be ignored for deleting them? --Calton | Talk 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not required for creating them. That's a popular myth. For great justice. 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough. --Khoikhoi 22:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability not enough for deletion. For great justice. 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is in my opinion - if we ignored notability soon we'd have an article for all 6 billion people in the world. --Khoikhoi 07:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What a strange opinion! I wonder why you think that? For great justice. 18:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a minor party candidate is not notable, and I don't think there is enough info about his role as the chief economist to sway things in his favour.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, agree with your argument, just a note that the NDP is one of 4 major political parties in Canada. -- Samir (the scope) 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect to the NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election page, absent any other notability. --Calton | Talk 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, don't think his background beyond the election warrants notability -- Samir (the scope) 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would normally vote to merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election with other losing candidates, but Summerville was one of the NDP's star candidates in that election and notable as a bank economist running for the NDP. see: [43], [44], etc. Luigizanasi 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considerable media attention, and I agree with Luigi. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summerville was an NDP star candidate in the Canadian federal election, 2006, whose candidacy attracted a lot of media attention precisely because the idea of a bank economist running for a leftish party struck many people as odd or amusing. (The media do like to promulgate the myth that the NDP are somewhere in the ideological vicinity of Josef Stalin, for some reason.) Furthermore, he ran in one of the highest-profile riding races in the country, against Carolyn Bennett and Peter Kent. I'd consider this a keep, though if the consensus went that way I could reluctantly live with a merge into NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (although that compromise solution is starting to cause problems of its own). It's absolutely not a delete, though. Bearcat 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable as an economist alone even before he became a political figure. Samaritan 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO or Merge if that helps reach consensus.--Isotope23 20:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:BIO states: Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. I believe this applies to Summerville, hence my vote to keep. He probably got more press coverage in Canada during the election than any other NDP candidate, except the party leader. Luigizanasi 23:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Valby[edit]

This appears to be an advert. Note the near identity between the page contents and the external link.Mwanner 00:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Ad for a non-notable performer. A clubber. Geogre 05:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ad, vanity, and doing off-colour versions of covers isn't notable. Wyss 19:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as above. Spangineer 04:48, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete See above. BenS 05:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete The reasons that some of the others have said [[User:Squash|Squash ^(Talk)]] 06:35, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Believe it or not, I've heard of this guy outside Wikipedia. A tape of his was the hit of my summer camp cabin when I was 12 years old. He seems to have a cult following (possibly limited to 12 or 13 year old boys, admittedly, but still notable.) A google turns up 17,600 hits for "John Valby" and a Google groups search turns up a fair amount of discussion of him and his lyrics. Note that the user who created this page has a history that extends before and after the creation of the John Valby page, which indicates that it was not a vanity account. (Assuming that the IP number of this non-registered user has not actually been used by multiple people.) I agree that the entry is just a copy of the info from his web page, but that seems to argue more for a cleanup than a deletion. --Jacobw 12:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casnel Bushay[edit]

This athlete substub was created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where he participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games this athlete has achieved nothing, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing. Believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the article (see for instance this diff for Jone Delai), but when an athlete hasn't even won a medal at the regional championships (in this case: the Central American and Caribbean Championships), not even a bronze medal at the CARIFTA Games (Under 17 Boys), it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, participated in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. For great justice. 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't even reach the semi-finals. --Khoikhoi 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his PB is 9% outside the current record, and there is no other way he is notbale off the field.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You don't get a prize for just showing up, as it were. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just participating is enough at the Olympics, but not in other multi-sports competitions. Scranchuse 05:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gubused[edit]

Neologism. Two Google hits, both on wikipedia.org. Demiurge 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Demiurge 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, per nom. Djegan 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism per nom. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gflor e s^Talk 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable and non-verifiable neologism, fails WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurangabad_Silk_Mills[edit]

Page is advertising for a commercial firm (spam) Rpresser 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely blatant spam. Modular. (Talk.) 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most blatant of advertising. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert Gflor e s^Talk 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn spamvertisement.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jidesignschicago.com[edit]

advert for non notable company. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedied since page was empty before afd tag. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake club[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable unofficial grad student club created last year; likely vanity bait; hardly encyclopedic. Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Alan Au 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contested charges:
- Non-notable - forthcoming thesis citations for contribution to the production of original research; external 'spin-off' cake clubs currently nascent
- vanity bait - no biographies of members created as sign of good faith
- encyclopedic - wikipedia benefits from a broad, rounded and exhaustive view of the world. Wikipedia would be the premier source of reference for readers of the above mentioned citations (Britannica rejected a similar article)
- The article is neutral, verifiable and original as stipulated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion -- Gazurtoids 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Thanks for the response. However, I should point out that Wikipedia is not in the habit of posting original research of any sort. While the publications may eventually be individually notable, we are discussing the notability of Cake club and not those later publications. Spin-off cake clubs might eventually be notable as well, but the article can be recreated if the phenomenon gains widespread traction or significant press coverage. The "vanity bait" comment may have been a bit snarky, but it's true that many names have been included as red links. This is typically viewed as an invitation to create articles about the subjects. Finally, while your article is neutral in tone, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Alan Au 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — brighterorange (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swamy desikan[edit]

This page, as well as Sri bashyam were both made by user:Sarathybecomesdesikadasan on 26 January 2006. These where his only contributions. To me they seems like Patent nonsense; I'm not sure if anyone can make sense out of them. Jon513 19:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense and no context, tagged accordingly. Brian G. Crawford 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedied. as I agree this is nonsense. — brighterorange (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter B. Saul[edit]

Walter Saul does not meet the notability requirement to make his page necessary. Sxeptomaniac 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. a better article might just barely cut it, but it reads as a resumé. — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as written. Some claim of notability, but no sources and reads like a resume. --Alan Au 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the current article is a cut-and-paste from [45]. I couldn't find a source for his claim to be NC Composer of the Year, but if that can be verified then it may be enough to qualify him as notable. However until we have a source, we don't know how important that award is, so weak delete for now. Gwernol 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, tagging as copyvio... --Alan Au 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, merge tag added. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Power in popular culture[edit]

Amazingly unimportant and unencyclopedic list of trivia purported to have some tenuous connection to the Spice Girls' slogan "Girl power!" Brian G. Crawford 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks no worse than most such lists. For great justice. 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Girl Power. Article itself looks fine, although I'm not entirely clear why it was separated out from the main article in the first place. --Alan Au 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at it again, it is a bit link-heavy. --Alan Au 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Girl Power. Yes it's long and link heavy but most of the references are uncited so maybe just chuck 'em? GT 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Thank you for asking for my feedback. I think that merging this article makes sense since it was originally based on the references/bibliography found on the Girl Power page. See also the Girl Heroes page. ˜˜˜˜ Classicfilms, 5 April 2006
Keep and rename to List of girl power references in popular culture as that's what the article is. It's far too long to be reincorporated into Girl power as it would make that article too large. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per above. Kukini 07:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 08:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onyibo Okafor[edit]

Possibly a hoax or simply nn. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN at best, hoax/attack page at worst. --Alan Au 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-attack}}. Gwernol 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-attack}} if the subject is real, {{hoax}} if not. (aeropagitica) 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a legend of him, but it was never this farfetch'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.172.92 (talk • contribs)

I think somebody is trying to create their own myth from an original one FatBaka

A true old myth slightly adapted from an old african tale. Do NOT delete as it is a real legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.35 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -O bli (Talk)^? 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blademaster[edit]

Webcomic character from Stripcreator that only appeared in one strip there. Stripcreator itself is of questionable notability; an article for a character there doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
delete obviously; only one strip?. — brighterorange (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Theonly one strip means it doesn't rise to the level of notability.--Alabamaboy 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gwernol 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Gflor e s^Talk 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike hersh[edit]

Not notable, vanity article created by subject Alabamaboy 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Alabamaboy 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, see Geogre's Law. Modular. (Talk.) 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls a bit short of WP:BIO and no verifiable sources. Userfy? --Alan Au 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Bucketsofg 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn eccentric political activist.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Thue 17:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete, the material is more appropriate and covered much better elsewhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree, delete. Ilyanep 22:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Wikibooks? Krik 23:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not enough to wikibook. just delete - Tεx τ urε 06:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Thryduulf 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 transformations of yin and yang[edit]

Incomprehensible chart--Zxcvbnm 21:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged it. RasputinAXP c 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the snowball clause. Process with purpose is one thing, but process for process's sake is just silly. Everything's died down, just close the debate and be done with it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Abstaining from voting. Brandt has called for a third AfD on his article. I say give it to him, and run it for the full seven days. Gives him one less thing to complain about. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

(edit conflict) Keep; very notable behind the scenes mover and shaker. This man Daniel Brandt is far too notable not to have an article here, this afd should be speedied IMO, SqueakBox 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with incidents he has been a part of (i.e. Siegenthaler controversy and wikipediawatch). Nothing else is notable like his birthday and parents and DOB and POB and anti-war stance and current residence. --Tbeatty 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his activism, privacy campaigns and newsmedia interviews. To quote User:Lord Bob: "Batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion". -M^ask 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So just an observation: This comment has survived multiple edits by administrators that ostensibly were to "remove personal attacks." How is it that the people who saw Brandt's comments as "personal attacks" didn't see this one? Is "Batshit Insanity" now an appropriate way to refer to people? It seems to be a classic "hive mind" demonstration. --Tbeatty 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last two AfDs which resulted in solid keeps. He's an attention whore who has been in the New York Times a half dozen times for a half dozen different things. Gamaliel 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attention Whore" isn't a personal attack? You edited out Brandt's personal attacks. --Tbeatty 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, I'll change it to "attention prostitute". Gamaliel 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If anything, he's gotten more notable since the last attempt at an AfD. *Dan T.* 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. The Psycho 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has only 87 edits, mostly related to posts at Wikipedia Review.

Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does this guy realize that the more he does this kind of thing, the more notable he gets? It's like a Catch-22 JackO'Lantern 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it may be that you feel Wikipedia is very important and the doings of its community are exciting, but the world largely ignores the latter and doesn't pay much mind to how the former gets made. Daniel Brandt is "notable" to people active in the project space but not to the outside world. Why not give the guy what he wants? Other articles have been censored on less ground. We can't even have one about Brian Peppers and Brandt is less noted than Peppers.Grace Note 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. No one even knows what he looks like. There's no picture of him on the web. 4.230.153.240 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was not having a picture on the web a notability criterion. Have you seen WP:BIO? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is frankly embarassing. He has, by his own actions, made himself notable. By the way, maybe we could ask him for a picture? ;-) SoLando (Talk) 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still seems notable enough for inclusion to me, and I don't see any other valid reasons for deletion. Information published publically is public. TrueMirror 23:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems well-sourced and notable. Fascinating. Kuru ^talk 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. He's a complete nobody who has trolled Wikipedia. That makes him notable for Jimbo but still an unknown for the rest of the world. There is nothing to say about him that could not be covered in the GoogleWatch article. Grace Note 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable. He's gone out of his way to be a public spokesman on an issue, and to be quoted widely in the media. He does not have the right to then choose who covers him. Fan1967 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Fan1967. Johntex\^talk 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the future, Werdna648, please don't make AFD nominations solely because the subject of the article told you to. The sentence "Gives him one less thing to complain about" worries me that some of my fellow users are actually afraid of Daniel Brandt, if so, this is a dark day in wiki-history. Whether you like it or not, and whether Brandt likes it or not, he is notable [46]. We have biographies for hundreds of people less notable than Brandt, many of which nobody has even considered deleting. — Apr. 6, '06 [00:47] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

It's far easier just to let him have his overwhelmingly kept AfD - and it seems a pretty petty request anyway. Might as well let him have it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough then, I assume it will treated similarly to the Gay Nigger Association of America article after this. — Apr. 6, '06 [04:30] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Keep. Notable, encyclopedic.--Eloquence * 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person that this article is about does not want an article about him on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not he is notable, we shouldn't have an article on him because he doesn't want it. Before you vote keep, think about whether or not this was about you. Surely you wouldn't want an article about yourself on Wikipedia that mentions criticisms about you. No one would. Therefore this article should be deleted. Bullseye 01:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC) User's first contribution. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting logic, according to which any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, which would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable.--Eloquence* 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, they can. Apparantly, Daniel Brandt is the first person to do so. Bullseye 01:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quit being fools. This guy simply doesn't want an article about him, so there shouldn't be one. Why are so many people voting keep? If this article were about you and it included criticisms about you, you'd understand. Houston R. 01:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC) User removed notices such as this, accusing them of being "unnecessary". This was their first contribution, and they are currently blocked indefinitely for sneakily changing votes on this page Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability through Google-related activism leads, and this is what an encyclopedia is for - giving background on how a referenced person/thing/whatsit might significant - whether it really is significant is then for the reader to judge Shenme 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I believe a specific person has the right to delete an article on themself. if he doesnt want to be noted, we should comply.Vulcanstar6 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a bad precedent to give any person veto power over an article here. I don't think even Jimbo has given himself such a power. *Dan T.* 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Jimbo has the power. It's a Front Office lock and no admin will undo it. It's indefintite and is used to lock bio's in a favorable uneditbable state while Jimbo works out the issues.--Tbeatty 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lock, not delete. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Distinction without a difference. Edit out controversial info, permanently lock it. I agree with that policy and it is needed to protect Wikimedia. --Tbeatty 04:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But they don't permanently lock anything; those office-action locks are temporary, and the "controversial info" might also only be temporarily deleted; it can usually return if it's meticulously sourced. Partisans against the article's subject usually still don't like it, since much of their critical info has to stay out because it doesn't have a reliable source (blogs and Usenet generally don't count), but it doesn't end up deleted altogether, locked permanently, or a total whitewash in favor of the article's subject either. *Dan T.* 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The question was whether he has the power and the answer is yes. Front Office locks are the power. How they choose to use it to protect Wikimedia Foundation is up to them. It is a smart thing to do because societies laws are different than the rules on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The laws are indeed different but as wikipedia clearly isn't breaking the laws of the United States it would be really silly to pretend otherwise. I don't believe Jimbo has the power to permanently lock this article without bringing wikipedia into such a state of uncredibility that the project would rapidly collapse as that isn't how wikipedia works and to imagine Jimbo is some super-dictator with the power to go against consensu is misplaced, SqueakBox 05:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It wouldn't be against consensus. Certainly, and this goes to the group dynamics of Wikipedia, if Jimbo put a vote up for delete, he would get enough support. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The warning at the top clearly states that this really isn't a vote. Daniel Brandt's user page was deleted outright because he cited the new Florida law and editors assessed that as a violation of internal wikipedia policy. Rather than just remove the threat and leave his requests, his page was completely deleted. --Tbeatty 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true... I actually recall at least one case of Jimbo starting an AfD on some article and having it end up in the direction of "Keep" anyway. Wikipedians may be many things, but they're not "droids" who blindly do what Jimbo says. *Dan T.* 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the same as the President saying "I don't like the way newspapers are writing about me, I should put a stop to that." ~MDD4696 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's like the president at all. It's more like Siegenthaler saying his bio is a bunch of crap, please remove it.--Tbeatty 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, because Seigenthaler's bio was a bunch of crap, whereas this is correct, sourced, notable, and, IMO, one of our best-written and sourced articles. If it weren't for the controversey, a little expansion would see it recognised as a Good Article. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyway, Siegenthaler's article wasn't deleted; only the false info was deleted from it. The article as a whole is longer and more informative than it was before the controversy. *Dan T.* 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, well-sourced article, encyclopedic topic. Meets all inclusion criteria. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable Gflor e s^Talk 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is definately notable, just read the article. I'd say this was a bad faith nomination (not a reflection on Werdna648 though). ~MDD 46 96 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that deleting this article is insane. I nominated to appease Brandt, hoping Brandt would appreciate me filing another AfD for him as per his request, and moving towards negotiation. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(personal attack removed) If someone does not want their biography on Wikipedia then it shouldn't be put on Wikipedia. (personal attack removed) DanieI Brandt 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to make my opinion more clear. Deleting this article because its subject tells us to is insane. As stated above, it's like us editing or deleting articles on the president because he doesn't like what we say about him. Whether you like it or not, you are notable, and there is public domain information about you. Therefore, we will write an article about you, and there is no way that it will be deleted. Try negotiating away at your problems with the article, rather than fruitlessly trying to have it deleted. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally different. The president has never actually come to Wikipedia and tried to get that stuff removed. You are comparing apples and oranges here. DanieI Brandt 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if he did, we wouldn't let him have it removed anyway. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you would want to mess with the president. The president could well ban Wikipedia if the article about him weren't removed if he wanted it to be removed. The president has the power to ban Wikipedia for being an attack zone. Fetchin' 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it only weren't for that pesky First Amendment... Shucks. Grand master ka 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, fascinating and very widely covered SOB. Don't want a biography on Wikipedia? Too bad. He practically dug his own grave. Grand master ka 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don't even see the argument here? There's a hugelist of articles in the external links here. It's notable directly pertaining to the project. What's the argument here? This is nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an argument of notability. It's an argument that this article shouldn't be here because the person it's discussing does not want it here. (personal attack removed) DanieI Brandt 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the personal attacks, up the civility. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Including an article in Wikipedia on someone when they don't want one is a personal attack. DanieI Brandt 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Note: The foregoing was posted by user "DanieI Brandt", with a capital I (eye) instead of the lowercase "l" (ell). This is a username with no prior edit history, and is hence either a sockpuppet of a blocked user or an impersonator. *Dan T.* 11:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning here. Please provide further information as to how this article's inclusion constitutes a personal attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a personal attack because the person doesn't want an article about him on Wikipedia. You all better delete this article, because if you don't, the last topic in Wikipedia may be dawning near. Fetchin' 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- many Wikipedia editors considered to be violations of Wikipedia policy or otherwise inappropriate, especially compiling personal information about Wikipedia editors on his website. That's an easy one. Why is it a violation for Brandt to compile personal information on his website when Wikipedia compiles personal information about him on Wikipedia? --Tbeatty 03:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's considered harassment. The information written on Wikipedia about Mr. Brandt is already widely known, and is not threatening. ~MDD4696 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To whom is it not threatening? Mr. Brandt obviously feels very threatened by it. Threatened enough that he seeks to out those who makes edits that he feels threatened by. --Tbeatty 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the policy by the way. There is no exception listed for articles that I could find.:

Posting of personal information
Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not.

- - - - None of that information is present in the article as of now. I would say that his website is threatening because his intent is not clear. Our intent is clear, which is to provide neutral biographical information. ~MDD 46 96 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        His real name is there. His place of business, date of birth, place of birth, city of residence is all there. It's all sourced very neatly and concisely. And while Wikipedia might not have any evil intention's, it could be an enabler. It's interesting that posting an editors real name is a serious violation (whether or not it's public domain), but posting a whole littany of information about a person that is a subject is allowed, encouraged and defended. --Tbeatty 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        ... so we should remove all this information, which is available dozens of other places, based on the possibility there might be an evil stalker out there who's heard of Wikipedia but never heard of Google? Fan1967 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No. We should delete it simply because he asked us to. --Tbeatty 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        His requests are irrelevant. What's next? If Dick Cheney says he's embarassed by that hunting accident and he'd like it gone, do we remove it, too? Fan1967 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable unfortunatly. Eivind ^t ^@^c 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; there is no reason for deletion. Stop indulging this guy. We have Time Cube, and nobody has ever seriously wanted that article deleted. We have GNAA, and even though its members, in my experience, are some of the least human people in existence, they are too notable to ignore, and too notable to leave out of a conpendium of knowledge such as this encyclopedia. Similarly, Mr. Brandt should take his 15 minutes of fame with grace and accept that we will write about him with or without his permission. He lives in a fascist country where there are certain rights denied to the individual, and among those are an absolute right to privacy. If he is serious about having this article removed, perhaps his time would be better spent researching privacy advocacy and legal remedies, instead of writing lackluster web pages complaining about how Google can turn up websites authored five years ago and how the CIA peeks into citizen's private lives (Hint: It's the government. They're always going to be spying on us, whether we like it or not; if you really don't like it, put somebody into office who will do something about it!). In short, this "request" for deletion is nothing but bullshit appeasement designed to make it look like the community really cares about whether or not one man is secure in his privacy. In the pursuit of brilliant prose and accurate information, we cannot ignore WP:POINT. - CorbinSimpson 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable attention whore, as someone said. If he's mad because he can't control the spotlight himself, he can get bent. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topics don't get to say whether or not they can be articles. Fishhead64 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionist Keep, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shall not be intimidated by the tactics of the subject in question, if we want, we can escalate this to our lawsuit, our principles will never falter. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How easy do you guys forget that Daniel Brandt saved all of Wikipedia's necks by identifying Brian Chase as the hoaxer? If it had not been for Brandt, Wikipedia would have been in worse conditions and its credibility would have been destroyed forever, not that it isn't already seriously damaged, due to the Seigenthaler controversy. Wikipedia has a debt to owe to Brandt, whether they like it or not, and thus Wikipedia must fulfil the terms of Quid Pro Quo. Brandt saves Wikipedia from further embarassment in the Seigenthaler scandal, and Wikipedia therefore deletes his article Jonathan 777 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How did invading the privacy of a prankster whose false edit had already been reverted and deleted from the history save anybody's necks? And since when is Wikipedia edited on the basis of "Quid Pro Quo" or personal debts? How is the site's credibility changed, one way or the other, by finding out who was responsible for the prank? Anyway, Wikipedia's popularity (e.g., as measured by Alexa) went up through the roof when the scandal, and its resulting publicity, hit, so it hardly seems to have been harmful to it (not that I favor intentionally starting hoaxes like that to promote this site, no sirree!) *Dan T.* 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, Chase being uncovered didn't help wikipedia at all, the problem was identifying his vandalism not identifying him, arguably his identification didn't do wikipedia a favour though Dan is 100% right that wikipedia's popularity went through the roof due to that incident, eg becoming mainstream in the UK press for the first time ever, SqueakBox 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Both of those posts are amazing. Brandt is not the bad guy for identifying the libelous editor. Libel is the enemy of wikipedia. Anonymity should not survive libel. If Chase hadn't been identified and apologized, Siegenthaler would have sued Wikimedia Foundation (and won in my opinion). Rules would be a lot less open (if there was a Wikimedia foundation after it). --Tbeatty 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any evidence for this bizarre assertion that Brandt prevented a fatal lawsuit? Gamaliel 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bizarre assertion? just his op-ed piece--Tbeatty 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I see nothing in his op ed to back up your interpretation, and in fact most of it is about how he has "little legal recourse". Gamaliel 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are certainly entitled to your interpretataion as well. Certainly he was frustrated with the law. I think his use of an attorney with Bell South and his obvious research into the law meant he was preparing to challenge it. He may still be lobbying for changes to the law based on his experience. I think his contact with Chase (made possible by Brandt) smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers. If he would have went after Bell South legally, it may have meant injunctions for everyone involved. --Tbeatty 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, how about this? Delete the personal information about Brandt in his article, and then merge the rest with Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch, because in all honesty, I would believe that the consumers of Wikipedia are interested in Brandt's work with those two retrospective websites, and perhaps also NameBase and Yahoo! Watch. What Brandt is NOT notable for however is, for example, to quote: "Brandt was born in China to missionary parents." nor is he notable for having his "student deferment classification was withdrawn by the local Selective Service System in December 1968 due to his public non-cooperation with his draft board, Brandt was convicted of failure to report for a pre-induction physical exam and refusal to submit to induction. Brandt appealed and his convictions were reversed on the grounds that he was entitled to student status as an undergraduate at USC (see U.S. v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1970))." No, the consumers are interested in only 5 things about Brandt: Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, Yahoo Watch, and Wikipedia Review. That's it. Jonathan_777 86.129.30.99 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And you're of course eminently qualified to judge what all consumers are interested in knowing, and to speak on all of their behalf? *Dan T.* 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the minimum threshold of notability. -- Curps 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. — FireFox • T [11:06, 6 April 2006]

Keep Before Brant requests his Wikipedia article be deleted, he should first request every media outlet and publication that has an article on him remove their articles. Once that's done the WP article will have no sources, would be unverifiable, and would be a fine candidate for deletion. Why has he not demanded The New York Times, Salon.com, The Register, Sydney Morning Herald, San Antonio Express-News et al to remove mention of him from their articles? Where is the "Hive-Mind" page for those publications? --Malber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr. Brandt is notable, the article is well-written and well-sourced, and I find his argument for deletion (essentially, "because I want it deleted") to be unpersuasive. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally think he's a joke, but since he seems to take himself so seriously, let him have all the publicity he deserves in an encyclopedic and neutral way. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, neither a soapbox, not a website to voice your own personal opinions, and so on. Notable people can't simply say, "Oh, I'd prefer that nobody knew I existed.". Well, they *can* say it, but it helps them exactly zilch. By doing something of interest to the media, you more or less acknowledge the fact that someone will want to read about it. I find this whole discussion rather ridiculous, and the threats shallow, but whatever, one more AfD won't change things. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what moral authority does wikipedia decide who is notable and who is not? For newspapers, I know who to hold accountable for errors, slander, etc. If I don't want my name in the phonebook anymore, I know where to go even if it was once in the phonebook. But Wikipedia is a vast anonymous, permanent archive of information about, in this case, people. Long after the links have died and the newspapers been destroyed, the claims and words (right or wrong) of wikipedia will live on. Wikipedia has no inherent right to be "gap free" in it's information. It has Great Goals, but that has to be juxtaposed against it's potential for Great Harm. --Tbeatty 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morality doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) enter into the consideration. Wikipedia doesn't permit original research, so anything that could possibly be here under legitimate auspices has already been vetted morally by whoever published it in the first place. If you're unhappy about the publication of a particular fact, the fault lies with the original source. -Colin Kimbrell 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does come into play. If I found your name in www.whitepages.com along with your address, Wikipedia would not let me use it's space to publish it. There are lots of moral rules established by Wikipedia but establishing "notability" is one of it's weakest. --Tbeatty 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moral tiebreakers don't enter into the equation for the example you cite, because it's already disqualified on other grounds before the question even arises. If you found my name in www.whitepages.com, you wouldn't be permitted to add it to Wikipedia because www.whitepages.com is not a legitimate source, as defined by policies and guidelines. The only circumstances under which my address would appear in a legitimate source would involve some sort of noteworthy event happening at my home, and thus receiving coverage in mainstream media sources. Situations of this type have already been successfully resolved on numerous occasions, such as the removal of the alleged "real names" of several porn stars (which were not adequately sourced).
The doctrine of notability, while not formally defined within policy, is a reasonable and logical extension of WP:V/WP:OR (in that things which are not notable are not covered by legitimate sources), as well as WP:VAIN (in that things which are not notable are only known to those who are directly involved with them, who are strongly discouraged from creating articles on those topics). Thus, the encyclopedia's resistance to articles about non-notable subjects is eminently reasonable, rooted within policies and guidelines. -Colin Kimbrell 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I could get plenty of evidence from government documents alone that would not be allowed to be posted on wikipedia because of it's privacy policies. The title on your home is a public document. Brandt, on his own Website, lists public domain information about Wikipedia editors. Even outside of Wikipedia, wikipedians apply internal website rules and he was banned under Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks for this external behavior. And to counter this, there are other Notability requirements beyond being in the newspaper that are applied (somewhat haphazardly). Case in point: Brian Doyle and Lori Weiner. Both worked in politics. Both committed crimes (or one is accused and one has plead guilty). One crime was related to their political job and one crime was done outside the scope of their job. One is a serious felony one is misdemeanor. All of these come in to play when determining notability for an encyclopedia. Both of those people are WAY more notable than Daniel Brandt. But one will likely be deleted and one will likely be kept. There is no reason or standard to choose one over the other but the community will. There is no oversight to remove or check systematic biases in the community. Systematic biases don't harm science or dead people. They DO have the potential to harm living people by invading privacy, libelling them real time and putting them in harms way. I find it ironic that Wikipedia has a policy about revealing personal information about editors (public domain or not) but a "no holds barred" attitude on whatever "notability" standard it creates. --Tbeatty 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really comment on any of that because, to be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea who Lori Weiner is, and Google doesn't have any info on a politician by that name. I said that Doyle should be kept during his AFD discussion, and I stand by that opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren B. Weiner instead of Lori. Plenty of articles.
Comment Tbeatty suggests that there is information in the public domain that would not be allowed on Wikipedia solely in view of our privacy policies; this is, to my knowledge and in view of my interpretations of Wikipedia policies, plainly incorrect. The revelant concerns we would confront in deciding whether "public domain" knowledge should be included in a Wikipedia article would be whether the information, if entered, would represent original research (where we would, I think, apply that appellative--the nebulous quality of which I readily recognize--to mean that information one posts on Wikipedia otherwise unpublished from a city's property tax record site would be original research, whilst information featured in a newspaper article about a given person's property tax records would not be original research; upon the latter determination, and in view of the publication of information elsewhere, a link could then be given to the primary source [i.e., here, the city's property tax record site]) and whether the information would be relevant to the article and of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic (as the privacy policy explains, even accurate phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc., are not considered encyclopedic; I don't believe the policy is framed as it is exclusively in view of privacy concerns, but also in view of notability/encyclopedic quality concerns). Notwithstanding Tbeatty's reasoned points apropos of the difficulties of creating a notability calculus by which to judge articles categorically, it is plainly wrong to say that there is public domain information that Wikipedia would not post out of privacy concerns; never would privacy concerns exclusively militate sufficiently against the inclusion of information to lead to the outcome of our removing/not adding information (of course, some users may feel different morally--I surely do not--but their views do not seem represented in the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia; in any case, there is surely no legal claim one can essay against another's posting publicly-available information about the former, so on those narrow grounds--which aren't exactly "on all fours" with the Brandt case but are with the hypos of which Tbeatty and I write--there can be made no legitimate objection to the inclusion of public information). Joe 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I saying there is a notability standard that is arbitrary. The standard isn't whether there is public domain documents about a person. The standard isn't that the person was in the newspaper. The person who commented above me seemed to be saying that notability means there is a public record and therefore all people who have a public record could be notable. Certainly if we found original conviction documents of a notable person, that original document would be referenced. But what is a notable person? It is extremely arbitrary. I would argue Lauren B. Weiner is way more notable than Daniel Brandt. But Brandt pissed off a lot of Wikipedians so he is more notable to Wikipedians. That's an interesting standard but not exactly encyclopedic. It seems to me that it is a community vanity of sorts. As for privacy, if I posted information about "jaheigel" schooling, city of residence, POB, parental heritage, etc on my user page, it's a privacy violation and I would get banned. But if I create an article based on some dubious clame of notability, all that information would be up for a vote and editing. --Tbeatty 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFWIW, I do provide all of that information on request and divulge most of it on my disorganized userpage. Irrespective of that, though, I have conceded that the "notability standards" are arbitrary, but I think it should be said that "notability", as I understand it, doesn't mean "popular notability", but, rather, "encyclopedic notability". Even as Lauren Weiner is better known to the public writ large at this time, Daniel Brandt is better known to <elitism> well-educated people </elitism> and to the public writ large in general (that is, he surely will be, over time, a more prominent personnage). I certainly don't think that notability stems from one's having publicly-accessible records, but I do think one's having 72,000 Ghits (cf., my having 173, of which more than half are about others who share my name) creates a presumption of notability, especially when the several on the first three pages are articles about the Brandt that feature interviews or quotes. Fundamentally, the question to be resolved, I think, is whether, absent Brandt's dealings with Wikipedia, anyone would still be suggesting that he's notable. I am sure that some who find him notable now do so largely or only in view of his involvement with Wikipedia (which isn't altogether wrong; I simply think that our project is still esoteric enough that his involvement with us isn't encylcopedic [as against, for example, his involvement with Google]), but I think the majority of us would find him notable irrespective of his Wikipedia involvement, toward which proposition I adduce the many failed AfD nominations for articles the subjects of which are surely "less notable" than Brandt my any standard, even one that he might create. Were you to create a page about me giving my city of residence, schooling, parentage, and POB, you almost surely would not be banned; we regularly have users create pages about individuals whom they think to be notable, and those users, where they are not acting in bad faith or attempting to damage the encyclopedia, are not banned. It is true that there is no singular standard by which to adjudge notability, such that not every Wikipedian would have the same reasons for thinking Brandt to be notable and me not to be notable, but, of course, there's some beauty in that; each Wikipedian has somewhat different views, the conflation of which becomes policy, with the idea that "the more voices, the better". Joe 23:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked up Ms. Weiner, I think your comparison is something of a stretch. Mr. Doyle's job arguably made him notable even before his arrest, while Ms. Weiner's almost certainly didn't, and Mr. Doyle committed a much more serious crime (and as a result received substantially more media coverage). I'm not upset that we have an article on Ms. Weiner, but I wouldn't be upset if her article got deleted or merged back to the scandal, either. It's pretty borderline, in my opinion. Once the community arrives at an "arbitrary" consensus, we'll go forward with that. Arbitrary doesn't always equal bad, y'know; pretty much every organized system is made up of a succession of arbitrary decisions, once you look at a certain level of granularity. If it really bothers you that much in this case, though, you could always start a centralized discussion on notability standards for activists, cranks and media gadflies, to apply to people like Mr. Brandt in the future (serving a function analagous to WP:MUSIC for musicians). As to what you're saying about Mr. Brandt himself, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that if he'd received the same amount of media coverage for criticizing something else (Flickr, say), he'd still have an article. The article is probably more highly developed now than it'd be if he'd criticized something with which the user base was less familiar, but that doesn't really matter, since on a long enough time frame the improvement by successive approximations will essentially even out. -Colin Kimbrell 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Brandt still hasn't woken up to the fact the notion of privacy evolves with the times; information technology is significantly impacting our privacy if we let it. (ie: we use the technology) Ultimately he needs to appreciate his notable actions belong to the public rather than private sphere. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~bad faith~~ nom IMHO. Brandt is a notable individual. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
apologies, that was poor phrasing, as the bad faith is not on the part of the nominator but rather on the part of the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep if this guy doesnt like it he can just not look at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.250.18.151 (talk • contribs)
- This is an open proxy. It was blocked. Broken Segue 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he's not a public personality like a celebrity. If he doesn't want to be in wikipedia he should have that right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.244.7 (talk • contribs)
Keep Notable, I find it odd that a prviacy nut wants this removed but posts the names and locations of underage wikipedians. Mike _{(T C)} 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cosign with above. Danny Lilithborne 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inability to maintain any sense of neutrality with the article. Its existed for a long time now, and its never been even vaguely neutral. Whilst its true that he might be vaguely notable, he wouldn't exist in any paper encyclopaedia, and hence he's not so notable to be an automatic inclusion. This article is meta. It talks about Wikipedia Watch, a criticism of when Brandt used Wikipedia, and it talks about Wikipedia's responses. How can you have such an article when the people writing it all come from such an obviously biased place? At best, someone else should write this, and then we should copy that over to Wikipedia. But seriously, why do we include an article that the subject does not want, when what we are saying is wholly negative? The article itself must be verging on a personal attack and possibly even constitute libel. It is wrong on so many levels to even consider this article. 59.167.131.8 06:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mr. Brandt is cited in the Register (14 March) and other publications in the last few weeks, which demonstrates his increasing notability. Jokestress 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to fulfil all criteria. The fact that Mr. Brandt doesn't want the article is no good reason to delete. Garion96 ^(talk) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy does not want an article, so there should be no article. Will you all quit {personal attack removed} and voting "keep"? FGHT 17:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC) NOTE: This user has no prior edit history before this vote. This user also posted the following note at the top of this page (moved to a more appropriate position now):[reply]
- Attention! Do not vote for keep because you think this is notable. This a not the question of notability, but whether or not the person who this article is telling about wants an article about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGHT (talk • contribs)
  - Comment: Wikipedia is not censored. Ever. For any reason. - CorbinSimpson 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: In theory, SqueakBox 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: There is plenty of censorship. Please review the |history so you can see why he was blocked. Oh wait, it's gone. And if you look long enough you will find articles that are "tidied up".--Tbeatty 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment and if he had kept quite he doubtless could have tidied up his own article in a quiet way but he made a big noise and now he can't do anything to the article, SqueakBox 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: You know something's wrong with the world when you have six nested lists. Also, what I meant is that by a prior concensus which led to an implementation of a policy, there is no obligation placed upon any individual user to censor or Bowdlerize an article, and that the only obligation that the Wikipedia organization has as a whole is to the State of Florida (and even that is theoretical, as there is no legislation that directly affects Wikipedia that I know of, and we have never been taken to court!). - CorbinSimpson 07:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: So why did wikipedia admins censor the user page? There was no obligation. There is a written policy on no censorship. The fact is they did it for their own self interest. The criticism of wikipedia page is also censored through an indefinite lock. --Tbeatty 16:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you feel so strongly about Brandt's user page, submit it for undeletion. I'll even vote undelete with you. Gamaliel 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete I really don't see him as being notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. I know he's involved with Wikipedia criticism, I suggest just merging the relevant info into Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch.--Toffile 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable; subject of reporting in major news outlets over many years. --Allen 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(After reading the whole debate above) Keep. Henrik 08:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew nesbitt[edit]

NPOV, possible vanity--Zxcvbnm 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article is currently WP:NPOV but that alone is not grounds for deletion - it just needs another tag for its collection. Subject seems notable. I'd rather have the article cleaned up than deleted. Gwernol 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwernol. Accurizer 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. For great justice. 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify information... follow WP:DP. Thank you. This page doens't seem to have that much edits. Give this 14 days before changing my vote to Special Delete --CyclePat 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the {{cleanup-verify}} tag intact until things shape up. There appear to be hits which confirm the notability of this person, such as this one which describes Nesbitt as the "reigning Irish International Rally Champion", or this one which refers to him as "the first driver to win the Jim Clark Memorial Rally for a third successive year since Roger Clark". Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5-Color[edit]

Cruft--Zxcvbnm 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable variant and a non-notable site. RasputinAXP c 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Woman[edit]

Of course a Chinese woman is a woman who is Chinese. This article is an unencyclopaedic dicdef. Rory0 96 22:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Chinese woman is a woman who is Chinese? This is way too obvious to be useful. Brian G. Crawford 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tautological dicdef.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duh? A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 10:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred "A.C.E." Jones[edit]

Not notable. (I didn't mark it db-bio because it certainly asserts that the subject is notable.) Google searches for "ace jones", "adream", and similar find only this page. Except for one anonymous edit, all edits are by 'Acejones', presumably the subject. Tried using 'prod', but Acejones removed the tag.

Speedy delete - blatant nn vanity - how can he have already released a CD in the Summer of 2006 - this isn't until june in the US.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for "Alfred Jones" rapper does not come up with anything verifying the claims in the article see [47]. I removed a speedy nomination because the article asserts notability. However, I am unable to verify it so I am voting to delete. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Gu 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control Monger[edit]

Relisting per WP:DRV. It was deleted, recreated, speedily deleted as recreated, the last deletion being contested claiming significant expansion. `'mikka (t) 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Monger (consensus delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Monger (2nd nomination) (consensus delete)

Delete nn compute game.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason to delete. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, as it was last time round. A free-download game, padded out with "similar to" and all sources are non-reliable; no evidence of numbers of players, innovation or non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Contains speculation: "Now in 2006 all three of the expansions and the full client are now offered as a free download. NetCharger and Mindsurge Entertainment have plans to turn control monger into a MMOFPS in 2007 but there in no information on that at this time." Freely downloadable games are almost never notable, and this shows no evidence of being any different. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is whether or not it is free relevant at all? Why would you make whether someone has to pay for something a criteria? Linus anyone? Oh, not notable! It's free!? For great justice. 18:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted it's still a non-notable game. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suggest a notability standard for (modern) computer games: if it doesn't have a review on GameSpot, it's not notable. I also notice that the game has only six user reviews on GameSpot. Not likely there are many people playing this. Powers 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 07:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonverifiable notability. `'mikka (t) 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindifidoaj?[edit]

Non-notable web site. Note: prod'ed and tag removed. Accurizer 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. `'mikka (t) 22:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mikka. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - defo nn website. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Stephenb (Talk) 10:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism epidemic[edit]

This article has a name which gives a clue to its troubles. If it had been called "Autism (Incidence)" or "Autism (Incidence and reporting)" then it could have been a discussion on a sub-topic of Autism. As it is, it is a brawl, hath little of structure or consensus and is not - looking at the long history in the talk page - getting better over time. There is actually a topic worth writing an article about, but that isn't the topic and this isn't the article, and it never will become that from here. Delete, and start from scratch, and get someone to volunteer to write it who is noted for NPOV, before the rest of the editing process gets going. Midgley 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This from someone who is writing Anti-vaccinationist? --Leifern 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's contentious, unstable, hopelessly POV, filled with original, unreliable, or unverifiable research, highly speculative, and very political. It should probably be deleted. That said, I don't think you'll get a consensus to delete. Brian G. Crawford 23:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unaltered. Otherwise, major weeding out of junk, non-verifiable stuff, speculation, POV etc could make it a basic article. KimvdLinde 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Autism (Incidence). Midgley 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. KimvdLinde 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened here - Midgley and one of his buddies start an article that is completely redundant to this one, but conforms to their opinion, then put this one up for deletion. The decent and reasonable thing to do would be to edit the existing article and possibly rename it, but nah... --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism (Incidence) first saved at 02:51 on the 6th according to this PC [48] "followed" by the afd here at 23:49 hours on the 5th[49]. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting KimvdLinde of whom I have no reason to assume anything but good faith. Note that the clock times I get are an hour different from those recorded on this page, and that around midnight this can change the date. I'm not convinced that the comments interspersed here are making the development of the afd discussion more clear, or bearing strongly on the actual merits of the article discussed. Midgley 01:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be too kind there, I think it is not a very good article and still needs a great deal ripped out of it, paraphrased, tabulated and generally made into a crisper shorter more focussed page on its single topic (I can be as critical of it as I like for the obvious reason). But thanks. Midgley 08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take that advice to Anti-vaccinationist, Midgley. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I should have written: Fine with me to move the relavant content to that article. Not that the content is fine yet. :-) KimvdLinde 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Article has been relatively stable with the same basic outline for a long time. The article is largely a statistical overview of the skyrocketing epidemic that medical authorities pretend doesn't exist, along with assessments of potential causes that have survived and been refined since the article was created. Ombudsman 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was stable until the people who wanted to delete started to destabilize it. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis I lack a metric for "stability". Would it be reasonable to say that a stable article has few edits recently, and those simple additions? Fail. Would it be reasonable to say that a stable article will probably not have had POV tags applied for much, ideally any, and none of its recent history? Not a pass. Would it be reasonable to say that there is something about the Talk page of a stable article which is different in quality, and possibly in quantity from an unstable article's talk page? Subjective judgement there - one has to look at it. I'm not going to offer a view here. Midgley 12:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly merge. For great justice. 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not going to get "altered" - any attempt at altering it just gets reverted, including moves. Right now it is basically OR. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: First, it's not the correct medical use of epidemic. Second, while the natural "background" rate of autism is really not known, what inferences we can make are certainly important. But it feels like the article has got off on the wrong track, and not to put down the work that's been put into it, but starting over with some (verifiable!) facts about autism statistics and the conclusions made by professionals might be the best. Peter Grey 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not excited about the term "epidemic," either, but the remedy for that would not be to delete but to rename. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Autism (Incidence), or rename article to something like "Claims of an autism epidemic". Current title is by definition POV: to have an article titled "Autism epidemic" is to assert that an autism epidemic exists. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that this assertion is incorrect. I don't have a problem with including evidence to the contrary, but it needs to be labeled more accurately. --Arcadian 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism (incidence) was created to subvert this article. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion rfa that article. Or shut up. I'm tempted to rfa it myself citing this discussion as the reason. Midgley 08:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the more neutrally titled epidemiology of autism, consider trimming down to smaller size and merge with autism. At present the article presumes there is an autism epidemic, which is disputed. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Equivocal use of the term "epidemic". In the absence of any evidence of a real epidemic, to allow an article to be named as such based on one interpretation of epidemiological data is misleading and decidedly POV. Create Autism epidemiology if you wish, but the reasons for increased reports and diagnoses of autism (such as reclassification of improperly diagnosed individuals and more awareness of the disorder among the medical community) could be, should be, and already are discussed in Autism... that is where data on prevalence and incidence belongs. -AED 06:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is one. john 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole idea of this article is without merit. It is a very speculative theory in violation of No original research. It is fueled by conspiracy theories, supposed "research" by discredited and rogue doctors, and by non-medically qualified alternative medicine practitioners and marketers of their products. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize or launch theories that are not recognized by the scientific community. Only verifiable concepts should be allowed in articles here. -- Fyslee 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has not adopted an SPOV policy and is committed to NPOV. Read up about it. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has as one of the pillars alongside NPOV V. And the other key one. Midgley 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Much of Wikipedia:Content forking is relevant here. The article's content fails all three content policies. The title is POV and offensive to certain groups. I disagree with john's justification for keeping the article - ones opinion of the truth is irrelevant here. In keeping with autism becoming a summary style article, I have no problem with a NPOV Autism (Incidence) or Autism (Epidemiology) daughter article, though I think it would have been best to wait for this to be resolved before creating one. Colin°^Talk 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have acted hastily, but I thought I'd see if there was actually an incidence article there. There was. I've no emotional investment in it, not least because I created it by reduction. Midgley 15:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered my vote now to Merge/Rename to something with a less inflamatory title (this seems to be the consensus amonst both the keep and delete votes here). If the editors can work towards consensus rather than just bickering, then there may be content worth keeping and a better article can emerge. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename to epidemiology of autism (it is contentious whether there is an epidemic at all). Consider stripping down to a NPOV core and merging with autism. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)~~ accidentally voted twice due to wiki saving issues at time of first vote JFW | T@lk 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion, there is no autism epidemic, but it is the opinion of enough people that there is an epidemic to make it a noteworthy topic for Wikipedia. Q0 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should not be a mention of the idea, just that it is very well-encompassed within discussion of the incidence - which itself is part of the epidemiology. Midgley 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea deserves short mention, but not an article. If it were labeled "pseudoscience," "conspiracy theory," or "misguided ramblings," it would be another matter, because it would not violate Wikipedia's policy No original research. For example, The Da Vinci Code has an article, but it is also clearly identified as a novel. Nobody is deceived into believing that it is legitimate history. By contrast, this article is even strongly associated with anti-vaccination viewpoints, which actually do cost lives. It is ~~potentially~~ dangerous pseudoscience. -- Fyslee 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Centers of Disease Control has changed its official incidence statistics - that's pseudoscience? Please read the article and the citations before voting. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merge into Autism (Incidence). Also add detail to conspiracy theories.81.154.178.113
Keep and rename — The topic is notable and encyclopedic. The sections I read seemed to possess some neutrality balance, so perhaps it has been edited following the AfD nomination? — RJH 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Autism (Incidence). This is still a notable topic that should be documented even though it is quite clear a real autism epidemic has no occurred. Neurodivergent 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the content could be rewritten as an epidemiology section of autism, but the current content is far too POV and speculative, and doesn't provide a good starting point for a merge into autism. Sandy 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination is a blatant and shameless POV-pushing. Although I don't know what the use is of voting - Mark Sweep or one of Midgley's other admirers will close it with a delete whether or not there is anything approaching consensus. --Leifern 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information: What is the POV which is "being pushed"? Midgley 09:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that there is no increased incidence of autism, that environmental factors can't possibly play a role, etc. --Leifern 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind us ... (I've just produced an article about the incidence of autism which last time I looked said it had increased ten fold in America, and includes suggestions that breeding from nerds might account for the clusters in high tech areas, so I'm wondering how one reads them thus). Any procedural reason not to use fact tags in an rfa? Midgley 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insert tags into someone else's entry, it looks like the person who made the comment put them in there. It's considered a hostile act, much like deleting comments on your Talk page or impersonating another user, or sockpuppetry. The nerd theory is probably the most speculative theory I have heard about autism - I would highly recommend that you study this matter before you start writing articles about it. --Leifern 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The nerd theory occupies 5 lines of Autism epidemic, an article of which Leifern is one of the editors and clearly is interested in. I agree that it is speculative. A mention of it survives in Autism (Incidence) - in a sentence. The criticism above is aimed perfectly in the wrong direction! And uncivil. Midgley 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further and better information please. You state an opinion and ascribe it to me above - ^{[citation needed]} - demonstrate it to be mine. The innuendo is undoubtedly WP:NPA and irrelevant to this rfa.Midgley 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such things can be added to Causes of autism and Autism (Incidence) if found useful. --Rdos 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream literature is just catching up with what is known. There are a couple of studies, Laidler (2005) and Shattuck (2006). But even the staff of California DDS is aware of certain characteristics in the data very suggestive of a lack of epidemic. Additional details can be found here. Neurodivergent 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into Autism (Incidence). The issue of an autism epidemic is POV. It should absolutely not be merged into Autism. --Rdos 04:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interference with comments. user:Ombudsman has yet again edited my comment[50]. The edit was to remove the quote marks making it clear the order of events, and thus substantially adding to the possibility someone reading it would be misled as to what I meant. The edit summary was "minor refactoring". In every rfa I recall which has both Ombudsman's and my comments in it, Ombudsman has edited someone else's comments. Taken to extremes this would render the cooperative process unworkable. In this instance it is highly objectionable. Midgley 08:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Midgley somehow has two almost identical versions at virtually the same moment, and an edit conflict resulted in a simple cut and paste of Midgley's earlier version. Generally speaking, responding to Midgley's relentless, cacophonous, dubious assertions only causes more problems, as is likely to happen again here. The option of severe moderation in responding to Midgley and Jfd has been adopted as the guiding principle of choice. Ombudsman 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no possible explanation for the edit with summary as above and explanation given here other than as I said, Ombudsman edited my comment. In the same edit he added "comment" to Leifern's ... comment ... which I can't see any reason for any of us to object to, except on principle, but he also removed the quotes which I felt it necessary to add, half an hour before that edit. I am unable to understand how "virtually the same moment" and an edit conflict resulting in a simple cut and paste could account for this single individual instance, but... if it did then a more reasonable response would be along the lines of "I'm very sorry I inadvertently copied your previous omment over your current one". That is not the meaning offered as explanation. Out of band, would anyone care to join in an RFC that Ombudsman be enjoined from ever editing any comment by anyone else again? It seems proportionate. Midgley 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The minor refactoring simply prefaced comment and an extra indent to distinguish two contrasting comments that looked like they were running together. Leaving a tab open for a half hour and then re-examining is hardly unusual; the inadvertant removal of extraneous and not easily noticed noticed formatting is not a molehill that an average editor would try to build a mountain with. Then again, just ask John, Leifern or the original invisible anon if the above is typical of Midgley. Please, try to concentrate on building the Wiki instead of constantly stirring up rubbish. Ombudsman 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish" twice, rather than some more civil response, followed by innuendo and a direct personal attack. The response is simply untrue, and visibly so. Ombudsman removed, as I wrote above, quotation marks from my comment. "followed" is different from followed, particularly when it is pointing out that the order of events is the opposite of what was suggested. It is perfectly clear from the edit history, and Ombudsman begins to look as though he is not asking for help finding it, but rather lying about having made that alteration. I repeat, that in several other afd discussions, Ombudsman has altered comments by other editors. This is not regarded as generally acceptable. Ombudsman, are you about to tell us that you failed to either remember or see the alteration now? Or apologise? Midgley 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge with autism(incidence) The title alone is POV Gleng 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism/incidence is an article created specifically as part of an effort to undermine the content in this matter. --Leifern 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeated now; is now more specific and extensive; is an assertion; is incorrect; is unknowable by its author and therefore opinion; does not relate to the merits of the article of which this is the rfa; violates WP:AGF; suggests WP:OWN for the whole of autism. The content of the article a rather large proportion of those expressing an opinion propose to delete is, rather than undermined, erected upon a shaky pedestal. Autism (Incidence) is an article containing only (I hope) material about the incidence of autism, a problem of some difficulty and interest about which my interest is slight, impersonal and entirely neutral. I dislike the personal attacks and ad hominum irrelevancies which a small minority of respondents are bringing here. Midgley 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgley, you throw around accusations of policies and rules but have nothing to back up these accusations with. Autism/incidence was written just around the time this article was nominated for deletion, and I don't think it's a coincidence - you cited it yourself in the opening hours of this nomination. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate your assertion that I "own" all of autism. I too have expressed reservations about the title of the article, but the remedy for that is that we rename/move it. The article you want to delete is full of source citations, goes to great lengths to outline the controversy, and presents both sides of the controversy fairly. I find your assertion that you have a slight, impersonal, and entirely netural point of view laughable. I would like to propose that if this article is deleted, then you'll join me in nominating Anti-vaccinationist for deletion, which has all the cited shortcomings in this article, and then some. I mean, that would speak really well of your intellectual integrity, wouldn't it? --Leifern 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccinationist doesn't contain unsubstantiated information about the nature of autism. --Rdos 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism/incidence seems to be much less specific and a lot less POV than the idea of and "epidemic", which is not supported by any reasonable research. --Rdos 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leiferns description of my opinions is incorrect. It is unclear what it might be based on and I note that fact (tag)s should not be inserted and have been removed. The rest of the editors who have indicated they see deficiencies in the article - Autism epidemic and/or that the wholly derivative ("before you write about it" therefore not applying) stripped down derivative Autism (incidence) has any slight merit will note that their opinion is dismissed. Leifern's description of the process of production, as well as the motives, is incorrect - I have noted the times which were in the histories near the top of this rfa. Some of the comments here are directed at the rfa, and some are disruptive, I suggest the closing admin takes note of both. Midgley 17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. JFW has voted twice above for rename, even if the second vote is not completely highlighted. --Rdos 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the second vote. It was made after I'd presumed the first one had gone unsaved due to problems with the wiki. Thanks for pointing it out. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The following peer reviewed papers demonstrate there is such a thing as an "autism epidemic" even if the allopathic lobby on Wikipedia want to suppress all reference to it. Such a term has a place in Wikipedia as an article in its own right. If people want to refer to the "autism epidemic" this page is needed for them to see what it is all about.

It is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA [Increases in Identified Cases of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Trudy Steuernagel, Kent State University JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 3/2005 138].

The Steuernagel paper very early on quotes the AAP "there is no disputing the fact that autism now affects a significant number of people in this country (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001)" and refers throughout to autism as epidemic. The paper commences by quoting Time magazine on the issue because it has become so important with so many Americans now seriously affected. Also early on the paper states "The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the development of policies to address the autism epidemic". This paper is all the more significant because it is sceptical of the autism/vaccines/mercury neuro-toxin connection.

This paper says in no uncertain terms "Autism is NOW a big problem. What the hell are we going to do about it?" and sets out to address the policy to be adopted to what it refers throughout as the autism epidemic. And it does so whilst acknowledging what is becoming a rear-guard fight to downplay the problem by the medical profession (the seeming overseers of the epidemic, if, as many believe, it is caused by vaccinations). It is also scholarly, well-read and evidence-based, quoting evidence and other authority for the proposition.

And here is a Pediatrics paper on the same broad point:-

National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD*, Matthew D. Falb, MHS* and James G. Gurney, PhD - Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland Divisions of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota - Pediatrics Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. e277-e282 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1958.)

The authors say:-

The drastic increase in the prevalence of the autism classification presents a major challenge to the nation’s special education service systems and is one that has already triggered responses from federal, state, and local agencies.32

"It has been suggested that increased substitution of autism for mental retardation3 and/or language impairment27 diagnoses might be accounting for some of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. If this substitution occurred with special education classifications, then increases in autism prevalence with subsequent birth cohorts would be accompanied by decreases in mental retardation and/or speech/language impairment prevalences. As shown in Fig 1, mental retardation prevalence shows no birth cohort effect; in other words, there is no suggestion that prevalence is decreasing (or increasing) among younger cohorts. The cohort curves overlap to reproduce faithfully the shape of a cross-sectional curve of prevalence according to age (curve not shown). Trends with age are as expected for mental retardation, with prevalence increasing steadily through age 8 and then leveling."

"Similarly, the curves for speech/language impairment indicate no cohort differences. The patterns with respect to age are as expected. At young ages, speech/language impairment prevalence is many times higher than that of autism; however, prevalence decreases dramatically from age 7 to age 17 years. The decrease in the prevalence of speech and language impairment is likely a result of children losing this disability category classification, which is expected to occur to a greater extent for this category (ie, in cases of articulation disorders and dysfluency that resolve with time), compared with the other categories."

"The curves for other health impairments are notable for 2 reasons, ie, because this is the disability classification that typically includes children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and because there are strong cohort differences. Prevalence is higher for successive birth cohorts, with the greatest annual increases occurring between the 1980 and 1984 birth cohorts. Within cohorts, the prevalence of other health impairments increases sharply through 11 years of age, with the rate of increase gradually decreasing in successive years."

The issue here is nothing to do with the autism epidemic. This is the allopathic medical lobby on Wikipedia trying yet again to delete anything that shows how their version of medicine is causing great harm. Keep on doing this because it demonstrates very clearly that you cannot answer the arguments nor can you deal with the facts and issues. The end result is that you do your best to suppress the facts and here the usual people can be seen working hard at it on Wikipedia. People are turning off allopathic medicine in droves. Trust is earnt and here distrust is being earnt instead. I note the usual individuals appear here as always Midgley, JFW, Fyslee etc. etc. And if Midgley continues to behave as he has elsewhere no doubt the usual admins will bail him out again.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are many comments here which have nothing to do with (the) Autism epidemic. User above has no vote because the appearance of a user ID he presents is in fact a cover over an IP address. It may be the same user and there is some consistency, but it is I understand established that IP addresses do not normally get a vote counted. (Oh! He didn't cast a vote, just abused three users and some unidentified admins and sopaboxed). The issue here, for those in doubt, is writing an encyclopaedia, full of good articles encyclopaedic in nature if not in spelling ("encyclopedic") and to the standard of WP:GA if not WP:FA and empty of bad articles. I'm pleased to say that the efforts of several other users on the incidenceblank I stamped out of the epidemic billet have turned it into something looking close to WP:GA now. The expressed judgements that the epidemic article is good have not met general agreement.

Comment on behaviour There are several users behaving badly here, and I'm not one of them. I do think considerable licence has been extended over a period and a range to those others, and that this has accompanied a worsening. But I'm not an admin. Midgley 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reminiscent of the anti-vaccinationist dispute, it seems that the title may be driving part of the dispute. Whether or not an epidemic actually is occurring (v. better appreciation/awareness of the disorder leading to new diagnoses) is worth mentioning, but the title does implies a POV. Andrew73 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete too POV (is it a POV fork?) and should be part of autism (actually there is a similar section). Alternatively merge some into Autism_(Incidence). David D. (Talk) 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autism is a terrible disease. When I was growing up, a neighbor had a severely autistic daughter, so I've seen now horrifying it can be, and I have enormous sympathy for anybody who has an autistic child. Still, it is clear that wikipedia is being used as a soap box. I'm not exactly sure what cause is being promoted, but the number of articles contained in List of autism-related topics (this being just one of them) make it clear that somebody has some agenda that they're trying to push. Here's an example of a typical agenda-pushing statement; The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased significantly in recent years. If you're going to assert statistical significance, show some math (if my recollection of statistics is correct, I think we're talking the chi-square test). One of the references' abstracts ends with These data suggest that improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism; whether there has also been a true increase in incidence is not known. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the avoidance of doubt let me say that at least until this evening* there was not one word in Autism (Incidence) which did not get there by being left behind when the rest of a copy of Autism epidemic was deleted from around it. The description of the risen incidence of autism as epidemic (adj.) has been in there from the start, and is as much as you need really, why take a page over a word when you can put numbers in instead and let people know what the incidecen is? Even if the deletion was over-enthusiastic (and I think the reverse is true, that I was too conservative in not throwing out stuff that should be, fortunately collaboration has followed and improved it) there is nothing actually different to merge in. It is in fact a fork, although it is the sort of fork that involves picking out one topic from a collection in an article, and discarding all the others in order to leave a focussed and leaner article. Replacing the epidemic article with the article on incidence - viewed as a candidate rewrite for it from the start along with its renaming - has always been a perfectly good possibility, if people want to do it, but they are two separate articles at present, this is an rfa on one of them on its merits, and we may well get the cahnce to debate an rfa on Autism (Incidence) any moment now. I've been tempted to copy a few remarks out of here and put it up for rfa myself, but instead I think I'll propose it for GA. Or both? * Now there are a couple of boxes I like, they are by me, and are my work... Midgley 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & some rewording/restyling & POV balance (not keep as is, nor delete). - current article contains arguments cited for & against possible increasing rates and that evidence inconlusive re cause (e.g. Russia banned thimerosal yet still increase). However I don't think the majority accept an "epidemic" either in terms of absolute incidence or of rate increasing numbers. NPOV requires fair inclusion of the minority, but that does not have to take precidence over the majority. As in wikipedia's own article Epidemic's definition: a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected", and notes: Defining an epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is "expected". So stating that autism is an epidemic is "subjective" (1 in 86, to 1 in 150, figures seem quoted in article, which at approx 1% seems to me significant, but not an epidemic). No one can dispute that autism has an incidence, nor that this incidence has increased since autism was first described. Autism incidence is perhaps a little bland and Autism incidence debate is perhaps more literally what the article covers; i.e. both measured rates and discussion/disagreements over their interpretation & significance. I think a merger into Autism would be quite wrong - that article is already quite long and is better as an introduction to the topic and related issues. Autism quite rightly already directs to sub-topics that expand on individual themes, e.g. Autistic spectrum, Autism therapies, Autistic community, autistic savant, so why not to incidence ? Issues of incidence are critically important, especially with how concerns have been raised over whether the introducion of some vaccines is partially contributable. The topic is too large to include in one Autism article and has too much interesting info on rates in different countries. However all that information by area makes for a very long list - would reformating some of the smaller entries into a table (or least a bulleted list) rather than the padded paragraphs separated by sub-section headers, neaten the article ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From James D. Christiansen, a new member of Wikipedia, noted this article under consideration for deletion, should be kept, as I believe from review of other documentation related to I. L. Gerlovin applications in biophysics and biological sciences, has relevance to the theory objected to, and this would delete real discussion of PEP and other CERN physical sciences interests in such items relevant to medical education, and scientific applications and contributions to the entirety of human knowledge and education, history of Science. Alumni, University of California, Riverside.

For links and related items by me on Gerlovin theory and jimjen coding, see my personal website on subject here. Jim Christiansen 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed: Welcome. Thank you for that very interesting contribution which, having looked at the page given as a link, I find I do not understand. I'm actually wondering if this comment is in the wrong rfa discussion. Midgley 09:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable content into Autism (Incidence). --Limegreen 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or add redirect, for Epidemiology of Autism, per JFW. This article can help keep a massive load of speculation off of the autism article and yet allow exploration and development of the reasoning and data, pro & con, about various possible causes of the "explosion". Clearly "a work in progress," I think this AfD topic is of large public concern and should be kept. Generally, I would prefer a more concise and focused main Autism article anyway by having this separate article. I also view the alternate late starter, Autism (incidence), coupled with an AfD request, an ugly form of POV pushing. --66.58.130.26 13:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of _what_ point of view? I can see why the epidemic article and various others have languished, if any attempt to produce a large improvement receives such hostility. I do not think that making those edits in place would have met with appreciation either, so they had to be somewhere else. If someone thinks that autism (Incidence) should be in a different namespace then they should put it there. If anyone thinks it should not exist then the remedy is to afd it. As I've written before, if it is pushing a POV, then, given that the starting point was the verifiable content on incidence, what POV is it that is supposed to be being pushed in it? Midgley 22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A *calm*, serious discussion in the article that compares and contrasts disputed facts, interpretations and speculations about a high stakes, ill defined area where an authoritative answer is way premature. Spirited, tedious, even annoyed talk pages are likely. Need dialogue without the total breakdowns that have continuely occurred over outside doubts about the compelling net benefits of vaccines & public policy, as some previous editors here will recall. In Autism (Incidence), the hypotheses of causation (list of causation topics still incomlete?) are deleted en masse - I think they should remain, be discussed and edited at length until some kind of NPOV construction and agreement is reached, even if the article looks bimodal/bipolar in some places ("agreed disagreement") Even if the autism count is a combination of artifacts and fads. And appropriately sourced may be different than "verified" in the opinion of some editors. --66.58.130.26 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to epidemiology of autism per JFW, remove most of the vaccine scaremongering. Rhobite 04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea. Since autism is not a disease, and epidemiology implies a disease is present, the whole concept is incorrect and POV. The term incidence or prevalence is much better. Additionally, there is already another article, Causes of autism, and if such reasoning should be made in conjunction with autism incidence, it should be there and not in a separate article. --Rdos 10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was as of that above. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double vision[edit]

Additional comment On reflection, I see possible merit to two specialty articles under a stable Autism parent article, one article a hard quantitative and definitions article (epidemiology or incidence of...), the other article more directly addressing individually listed social concerns, hypotheses, speculation, politics and policy trends ("epidemic"). The definitional effects of naming are important here - epidemiology and incidence don't quite have the scope right for "epidemic". One recurring point is that Autism (incidence) is consistent with a POV fork. There may be significant utility in two complementary (ahem, even if antagonistic) articles: one a "straight" discussion of definitions and epidemiogy/incidence of autism, the other "epidemic" article including the implications and hypotheses of causation - sliced, diced and utterly minced.

I think this latter "epidemic" article is important beyond the ever lurking (and clashing) medical controversies and public policy questions. Of course the "epidemic" part presumes a real nonzero rise in incidence but the subject is also a reflection of the unanswered questions and doubts in the public mind. Rather than simple stern denials or silence, cumulative address of questions/fears properly deposed, analyzed, weighted, cited and balanced is a more informative, useful way. On an individual level, there are a lot of issues that ordinary citizens/parents want to see discussed in real time with some detail. They are not looking for mere repetition of what government position has been adopted, often with varying degrees of ex cathedra stmts, "official science" or finally some accurately detailed article (oops) after multigenerational studies, if ever. I think the technical, actuarial article would suffer less dilution and edit warring while the ongoing speculative subtopics could be better addressed, individually with more reassuring detail, on a cumulative basis in an "epidemic" article. Can this be abused? Yes, of course - the forking issue. But it actually addresses two overlapping audiences with much different objectives and might avoid some of the vitriolic confrontation in a struggle for priority from different perspectives. "Is too" - "is not" arguments often involve multiple factors and (as yet) unknown facts/data that turn out differently anyway (i.e. 5% is the economic rise of superior programmers rather than 5% vaccine damage, vice versa or both, with 20% - 80% definitional and xx% "we still simply don't know"). Perhaps evolving two articles is a better way forward. After my initial pique with Adrian, I may be validating his article, too. Epidemiology of autism for solid definitional and data issues; autism "epidemic", hopefully better renamed, to track hypotheses, fears, speculation, trends, policies as the story evolves. (I already voted, above) --66.58.130.26 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree to this idea. This would be a one-sided POV fork in that case. If people allow a speculative article of an autism epidemic, which has been described as OR, it also must allow the existence of The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. The latter article enjoys just as much support among autistics as the vaccine / toxin / epidemic view enjoys among parents. --Rdos 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Autism epidemic and Autism (incidence) have aspects of content forking. About half of the epidemic article is already covered (albeit with a different slant) on Causes of autism. I don't agree with the idea of having one article for the scientific/medical-establishment and one for the others. The article you seem to desire, with its "deposed, analyzed, weighted" would necessarily contain original research. Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism. People come to an encyclopedia for the established facts, not speculation or opinion. If I want to read the latest ungrounded speculation, I'll buy a newspaper. Colin°^Talk 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Utah Grizzlies. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Grizzlies (ECHL)[edit]

redundant of Utah Grizzlies ccwaters 22:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Hetar 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there are two teams called the Utah Grizzlies, so we should keep them both and make Utah Grizzlies into a disambig page. --Bachrach44 19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:SportsMasterESPN#Page Blanking. Regardless of how they are finally named: There are 2 franchises and there should be 2 articles.The 2 articles I nominated were created needlessly. I have objections to calling the AHL/IHL article simply Utah Grizzlies (AHL) because that ignores the IHL history. That why I originally disambiged it by dates. If you think Utah Grizzlies (IHL/AHL) is better, so be it. ccwaters 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SportsMasterESPN has blanked that portion of his talk page. Here's a link to the discussion via the page history: [51]. -- JLaTondre 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 articles on the Utah Grizzlies. Utah Grizzlies & Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) both cover the same ECHL team. Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) & Utah Grizzlies (AHL) also cover the same AHL/IHL team (though the Utah Grizzlies (AHL) version looks like a copy of the Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) one that's only been partially changed so it still has information on the ECHL team). To resolve this, I recommend Utah Grizzlies be turned into a disambig page, Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) be kept (with a merge of any needed info that's currently in Utah Grizzlies), Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) be kept, and Utah Grizzlies (AHL) be redirected to Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005). I haved voted the same at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utah Grizzlies (AHL). -- JLaTondre 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with JLaTondre on this.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005). – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Grizzlies (AHL)[edit]

redundant of Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) ccwaters 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nominator is mistaken. One is the original AHL/IHL team, the other is the team in the ECHL. They should probably both be renamed, with Utah Grizzlies (AHL) becoming Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) and Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) becoming Utah Grizzlies (AHL), but I'm reluctant to do that now because it'll really confuse the afd process by giving a different article the name of the article up for AFD. --Bachrach44 19:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:SportsMasterESPN#Page Blanking. Regardless of how they are finally named: There are 2 franchises and there should be 2 articles.The 2 articles I nominated were created needlessly. I have objections to calling the AHL/IHL article simply Utah Grizzlies (AHL) because that ignores the IHL history. That why I originally disambiged it by dates. If you think Utah Grizzlies (IHL/AHL) is better, so be it. ccwaters 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SportsMasterESPN has blanked that portion of his talk page. Here's a link to the discussion via the page history: [52]. -- JLaTondre 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 articles on the Utah Grizzlies. Utah Grizzlies & Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) both cover the same ECHL team. Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) & Utah Grizzlies (AHL) also cover the same AHL/IHL team (though the Utah Grizzlies (AHL) version looks like a copy of the Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) one that's only been partially changed so it still has information on the ECHL team). To resolve this, I recommend Utah Grizzlies be turned into a disambig page, Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) be kept (with a merge of any needed info that's currently in Utah Grizzlies), Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) be kept, and Utah Grizzlies (AHL) be redirected to Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005). I haved voted the same at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utah Grizzlies (ECHL). -- JLaTondre 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with JLaTondre on this.--Mike Selinker 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDB Totalpartner[edit]

Non-notable company. Only 118 unique Googles. I PRODded it, but the author removed the tag. King of Hearts ^talk 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert, no claim to notability. ~MDD 46 96 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adcruft nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adding an article about a company whose homepage says only 'Under construction' is bad for business Gu 10:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination is withdrawn with no deletion votes yet. Stifle 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Wynn[edit]

~~Delete~~. Contents is "The first pirate who flew the Skull'n'Crossbones." Because that's not an assertion of notability, I applied {{db-bio}}, which was removed by another user, who thinks it surely is, see my talk page. Let AfD decide. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they can find more on him other than, the semi-sentence(It doesn't have a period) already there, and make it into a stub, very weak keep.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 00:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not be a whole lot of information, but it is verifiable. I think there might be a slight possibility for being improved - strangely enough, putting it up here is the most likely way for any improvements to be made and it not just being a stub that sits in the dust for years. SECProto 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the worst kind of nomination. No good reason given for deletion. Instead of reaching for the delete button, a moment's research would have enabled you to expand this article. Stop trying to undo other's hard work, and contribute something constructive! For great justice. 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that bad, FGJ. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the first pirate to fly the Jolly Roger is an assertion of notability, and, if that's verifiable, would warrant having an article for him. --Metropolitan90 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article as written now has enough information and historical interest to warrant a keep. Kuru ^talk 04:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I vote Keep. Monicasdude 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I now change my vote and revoke the nomination. The article has been sufficiently expanded. Thank you AfD. Thank you very much, Monicasdude. Speedy Keep Please. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Not on a cosmic scale, ;) but it is pretty much the worst thing (apart from outright vandalism) that you could do on Wikipedia. Not only do you not spend your time actually writing articles or improving them, but you tie up other editors time who could also be writing or editing. For great justice. 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel Wars[edit]

Song isn't notable enough to warrant its own article; in the U.S. at least, it did not reach the Top 40. Article appears to simply be a pro-atheism commentary with little other substance. Bumm13 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with album article. Wasn't a big hit, but it did have an extended mix done of it, and I can't see a reason not to explain what it means, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't mentioned in Gary Numan, and it's got a fairly long list of singles. Eivind ^t ^@^c 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with album article. Non-notable song. -- P199 18:01, 1 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!
King of Hearts ^talk 00:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete popcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has nothing to do with deletion, and the article is verifiable. For great justice. 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blnguyen. --Khoikhoi 06:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the record, I'm the bloke who created the article for this song's parent album, Exile, as well as many other Numan releases. This article was already in existence when I did the album but I didn't see a reason to put it up for deletion then because it appeared to have some interesting info even though I don't think most commentators would see it as a notable song in the Numan catalogue. Yes there's an extended version but the whole album came out in an extended version so no big deal there; also it was never a single. More importantly, having researched a bit further, it appears that practically all the content in the song article is flawed or redundant. Angel Wars: Guardian Force seems to have been released in 2004, seven years after Numan wrote his song so if that's the case then obviously he wasn't 'taking off' the movie with the song! The rest of the stuff on his 'vocal atheism' is covered extensively in the Exile article and elsewhere, including his Wikipedia bio. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 05:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaj[edit]

non-notable biography Kevin McE 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable architect.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 00:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. ~MDD 46 96 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability.Tagged.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Thomas (trAce)[edit]

Vanity page created by subject [53]. True that Google returns a fairish number of hits but they are of predominantly poor quality -- blogs and so forth; many seem like relentless self-promotion. She did manage to get a one-line mention in NYT Books but the same could be said of any published author with a stroke of luck. No awards. Delete. John Reid 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she is the professor at a University, although it appears to be a weak university and her field of professorship appears somewhat dodgy.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. For great justice. 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userpage, per Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:Vanity. A tricky one because there is borderline evidence of notability- but if this is retained where it is it will be a keep of the most reluctant, hand-wringing, throw arms to the heavens in desperation kind. I should point out that being a professor at a university is not in itself sufficient to ensure notability, although I guess it helps. More important is that she started her own article (ie presumably no-one else thought she was notable enough) and any recogniton as a writer. Badgerpatrol 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly tolerate a move to user namespace. John Reid 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League Freak[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Dont delete it! League Freak Owns Me! - Toronto Giant

Dont Delete - this is a superb biography of an internet legend.

Dont Delete - the guy is an absolute legend and deserves his own wikipedia page

Delete - Delete this pricks Wiki page.

Dont Delete - he's awesome & very famous in the RL world. So f*ck off you nobbish "delete" people.

Dont Delete A well known personality. It all seems up to date. Think its probably personal problems iwth the person rather than a real Wikipedia problem thats driving this push to get this page deleted.

It shouldn't be deleted... If you wish to verify the information in the article then visit various Rugby League forums.

Delete- He is non-notable, has a very vain page, and is not, unlike the page states, dead. This was a childish April Fool's day joke he played on his website. Thus I feel this page qualifies for deletion James Bowes 09:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn-bio. MLA 10:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By definition, an anonymous character can have no piece of information about him verified, and there is no way of knowing whether any opinion purporting to come from LF (other than on their own website) is from the original character or an imitator. Kevin McE 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly is not notable. Why do people keep doing this? 82.36.107.54 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any sources for any of the "news" or claims on the page. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio of an unknown person Imarek 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete read this and see what you think: http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=553&mforum=leaguefreak

Don't Delete all true entertaining guy: Youane

Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very vain page which if you read the RLFans website you will know if full of errors. BalearicCrazy 08:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy as nn-bio Computerjoe 's talk 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as there's no reasonable defence so far and poating on a rugby league forum is not notable as there are thousands of people that do likewise

Don't delete. I can honestly say he's one of the very few Leaguies worth reading. Of course its vain inglorious nonsense, but so what. Enjoy it for what it is. The man's a freak.

Delete The guy is an ill informed tool - Mixmasterreece

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