Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 8[edit]

Cheap cd[edit]

This page is an advertisement. Meccaneer 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)meccaneer[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 - non-notable / vanity / advert. Dforest 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Obvious advert. Appropriate Username 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable and, most especially, content spam. jerd 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert -- Samir (the scope) 06:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mango juice^talk 11:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This should have been speedied as spam. Its honestly a waste to even go through process.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a blatant advertisement and spam. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dis-Connection[edit]

You know, this article is clearly by someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and wikicode. Because unlike most webcomic fangush entries, this is actually a good article on the subject. It fails on a few points however, the article is written by the webcomic artist, a User:Metal-Geo. The website has been online for less than 2 months, and the Alexa ranking is almost 2 million. - Hahnch e n 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn vanity. Royboy crashfan 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 01:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity --Icarus 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/neutral doesn't look particularly notable b/c of how new it is, but could improve Amcfreely 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to keep because it's a nice looking article, but Google turns up 352 resultsl for "dis-connection webcomic" and the Alexa ranking is only 1,850,785 T K E 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, set out on my own with the alexa. Per nom! T K E 05:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article seems OK. Luka Jačov 09:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Semms OK to me, but becuase of its newness... Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, but a damn nice use of wiki, almost sad to delete... we need a "save this until popular" option... Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Project Webcomics already moves these to Comixpedia and links to them via interwiki Comixpedia:. Spiffy --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete unlike the other two web comics, I would be more inclined to delete this one, only because it was JUST launched.Roodog2k 13:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a good article filled with useful infomation. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Weak Delete. Site age much more than alexa rankings make me thinks this should probably be deleted. Alexa rankings seem a bit problemmatic to me due to various reasons and the article is well written. Web-comics in general seem to be inherantly non-notable, and this one doesn't really seem to rise above the crowd. Tombride 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (second edit to properly add my signature)[reply]
Keep Seems good. --estavisti 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good article, bad subject. Non-notable. Should be on the Dis-Connection homepage, not WP. NTK 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ςerbiana ♫ 21:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Has no outside references. Also appears to be vanity, considering the amount of information written about how the comic's artist saves files as backups on an external hard drive, which file format they are in, etc. -- Dragonfiend 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nifboy 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If webcomics are notable enough to be on wikipedia at all, what's the reason to delete this one? Short time of existence? Whats the limit then - 6 months, year, 2 years? It's nitpicking. Webcomics should be on Comixpedia, but until they are not moved completely there I see no reason to delete this one. SpeedyGonsales 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, I don't believe longevity equals notability at any point. If a garage band soldiers on for twenty years, they do not suddenly belong in an encyclopedia. The same goes for people that post things on the internet. For some guidelines on what may separate notable from non-notable webcomics, see WP:WEB. This article contains nothing which distinguishes this webcomic from a million others -- it's simply another webcomic, created with art supplies, which has characters and a story. -- Dragonfiend 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Damirux 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yrithinnd 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Emijrp 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, it's just a webcomic. Not Dilbert. BTW, the reason I came here:

Dialogue on #wikipedia-de

<Yatxov> wer hat account am englische wikipedia?

<Yatxov>I need a vote

greetings from german wikipedia where votes don't count on AfD but only arguments. --Elian ^Talk 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see difference in significance between Garfield and this comics; as well as "significance" is inherently POV; as well as I can use harder words for that kind of measuring. And, yes, I would like to know scientific method for measuring significance; and what is "significance" by defitinition? and what is the relation between "significance" and science and one scientific encyclopedia? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Djordjes (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; give it time, and try again. --VKokielov 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a formed block, and that this formed block is a recognizable pattern. Now I'll tell you why the Serbs and the Croats are voting keep, to allay any deep suspicions. There exists a very real possibility that to delete this kind of article is counter-productive. Inasfar as it is a "vanity" article, it ought to be restricted; but to delete it is to shove a wrench into the niche of Wikipedia which is kept open to such things from the Internet culture. Impose your criteria here, and you will be made to impose them over articles on every other website you can imagine, not to mention freeware programs. It seems to me -- and maybe I'm only highlighting my limited ability to understand the Internet and the people who inhabit here -- it seems to me that Wikipedia is in a special communion with the web society, and that Wikipedia is in debt with this communion to this society. --VKokielov 05:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this webcomic may have potential, and perhaps in time it will merit an article. It's not reached that point yet, though. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Universe[edit]

Is this a notable website? Is it a notable webcomic? You can have a look here and the answer should be a resounding no. Their forums house 70 members, and Alexa has never heard of them. This is one of many non-notable webcomics currently residing at Wikipedia, let's put a stop to it. - Hahnch e n 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What's with the webcomics? Royboy crashfan 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 01:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn. 64.252.205.34 03:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close NTK 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what's with all the webcomics? --Deville (Talk) 05:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment What have you got against webcomics? Hackwrench 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is now not notable. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm not sure if its fair to measure notability for this kind of subject matter with Alexia and Google. Roodog2k 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I'm not sure how else to measure notability of anything on the web. In any case, surely the burden of proof is with those who assert its notability. In the absense of such proof, we can only assume that it is non-notable. Bucketsofg 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roodog2k. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can make an argument that this is in fact notable Bucketsofg 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentI tend to think most works of literature of a certain length are notable. Hackwrench 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcomics are one of the few instances where google and alexia are exactly how you gauge its popularity . . . --He:ah? 19:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Funnybunny 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the article, and the site's archives, this comic has been running consistently for about three years. The site's author updates it three times a week. According to its stats page, it averages several hundred visits per update. This is a notable body of work. HuntyrGreen 23:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Longevety is not notability. "Several hundred hits" means next to nothing; millions of sites have several hundred hits. Nifboy 02:34, 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. SushiGeek 05:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to 11.975MHz[edit]

This webcomic has appeared on Wikipedia since December 2004, you can find the webcomic here. For a website which has been established for 3 years, you'd expect there to be more than 53 Google hits, and maybe a better Alexa rank than 2.8 million. This is not a notable webcomic. - Hahnch e n 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well sourced nom. Royboy crashfan 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: nn web comic. --Hetar 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Icarus 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn. 64.252.205.34 03:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm not sure if its fair to measure notability for this kind of subject matter with Alexia and Google. Roodog2k 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roodog2k. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. This webcomic has a large readership from the US Marine Corps, the non-North American anime community, and others who have direct links to the site. Concur with Roodog2k above that making a decision based on Alexa/Google is a poor argument. Wohali 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep per nom"? Do you realise that "per nom" means "for the same reasons as the nominator gave"? The nominator voted to delete, you cannot "keep per nom". Stifle (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If the site has an Alexa ranking pushing 3 million, and Google hasn't heard of it, the evidence is lacking that it has a "large readership" within the USMC or any other community. Occam's Razor suggests that it just doesn't have a particularly large readership, and is in any event NN. RGTraynor 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just Alexa and Google. There needs to be a positive reason why this comic is notable. None has been proffered. The "large readership" claim is unsupported. NTK 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Wohali. --awh (Talk) 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that a search for Listening to 11.975 does provide about 675 results. --awh (Talk) 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the exact same link as I gave in the nomination, and gives 53 unique hits and 289 non unique hits. - Hahnch e n 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nifboy 02:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hetar. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 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 delete. — FireFox • T [20:59, 10 April 2006]

Sticks and Stones (webcomic)[edit]

This webcomic, found here has been online for just over 6 months. The website has an Alexa rank of around 800,000. A google for "Sticks and Stones" would obviously bring back millions of hits, so I tried a search for "Sticks and Stones" "Jordan Neufeld" search (Neufeld being the author), and it came back with 9 hits. Now the search wasn't exactly scientific, but 9 hits? I don't think that's notable. - Hahnch e n 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a directory of webcomics, for pete's sake! Only notable ones should have entries. --Icarus 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn webcomic Amcfreely 03:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webcomic, per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn.--Jersey Devil 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:40, 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. — FireFox • T [20:59, 10 April 2006]

Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism[edit]

As far as I can tell, this page is promotion for a marginal esoteric Buddhist group. A lot of the information on this page is accurate, but not specific to this group; rather, it is describing Chinese tantric Buddhism in general. A google search for "Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism" turns up a couple official sites followed immediately by the Wikipedia article. This modern group might be an interesting subject for an article, but, unfortunately, the article as it exists gives us no context about them. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No vote from me, but just a couple things to consider. A google search for "中國漢傳密宗". Which is shown as the chinese name for the subject of the article yield considerably more results. However, I could be searching "cute kittens" for all I know. Also, does notability in the chinese speaking world make it notable in the english speaking world? Just some thoughts. Tombride 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. "中國漢傳密宗" translates literally as "Chinese Han tradition (or transmission) esoteric (or secret) sect". It would be a bit labour-intensive for me to take a close look at the google results, but it's worth noting that the top hit is a userpage on the Chinese Wikipedia, followed by two official pages of this group. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case delete. Notability doesn't seem to exist here. Tombride 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grudgingly, as per Nat's analysis. --He:ah? 19:36, 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 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Tamir[edit]

Dosn't seem to me as a notable person, othervise it seems lika an copyvio, but I can't assert that _→AzaToth 00:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Knesset member is roughly equivalent to a US Senator. He deserves a (cleaned up) article. gwernol 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep for so many reasons. Royboy crashfan 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a member of the Knesset is enough. Can anyone clean up the article?Montco 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — all data seems to be talken from here (http://rajbhavanorissa.gov.in/biodata.htm), is it copyvio then? _→AzaToth 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because information came from a real source doesn't mean it's a copyvio, especially if the information is stuff like who he is and what he has done in public life. In fact, that there is a source is a very positive thing for this article. A copyvio in this instance would be if all the wording and formatting were exactly the same, since the information is so basic and simple. Mak (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was based on perhaps a more recent version of the article than the one you were referring to, which may have verged on copyvio. Mak (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows better, isn't copywrite limited to extended text? I.e., a phrase can be trademarked but not copywrited; isn't this article an example of a similar situation? T K E 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw information is not copyrightable.BehroozZ 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I'll try to clean it up a bit. dbtfz ^talk 02:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A member of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, is a notable person .--Dakota ~ ° 02:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a member of the Knesset is like a senator or member of parliament. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DakotaKahn. YellowPigNowNow 05:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, there should of course be at least a stub on every member of the Knesset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deville (talk • contribs)
Keep Valuable and relevant information.BehroozZ 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per equivalency stated by gwernol Kuru ^talk 15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keeps above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-08 17:58Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [20:59, 10 April 2006]

Alice Marie Spence-Bagley[edit]

Non-notable Georgia socialite and minor philantropist, otherwise unremarkable. This isn't the Atlanta Journal-Constitution obit page. Calton | Talk 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. One Ghit for "Alice Spence-Bagley" and that's Wikipedia. 3 Ghits for "Alice Marie Spence-Bagley", but again, all Wikipedia. Royboy crashfan 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable. Like the nominator said, wikipedia isn't for run-of-the-mill obituaries. --Icarus 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure she's a very nice lady, but her accomplishments seem rather locally confined. We can't have 10 billion biographies. NTK 04:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 86.131.66.149 07:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC) I mean Cje 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)*Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 07:25, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 22:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kavadias[edit]

Non-notable Greek model with seven Google hits. Was tagged w/nn-bio when text read "one of Greece's fashion models" Was Prod'ed after weasel wording added, but Prod tag removed by article creator. Calton | Talk 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. 5 Ghits. Royboy crashfan 00:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--He:ah? 00:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass google test. not notable. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Anyone who's one of the "newest faces" in any industry is probably non-notable, this being a perfect example. --Icarus 03:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Luka Jačov 09:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rising deletionist tendency is getting quite annoying. He might be notable in Greece/Athens for all we know. There is a world outside of English speaking countries. --estavisti 18:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed there is, although it strikes me as a telling argument that "Αλεξ Καβαδίας" does not have an article on the Greek Wikipedia. That being said, we don't accord articles notability on spec. Either their subjects are verifiably notable, or they are not. RGTraynor 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You raise a very good point. Why are these entries being put in the English Wikipedia, where it is difficult for us to determine if they're notable or not? Why not put them first into the Wikipedia in the country where they're allegedly famous? Fan1967 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you tried google search in GREEK!!??? Luka Jačov 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Google for "Αλεξ Καβαδίας" and "Αλεξανδρος Καβαδίας" both turn up nothing. Search for "Αλεξανδρος Καββαδίας" (with two β's as it's shown in the article) shows two results, both an obituary of a Spyros Kavvadias, son of Alexander Kavvadias, a farmer who who died in 1943. Fan1967 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep --ςerbiana ♫ 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently non-notable in any language. Fan1967 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The author of this article seems to have created a number of similar articles for allegedly well-known Greek models. Fan1967 22:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cause they are well-known Greek models in the Greek fashion world and entertainment industry, many of them also used in music videos. Some have branched out into the international fashion world. You also can not say if a person is well-known or famous with a search you might do from a non Greek search engine. Perfect example, if you do a search on one of Greece's most famous actors as Θανάσσης Βέγγος, you only get three or four hits[1]. When dealing with Greek names, you also have to take into consideration of the fact that the name can be spelled in numerous different ways and that pronunciation plays a big part of getting the correct hits when doing a search. ~Mallaccaos, 10 April 2006

Comment I notice, by a remarkable coincidence, that it seems these well-known Greek models are all clients of the same modeling agency. You wouldn't, by chance, happen to be associated with Ace Models, would you? Fan1967 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coincidence since I've also listed models from various other agencies as well. But to answer your question, no, not at all, I have no association what so ever with any of the model agencies these people are associated it with. The reason why Ace Models is representing most of them is because Ace Models is one of Greece biggest model agencies and a partner for many fashion magazines found in Greece, as well as advertising agencies, film productions houses, leading fashion catalogues and fashion designers use their services. Plus many of their models are former Miss Greeces and have been branching out internationally. Here I ago again sounding like I'm adversting for them but I'm not, just trying to explain why Ace Models is representing most of them. The next agency I'm planning on posting model info from is another big one from Greece IMAGE MANAGEMENT which represents Katerina Georgiadou. Besides I live in the States, they are from Greece....a)reason why my searches since they are done by non Greek search engines, such as yours, do not produce many results on their names. I do read/understand Greek though (aka magazines and other info pertaining towards the Greek pop culture) and own Greek satellite channels,in which these models as well as other Greek celebrities are featured on quite often. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 11 April 2006

OK, if you don't like non-Greek search engines, show us a search on a Greek search engine that shows him as notable. Seriously, there are thousands of models who've done multiple magazines and ad campaigns. Does that make them notable? For the most part, no. There are a handful of models (mainly female) who become celebrities. The vast majority are unknown to everyone except the agencies that hire them. Fan1967 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said anywhere in my posts that I don't like non-Greek search engines. What i did say is, it is difficult to get hits from non Greek engines, since Greek names can be spelled in various ways including pronunciations which play a big part in the Greek language. As the example I gave above with Θανάσσης Βέγγος, one of Greece's most famous actors, where you only get three or four hits when searching for him with his name spelled that way, even with Greek search engines[2]. ~Mallaccaos, 12 April 2006

You ducked the issue. Can you show us a search, in any language, on any search engine, that shows this guy to be notable? I've never heard of this Thanassis Veggos, but when I try the same search for Μελίνα Μερκούρη (Melina Mercouri) I get over 50,000 hits. Fan1967 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't duck the issue, the point is just because you didn't hear of them, or are not familiar with certain individuals, or don't get many hits on search engines, does not mean they are not popular or not well know in their native countries. I brought up Θανάσσης Βέγγος because being of the biggest Greek stars in Greek movie history, he is a perfect example of what is being debated here; you only get a few hits when typing in his name even though he was one of the biggest comedy actors in Greek movie history. BTW, Θανάσσης Βέγγος was a more well known star then even Μελίνα Μερκούρη was in Greece, even though Μελίνα Μερκούρη was more in the spotlight for international issues. So saying that you get such amount of hits from a search engines, does not amount much of anything. ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Strong keep. As Wikipedia policies say, being non-notable is not a reason for deletion. --GTubio 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - that's weird. I always thought that being non-notable was a reason for deletion. Which Wikipedia policies are you referring to? GRuban 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default. Notable-non notable distinction is inherently POV. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He has been used numerious times to promote Greek and international products (such as Dolce & Gabbana and Prada) to the Greek market. Also is the model used for the 2004 Summer Olympics Greek music CDs and was one of the models used during the Olympics modeling show, which can be viewed at his official portfolio.[3] . ~Mallaccaos, 10 April 2006
Keep, notability seems OK. Anonymous anonymous 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please notable to greek people avoid systemic biases Yuckfoo 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's the problem. Is he notable to Greek people? We've seen no evidence he is. Fan1967 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing the guy is on the covers of Greek music CDs for the 2004 Olympics and a familiar face in the Greek fashion world, his more recognized then you would think. ~ So are we to understand that popularity of non English celeberties is based on how many hits a person's name gets on search engines and not how popular a person is in his/her native land? In that case I can prove that theory flawed with the Θανάσσης Βέγγος example I gave above. It is stated above that since Βέγγος name does not produce many hits, he must not be well known, unlike say Μελίνα Μερκούρη who gets over 50,000 hits. Well as Greek-American I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you ask any Greek person who Θανάσσης Βέγγος is they will know. Oh and BTW notice that the search done on his name here[4], does not produce any hits about the fact that a municipal theatre of Piraeus was named after him. Non-notable people do not get buildings named after them. So once more, saying that you get such amount of hits from a search engines does not amount to much of anything in regards to how popular an individual is in his/her homeland. ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Comment I am still waiting to see any sign that he is "popular in his native land." His picture is on a CD and in some magazines. Great. That means he's a working model. Can you offer any verification at all that any number of people in Greece have ever heard of him? Fan1967 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any verification at all that any number of people in Greece have not ever heard of him? As I said before just because you don't get 50,000 hits from search engines does not amount to how well known an individual is in his/her homeland. Case in point Βέγγος, one of the biggest Greek stars with only 3 search hits. You also forgot to add fashion shows, runways and presentation events to your list above. As for his popularity, you can find that out if you check out Greek magazines, the Greek fashion world and Greek tv pop culture. ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Please review the Wikipedia standard for Verifiability. "You can't prove he's not famous" does not count, and there's no rule that says the standards should be ignored for people who live in another country. Fan1967 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a double standard if I ever heard one. So am I to understand that a person's popularity is based on how many hits he/she have on search engines? Because if that's the case then as proven above that is a flawed way of determining a person's popularity. ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

There's no double standard at all. Why should you not be held to standards of verifiability?Fan1967 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I ask you again; is the standards of verifiability "popularity" due on the amount of hits an individual gets on his/her names? Cause I can include numerious famous Greeks who get only a few search hits but are well known to the Greek culture in general if that's the case...and to make it more interesting, I'll include all the spellings of their names or as many spellings as I'm familiar with. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

I've read the Verifiability and I don't see anything in the rules which says that the popularity of an individual is based only on the number of hits he/she get on search engines....unless I'm missing something...? ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

By the way, Veggos gets 9,000 hits on Greek Google if you spell his name correctly: Θανάσης Βέγγος. Fan1967 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW his name is also spelled Thanassis Vengos, Thanassis Veggos, Thanasis Vengos, Θανάση Βέγγος and Θανάση Βέγγο. Which points to what I said above and I quote: "When dealing with Greek names, you also have to take into consideration of the fact that the name can be spelled in numerous different ways and that pronunciation plays a big part on getting the correct hits when doing a search." By pronunciation I'm also talking about the τόνος. I've seen Kavadias in the Greek media that was talking about the male and female models used for the 2004 Olympics, mostly because it was made into such a big deal, the Olympics I'm talking about, spelled with two "v's", one "v", his first name as Alexander, Alekos, Aleko and Alex; Alekos written with a "w" and in other cases with a "o". ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Fine. Find some verification of his notability uner any name. Fan1967 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stands: is his "verification" on how popular he is solely based on the number of hits an individual gets on search engines, even if he/she are more talked about and noticed in media outlets, then search engines? ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Read the policies: WP:V, WP:RS. Do you have some verification that he is being talked about in other media outlets? For lack of anything better, search engines are a good indication of whether somebody's being talked about, and it's the usual standard for inclusion.Fan1967 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, as mentioned previously, he has been featured in numerious Greek media outlets. As for the policies of wikipedia, I did read them and I didn't see anywhere where it says that a person's "verification" is based solely on how many search hits he/she gets on search engines. I did come across this though:

"Finding a good source may require some effort: Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form. If you can't find a good source on the web, try a local library or bookstore. This can at times be a surprisingly fruitful endeavour."[5] ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

Wikipedia gets a lot of unknowns hoping to promote themselves here. Fan1967 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's understanable but I'm not associated with nor do I know Kavadias....wish I did, I'd be able to hang out with hot models... LoL! ... as it stands I don't know him nor am I trying to promote him or anyone else for that matter. ~Mallaccaos, 13 April 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinky underwear problem[edit]

Someone's attempt to promote their original research: non-notable -- essentially invisible -- economic question: gets all of 34 Google hits, none from .edu sites. Calton | Talk 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, of course--He:ah? 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem to be based on one of the cited references, http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/Chapter18.htm , which seems to be a real book--I don't think Verso is a self-publisher or vanity press, and the Amazon sales ranks ("381,895, 195,040 in Books yesterday") are just barely high enough to lift it out of that class. That reference really does mention "the kinky underwear problem," but the context—"In a class my frequent co-author taught at American University, this issue came to be known as 'the kinky underwear problem.'"—makes it a nonce word or neologism, not a real term in widespread use. The reference does talk about "mak[ing] consumption proposals anonymously."
Delete, neologism, not an accepted term in significant real use. Not quite original research perhaps, but the proportion of personal essay relative to verifiable, sourced, accepted material is way too high, and I don't think the ParEcon book is notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom - No OR. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism 31 hits for the phrase on google as well. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-08 18:02Z
Weak Keep - I've found more hits on dissident books problem. It may be more appropriate to recreate this article under that title. Sethimothy 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrash A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While it seems that the article, in its current form, generates next to no hits on Google, it is possible that an economist might know this problem by a name other than either of the two mentioned. Perhaps the article should be mentioned somewhere where an economist could take a look at it and give it the proper name. It seems like a notable theory, but I guess it just hasn't been expounded fully yet, at least not under this name. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:27, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi'ah ibn Abd Shams[edit]

Delete, the page has no references and this violates WP:V. I put up tags several weeks ago to see if something would be done to clean up the page but so far no clean up has been done. Doing a quick google search for this exact term I only found 31 matches with most of those being mirrors. [6]. Unless notability is established and reliable references/sources are made I vote delete. Jersey Devil 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. 12 Ghits. Royboy crashfan 00:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. It could be that the transliteration is incorrect or uncommon (I thought "abd" was usually followed by "al" which in this case could be abd al-Shams, abdul Shams, abdush Shams or abd ash-Shams if so), but even apart from that there's no real content to the article. Шизомби 01:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless stub. NTK 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:44, 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. — FireFox • T [21:00, 10 April 2006]

Dan Regan[edit]

was speedied; trombonist for one quite notable and one semi-notable ska band, Reel Big Fish and Littlest Man Band respectively. no strong feelings either way as nom, but leaning towards keep. He:ah? 00:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC, member of a notable band. Royboy crashfan 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable band member, absolutely NOT a speedy candidate! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Doesn't seem terribly notable outside of RBF, but the RBF article is already too long, and it's not like the band has fifteen members. NTK 04:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable band member. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, very much a notable musician. Who didn't love "I Want Your Girlfriend (to be My Girlfriend too)?" RasputinAXP c 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't (and in fact dont) know the above song.........but based on his being a member of notable group, Keep Jcuk 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But surely Rasp recognizes that Thank You for Not Moshing was a superior song...In view of his having been a member of RBF, which is, on the whole, notable, keep. Joe 03:05, 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 delete. — FireFox • T [21:01, 10 April 2006]

Robin_Hunicke[edit]

Vanity page created by friend. Gremagor 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:VANITY. Royboy crashfan 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Amcfreely 03:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think anyone who graduated from university only 10 years ago qualifies for eminence grise yet. --Saforrest 18:26, 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 (thank you WP:SNOW) --Cyde Weys 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danah boyd[edit]

NB: the subject's name usually appears in lower case (qv e e cummings)

As with Robin Hunicke above, this is a "vanity page created by a friend." Ph.D. student who does research in social networking, but no more notable than any successful Ph.D. student out there, "premiere researcher" or no. NTK 04:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already convened a panel of Wikipedians to discuss the relevancy on Talk:Danah_boyd three weeks ago. And her page survived that. Since then, Boyd appeared on the O'Reilly factor, on Fox News, to talk about the internet. So she's increasingly visible! Again, for the second time this Spring, keep. --JustinHall 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, there wasn't so much a "convened panel of Wikipedians", as just two or three people talking about the article since March 22 [7], which is a very different thing than the formal (and much more serious) Deletion Review process that's going on right now. Please, can you provide any proof about the Fox News appearance, like a link to her name on the Fox News site, or any other major press (CNN, MSNBC, BBC)? At the moment, I'm on the fence about her bio, but leaning towards "Delete", since the way that the bio is currently written, it reeks of a vanity article (please read the policies at WP:VANITY). The article has been trying to claim that Danah is amazingly famous, but if she's so famous, how come there's nothing in the article about her being mentioned in major news sites? So far, the way things look, is that this article is just by a bunch of her friends trying to claim that she's well-known, but trust me, that does not go over well among seasoned Wikipedia editors. Also, the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes (see WP:SOCK) that are piling up below are not helping matters, since it's obvious to anyone who understands Wikipedia, that the votes are by newbie users, and as such are near meaningless. Unless some serious credible evidence can be provided that Danah is genuinely well-known, I am probably going to vote "delete", myself. Please please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and provide some solid credible proof about danah's fame. Otherwise the article should probably go away until there is enough credible media attention to make it stick. --Elonka 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a video of her Fox news appearance: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nfyw2KYHWw and here are some screencaps of the same (in case YouTube gets sued out of existence): http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/03/30/tonite_on_oreil.html -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep danah is all over, so this seems silly to delete here at wikipedia. She is a leading authority about all sorts of social and internet topics, and there are people who want to look up here accomplishments and information about her. -- Mary Hodder 14:39, 11 April 2006 ((First and only comment ever posted by User:128.111.166.190, 15:40, April 10, 2006)
Keep This can hardly count as a vanity page. boyd is a committed, articulate, insightful and prolific scholar and public intellectual on the topic of networked social communities. It's hardly relevant whether a friend created a page or not. --Julian Bleecker 14:47, 10 April 2006 (Posted by User:Jbleecker, 15:48, 10 April 2006)
Keep As the talk page shows, we went some rounds on this and figured that this is an interesting border case in terms of notability. I did some addition of relevant cites that I believe makes the case for her being notable and she definitely passes WP:PROFTEST (which is a proposed policy). Of course, I think even danah would agree when I say Wikipedia would not be much of a different place without this article... but I could have sworn that the standard was to err on the side of inclusion for borderline notable cases. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I should be clear: I would hate to see that the fact that someone like myself, a friend and colleague, edited her article would lead to it being deleted. I can commit to not editing it, if that would help. I did some more poking around on Lexis and found at least one other news article from a major paper that is a profile of danah^[1]. Also, it might be the case that the article appears to be a vanity peace because of my recent edits where I tried to track down cites to investigate notability. As to some of Elonka's specific criticisms: The NYT profile isn't enough? What about the SF Chron profile I've linked to here (that I would add to her piece but it might increase the vanityness)? Also, it seems premature to claim sockpuppetry as no one has been accused of using alternative logins to edit this or other articles related to this issue, no? Granted, the fact that they are new to Wikipedia will affect the weight of their votes, as it usually does. I should also finally note that danah is friends with Jimmy Wales and even got him to speak here at our school (which I was fortunate enough to record) [8]; if you download that mp3, the woman you hear introducing Jimbo before his talk is danah. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this page should be kept. I feel like I run into Danah Boyd time and time again on the internet. She recently participated as a speaker at the eTech conference put on by O'Reilly. In her company were speakers such as Jesse James Garrett and Tim O'Reilly. [9] --Jonlesser 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we at least get the case right? Ben Aveling 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind - I see the problem. Ben Aveling 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Boyd has written several well-received papers, and has been profiled in several major media sources, including a major 2003 profile in the New York Times [10], 2004 San Francisco Chronicle [11], at least two interviews on NPR, and a televised March 30, 2006 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. I've extensively rewritten the danah boyd page to bring it into line with Wikipedia format -- in my opinion, the notability requirements are definitely met. --Elonka 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of paper and citations but not enough for me to think she qualifies under the professor test. Might qualify as a notable blogger. Passing mentions in newspapers and 5 minutes of fame on a popular TV show does not amount to squat. Being a friend of Jimbo does not qualify as notable. Lots of google hits. But when your first google hit begins "hi, this is me", you have to wonder about the quality of them. I'm not convinced she's not notable, but I am convinced the page does not establish notability. Delete without prejudice unless the article is trimmed to focus only on what is notable about her, and expanded to show what is notable about her - not just claim that she is. It should be obvious to the reader that she is notable, and why. What is her great contribution to the universe? Regards, Ben Aveling 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this comment made after Elonka's rewrite? -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been a cross-post. Ben, please take another look when you get a chance? I think I've addressed your concerns. --Elonka 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a preponderance of the evidence to me. Not very notable, but notable enough. RGTraynor 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Danah's work is important and she is important in bringing systematic evidence to bear about MySpace. She is a featured speaker at conferences and the media. Indeed, I direct all media inquiries about MySpace to her. Given that she has good evidence, whereas others just talk, her work is both notable and important, and Wikipedia folks interested in MySpace would be well directed to her/it. Who cares if she is a PhD student or a 63-year p;d Harvard PhD (like me). Credentialism is a poor criterion. Danah IS important. Barry Wellman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.167.177 (talk • contribs)

Notes[edit]

^ Whiting, Sam (Apr 25, 2004). "The Profiler; Why the online masses act the way they do". The San Francisco Chronicle. Pg. Q6

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Nina Droughts of 2005-06[edit]

No widespread news coverage of any such drought (we already have an article on the Horn of Africa crisis), partially original research. PROD tag was removed by original starter (and to date, only editor) of the article, when it was titled "Worldwide Drought of 2005-06", and had even more speculative statements. Are we really sure it was a La Nina-caused drought? Strong delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:53 UTC (2006-04-08)

Strong delete. I live near one of the areas mentioned and we have not had a drought. This article is false.--Adam ^(talk) 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as false information. I would know, I watch The Weather Channel. Royboy crashfan 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. We are currently experiencing a drought relating to La Nina - much of New Zealand is expected to have to start conserving power due to the low levels of this country's hydro-electric storage lakes (the lowest for about 15 years). Similar conditions hav also affected parts of Australia (mind you, some of Northern Territory's currently underwater). I doubt if the drought's widespread enough to be considered as a worldwide problem, but it's only partial nonsense, not complete bollocks this time. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might affect wine production? T K E 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definitely in much of NZ's South Island wine areas (Canterbury, Marlborough, Central Otago), ut Australia's wine areas are in the southeast, which escaped the droughts. I don't see mention of wine in the article, though, so (pardon me but) it was a bit of an odd question. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears to have an image to back it up. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, an image of the US, showing just droughts in TX ad OK (that sparked the wildfires earlier this year). It doesn't say how it's La Nina-driven, nor notes that the Pacific Northwest is hardly experiencing drought conditions... NSL E _(T+C) at 10:08 UTC (2006-04-08)
Strong Delete due to a drought of sources to back this information up. Yes, I said drought. Sethimothy 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to be false as per Adam. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-09 06:03
Keep and expand and fix- so this article needs some work but come on I reworded the title so it says La Nina droughts (with an "s" at the end to prove that this is not a single drought) and the sources are at the bottom of the article. Storm05 13:52, 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 KEEP. NTK 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Holmes[edit]

Non Notable Dunstan 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert was an article about a band member [12] that is notable.--blue520 01:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, article was vandalized. Royboy crashfan 01:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on Looks like the article's been vandalized. Check out this older version: [13]. Looks like a guitarist who's played with some notable people and bands. The article then got vandalized by Joseph Holmes (talk · contribs) a 15-year old kid who put in his own biography. Restore the article. Fan1967 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - nothing has any verification. I'd keep it for the short term, but it needs sources. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, mistaken nomination. Grand master ka 04:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, mistake nom, no opposition. Kuru ^talk 04:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. YellowPigNowNow 05:04, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BINGOyou[edit]

Non notable--Zxcvbnm 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. 53 Ghits, most of which actually have to do with Bingo. Royboy crashfan 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--blue520 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Amcfreely 03:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Real game. Not something one made at school one day. YellowPigNowNow 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BALLS RasputinAXP c 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, advertising.Montco 16:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrash A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:42, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECT. NTK 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian_Labor_Party[edit]

There's already a Brazilian Labour Party article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtrielli (talk • contribs)

Speedy redirect. Royboy crashfan 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect --Icarus 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect - Per all above. --light darkness^(talk) 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, per nomination. Carioca 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirected. This is a wiki, what are you all voting on this for? Never should have been nominated. NTK 05:17, 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. SushiGeek 07:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Punch Review[edit]

A non-notable quarterly which began quite recently. Article is mostly an ad, and issues introduced via {{prod}} were never addressed or commented on. google home page Harmil 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interview with a notable figure such as Tariq Ali [14] would seem to establish some notability. The WP:PEACOCK terms need to be removed and the POV needs to be eliminated however.--Jersey Devil 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with above. Obviously written by someone new to Wikipedia interested in the magazine, but it's been around for a little while. Borderline but it's not run out of someone's basement. NTK 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They have yet to impact popular culture. I say sit on it for twenty years, then ,~~renominate~~ repost. T K E 05:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not sarcasm. T K E 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It returns 36 Google hits, and the Alexa ranking is 1,638,637. T K E 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "sit on it for twenty years, then repost?" or "sit on it for twenty years, then repost and renominate for deletion?" -- Kjkolb 08:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, yes I meant repost. I'll take it then if they've done something encyclopedic. T K E 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A literary journal that has at least 6 Wikipedia-notable contributors is not encyclopedic? Do they need a Pulitzer or what? NTK 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion; concensus so far is against me and that's just fine. 2¢, that's what a vote is! T K E 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jersey and NTK. YellowPigNowNow 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article needs clean-up. Tombride 16:13, 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. SushiGeek 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim soldiers[edit]

Delete this page is redundant with the Mujahadeen page. The term "Muslim soldiers" should also be redirected to Mujahadeen. Jersey Devil 01:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename "List of Muslim soldiers." A Mujahid is someone who engages in jihad, but there are Muslim soldiers that don't engage in jihad, e.g. those in the U.S. military. Also, the page is not redundant since it is a list, whereas Mujahadeen is an article. The page needs attention, though, to be sure. Шизомби 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the history, List of Muslim warriors was moved to Muslim warriors and then moved to Muslim soldiers. List of Muslim military leaders was merged in and redirected. It doesn't seem to me that much thought or any discussion went into all of that. Шизомби 16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Шизомби. YellowPigNowNow 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is difference between Mujahadeen and Muslim soldiers article. We need a place to list down names of Muslim leaders, who led armies in battlefields. I don’t think page Mujahadeen do justice with it. The concept of Mujahadeen is slightly different from contents in Muslim soldiers article. --Spasage 07:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Шизомби. As a list, this is helpful.--Pal5017 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jersey Devil. Also, since Islam is an old religion and currently has hundreds of millions of members, there is an enormous number of Muslim soldiers, so it would be better off as a category so that only notable people are included. -- Kjkolb 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll not have list of all soldiers, only ones who were prominent, especially those who led Muslim armies. --Spasage 09:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Шизомби and Spasage. Tombride 16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Metamagician3000 09:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to cleanup. --Spasage 07:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Havent we had enough of JD yet? --Striver 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is interesting & useful list, Mujahedeen is article. As long as the two keep themselves separated in that way, & a bit of cleanup on this one, what's the problem.Bridesmill 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Muslim soldiers. Kirill Lok s h in 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [21:03, 10 April 2006]

Past Executives of the Students' Society of McGill University[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a directory or free web space. Delete Ardenn 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 03:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Icarus 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiStudentsSocietyofMcGillUniversity. Oh, there isn't one. DELETE. NTK 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Students' Society of McGill University/Past Executives. This page was created to alleviate clutter on the SSMU page, if that's a problem, perhaps it can be moved to a subpage of the main page? pm_shef 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No vote for now. Here's my issues: first, what is the value of past executives of a student body, not a major university? Second, I don't like subpages unless it is in userspace. That is second because it's personal and not really of weight. T K E 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, it would be notable and merit inclusion in the main article if one of the current or former execs had done something outside of the SSMU, such as one of them going on to become Prime Minister, or one of them having participated in the Olympics, for example. Something that merits them having a Wikipedia article on their own. As a list though, it's not important or encyclopedic. They can post that on their own website. Ardenn 06:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, precisely as per NTK --Deville (Talk) 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not at all notable and with no real prospect of becoming so MLA 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and as pm_shef has raised the matter, shouldn't SSMU be deleted as well?Markb 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Umm, no. There's extremely strong precedent for articles of Student Societies, all major Canadian Universities have them, plus SSMU has other claims to noteability in and of itself. pm_shef 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and MLA. Joe 00:21, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keif Llama[edit]

nn comic book character. Prod deleted. Google shows 610 total hits, including wikis, false positives etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Amcfreely 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Who writes these things? NTK 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Creator Matt Howarth is a quite notable comics writer/artist and musician, if something of a cult figure, with almost 100,000 Google hits. Subject of article may not among his major work, but even minor works by notable creator are generally treated as notable. Comic was published mostly pre-Internet, and apparently would meet 5K audience standard; TPBs still in print and sold by publisher. [15]. Nominations like this are bad practice, and the resulting deletions damage the Wikipedia project. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Keif Llama or Matt Howarth, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the character, so I wonder if there's a problem here. Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about comics, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" Monicasdude 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- and suggest commenter above look into anger-management sessions. Bad for the blood pressure, you know. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting strong delete for both this article and Monicasdude editing ability. The claim that "even minor works by notable creator are generally treated as notable" is absolute and utter nonsense. Minor works most certainly are not notable, hence the term "minor". DreamGuy 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Minor," in the context of a notable artist's work, doesn't mean non-notable. Dickens' minor novels, Shakespeare's minor plays, hundreds if not thousands of albums minor albums from popular music artists all have entries. Not to mention 395 species of Pokemon characters, which hardly anybody thinks are "major". You might consider reviewing the applicable notability guidelines, not to mention WP:CIVIL and perhaps even WP:DICK. Monicasdude 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harr o5 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Matt Howarth != William Shakespeare. Minor character in two minor (six-issue) comic series, neither of which have their own articles. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web jetadmin[edit]

Weak Delete I'm 85% sure this page isnt notable. If we do keep it, I reccomend it be merged into an article about Hewlett-Packard or some such. Also, if we do keep it, it needs work to pass WP:NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalamori (talk • contribs) .

This discussion was orphaned, listing now. No vote. Flower party■ 03:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it's talking about the firmware web print administration interface in HP network printers. In any event, this is a product feature that is about as notable as the instruction packet that came with my iBook power cord. Productcruft, delete! NTK 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:03, 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. — FireFox • T [21:03, 10 April 2006]

Zewg[edit]

Advertising for small nn ISP and web host. Can find nothing on the internet about them (number of customers, turnover, location, etc) other than company website.

Delete --BillC 04:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Spam! NTK 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, man that is some spam --Deville (Talk) 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad, spam. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 07:06, 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. — FireFox • T [21:05, 10 April 2006]

Instrukcije[edit]

AFAIK this is unsourced propaganda. If it does have any basis in reality (which I sincerely doubt), it can be easily covered in the Chetniks article estavisti 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--estavisti 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't like the nomination very much, but I agree that the article is no good as is and it can be merged in Chetniks if the document exists and its content can be summarized. If the name is unambiguous (which I doubt), it can be redirected there. NTK 04:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless verifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NTK. Metamagician3000 07:11, 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. — FireFox • T [14:59, 09 April 2006]

Game maker gene[edit]

Delete - nn vanity/spam. Wickethewok 04:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't this be speedied? NTK 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what grounds could it be speedied on? Wickethewok 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it can't. But at least a quick consensus can be formed. NTK 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initially suggested it to be speedied on the grounds of WP:VAIN and WP:CSD, Articles, 7. >> \\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ | 07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete nn and vanity.--Jersey Devil 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete perhaps speedily as a nn-group (the infamous A7). I see no assertion of significance, do you? I sometimes miss them, when they're ridiculous. Mak (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, remarkably non-notable. Also, Wikipedia is not here to stick it to the man, now is it? --Deville (Talk) 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Having first noticed this site, I've supported its deletion. >> \\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ | 07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nn and vanity--_Joe_ 07:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nn. --Quadduc 13:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete If I had found that first it would be lining the speedy bin. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: non-notable, self-advertisement, self-reference. --Saforrest 18:32, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a view of Uthman[edit]

Delete the page as it is, is a content fork with no sources and any relevant information could easily fit into the main article Uthman. Normally I would add a merge tag but nothing here seems salvagable to put into the other article. Jersey Devil 04:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forks are bad and should be avoided. NTK 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as others, and as per Jersey it seems unlikely there's anything to merge here. --Deville (Talk) 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. Not opposed to merge. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shia view of the election of Uthman[edit]

Delete essentially a fork article and unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should be one sentence in the parent article. --Deville (Talk) 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimo Fontenot[edit]

Actor with no presence on imdb. I proded it, but User:Laceymichelle claims he is well-known in the Seychelles. Eivind ^t ^@^c 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment absolutely no ghits [16] in any language anywhere. Ah, but yahoo has served me well with one hit, [17], but this seems to be a magnet for adhits for yahoo (I knew there was a reason I don't use it) and it takes forever and a half to load on a superfast connection, and so far has no information. Wait!! It's a wikipedia mirror. And a very bad one. I hope you all enjoyed this vicarious experience of my internet experience. How meta is that? Back to business Delete as unverifiable, unless actual source can be found. Mak (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mak. At best, this guy is very much under the notability radar, but I sort of scent some hoax here as well. Trademark mustache, diehard Marxist? Hm. --Deville (Talk) 05:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, probaly hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's not a hoax. Have you ever been to Seychelles? Do you know about the Seychellois film industry? His work itself isn't big, nor is he big internationally, but in Seychelles, he is very well-known. Just because it seems like a hoax to you is not fair reason to delete it. (Laceymichelle 00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Plus, Imdb is considering giving him his own actor page right now. (Coolerthanallie 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC))
- Whether he is a hoax or not, he is still unverfied (no one has found any actual publication which mentions him). If you can find a publication from Seychelles which mentions him even if in a language other than English, that would help a lot. Mak (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imdb.com doesn't "consider giving actors their own page", they work just like Wikipedia, by user submitions. Maybe you should submit Aimo Fontenot yourself there, as they, unlike wikipedia, doesn't have any notability criteria. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no positive verifiability or sourcing of subject's identity or notability. MCB 06:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imdb.com consideres giving actors their own page just like WIkipedia does. I meant the community Imdb, not an owner or anything. Basically debate is going around the Internet Movie Database about wether or not to give Mr. Fontenot hos own actor page. (Coolerthanallie 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC))
Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 16:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the community of Imdb.com decided against giving this guy his own page. (TheChris 04:06, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim view of Ali[edit]

Delete aside from the fact that the article is a content fork, it is also mainly a long list of quotes from "non-Muslims" about Ali. This violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of which number 2 specifically states:

"Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." Jersey Devil 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jersey Devil. MCB 06:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The reasons given in the nomination do not apply. This is not a content fork but an article spinout. The information given here is not "loosely associated" but specifically targeted and on topic. It is in the nature of the topic that quotations are an appropriate form for bringing the information across. The article is clearly and definitely not a "list" or "repository" of quotations". I am somewhat amazed by the inability of the nominator to appreciate this. I see no other reasons for deletion either: The article is written from a strictly neutral point of view and is better sourced than most articles. Lambiam ^Talk 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article is basically a list of quotations. Anyone who sees the article can see that.--Jersey Devil 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would you then also argue for deletion of such articles as, for example, Judaism's view of Jesus, which also mainly consist of direct and indirect quotations? If the complaint is that this article is badly written, I concur. Only, that is not a ground for deletion. Lambiam ^Talk 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long running crusade against Striver. Needs expansion, but not deletion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lambiam. Blink484 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the above user's first edit was on April 12, 2006. [18]--Jersey Devil 23:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lambiam and Irishpunktom. --Striver 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working moms[edit]

Essay about the difficulties facing working mothers. The best reason for deletion might be "unencyclopedic". -- Kjkolb 05:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Holding vote til more discussion) Do we already have an article (or part of an article) concerning the difficulties of working mothers? YellowPigNowNow 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic editorial.--Jersey Devil 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay, unencyclopædic. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think it's fair to call this original research, and perhaps also soapboxery. --Deville (Talk) 14:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Double burden. It's a topic desperate for more than the tiny stub at Double burden, and this article isn't so far from being a legitimate rough draft. It has tone problems, but it makes an attempt to present notable opinions and attribute them to verifiable sources. --Allen 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR/POV essay. MCB 06:46, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason yu[edit]

This guy was featured on one show in one season of MTV's "Made". There seem to be a lot of differing opinions on whether to keep one-hit wonders like this, so I'm bringing it here for consideration. Grand master ka 06:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forgive me as I am fairly new to wikipedia, but I don't see any notablity as a one shot reailty star. He isn't a member of a season like someone on Survivor or The Amazing Race. If he makes something of his break dancing career, he would be notable. But I don't think he is notable at the moment. EnsRedShirt 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I really enjoyed this episode and found this particular show to be very outstanding compared to all the other MADE episodes that I have seen. Jason is the only cast member to be featured on imdb.com's MADE page as he is by far one of the most memorable stars on the show in the past few seasons. I have talked to many people who have watched this episode and are facinated by this kid. I say keep. Jamieson345 12:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Comment left by Jasmaar (whose only contributions are to Jason yu)
Delete - Per nom, and that image isn't very confronting. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reality TV appearances, like porn films, are generally not sufficient per se to demonstrate notability. Monicasdude 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, so what he appeared on MTV? Is it notable in its own right? --Ter e nc e Ong 16:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with EnsRedShirt --RA64 17:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one appearance on TV does not notable make. NTK 20:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If Monicasdude has to admit that it needs to be deleted, then it's obviously so far beyond the line for acceptability that you can;t even see the line anymore. DreamGuy 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on MTV's MADE. Sethimothy 00:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or slight merge to the TV series in question. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 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 Speedy delete A7.--Adam ^(talk) 11:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spadeism[edit]

Something about a non-notable local gang, cult, or club in Seattle. Unsourced, unverifiable, less than 40 Google hits (most unrelated). Delete as unencyclopedic. MCB 06:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this isnt a cult, club or gang, it isnt causing anyone harm. its a religion i believe in, im not trying to vandalize wikipedia, i use the site multiple hours each day. Spadeism is growing in members. please dont delete this, i honestly believe in this, with every fiber of my being. Itsgotbigteeth69 07:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, non-notable group of people. Surprised that it wasn't tagged {{db-group}}. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. — ciphergoth 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Only

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [21:05, 10 April 2006]

Code Fusion[edit]

This page only serves to advertise a fan-made game, which does not even exist at this point or show any signs that it will in the near future. Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn and basically non-existant fancruft. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It is currently still in production.". So how can it be notable? WP:SOFTWARE violation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN, crystal ball --Deville (Talk) 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.Montco 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn game, nn as game is still in production. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete could turn into something but it hasn't been released yet. Still in development. Not notable (yet) : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 19:11, 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. — FireFox • T [21:09, 10 April 2006]

HELLZ BELLZ[edit]

Contested PROD, originally listed for not satisfying WP:CORP and WP:V. I agree and vote delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last sentence suggests promotional intent in posting entry. Kevin McE 09:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is along way away from meeting WP:CORP or any form of notability. --Hetar 09:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, promotional. Couldn't find much on it from Google.Montco 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Posted the original "prod", see talk page for why. --John Nagle 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CORP. dbtfz ^talk 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:43, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian opposition to anti-Semitism[edit]

POV fork of Christianity and anti-Semitism. If that article needs to be split it should be done by time period rather than "Christian opposition to anti-Semitism" and "Christian support of anti-Semitism" (please do not create that article). Much of the text has been copied wholesale from irreputable and biased websites. A merge seems like the reflexive choice, but any attempt wade through this swamp would be a nigthmare. The reason that it is "too long to merge" is that most of the text consists of lengthy quotations from "primary" sources rather than a simple statment of the facts. If merge is the outcome, I'd like to request that it be moved to Christianity and anti-Semistism/draft during that process. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Savidan. -- Kjkolb 08:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Luka Jačov 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Although it may be a POV fork (which I am not sure I completely agree with), I am also not sure if it justifies a wholesale deletion. Roodog2k 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to Christianity and anti-Semitism; the problem with the merge is the other article is already too long. And if this is a POV fork, then the other article is hopelessly POV as well. The other article is simply an accounting of cases where Christians practiced anti-Semitism. In this case, I'd propose something like an overarching article called Christian churches and Judaism, and it could give an overarching historical account of their shared history, with links in subsections to each of these two pages. But, in any case, keep for now. --Deville (Talk) 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christianity and anti-Semitism. The latter should be cleaned up and tightened. Both are bordering on original research, or at any rate non-encyclopedic territory. Don't delete, though; there's clearly some good information here. dbtfz ^talk 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Saforrest 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and prune ruthlessly. If pruning is impossible, delete. Metamagician3000 03:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please clean up not erase Yuckfoo 06:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -Hello, I am the author of this article. It seems that there may be some confusion on this topic. This article is written from an objective point of view, or at least attempts to do so. It merely is listing the facts of Christian opposition to anti-Semitism. Isn't it a historical truth that some Christians opposed anti-Semitism? Then, shouldn't it have every right to have an article in wikipedia? The article Christianity and anti-Semitims chronicles many instances of anti-Semitism committed against the Jews. This article merely chronicles many instances of when Christians stood up for the Jews. It is based on good solid sources. Granted, some may claim that they are biased. But, can't you argue that about any source. If you don't like it, you can automatically label it as "biased." Frankly, ALL sources are biased in some manner, if you think my sources were biased, why don't you check the books out at the library and then see? Even if they were biased, the authors clearly did immense research on the subject and they did not summarily dismiss opposing evidence. In fact, they confronted it head on in much of the book.

Yes, some of the sources are direct quotes, but that does not merit deletion. Quotes tell us exactly what the author said and that way there is no room for wrongful interpretation of the author's work. Furthermore, many of the early sections of the article are taken from official documents in which the original text was written in Latin. This is about as primary and non-biased a source as you can get! If you don't like the article that doesn't merit its deletion. I am open to suggestions and help in editing if you think there are ways to improve its content. I request that the article not be deleted. Newcrusade 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted CSD-A7. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masterfunk[edit]

Delete, bio of a non notable person. Article full of nonsense Soumyasch 08:34, 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. — FireFox • T [21:10, 10 April 2006]

Animal (band)[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:BAND. The article is autobiographical, written primarily by Animalband (talk · contribs · count), and is intended as a promo, rather than an encyclopedia article. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One release and no tours. Melchoir 09:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn band, vanity, self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Get the image too. NTK 20:02, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Joshua-Lee[edit]

Non-notable bio. Google provides only one relevant-seeming link [19] for the name. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 78 google returns, 23 with addition of Wampum: Writer needs to make content more serious and encyclopedic, and remove "humour" such as "sometimes involving thought" and the suggestion that he has a serious role in long term strategic planning for a hemisphere. There might be something notable there, but if article not rendered serious soon, then I would switch my vote. Kevin McE 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mindbendingly non-notable. I went through all of those links. Some of them are Yahoo profiles, others are MySpace pages. One of them seems to be a vendor page on WampumWorld.com, but there is no real content here. I am down with the Sox jersey, but that is it. In short, what we have is a guy with some personal webpages who makes jewelry at home, and at least once played some kind of flute on-stage, and someone took a picture. NN in spades, and it will surprise noone to note that the page was created by Joshualeefreeman. --Deville (Talk) 14:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep hard to imagine someone being notable as "a thinker". Still, it does barely pass the google test. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per terence --He:ah? 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Any vanity page author will claim that they are "famous", but famous for what, in what context, amongst what group? I would argue that this is a clear A7. Deville has shown that the Google hits do not support the claim: anyone can create a few Yahoo and MySpace pages for themselves. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity/nn-bio; no verifiability of any actual notability or fame. MCB 06:49, 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 userfy to User:Berkheimerjj. Royboy crashfan 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkheimer[edit]

nn, more suitable as Userpage. Google scores 0 for Jeremy_Berkheimer, Jeremy_John_Berkheimer and for "A manifestation of Calenture and Conciousness" Kevin McE 08:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per this page and an Amazon review. If kept, page should be moved to Jeremy Berkheimer. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 109 people have submitted reviews of that DVD: does that make them all published writers who merit an entry? The photolog is part of a community that has 100 members by the name of "Smith", and so guarantees no outstanding acheivement. Photography and film reviews are not his claim to fame: there seems to be no record on the internet of his "best known work" Kevin McE 11:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - You make a good point! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if you feel like it. Very much non-notable; the links that Kilo points out above are a set of pictures on Webshots and a review on Amazon.com. This search returns 9 unduplicated hits, none of which comes close to verifying anything claimed in the article. This, his "best known" work, returns no Ghits. --Deville (Talk) 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dekete per above. Henning Makholm 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I do not see how sumbitting a review or some photos on the Web makes one person notable. - Liberatore(T) 17:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blink484 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [21:10, 10 April 2006]

Trillian anywhere[edit]

Non-notable, ad.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising, nothing more. Non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:43, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rndnet[edit]

Criminal facilitation. Rndnet's webpage makes it clear what they're up to, and so does the Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia frowns upon spam, then helping people make money illegally and steal services shouldn't be tolerated. -Barry- 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Barry. Services that promote or facilitate illegal activities should already have a high level of notability before having an article (when having the article allows readers to participate in the activities), which is likely to make them more popular. -- Kjkolb 13:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not really comfortable with the notion that simply providing a communication channel that criminals might conceivably use is itself criminal facilitation (how would good old cleartext RFC 1459 "facilitate" anything?). But the article clearly fails to demonstrate notability of its subject, which is enough for me. Henning Makholm 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "19 users and 12 invisible" when I checked in. Hardly a "large IRC network". Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "large" claim. It's even less notable than I thought. You can compare the popularity of Rndnet with other IRC networks here. -Barry- 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unconvinced by the claim of "criminal facilitation", but there is absolutely no evidence of notability for the subject. MCB 06:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not comfortable with Wikipedia being used to spread criminal awareness and activities over the Internet. --Skenmy 09:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be completely nn. [20], very low user counts, nothing on netsplit.de, etc. Kotepho 13:55, 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. SushiGeek 07:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pefo[edit]

One of the dozens of chat forums on a chat site. Is this exceptionally well known and notable? Weregerbil 11:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does show the history of the list and how it started. It also does have its helpfull place in city/state listing/searching for almost anything you want for free. --Scott Grayban 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, forumcruft. Click on the link and read the first few threads. Go ahead, I dare you. Seriously, this is a non-notable webforum just like all the other non-notable webfora. The article's claim for notability is pretty much nonsense. --Deville (Talk) 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRUFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:11, 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 keep. — FireFox • T [15:02, 09 April 2006]

List of shock sites[edit]

Moved from MfD, where it was mistakenly added by Yevon69. His reasoning was:

"inapropriate article. see deletion policy: "articles that are wholly inapropriate for wikipedia."

Delete - This page is just a resource for those Internet trolls out there who want to scare/disgust other people with these shock sites. There is absolutely no need for this article to stay. I can't believe people are asking to keep this article; It's basically advertising vulgar photographs. I suppose anyone can make a shock site and use this article to "advertise" it. I strongly doubt anyone will come into the mishap of seeing these vulgar links if no one sees this page. I suppose the page that just defines a shock site is OK, but there is no need to post links to shock sites. People know what a shock site is, and they don't need to see an example. --Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I abstain for the moment.~~ (see below) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: wikipedia is not a link depository or archive." --205.188.117.73 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)" moved from the MfD[reply]
Keep a little gross, yes, but nothing wrong with it in essence. it has every right to be here. Michaelritchie200 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to vote speedy keep, as two previous nominations have resulted in keep, here and here, and no new arguments have been presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - notable shock sites like Goatse already have their own articles. the links on this page are mostly NN filler. --Philo 11:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This has already been voted on multiple times, and after this vote, it will likely be renominated in the future. Personal offense to a subject is not reason for deletion - see GNAA -- 130.160.151.14 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm tired of explaining why articles like this are bad. Just delete it. -Barry- 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - shock sites are notable, we need a shock site article, and we need a corresponding list of shock sites. Original submitter can't read - policy says "inappropriate links to shock sites"; this article is the one place that links to shock sites are appropriate. They should also read the title of the policy section: Wikipedia is not censored. Kyz 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD nominations. Wikipedia is not censored. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per the entirely correct Samuel Blanning.Skinmeister 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - You can't argue that these aren't noteable, and just because most people find them offensive is not a reason to delete it. Would you support somebody deleting an aricle on sex because they found the subject offensive? Anything noteable should be in Wikipedia, good or bad. You wouldn't delete an article on the holocaust because it was a bad thing. Foolish Child 14:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable and well-defined. Wikipedia is not censored. Grand master ka 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as no valid grounds for deletion have been presented, but merge with/redirect to Shock_sites, since the two articles are so interdependent. Monicasdude 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for delete. --Wizardman 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mr. Sam. There have been no new reasons presented for removing the article. Kuru ^talk 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page lets you find out what the shock sites entail before actually seeing it for yourself. I say strong keep for informational purposes. brabblebrex 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep per established precedent. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of adverts. Hawkestone 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These aren't adverts, they are more likely to detter visitors to these sites than attract them. Foolish Child 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see any reason why we should delete this. Wikipedia is not censorship. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is exactly the kind of disgusting shit that Wikipedia is famous for not censoring. To delete would be out of line with established precedent. Since this is obviously not going to be deleted (after the third nomination), any future AfD's should be speedy-deleted unless they present some novel reason due to changed circumstances. Shock sites are an important Internet phenomenon, and this article serves the valuable purpose of a central listing that can prevent individual stubs for each of these sites from being created. NTK 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Moreover, a page with a foreseeable use: any link one gets forwarded can be cross-referenced here. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NTK. --J a son ^(talk) 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barring my personal opinions. Wikipedia is not censored.--Adam ^(talk) 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, maybe merge with the main Shock site article, though it is kind of long. -156.34.75.213 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep works well with the main shock sites article to have a list article to chronicle them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NTK.--Primetime 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Sam Blanning. MCB 06:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a useful resource to help avoid the trolls! --Takayuki 11:38, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Robbie Rowley[edit]

A footballer (I guess that's what he is), only google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Non-notable. Weregerbil 11:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and non-sense. --Deville (Talk) 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aint nothing there to judge but nothing there. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 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 delete. SushiGeek 07:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism and Christianity[edit]

I propose Delete on Jainism and Christianity (and Jainism and Judaism and Jainism and world religions).

Sorry for length of my proposal but there is some history to wade through!

There are also articles started by same original author on Jainism and Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and Jainism and Islam. I am not proposing deletion of these 4. The first 3 are going somewhere, and I've attempted a rewrite as a stub on the Islam artilce. We'll see what happens.

The Judaism article previously proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Judaism). 7 votes - general consensus was that the topic was appropriate, that the original article was weak, and that the best way to proceed would be merging into a Jainism and world religions article. The Judaism article was ProDed 6 months later after no activity. I requested undeletion review (WP:DRV on April 6) - wish I hadn't!

Currently both the Christianity and Judaism are non-encyclopedic - essentially short essays (original research) by the original author trying to find parallels between the religions. Vegetarianism and Pacifism for Christianity. For Judaism a comparison between the sociology of Jains and Jews - small religions, hard working, family centred - with the only reference a single WSJ articles on the Amsterdam diamond markets.

Until the deletion of the Judaism article through the ProD process neither article was showing no signs of activity. I volunteered to combine the articles - which was the consensus from the origianl AfD discussion.

However, I've changed my mind. I don't think that the current material warrants a merge. My own efforts to find new materials has gone nowhere. The web has yielded little beyond a few notices of inter-faith dialogue meetings and Fundamentalist Christian critiques of Jainism. Given previous lack of activity and unsatisfactory current articles, then delete. If someone later wants to start again with stronger articles then fantastic! Cje 11:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all the nom is saying is that the article is bad. If those other articles exist, why not this one? One could merge all of the Jainism and . . . into one big article called Comparisons and contrasts between Jainism and other worst religions. But why delete if the other articles exist? --Deville (Talk) 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. I started off with the view that "relation of Jainism to other religions is an important topic, why was the Judaism article ever deleted?" Now I am saying that not only are the two articles bad, but they are going nowhere after several months. My strong preference would be to delete them until someone has the commitment and knowledge to create good articles. If the articles survive this AfD then (on quality grounds) they will need to be edited down to sub-stubs until someone can provide encylopedic content. Cje 07:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could force the keep contingent sit down and actually turn these into proper articles, eh? Jainism has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism or Christianity IMHO... - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point - yes, I started as "keep", tried and repented! I suspect there might be some interesting contacts between Jainism and Saint Thomas Christians , but this is gut feel - no evidence. Cje 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I tend to agree that these articles could probably all be merged togther, however the content should stay. Tombride 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what I was thinking before. This is an essay. Tombride 20:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless comparison of two unrelated religions. It might be an approriate section in the non-existent "Parallels between world religions", but this is not a useful article otherwise. Also unsourced and at least somewhat POV to draw the connections at all; probably qualifies as original research. —Cuivi é nen, Saturday, 8 April 2006 @ 16:46 (UTC)
Strong Delete - awful awful article. No citations, original research, 'some Christians are vegetarians' like Janists?? Yes, and some have red hair too! - Total rubbish. Seriously, no article should exist here for now - and perhaps ever. Unless it can reference academic comparisons - or the opinion of some notable scholars as to similarities (and we have no evidence at the moment that this is possible) - it will by definition be original research, and a 'point-of-view' comparison of what is deemed (by whom?) essential to both religions and then deemed similar or dissimilar (by whom?). --Doc ^ask? 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article: This article shows the comparison of two wonderful faiths that have had greatly influence the the world. What is wrong with telling the truth. Remember the truth always hurts and is very power for it has made up this universe. Remember truth prevails. Thus Jainism is the creator [ some what of the various forms of the faiths that follow the bible]. Its a supreme religion in the sense it is the oldesr religion out there still being preach everyday. Jainist are proud of this. If your religion was mention here and it derived from Jainism, - so what! At least your not worshipping the devil! So keep this article for it contains truth, honesty, and history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.5.224 (talk • contribs) .
- No kidding! Really? I've seen the light and I'm switching. Where do I sign up for Jainism? I'd accuse you of violating WP:PROSELYTIZE, but unfortunately we don't have one like that. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic: original research and POV essay. MCB 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, pure POV/OR. Subjects are encyclopedic, but only with actual encyclopedic content. Sandstein 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a separate article, merge content that can be verifiably cited into main Jainism article; or combine with other comparative "Jainism and..." articles. --Leflyman^Talk 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete on both. I prodded J&Judaism last month. The articles are OR and are of no encyclopedic value. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, all these article are POV-bait, just waiting to serve as somebody's soapbox. We don't need any more of that here. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jainism or delete - having an article on every possible combination of two religions seems unuseful, in particular minor religions. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like my Sufi Islam and Wiccanism article? :P Tombride 08:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per deville. Blink484 22:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's enemies[edit]

I don't think WP is the place for listing people who dislike Eminem. It is probably very POV. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 13:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic fancruft. Nothing worth keeping in this that can't go in Eminem. Daniel Case 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rapcruft --Deville (Talk) 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article appears to compile people who have been abused by Eminem, or abuse Eminem, in recorded songs. This would seem to be both verifiable and (insofar as any rap music is worthy of note) notable. Someone has taken the trouble to compile this information; it should be kept somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, eminemcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything useful can go in Eminem. --Saforrest 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc. NTK 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
smerge. Probably worth noting in the main Eminem article that he's got peope who have disliked him enough to mention their dislike in songs. "Enemies" is too strong in any case for the vast majority of these. Youu can dislike someone without being their enemy. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just came across this article and I wanted to say that it seems pretty neutral and well documented to me. Plus its kind of interesting and it would make the main Eminem article too large if they was merged. I see no reason to delete. --Chris Brennan 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ue A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. please don't delete I found this article to be very interesting and relevant in being an archive. And i seeno reason to delete. --manuni 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eminem is noteworthy for having been involved in several feuds. The information contained within ought to be maintained in some place (and updated, for what it's worth). I'm not sure it mandates its own article, but at the same time there's probably more information worthy of inclusion than would fit in the main article on Eminem. I recommend a rename to "Eminem's Feuds" or something along those lines. - RPIRED 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demolition Blues[edit]

This article was speedily deleted several times; now it makes some claim of note (making it no longer a speedy candidate), but there is still no evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Not found on allmusic.com. Strong delete. (Originally nominated for WP:PROD; author removed the notice without any explanation.) - Mike Rosoft 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mike Rosoft. -- Kjkolb 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours. Perhaps in an effort to demonstrate just how influential this band is, the author or other interested editor can expand upon one or more of these points in order to nudge the band in to notable status? (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aeropagitica. Bucketsofg 16:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:05, 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 move and cleanup. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin foxe[edit]

Well, let's see. A self-biography. Does have an IMDB mention, but appears to be an advert overall. Just doesn't qualify as notable. Trafton 10:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I know this guy functioned as an executive producer for the Blair Witch Project, but I don't know much about Hollywood, and I'm not sure if that qualifies him as being significant. --Trafton 10:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong if not Speedy Keep. Significant IMDB record, undeniably and significantly associated with major film. [21]. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Kevin Foxe, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here. Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about Hollywood, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" Monicasdude 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article should be pared down significantly. A link to his IMDb page would be fine, no need to pop his resume onto this article. If we have The Blair Witch Project, then it's reasonable to have an article on this movie's producer. --Deville (Talk) 15:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ Move and clean up per below. Notable producer. Feezo (Talk) 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move. The Wrong surname case. Notable ( [22] ). Cate 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and cleanup. NTK 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Has no notability whatsoever on his own, other than ties to BWP, which can certainly have an article covering all the behind the scenes people, but not notable enough for own article. DreamGuy 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after significant cleanup work. My eyes! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King[edit]

Other articles that are also in this category: Legend Of The Rainbow Mist! Old Man Henzo of Ruluka Island, Where The Island's Treasure Lies! Zenny Pirates Full Charge!, How's That for Profit? Money Lender Zenny's Ambition!, Infamous Pirate Hunter! The Wandering Swordsman,Zoro, The Navigator's Mutiny! For A Unwavering Dream!, The First Patient! Anecdote Of The Rumble Ball, I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball, Inherited Recipe! Sanji, The Curry Expert, Zenny Lives On Goat Island And There's A Pirate Ship On His Mountain!

Appears to be fanfiction. There is no reason to even make a redirect out of this, because it has no significance. Trafton 12:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Apparently this is part of an excessively detailed episode guide to something called One Piece. It was previously speedied twice under the name 1. I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King as patent nonsense. Later User:OnePieceMaster5000 who contributes the articles started creating articles without episode numbers in the title, and moved existing articles to these names. Other articles in the series have been speedied too because they provide so little context that the appear to be nonsense. All (or most) are linked from One Piece Episode Guide. Since we have other TV episode guides on Wikipedia, I don't think these are candidates for outright deletion (except if copyvio) but they do need a strict loving hand for pruning and wikifying. Henning Makholm 12:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge I only managed to click that it was an episode synopsis when I deleted the first one. There must be a List of One Piece Episodes somewhere. This probably got lifted of another website to boot. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably already covered in One Piece Episode Guide H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Episode Guide is just a list of links, made by the same contributor as the individual article. If they were shorter I would advocate merging, and I may still tend that way. Strangely enough Google cannot locate a source, so I think User:OnePieceMaster5000 does write them him/herself. Henning Makholm 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be like serebii.net, which is a Pokémon site with tons of synopsis but you can't copy any of it straight from the page. You can however open it up with the Microsoft Word 03 and edit it there. So it could be done that way. Can we stop this guy by the way? H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's them all (for now), we probably could merge them into the One Piece Episode Guide (which needs renamed) if we prosed them.. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am not of the opinion that this series is notable enough that individual articles are needed synopsizing every episode; however as I'm aware and as Henning Malkolm's comment suggests the consensus on this is not yet clear. I would suggest no prejudice against recreation if the creator, or any recreator, does it right and in a manner clearly indicating they're episodes of a TV show. Daniel Case 13:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't notable enough to have an episode per article. It's below the notability of the Pokémon anime which doesn't. The English articles (which are listed near the bottom of article) are more noted. But I'm still voting on merge. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but probably needs a bit of cleanup (at least something at the top explaining what these are episodes of). We have episode guides for Star Trek, Buffy, Firefly, etc etc etc. and I don't see why we can't have them for One Piece too. Marging isn't the best solution as these are pretty long and the resulting article would be unwieldly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Starblind, but the articles will need major cleanup and (probably) more uniform titling. Monicasdude 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these crufty articles, or, barring that, redirect to one main one. Totally absurd that these all would exist, as they do not come close to meeting notability requirements. DreamGuy 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am of the opinion that view if any TV shows should have long individual episode summaries. This show is not notable enough to deserve this kind of in depth summary. I would create a main article for each season or volume or however anime is divided, and have a season's worth of shorter summaries on a page. I know this is a minority view, but there it is FWIW.Thatcher131 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for one simple reason - these summaries are based on the subtitled versions of the original Japanese, and so do not belong here. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see other reasons to delete these pages, but why on earth should "based on subtitled Japanese" in and of itself warrant deletion? Confused Henning Makholm 11:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pages would be based on illegal fansubs, first off. Secondly, there is a policy to only discuss English versions on the English Wikipedia, anyway. Danny Lilithborne 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly can you show that these are based off of fansubs rather than someone that watched it originally in Japanese on TV? Also, please link this policy. Kotepho 14:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all read differently, some start with Eric Stewart voice over and others don't. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Naruto" pages are full of debates about this topic. Also check WP:MOS-JA. It is not directly on point, but it states that "en:Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia". Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS mainly talks about names and not content differences. I can find nothing that says "don't discuss foreign things". Why couldn't we have an article on a book/whatever that hasn't been translated into English yet? I'm going to stay far away from any Naruto debates though. Kotepho 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all It is totally absurd that we have these articles, but we have plenty more of them. Advise the author of Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes though. Kotepho 14:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that keep all or redirect all to the ones in Category:One Piece episodes. We don't need two copies of each, but I don't know which titles are better. Kotepho 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to one article about the episodes. The series is just about notable, the episodes certainly aren't on their own. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jigeemu[edit]

Non-notable organization / web site. 7 distinct google hits, no Alexa rank. Prod tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Founded on January 23, 2006, Jigeemu.com, Inc. was created to make the most comprehensive environmental information website available on the world wide web." Hardly enough time to become notable. Maybe when they have achieved this laudable goal then the website will become notable. Until then, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Weregerbil & (aeropagitica). --blue520 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, envirocruft of the highest order. Alexa has nothing to say about them, which is not entirely surprising, as there is a pot of beans in my fridge older than this website. As above, if and when they accomplish some of their goals, they will be notable enough for inclusion here. --Deville (Talk) 15:21, 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 as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Minutes Of Failure[edit]

Completing listing started by Lacatosias. Very unfortunately named band fails WP:BAND. Daniel Case 13:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i definately don't think this article should be deleted. i love 15 minutes of failure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alcatraz 99 (talk • contribs) .
Comment Please note that Alcatraz_99 (talk · contribs · count), 203.213.30.4 (talk · contribs · count) and Swinger_95 (talk · contribs · count) would all appear to be the same person (see editing pattern of this AfD, for instance). ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Alcatraz 99 also vandalized my user page. Not good. Seeing as this article may be a hoax, I am now upgrading my stance to speedy delete. Daniel Case 16:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very nn band or possible hoax; almost no relevant Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short-lived, non-notable band. Gwernol 16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

dont delete- you guys all have a serious control freak personality.next you'll all probably want to delete the beatles or rolling stones page.and to answer your question, swinger_95, and alcatraz99 are different people, i use a shared computer.but what i really don't understand is how this page is any different to daniel case's, no ones ever heard of him, and yet his page still lasts...and why would someone be so proud of deleting peoples pages, that certain person must be very self obsessed...besides, what difference does one extra page on wikipedia make anyhow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.30.4 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: Daniel Case's page is in the User: space, not the main article space, and therefore is permitted. If you'd like to talk about your band and want to contribute, create an account for yourself and put it on your user page. However, unfortunately your band is not notable enough to warrant its own article in the main encyclopedia. --Happynoodleboy 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- UPDATE: Now this anon user has vandalized my user page as well. Sockpuppeting (we are not fooled in the slightest regardless of what you say; your posting style as Alcatraz 99 and as the above anon are entirely too similar) and repeat vandalism, especially repeat vandalism using the sockpuppet in order to evade the warnings you've already gotten — this bad behavior just loses the argument regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the article.

If you want to have a foggy chance of saving this article, Alcatraz 99, the burden is on you to include and provide evidence that not only did this band exist but that they have released the one major-label album or three notable indie-label albums that we require for articles about bands to be included. Daniel Case 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Happynoodleboy 12:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , not notable. Anonymous anonymous 21:19, 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. 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Naruto59788 Adventures episodes[edit]

A search for Naruto59788 produecs one result - a user name on a chat board. That suggests this is at most a hoax, at least non-notable. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles leading off it (Episode 1:The King of Naruto59788 for instance) are being speedy deleted by others. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 13:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or maybe somebody's fanfic or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable WP:V, with unclear context & notability. Hoax?, don't know. But there is a chance that it could be fan fiction due to associated edits by OnePieceMaster5000 to Naruto (anime and manga).--blue520 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G1, A1): No context, nn. Cate 16:44, 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 exterminate (delete). — FireFox • T [21:12, 10 April 2006]

Fag tail[edit]

Non-notable slang protologism. 30 google results none of which seem to use this definition. Weregerbil 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe even speedy. Feezo (Talk) 15:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If this wasn't made up in school one day, it is a dictdef. --Deville (Talk) 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--blue520 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ASAP. NTK 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed rare expression. Kylet 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:V, nn A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:45, 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 keep - Liberatore(T) 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lung[edit]

Nom. for deletion. Bit actor; the role in House of Wax was uncredited, and she has nothing else notable on her IMDB resume. --M @r ē ino 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography, either as an actress or Olympian. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, she is a bit actor, but if she also was in the Olympics this might push her past the notability bar. However, I can't verify that she was in the 2000 Olympics but I'd change my vote if someone could back this up. --Deville (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. About a dozen IMDB credits, including a regular role in TV series. Passes the legendary Kadee Strickland test with flying colors, which means that she's not only notable, but FA-material. Monicasdude 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deville. Harr o5 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Bit player, whose "best-known" role isn't even credited. What the existing-only-in-Monicadude's-mind "Kadee Strickland test" is, I dunno (though thanking mercies for small favors, he didn't bring up "Air Force Amy" again). A dozen roles on IMDB is nothing, and the "starring role" on the TV series? Here's what an IMDB reviewer said about that series:

The Cooks, based on Network TEN's low rating 2003 tele-movie/pilot "Temptation" was one of the lowest rating drama premieres and was quickly dumped in a late-night time-slot to waste away (TEN couldn't axe The Cooks as it would jeopardise their Australian content quota). --Calton | Talk 05:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Even though I think is not a great movie, Peaches (2004) is notable, and though the charter that she plays is listed third it is a major part (pivotal) and a lot more than a "bit". Article needs a bit of a rewrite though, with a de-emphasis on the House of Wax and removal of the Olympics (unless verification can be shown).--blue520 14:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people will come to Wikipedia to look for information about her. bbx 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this person is notable Yuckfoo 05:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Haham hanuka 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- She was a regular cast member in the Australian drama series, The Cooks and went onto to recently star opposite Hugo Weaving in the Australian film Peaches released in 2004. She is by no means a bit part actor. However, I would like to see both The Cooks and Peaches articles created.-- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have made significant changes to the article. Please have a look. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C]

05:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thumbs up to Chanlord for improving the article. I didn't realize that much of her work was Australian; I naively assumed that the shows were American-made, and therefore were flops b/c they never made it onto American TV. --M @r ē ino 13:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Most of her roles are uncredited and/or in redlinked movies. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peaches and Garage Days were wide release Australian films and I'll be working to write articles about them as with the rest of the films/TV shows -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please also note that a google search for Emma Lung (without quotes) gets a lot of verifiable hits. She may be an Australian actress but she is still a feature film actress (and has been a leading one at that) and if Kevin Bacon's daughter, who's only claim to fame is having a famous dad and appearing in one film, can have an article, why can't Emma Lung? -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the convincing arguments (and article improvements) made by both Chanlord and blue520. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [21:12, 10 April 2006]

Freakalicious[edit]

Neologism. SCHZMO ✍ 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Belongs on urbandictionary if nothing else, not here. --Wizardman 14:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Feezo (Talk) 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --light darkness^(talk) 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism--blue520 16:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now. NTK 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:57, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tay[edit]

Article deals sparingly with something irrelevant to Wikipedia Mystaker1 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a fairly notable radio station. [23] Feezo (Talk) 15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radio stations are generally notable. Size just means it needs to be expanded, not deleted. Night Gyr 19:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. What do you have against Dundee? William McGonagall weeps in his grave. NTK 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem:

Oooooh beautiful radio station by the silv'ry Tay,

Indeed I am very happy to say,

That McGonagall has very little reason to weep,

When this article is such an obvious keep,

(At least so many good fellow editors do agree,

In this discussion at wikipedia's AFD), oooh.

Grutness...wha? 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very artistic, I'm most impressed. Mystaker1 04:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Grutness...wha? 08:25, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Codex Series[edit]

Not enough information to form an article, this is unnecessary due to both "The Codex" and "Heretic" having their own articles.--Zxcvbnm 15:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unnotable, promotional internet "machinima." NTK 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. "The Codex Series" is what a lot of the fans call "The Codex" because of its web address, so a seperate article is valid for purposes of clarification that it is NOT simply "The Codex." It serves the function of a disambiguation page: describing the differences between what you searched for and what you meant to search for. And I'd hardly call the most popular peer-produced machinima series in history "unnotable" NTK. Tex Murphy 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tex Murphy's first edit was February 24, 2006, and other than adding a few brackets to two articles, has only edited The Codex, The Codex Series, and Edgeworks Entertainment. NTK 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, I'm a fan. I don't have to spend a lot of time here to make points, do I? I agree with TKD's idea of merging it with Edgeworks, they hold a lot of the same info, but the fact remains that The Codex Series is something that is different from The Codex, and should be allowed to remain as a clarification page. When The Heretic starts it could hold comparisons between the series, connections and over-arching themes, it deserves its own article, although I suppose that could be held in The Codex Series's section of Edgeworks, if they were merged. Tex Murphy 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Edgeworks Entertainment to here. EE is known only for The Codex Series, and it seems redundant to have a separate article for each, at this point (esecially since the EE article doesn't contain much that isn't covered by The Codex Series, The Codex, and The Heretic articles. — TKD::Talk 06:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second. I like that idea, although I'd say if one had to go then The Codex Series should be a redirect to Edgeworks rather than Edgeworks being merged to here, since Edgeworks has a bit about The Codex Series that could serve the clarification function of this page. Tex Murphy 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure speifically which section you're referring to, but text could always be moved from one article to the other. My rationale for having The Codex Series as the "main" article is that there's not much to write about EE except in the context of The Codex Series. — TKD::Talk 03:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Its not fantastically important, I just figured that the reason for having a "The Codex Series" page would be to clarify about the distinction between that and "The Codex", but that distinction is made in the description of "The Codex Series" on the Edgeworks page, thus making its own page unnecessary. That way, Edgeworks, which is its own entity and idea, has its own page, and The Codex Series, which is really more of a point of clarification, is just a point of clarification on the Edgeworks page. You see what I mean? If someone searched for "The Codex Series" and found its blurb on the Edgeworks page, they would have found what they were looking for, but if someone searched for Edgeworks and found a page about The Codex Series, they would still be unsatisfied. Not to mention it leaves open room should they start another series in Edgeworks that doesn't fit into "The Codex Series": it could just be a new section of the Edgeworks page, but it wouldn't work on a "The Codex Series" page, you know? 68.181.241.78 05:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any reader confusion could be resolved by a strong lead, too. It's not as if a redirect has to stay that way forever. The Codex Series was a redirect to The Codex until recently. Redirects from related terms occur all the time. And those redirects get turned into articles once the target article becomes too big or new information requires expansion. If Edgeworks does a second series, then the redirect could be eliminated. If the lead sentence of The Codex Series mentions that it's Edgeworks Enterntainment's machinima series, I think most people would probably realize why they were redirected. :) — TKD::Talk 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All action wrestling[edit]

Non-notable, copy and paste and poorly formatted--Zxcvbnm 15:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brand new Aussie "pro wrestling" company that has yet to become established. Badly done promo. If this is kept it needs to be replaced with a rewritten stub as opposed to this cut-paste copyvio stuff. NTK 20:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like advert, and messy at that Paul 05:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. NTK 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantv.net[edit]

~~nn website, and ... well, I can't understand a thing from the article. OE removed both the speedy and prod tags placed on it so off to AFD it goes. RasputinAXP c 15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, per Deville, this should me merged and redirected. RasputinAXP c 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now if it's rewritten and some notability established. I just went to CANTV and copy-edited that, and it seems to me that cantv.net is the high-speed Internet component of the CANTV company. Sort of like a Venezuelan Road Runner, I guess. If we could get some numbers on the number of subscribers, and if this number were high enough, we'd be in. Anyway, CANTV seems notable enough, so it's arguable that this is. --Deville (Talk) 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh. Thanks for that info. That's a lot more clear, but now the question is "we don't have an entry for Comcast.net separate from Comcast, so why would we have one for cantv.net?" See above. RasputinAXP c 17:04, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tari Schreider[edit]

Vanity bio, stuffed with peacock and weasel words, about a "leading authority in disaster recovery" -- so leading, he only gets 148 Google hits. Was prodded, but removed by User:Monicasdude with the message "recognized expert in his field": perhaps he can share his source for this? Calton | Talk 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but kill the peacocks. As long as this is the same dude, he seems to have two books out in this field (my only hesitation is that the Amazon blurb, while claiming he is a "recognized expert", gives him expertise in a different field than the article does). Or maybe it's the same thing, this all seems like a bunch of buzzwords to me. But in any case, if the claims in the article are all true, this guy seems to pass the notability bar to me, but I admit it's close. --Deville (Talk) 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as vanity. The 'recognized expert on blah blah blah' comes from his own promo stuff. Its in his bio at just about ever conference he has spoken at. I guess I have a problem with him creating his own entry as well. His books look like pretty cheaply published spiral bound handbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)
Delete - perhaps an article can be made some day that meets our requirements, but in the meantime there's no point at all to having vanityspamcruft sitting around. Better to have nothing than something bad. DreamGuy 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harr o5 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not your book jacket flap. NTK 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's in extreme bad form to insert a promo piece about yourself as an encyclopedia article. It drips with POV. Frankly I don't care if he barely crosses the notability threshhold, because this isn't a legitimate article as written. And it's not at all clear he does cross it; writing your own bio is a pretty darn good sign that you're not actually notable. Derex 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Tschreider. I disagree with the reasons for the prod being removed - it's not speediable but it's unverifiable, vanity, and so on. However, once it's been objected to it has to go. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Stifle. Accurizer 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Manufracture 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete same reasons as nom --Strothra 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyspace[edit]

Delete. Article is about a non-notable website that only briefly existed. Tombride 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, defunct minor feature of MySpace. Gwernol 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete cruft. NTK 10:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or slight merge into MySpace. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable tool. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable tool, now defunct.--Alhutch 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (very, very) brief mention in MySpace. NeilDespres 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-band and db-repost. Not per the myspace test, but maybe we'll make that a CSD sometime. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Charge[edit]

Non-notable band, no listing in AMG. —Chowbok 16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Already deleted once, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhino Charge)

Delete seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Can an admin please check to see if it is any different from the previously deleted version (can we CSD G4 it?).--blue520 16:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spearhead 21:40, 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 delete. DS 23:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wright (filmmaker, artist, writer)[edit]

Vanity bio: "'Jay Wright' filmmaker" gets 199 Google hits -- the top one being this article, never a good sign for objective notability. Was prodded, but tag removed with the reason Search engines in their bid to increase their ratings usually give Wikipedia a higher rating on their pages because of its credibility -- perhaps the flimsiest excuse I've heard in a long while. Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN and quite possibly vanity (the creator of this article has touched only two pages in Wikipedia ever) per nom. Certainly NN, for example this link returns 7 Ghits, and this returns 2. Throw away the Wiki links and mirrors, and the total number of links on the entire Internet which mention this filmmaker and the name of one of his films is six. --Deville (Talk) 16:35, 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 merge to CDMA. SushiGeek 04:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre coding[edit]

It need a lot of improvement, but I think it is also in the wrong page. The topic is very general, so a disambuiguos page with the link to the relevand articles. But in this case, what fields is? no context! Cate 16:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this content (which I agree is badly written at present) should be merged into the Technical Details section of CDMA Gwernol 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Gwernol. —Ruud 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to CDMA, or delete. There really isn't much there. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 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 delete. SushiGeek 04:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Ghodsee[edit]

I prodded it, prod tag was removed. I note here that I had mistakenly added a second prod tag to the article, in any case it comes here. NN academic. Deville (Talk) 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solid publication record, decent Google Scholar listings, considered authoritative enough to be a print encyclopedia source, and one particularly notable publication (Red Riviera) from Duke University press. Monicasdude 19:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original {{prod}}. Harr o5 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant professor = not notable. Speaking as a professor myself. No evidence to the contrary presented here. If you're actually notable that young (rare), you get promoted in a flash (to keep the poachers away). Derex 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't know enough about women's studies or liberal arts colleges to comment. JeffBurdges 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Derex. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Good publication record. Red Riviera is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.35.173 (talk • contribs)
Delete per Derex. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per WP:WINAD. Royboy crashfan 00:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monolithic[edit]

Dictionary definition. Wiktionary already has it. Little room for expansion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if some one can be bothered turn it in to a disambiguation page and move some of the content to the articles where necessary.--blue520 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopedic - move to wictionary Gardar Rurak 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - dictionary def. Kylet 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some useful info ... WHY DELETE IT ????

Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 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 delete, WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom for Belorussia[edit]

The name of the article is a slogan; no claim to notability. The article consists of political propaganda (inherently POV). Proded: tag removed without explanation; the part written in Russian was moved to the talk page, but that didn't contain anything else but polititcal propaganda either. Delete Imarek 17:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Partisan agitprop, non-encyclopædic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's already lots of information on Lukashenko and the Belarusian presidential election in Wikipedia. --Saforrest 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedia article, proper content already exists at Alexander Lukashenko. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. NTK 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NTK. But brave of the writer. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret, as it's all true, even if atrociously spelled. ProhibitOnions 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per soapbox. --Chris (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... I don't want to make a crusade of ending this person's crusade. If "Freedom for Belarus" really is a movement with leadership and organization it might merit an article, but this isn't it. Iamvered 16:55, 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 Speedy delete as {{nn-group}}. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scampers[edit]

NN company Gu 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flash animators, ~~non-notable company, WP:CORP refers~~. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete its not a company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.215.193.185 (talk • contribs)

User's third edit, another one of which was to this page. Daniel Case 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, {{db-group}} applies. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the original prod placer I still don't see anything here to establish notability. Daniel Case 02:42, 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 Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chow[edit]

NN Bio, less than 50 Google hits [24] Gu 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NTK 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as bio that fails to assert notability. Owning a restaurant that received a prize is not notable unless the prize is, and we get no information to judge that. Henning Makholm 21:03, 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. DS 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian University student's assessment of e-learning status in Egypt[edit]

Self-proclaimed OR essay. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 18:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Saforrest 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course . . . --He:ah? 18:57, 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-ish delete. — FireFox • T [21:13, 10 April 2006]

DJ Akaru[edit]

This article is for self-promotional purposes only. Meccaneer 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per norm --Jorvik 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity, {{db-bio}}. Henning Makholm 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please. NTK 10:17, 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. Royboy crashfan 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area rugs[edit]

This article is a dictionary definition only. Meccaneer 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No contents, non-encyclopedic subject. Henning Makholm 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carpet. -AED 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, dicdef. NTK 10:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as opposed to redirect — unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged comment from duplicate AFD discussion:

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Clearly no more than a dictionary definition, and is a ridiculous article.Freddie 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted at original author Thesilentdj's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBR DJ Cheese[edit]

This page has nothing on it other than a request for deletion. Meccaneer 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Do I need to explain?--Pal5017 18:43, 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 per WP:VAIN and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jurson[edit]

This all seems to be the work of one person, whose only contribution is to this article. Seems like self-promotion. The only real substance to this article is on his personal website link. SteveHopson 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:VAN. --Pal5017 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent vanity article. Artist lives in NYC; user's IP is from NYC. --Saforrest 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It seems that he might actually be notable, but the current contents is no basis for an encyclopedia article. Autobiography does not help. Henning Makholm 21:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of awards that someone won. I'd recommend userfication, but it was created by an anon. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 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 KEEP NTK 10:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Edwin Lee[edit]

Nowhere in this article is an assertion of notability, other than the fact that he was credited with the name of a famous general. That does not make one notable. Just like I know people with famous names, but I cant say theyre notable. Pal5017 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It says right in the article that he is the playwright who wrote the play Inherit the Wind about the Scopes Trial, which was later made into the famous film of the same name. I don't know how well-known his other works are, but he certainly looks notable to me. --Saforrest 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think his article should point that out, dont you? Point out that Inherit the Wind was so important so people will instantly recognize his notability.--Pal5017 18:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? The article on Inherit the Wind is linked - that says how important it was. We don't need to add notes on the importance of things in each connected article? It's like saying the article on John Lennon should say "He was a member of the Beatles, who were a very important band." Many - if not most - people would recognise the title of at least one of Lee's plays. That in itself should be an indication of their noteworthiness, and his. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the article should be improved, but it's enough that it can be improved to keep it around. --Saforrest 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the article needs a rewrite more than a delete. This guy wrote a successful broadway play, Mame and a quick look at IMDB.com shows he wrote a number of films as well. SteveHopson 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously extremely notable, nominator should withdraw this ASAP, if for no other reason than to avoid further embarassment after his inappropriate riposte above. Article needs expansion, of course. Monicasdude 19:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per monicasdude Bucketsofg 21:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep in view of Mame and Inherit the Wind, inter al. Inasmuch as no delete votes have been cast, I think Pal would do well to withdraw the nomination in order that this article might be speedily kept, per Monicasdude. See also this Lee bio, which enumerates the sundry honors for which he was nominated and that he won. Joe 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I wont support this delete, but someone needs to clean it up. Ill remove the AfD at this time.--Pal5017 07:50, 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. Royboy crashfan 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snud[edit]

The page was deleted several times. Perhaps not actually a speedy candidate, it is patently non-encyclopedic (per WP:NFT). Strong delete - get rid of it once and for good. - Mike Rosoft 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in (Sunday) school. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Pal5017 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Should be NPOV'd and treated as a webcomic article, seems to me. Hackwrench 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's a webcomic, on what ground is it notable? --Saforrest 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Casper2k3 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Saforrest 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aeropagitica Bucketsofg 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT, WP:OR, whatever. Henning Makholm 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is not a speedy deletion candidate why? NTK 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither speedy deletion nor PROD makes a repost a speedy candidate unless it meets the criteria on its own, it would be a stretch to delete it as either patent nonsense or vanity, and no other criteria can apply. - Mike Rosoft 07:02, 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 keep. – Rob ert 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Crampton Gore[edit]

Perhaps Im wrong, and maybe he is notable, but since the article doesnt blue link me to the RHA page, I dont have any idea whether that is a famous art exposition (in which he is notable), or just some smalltime gallery (in which he is not notable). If its not deleted, this article still needs some help. For now, delete due to nn. Pal5017 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked up the RHA. It stands for Royal Hibernian Academy. The academy is notable enough, but an artist whos only medium is this academy is not notable.--Pal5017 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears clearly notable by market standards. His work is offered for sale at four- to five-figure prices, and if that's not notable I'm gonna haul my great-grandad's stuff from the same period down from the attic, put it on Ebay, and buy me a new house with the proceeds. [25] [26] [27]. Monicasdude 19:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ArtPrice.com, an online database for major art galleries, shows him with 52 recent auction sales at major international houses like Sotheby's and Christie's.[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BehroozZ (talk • contribs)
Keep per Monicasdude. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 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 to Crawling (song). Royboy crashfan 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crawling in my skin[edit]

Article exists merely to point out that there are some people who poke fun at (mainly pre-adult) listeners to bands likeLinkin Park Hackwrench 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep slash smerge to Crawling (song). If the article is correct, then it's a worthwhile topic. Unfortunately, it's unverified and stinks of original research. But the bottom two panels of [29] mean I can't vote to delete it... Melchoir 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely unverified information and doesn't seem significant enough to have its own page. Anything salvageable from this should be added to nu metal or emo. Hammer Raccoon 14:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the part about messageboards is true. No, we don't need it. Kotepho 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Crawling (song). This unbelievably shit song doesn't need 2 articles about it's rubbishness, and this one is mostly unsourced POV. - Hahnch e n 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crawling (song). These won't be seen by the majority as more than just lyrics. Royboy crashfan 09:19, 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. — FireFox • T [21:14, 10 April 2006]

Anita Oser Pauling[edit]

Deleted her mother and aunt. She is just as non-notable unless carrying notable genetic material counts. Montco 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Gflor e s^Talk 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (No references to her in Factiva or Lexis Nexis.) Bucketsofg 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 21:13, 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft monaco[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of it not being out but I would not doubt that they would not create such software it is on reputable sites that it is in the works. If Windows Vista which I am beggining to think will not be out should be removed also cause we know that it is not actually out in the public released. It brings a valid point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paintballsean16 (talk • contribs) .
Delete: per nom. sorry, but there is a BIG difference between this and Windows vista, its not a valid comparison. --Hetar 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge: This codename should be listed on Microsoft codenames. While Monaco isn't the same as Windows Vista,MSH (shell) has its own page, though it has also seen a beta release. Hackwrench 20:11, 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. Royboy crashfan 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Environments[edit]

Created by User:AppOnKey (among other articles) for advertising its products. Also copied straight from its website. Gflor e s^Talk 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spamvertisement and copyvio per nom Bucketsofg 21:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the person created the Wiki entry him/herself from his own webpage, it's not a copyright violation. You can't violate a copyright by copying your own material in which you hold the copyright. (However, it should be deleted, of course, because it's spam.)BehroozZ 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammity spam.BehroozZ 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't look like there's much room for expansion. I cut out the linkspam. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 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 no consensus. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lap Circle[edit]

Non notable game. WP Not for things made up in the office one day. Pal5017 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. For now, I'm close to being neutral. It's not a hoax, as can be seen here. Now, if it could be shown that this group-building activity is attested in human resources books, etc., I might be swayed towards keeping. Bucketsofg 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Bucketsofg. dbtfz ^talk 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a game, not a hoax, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a legitimate teamwork building exercise, I first encountered it in business school. I'll try to find some more sources that can be cited. Accurizer 15:59, 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 keep. DS 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manku Thimmana Kagga[edit]

Non-notable, 90 hitst on google _→AzaToth 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. I found over 14500 hits for the alternate spelling "Mankutimmana Kagga". Keep in mind that Kannada is written in the Devanagari alphabet and Latinizations may not be consistent. As well, the author, D. V. Gundappa, is important enough to have gotten a commemorative stamp from the Indian postal service. --Saforrest 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Safforest. Bucketsofg 21:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safforest and create necessary redirects, with the primary spelling being the main article.BehroozZ 02:25, 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. Royboy crashfan 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LadderCoins[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BAND, nothing published yet, claim on their homepage [30] The LadderCoins Have invaded Wikipedia! We now have our very own entry in the worlds biggest encyclopedia! To view our entry simply click here. Oh and by the way... we may have told a little lie about Ricky Wilson from the Kaiser chiefs being our Frontman! Haha! xxx Gu 19:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:BAND, claims are clearly not verifiable. Gwernol 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Saforrest 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i created it im sorry it was tasteless... what should i remove for you to keep it up? ps im sorry i added this comment like this i dint know how to edit it otherwise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.225.74.33 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Hi, don't worry too much about the editing (the right way to do it would be something like: * '''Keep''' I created it, I'm sorry it was tasteless. ~~~~). In order for an article about a band to be kept on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the guidelines on notability. Please read through those. If TheLadderCoins meet one or more of the criteria, then please add verifiable sources to the article to improve it. Good luck, Gwernol 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nonnotable NTK 10:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep thankyou gwernol. i will get to work on verifying the sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.57.149 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per NTK. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Ricky Wilson can confirm that I was in the LadderCoins at the age of 16 and later formed Parva. I was kicked out of The LadderCoins as I did not fit the style of music they were trying to achive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.176.63 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboy crashfan 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People Fisher[edit]

A social networking service with only 1000 registered members (comparatively few), and no assertion of notability. Seemingly fails WP:WEB, particularly since the site is so new (the article acknowledges the site was "started in April 2006". Was de{{prod}}ed so am bringing this for discussion here. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spamvertisement. Looking at List of social networking websites, it should be larger by several orders of magnitude before its wiki-worthy. Bucketsofg 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too new, small -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammish.BehroozZ 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not acceptable per WP:WEB. NTK 10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or so to NPOV it some. If I can reduce it to facts, minus the growth fact, would that be acceptable? --MathaytaceChristou 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not nominated for deletion because it lacked a neutral point of view. The reason I nominated for deletion, and seemingly the reason the above users have supported a deletion, is because the People Fisher site seems to lack notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus not every website is considered noteworthy. You may read the inclusion criteria for websites at WP:WEB, and if you feel that People Fisher meets these then feel free to amend the article asserting notability. Unless you are able to do this, and demonstrate notability of the content of the article, it seems unlikely that users will support keeping it, however well written it may be. The AfD discussion has still got a fair few days to run, in any case, so you've got time to edit the article as you see fit, just leave the AfD notice in place until the discussion ends. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the entry be deleted, what criteria would the site need to meet in order to justify a second article?--MathaytaceChristou 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that need to be met are those at WP:WEB. Namely one of: the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, the website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation, or the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. And crucially, the article must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for six months. If it becomes notable, like Bebo, then an article may be in order. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 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 to trokosi. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoosi[edit]

Unverifiable, does not google. Prod'ed, tag removed by anonymous contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - So what if there is no google hits, most of Afrika doesnt even know what is internet. Article needs fixing up but otherwise its ok. Luka Jačov 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, in particular the section "Verifiability, not truth". The standard for Wikipedia articles is that there are independent, verifiable sources quoted in the article that show the article is true. I have no reason to believe this article is untrue, but unless verfiable sources are provided it will likely be deleted. If as the article claims, there are many Human rights groups and Christian NGOs working to eliminate this practice I would expect there to be references to it (not necessarily via Google) that could be quoted in the article. Thanks, Gwernol 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverified. If, as the entry alleges "Human rights groups and Christian NGO's are working to try to eradicate the practice and free the slaves", there would be news stories and, yes, google hits. Without such, we have to assume this is a hoax. Bucketsofg 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to trokosi per Saforrest. Bucketsofg 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not a hoax; it just doesn't seem to be called by that name. Look at trokosi and associated Google hits, e.g. this. --Saforrest 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See nothing wrong with it, just needs attention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.1.103 (talk • contribs) .
Comment The article says that the practice of "voodoosi" in Togo and Benin is the equivalent of "trokosi" in Ghana. However, from a number of sources like [31] and the trokosi article, it seems that the word "trokosi" is also used for this practice in Togo and Benin; I can't find any evidence for a different word being used in those countries. The word "voodoosi" doesn't turn up anything but a lot of hits in German, which seem to refer to voodoo practitioners in the New World. --Saforrest 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The jist of my comment above: I can't substantiate this word, and it looks like the term "trokosi" already covers it. --Saforrest 14:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to trokosi, as this article contains nothing distinct from what is there. --Saforrest 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saforrest. Gwernol 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --ςerbiana ♫ 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a potentially important article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Musoniki (talk • contribs) .
- Musoniki, can you explain how "voodoosi" is different from "trokosi" and provide a reference (ideally an online one) for using the word "voodoosi" for this practice? --Saforrest 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Repeated question on Musoniki's talk page. --Saforrest 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It is true that the practice, more technically known as ritual servitude, is very similar to trokosi in Ghana, so much so that when people from Ghana talk about it, they almost always use the word trokosi. This is because they are talking about it in terms with which they are familiar. However, if you go to Togo and Benin, you will find very few people who even know what trokosi is or have ever heard of it. If you ask them about voodoosi, though, you will get a different response and they will immediately respond. The campaign to eliminate this practice is well-established in Ghana but only beginning in Togo and Benin. An article that uses the term that is familiar in those countries will be very useful. That's why I think a separate entry rather than a mere redirect is necessary. Musoniki

Note This editor has already voted keep in this discussion Gwernol 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saforrest. Humansdorpie 10:11, 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 userfy to User:Khrystell. Royboy crashfan 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khrystell E. Burlin[edit]

It's seems non-notable for be, also the log says it's an autobio _→AzaToth 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity Bucketsofg 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Henning Makholm 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Khrystell. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AzaToth. -- Kjkolb 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Go Stop[edit]

Non-notable former autstralian children quiz show _→AzaToth 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a TV show, so I have to disagree and say its notable. Mike _{(T C)}

21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but it was a tv-show, it's not a tv-show now. _→AzaToth 21:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me, "tv show" doesn't automatically mean notable. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It looks notable enough to me. If anyone knows where we can find ratings information, that might help decide, otherwise I err on the side of keeping (WP:WINP). --Tango 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. I would say that all TV series are notable, but there seems to be a lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 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 delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and moody chicks[edit]

Was on PROD, but anon contested it for some reason. Non-notable webcomic started this year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 20:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hansrebka (talk · contribs), the original creator, has stated on the talk page that he contested the PROD while accidentally logged out. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hetar 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added information, such as external links to the page. Please see the talk page for details. Hansrebka 12:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I visited Bust's site, I noticed they have a link to the comic here. However, isn't this a list visitors to the site can add to rather than being actively maintained by Bust's staff? –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:45, 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 keep. — FireFox • T [21:15, 10 April 2006]

Saint Hilda's Secondary School[edit]

This is a page about a non-notable school. It is mostly an advert for the school written in the first person (e.g. Our school offers) and with little relevant information. Jorvik 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. The article requires a major cleanup as a lot of the article appears to be a textdump from the school's website. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made a start at removing some of the least encyclopedic material. If this is deleted, it will be recreated at some point as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, and it might be worse next time so it's better to work from this. Hawkestone 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent for high schools. Problesm are all fixable, and don't warrant deletion. --Rob 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've given my reasons for keeping schools before. No need to repeat here. YellowPigNowNow 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. CalJW 04:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:(aeropagitica) —Sengkang 05:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous school discussions. NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 06:00 UTC (2006-04-09)
Keep as per previous schools L e idi ot 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep please we do not erase these articles ever Yuckfoo 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite needs to be reworked (eg first person references, etc) A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete schools are typically not notable. Cedars 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools are typically notable. bbx 19:10, 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. – Rob ert 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacuzzi Nights[edit]

Was un-prodded without explanation a while ago, seems to be some internet radio show, and from the looks of it there's a bit of vanity/advertising editing involved, too -O bli (Talk)^? 21:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn radio show. dbtfz ^talk 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity advert etc. NTK 09:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 00:58, 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 merge and redirect to Lirael: Daughter of the Clayr. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sameth[edit]

Non notable fictional character Rory0 96 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lirael: Daughter of the Clayr, unless somebody wants to start an "The Old Kingdom series" page. :) — RJH 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, not notable on its own. Possibly include in an article about the book or series. Stifle (talk) 00:58, 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 Speedily deleted by Jni as a test page, or something. Stifle (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Wendell. (December 25, 1815-August 14, 1873)/Temp[edit]

A user started this article before he knew how to create and edit on Wikipedia -- there is a subsequent (successful) article properly named David 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been an attempt to create Talk:Jonas Wendell. (December 25, 1815-August 14, 1873). As such, should be speedily deleted as talk page for deleted page. Henning Makholm 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-author}} Gwernol 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Drobnic[edit]

Closer's notes
The only argument raised in this debate was verifiability. Some people said that in the absence of sources, it should be deleted. Others said that it should be kept, unless no sources could be provided. Thus everyone was essentially advancing the same proposition.
With this in mind, I found some sources which cite the books written by the subject, they are mentioned on talk. Since all concerns with the article have now been satisfied, the conclusion of the debate is to keep the article.

non-notable (280) _→AzaToth 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the article is a hoax (it does need sources) then I believe "His work in the area was cited by the Carter Commission on Foreign Languages and read into the Congressional Record in 1979" is plenty of notability. Gwernol 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep if can be verified, but article needs editing, e.g. sentences need subjects, etc. (Although being read into the Congressional Record isn't necessarily noteworthy, considering how much trivial material is read into the record.)BehroozZ 23:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I tried Google, but I cannot verify the content of the article and it has no references. I did find evidence that the person exists, but not that he did the things that the article claims. I suspect it might be an exaggeration. -- Kjkolb 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add sources for verification. --MaNeMeBasat 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks source OSU80 03:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 11:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar (Rock Band)[edit]

Contested prod. Band that has sold 1000 copies of an EP, and has recently released their first album whose "fans have purchased Rupture from every state in the US, the United Kingdom and Canada."—i.e. it has sold at least 52 copies. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band's song "As I Bleed" off of the album Rupture is currently #5, and has been for several weeks, on Garageband.com. This is an international chart. Clearly qualifying it for the very first criterion of WP:MUSIC. Do Not Delete.PeterPan23 04:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a significant difference between a "national music chart" (per WP:MUSIC) and "what's hot now" in one of forty-seven categories [32] on a website that ranks fifty-ninth in its category (music) [33]. If it was #5—or even #25—on the national US, UK, Canadian or Australian chart then that would be quite different. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's reference Wikipedia's first qualifier for WP:MUSIC: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. The song "As I Bleed" has been holding #5 in the Current Hard Rock Charts so long that it achieved #22 in the All-Time Charts.72.228.5.60 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, #22 in one category on one website (and not even a leading one at that)—not a national music chart. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable. WP is not Myspace. NTK 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a site for literal and unbiased information. We must use the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia literally. The rules clearly state that ANY national music chart is acceptable. Garageband.com is national. And in case anyone is concerned with the notability of Garageband.com, perhaps you should ask Sir George Martin (Chairman of Garageband.com and legendary music producer for The Beatles). DO NOT DELETE PeterPan23 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for properly attributing your comments, but I must warn you that it is not considered good form to attempt to vote twice (see WP:SOCK). Also, it should be noted that PeterPan23/72.228.5.60 is the only author of the page in question, and is very likely to be a member of the band in question (probably Peter James Morris Jr., since the photo Image:Bipolar8x10.jpg, which is duplicated at Image:8x10.jpg, "was taken by the drummer's father, Peter James Morris Sr.") This makes WP:VAIN also applicable: Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author. ... Once any such article ... has clearly been identified as such ... the article is then usually submitted for deletion. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the article is factual and unbiased. It is not a vanity page because it's purpose is not to promote the author nor the band. I posted this article so fans, promoters, radio personnel or anyone for that matter, can find factual information on the band BIPOLAR. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia, and I wouldn't attempt to use it improperly. This is a legitimate article written about a notable up-and-coming band. --72.228.5.60 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not really notable in the spirit of WP:MUSIC, but not too far off. PeterPan23 raises an interesting point about what constitutes a "national music chart", perhaps this should be qualified. Rockpocket 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, come back after your second album. Also hard to verify. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate the input from everyone involved. I believe democracy is the most logically evolved system for handling dispute. I'd rescind my effort and delete the article mylsef, but the simple fact that 2 out of 3 people who voted for deletion couldn't do so with conviction, and one "weak delete" voter went so far as to contradict his vote with "...perhaps this should be qualified," leads me to believe that the article really does stand out, meet the criteria and represent faithfully and neutrally the history of a musical group of which a significant number of people have taken notice. PeterPan23 05:39, 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 delete. – Rob ert 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physical sweeper[edit]

This is a very detailed minutia term for an implementation of a pokemon character, and I just don't see how it's encyclopedic. This might be a worthwhile entry in a wiki expressly about pokemon, but I don't think it should be here. This isn't even an official term used in any of the games, but is rather a neologism invented by the fan community, and it isn't even clear how accepted the term is amongst said community (I don't know, not being a part of said community.) As such, this likely falls under original research, and should be deleted. Fieari 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the WP:PCP (relevant Wikiproject) has a policy against this type of article. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn pokecruft. NTK 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fieari. -- Kjkolb 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge with an article on pokemon battle mechanics. I know it's there somewhere. Toastypk 22:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use Earthquake or delete.Freddie 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 09:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkMetal[edit]

NN MUSH (online game). I can find no evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Previously deleted as well. Delete --Hetar 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn. There are other web directories for listing muds, wikipedia isn't one of them. Fieari 22:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other articles for other games seen on Wikipedia. Look at the See Also section of the article. Much lesser known games also enjoy Wikipedia articles. DarkMetal is the original MUSH to use the World Of Darkess as a setting, it's not a brand new MUSH attempting to advertise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.50.126 (talk • contribs) .
Keep see also: Cajun Nights MUSH and FiranMUX articles for examples of already established Wikipedia articles of a similar nature. DarkMetal MUSH has been around quite longer than these two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.50.126 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. This is a venerable mud. Muds may not seem terribly encyclopedic but as online games go this one has major staying power. NTK 10:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:WEB really doesn't apply well (unless you think the Internet is the same thing as World Wide Web). Neither does WP:SOFTWARE, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have vastly more than 5000 users if they have been around since before the Eternal September. Kotepho 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Kotepho, this games definetly has at least 5,000 users. It also has major staying power and is one of the more venerable games on the 'Net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shanew2 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- All but one of user's contributions are to this article and AFD. Stifle (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game has been around since the early 90s and has proven its longevity. I know from personal experience that the database is huge for this type of MUSH (hitting 400 mb) and users can expect to see around 25,000 objects. 'Dark Metal' has become a very well known name within the MUSH culture and spawned numerous recreations of the World of Darkness/Cyberpunk theme, and considering that it has been around for twice as long as MMORPGs such as EverQuest, and other MU*s are included in wikipedia, I don't think it's a stretch to allow DarkMetal. This comment was added by Bstaaden at 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Stifle (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable game. Stifle (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freke & Ashraq say 'hi' to any DM old-timers reading the discussion. :] 'Non-notable game'. Heh. There are hundreds of far less notable games listed on Wikipedia without objection. DarkMetal and a handful of other 'mega MUSHes' paved the way for Everquest and all the other 'graphical MUSHes' which followed by proving the viability of the mass online role-playing model. --CBDunkerson 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Mycological Society[edit]

Non-notable, IMO. If this organization is notable enough to warrent an article, than there are a number of other local mycological societies (notably, the Mycological Society of San Francisco) that warrant an article. Alternately, this could be merged into an article called "Mycological societies", which could merge this with the already existing article Mycological Society of America, and add information on the North American Mycological Association, and other notable national and local mycological societies. Peter G Werner 09:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article Mycological societies. Peter G Werner 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since when do we merge into nonexistent articles? This society is small but can stand on its own feet—scientific societies like this do not tend to be huge. The fact that John Cage started it up makes it all the more notable. Also it seems to have an older history than its present small group of members that could be expanded upon. NTK 10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, close enough to speedy as nn-club as things stand. If it's notable, I'm not seeing it. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep environmental organizations are very important. Munckin 07:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 150 members? non-notable. Radagast83 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this OSU80 03:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This search is more accurate. Once mirrors of this Wikipedia article, plus articles mirroring the similarly-named "Central New York Mycological Society" are eliminated, the hit count goes down to just under 300. Peter G Werner 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT. Jinian 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mole From Minor to Major[edit]

This is an article saying you can buy 3 Sue Townsend books together, which is trivial as an article since nearly all series are packaged this way at some point. Would make a fine sentence in the author article however. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. A rename would also come in handy to correct the inconsistent punctuation. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to Sue Townsend, I guess, seeing as three of the four component books are redlinks. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 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 delete. – Rob ert 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lombardo Is Indestructible[edit]

Self-asserted blog meme with 133 google hits. This is not of encyclopaedic importance. originally prodded by User:Nagle, obsering that the page is a "search engine troll". This prod was removed by an anon. Later I prodded without checking the article history (shame on me!). Now taking to AfD in lieu of double prod. Henning Makholm 23:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate that we have to go through AfD for this. --John Nagle 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random non-notable internet meme. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 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 delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian actresses[edit]

This is a list; it's a hideous, uncited, unverified, unmaintainable list; it's a mess; and best of all it doesn't even know what it's a list of, as we have "actresses who are lesbians" and "actresses who kiss girls on screen" tidily juxtaposed, and then another list of lesbians who aren't actresses either. I'd not complain about a tidy cited verifiable list that was actually a list of something, or an article on LGBT actors, or something, but this? Kill it, please. Shimgray | talk | 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not clear why we need a list anyway; we already have Category:Lesbian actors. --Allen 00:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates an already existing category that does the job nicely. 23skidoo 01:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move anyone who is on the list (and has an article) to the cat, and delete A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:49, 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; the article reeked of Jack Thompson POV. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths attributed to computer or video games[edit]

Unverified claims, biased analysis is clearly prevelant, and lack of clear admeddeums are not reached on the talkpage. Per policy, such articles may be deleted promptly. Zero^Talk 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators comments at User_talk:Megaman_Zero#C&VG.

(silliness moved to talk)

silliness? There is NO reason for deletion listed! For great justice. 07:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have changed the title to List of deaths attributed to computer or video games The attributions are verified. There is no policy against such lists. For great justice. 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 23:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I seem to remember reading some news articles that claimed that whole Starcraft death thing was nothing more than a hoax. --Hetar 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find that? There are plenty of news articles reporting it as fact. For great justice. 06:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of those aren't deaths caused by games, and the rest are iffy. Games don't kill people, people kill people. ;) Pagra shtak 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly havn't actually read the article. For great justice. 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have read the article, and my concern with it is that quite a few of the cited cases involve some speculation as to the motivations of the people involved. While it may be enough for the media that grieving parents claim Everquest drove their son to commit suicide, or that obsession with World of Warcraft led a couple to fatally neglect their child, the truth is probably more complicated than that. Kiti 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why the link between the two is not made in the article, only documentation of others who did. For great justice. 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per nom and above. BryanG 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)~~ per Rossami below, who explains my reasons far more eloquently than I can. BryanG 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a difference between dying while playing a game and actually being killed by one. Jedi6 -(need help?) 07:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims are not unverified, they either appeared in the mainstream media, are based on the comments of the corroners report, or other reliable source. What is an admeddeum? And what policy are you talking about? There are many such sourced lists. For great justice. 06:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For great justice. is correct. There are sufficent sources and I have looked over them. Pretty good. However, I've left the deletion in effect which I have explained on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to maintain @NPOV, Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly maintainable - there are not a huge number of credible accusations, and it has not POV problems - the accusation are verifiable. For great justice. 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per nom.~~ per my talk page. --Naha|^(talk) 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the nom? All of the points made in it are wrong, as the nominator has admitted. For great justice. 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not. I merely said that I believed your sources to be lovely. I standfastly reamin by the rest of points I've raised here and on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then please explain, what is a 'lack of clear admeddeums', which analysis is biased, and which policy allows for deletion of such items? For great justice. 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deaths were, in fact, attributed to a video game. Whether or not they were casued by a video game is something else entirely. Suggestions for other articles: Deaths attributed to high school sports, Deaths attributed to playing bridge, Deaths attributed to Boy Scouting, and Deaths attributed to hula hoops. Suggested category: They died happy. Rick Norwood 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes they were attributed to a video game. However, in the minds of many, attribution implies causation - a claim that Wikipedia should not make. --Naha|^(talk) 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the minds of peope who don't know what the word means. That's what Wiktionary is for. For great justice. 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. I should first say that I have read the page, lest failure to have read the article should be ascribed to me by For great justice (as here). In its present form, the article needs a bit of cleanup but surely is sourced and neutral. Assuming arguendo that the list is maintainable, it is nevertheless unencyclopedic; a list may comprise only facts and be wholly cited and sourced nevertheless be inappropriate for inclusion (see WP:NOT). Even as this list does not merit its own article, it surely presents information that one might merge into extant Video game controversy article, which presently addresses only concerns relative to game content but surely could be expanded to note that deaths have been attributed to individuals' video game-playing. The occurrence of deaths attributable to video game-playing is notable; the names of those to have died is not, except where such names are provided only as ancillary to a broader theme. Our article on Crocodile attacks is instructive here and may be compared to the video game article to illustrate best what is wrong with the instant article; notably, the article contains a list of deaths by crocodile as a section, just as the "video game controversy" article could contain the list of deaths as a section. Joe 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you are arguing that it should be expanded and renamed so that the list forms part of a broader article? For great justice. 20:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Part of a broader article that already exists. In terms of expansion, I think surely there should be more information added as to scientific consensus apropos of the prospective harm of video games, but I think a recapitulation rather than recitation of this list is in order in the expanded section (the detail is exorbitant). Joe 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK - I'm not sure that I agree that a broader article already exists, I presume you mean the controversy page, but I don't really think these deaths are controversial. It's just a list of deaths. Also, do you mean, merge, or delete? You can't have both for copyright reasons to do with the GFDL. For great justice. 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the controversy page probably should perhaps be renamed as a criticsm page; whatever the title, I do think this likely fits, inasmuch as the page really seems to be "why people don't think video games are good", where surely that they are thought to have caused deaths is appropriate. I do think one can suggest "merge" and "delete" here; we generally use that locution to mean that whatever information can be merged is inserted into another article, with the antecedent article then turned into a redirect to the new page, preserving the contribution history (although this is not done, per WP:MM, exclusively for such preservation). Joe 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then that's merge and redirect, not delete, which destroys the history. For great justice. 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, but see here, where "merge and delete" is eventually understood to mean "merge and redirect"; that is, as I said, the sense in which I use it, and, in view of its having been the dominant formulation prior to early 2005 (if I understand correctly), the sense in which others use it. The reason that I think merge is appropriate is that the "controversy" article, even as it details normative objections to video games (e.g., that they impart "bad values"--whatever that means), also details medical (psychological and physiological) harms ostensibly following from video game use. Joe 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). The "verifications" which are taking place are news articles and distraught parents. The fact that a news editor slaps a headline on an article that something was a "Video Game Death" in an attempt to sensationalize a story and sell some more papers does not, to me, seem to be a credible attribution. If there were a peer-reviewed study about the connection between particular video games and heart attacks, that study would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. This, however, is a mere list of events that are at best only loosely connected and in my opinion are more likely to be found to be completely unconnected. Rossami (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This, I think, fairly well encapsulates my thinking; the list should not be a dominant feature of an article or even of a subsection of the "video game controversy" article. However, given that there have been instances of video game-playing induced illness or death, the topic is perhaps one that the "video game controversy" article needs to address, but primarily with respect to general cases and supposed causes (as in the crocodile article), rather than with respect to enumerated individual cases). It doesn't make sense to have a list like this without context or broader information, and so the article must either be deleted or, as is my preference, merged and expanded, such that it's not predominantly a list. Joe 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list apparently set up just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In a rare moment of actually agreeing with User:For great justice., I've actually found this article quite interesting and reasonably well sourced. I've heard about incidents like the Legend of Mir stabbing and the crazy Korean cybercafe death marathons, and it's kind of a nice place to have all those. I do however have worries over the maintainability of this list as voiced in the article talk page. Puritan on the Moon Jack Thompson attritbutes every crime and death at the foot of the evil computer game empire, listing all the deaths he's attributed to computer games would totally wreck the point of this list. - Hahnch e n 09:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regret that the nomination seems to have gotten off to a disorganized start, but that doesn't affect the content of the page. Were these people killed by video games? No, of course not. Did they die in a manner connected to video games? Quite possibly; but then perhaps several thousands have died while or shortly after playing a game. The connections cited are tenuous; cause-and-effect is not shown. It's quite possible, say, to read today's newspaper, stand up, and keel over dead from a stroke. Sensational media might decide to label this as a "news-induced death". All kinds of things might kill you, to stretch the point: mothers-in-law, fluorescent lighting, Barney. My feeling is that any source making such claims automatically becomes unreliable. The weasel word "attributed" does nothing for the quality of the article; anything might be attributed by somebody to something. At best, these "news reports" might be bundled with other Weekly World News articles and sold for bird cage liner. John Reid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need this list to remind us how much parental neglect there is in the world. And how stupid people are, (i.e. no self control). Gene

Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox and does not exist to inculcate morals. Joe 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is a discussion about violence in any form NOT a moral issue? Besides, those are the reasons for most of those deaths listed. Or are you agreeing with my statement but not my vote to keep? I'm just commenting on the ridiculousness of the whole issue. Maybe I should change my vote to Delete. They can say what they like about video games and violence but they're never going away. Gene

Note: two votes made by identical IP adresses. The closing admistrator should take the situation of sockpuppetry into account. -Zero^Talk 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We're both from the same intranet. Gene

Jolly good. And the instance of you making edits almost simultaneously and sharing identical writing patterns is pure coincidence.

We're both from the same intranet.

Of course. -Zero^Talk 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. I actually did say that over IM to him and he posted it. I think he was trying to quote me. Sorry!! Consider it one vote! (and I'm just getting used to using the Wiki...) --Gene 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe, John Reid jaco plane 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --InShaneee 04:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Reid Chris M. 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I echo User:Hahnchen above. Wikipedia has numerous articles which are just lists ( see Lists of people by cause of death). This one's a better than most. Lumos3 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. All the people in each list are notable to some degree or another. Each participant in this list fails the requirements set by WP:BIO. -Zero^Talk 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the resepective talk page as well, I encountered this which validates such insertion of who goes in lists.

In short, none would permit these people in thier own articles due to policy restrictions. This list, like all its subjects is indescriminate and non-notable. -Zero^Talk 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this link one of the criteria is that the person is NOTED, and that NOTED suggests well deserved public attention. Any death attributed to a video game is likely to get well deserved public attention. All entries should be noteworthy by being cited in the media. Lumos3 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Reid. --Mmx1 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fair bit of bad feeling flying in multiple directions around this AfD, which is regrettable, and I hope people can come to terms with each other. I found the arguments presented here quite hard to follow. I did not, for example (after reading this page, the talk page, and Zero's talk page), fully understand precisely what Megaman Zero gave as deletion reasons, and some of the advocacies made by others I found hard to follow too. So I looked at the article and its sources and went back to first principles. I am not a fan of lists in general (if I had a tool to see how I've commented on various AfDs I think it would show mostly deletes for list related articles). However this seems more than just a list. I think the topic of why the media/people/relatives seem to hang stuff on video games is an important (and notable) one. But unless there is research out there already about why, writing an article on that topic would be original research, which we do not do. This list, though, shows that they do, and that's as close as we can get. With this article in existance, the encyclopedia is better than without it (that's the acid test, after all) because now interested readers can read and draw their own conclusions. Keep unless such an article on the phenomenon itself already exists (I could not find it in 20 seconds of trying), in which case merge to that article but in neither case is this a delete opinion. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This also seems more-or-less to recapitulate my view (viz., that this should exist as an article rather than as a list), except that I imagine there must some legitimately-published and generally accepted scientific research on the subject, which should compose the majority of a prospective new article or section in an existing article. Joe 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a discriminate collection of information, most references have citations, new name is more apt. I see no reason not to keep (but if I'm missing something let me know). I don't believe the notability of the individual subjects has any bearing on this "compendium" article provided the information is verifiable. --kingboyk 20:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders Total Command[edit]

Delete - nn, crystal ballistic vanity/spam. Wickethewok 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifible vanispamcruftisement. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 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 keep. bainer (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loys of Gruuthuse[edit]

Non-notable, only 40 hits on google, majority of them is wikipedia-references _→AzaToth 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google is not the be-all and end-all verification source on a historical figure like this. This subject is easily found in history texts. BehroozZ 01:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got a redlink to him as Lewis de Bruges, 1st Earl of Winchester; looks like a naming issue. Shimgray | talk | 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historical person. BehroozZ 01:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Born more than 500 years ago, if someone stills finds him worth an article of this length he is notable. A lot more notable than others I have encountered on Wikipedia. Verifiability is not an argument: that no sources are given does not mean they don't exist. There are more than enough sources on this period that will include him. Piet 10:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 1st Earl of Winchester is of course notable. Avalon 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have articles for dozens of other earls for no reason other than that they're earls, so the person an Earldom was created for must be notable. --Tango 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Most Powerful Women[edit]

This page consists solely of a list copied from here. Prod was contested. Delete as unencyclopedic and possible copyvio. dbtfz ^talk 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes lists are not copyrightable. A list is pure information and therefore not subject to copyright protection.BehroozZ 00:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, since it's the subjective opinion of the editors at Forbes and NOT an objective collection of data, it is oh so copyrighted. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and source correctly and link correctly on main Forbes page. A short article about Forbes's list of most powerful women is appropriate, as other Forbes "top" lists have separate Wiki articles.BehroozZ 00:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't object if someone wanted to create an actual article--even a stub--called, say, Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women. But the page that's at issue here does not contain so much as a single complete sentence of original content. I don't see that there's really anything to keep or preserve. dbtfz^talk 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I wasn't clear in my statement. I agree with you. I think it should be made into an article. Right now, it's worthless, but it could be worthwhile. Hence, I don't think it should be deleted, unlike some proposed deletions which could never be made into meritorious articles. Can't the article be retitled? Or does that require scratching this and creating a new one with the correct title? Edited to add: I just checked; this can be done via the "move" function. I believe then that the article as it stands now should be moved to Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women and then edited and expanded. BehroozZ 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand into a proper article. The list is notable, as is the source, but the list by itself, while not a copyvio as pointed out, could be seen as POV. A short paragraph at the top to properly explain the content would be great. Also, lists from previous years should be added. 23skidoo 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I think the subject matter is fine, but not without a clear definition of "power". Income or net worth might be a start, but someone like Angela Merkel should be qualifying as well. I don't think that anyone would consider the kind of power of Condoleezza Rice has can be meaningfully compared with the power that Oprah Winfrey has. If it's simply Forbes' list, that's OK as an article about a pop culture reference, not really for quantifying "power". (Naturally, since Wikipedia is unbiased there will also be a The 100 Most Powerful Men.) Peter Grey 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not "pure information" but the opinion of experts who were paid by Forbes to produce an article for Forbes, not for Wikipedia. I have listed it on the copyvio page. CalJW 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if rewritten, otherwise let the copyvio people deal with it. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio. Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand this please Yuckfoo 06:47, 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. 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Butthugger[edit]

Non notable neologism, Wikipedia is not for things i made up in school one day. Editor removed prod tag, so i've brought to AfD. Delete. Rockpocket 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NFT. dbtfz ^talk 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. It's like schoolyard humor meets literotica gone wrong. Sethimothy 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and WP:V and WP:WINAD. Шизомби 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Shenme 06:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NFT A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:50, 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.

[1] Whiting, Sam (Apr 25, 2004). "The Profiler; Why the online masses act the way they do". The San Francisco Chronicle. Pg. Q6

[1]