Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

Purge server cache

April 9[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open source computer graphics[edit]

Delete This is a bunch of mostly-unrelated summaries of several different other articles, and seems to have no redeeming content of its own at all. I don't think there's anything which could be done to make it useful, and even if there is, I think it could be done only by starting again. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:29, 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. bainer (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveller Films[edit]

Article was previously deleted March 29, with a uncontested consensus to delete - details here. New article was marked (prod), but quickly removed by another editor (who appears to be using multiple accounts, all only editing this article). Recommend Speedy Delete and possible page protect this time, as article is blatant self-promotion and hype for a non-notable film and individual. MikeWazowski 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - page protection may be necessary. Another one edit user Zeropolis79 has stated on the talk page for this AfD that "If this page gets deleted, then I'll reopen it" - we may need to do a CheckUser on him along with Solaris-06, Davrosthegreat, Sci-fi fan, Hepburnsprings, and 203.220.120.85 - I think we've got some serious sockpuppeting going on here, as all have only made edits related to The Traveller Films. MikeWazowski 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and past discussion. Protect if that is necessary. Wickethewok 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What have you got against this article Mike? The international coverage the said films have received proves that they are notable and are a valid addition to Wikipedia. If fan films are accepted then I really don't understand why an independent series can't have a home here. You seem to be enjoying your job far too much. I see know valid reason for this article to be deleted. Hepburnsprings 13:19, 1 April 2006
  • Comment - Hepburnsprings' only edits are on this page and the talk pages of (to date) the two people to vote delete so far. Just for the record. MikeWazowski 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is no point in doing a CheckUser on me...

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although once these films are finished and released, they may be worthy of this much information. Sethimothy 00:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I did some searches of the principals behind this and found lots of hits on their own websites, fansites, message board postings. I am not convinced that its notable at this point, but Ill be open to it given some credible evidence.
  • Delete - even taking the article at face value it is difficult to find notability at this stage. If more comes of these films, the article can be recreated. Metamagician3000 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I remember this one the last time it was up from AfD. At the time I was inclined to a weak delete, but on further consideration decided to remain neutral. This time around, it looks like the editor has taken great pains to demonstrate on the entry as to why it's notable. I figure there are way worse articles than this one and am willing to let this have another chance. Fluit 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For God's sake, they couldn't even manage to get an entry into IMDB. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film, no IMDB page, per nom. --Terence Ong 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the WP:KIT test. The Traveller Films is more notable than Nidorino or any other random Pokémon, so if Nidorino gets its own page, The Traveller Films can have a page. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an argument, that's an assertion -- one, given the insane popularity of Pokémon, I believe to be flatly untrue. Besides, we're not voting on Pokémon anything, so it's immaterial. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lonesomedovechocolate. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom if not speedy for recreated content. One screening of one 28-minute fanfilm? Not notable. Don't let the prevalence of Pokecruft lower the bar for everything else. · rodii · 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, possibly speedy as repost ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and {{deletedpage}} when done. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 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 [20:39, 10 April 2006]

Robert Herrick Carter[edit]

Non-notable bio about someone. It says is nickname was Johnny appleseed which led me to believe this was fake. Looking through the history of the article, it was created by an IP address which makes me suspect it was about the author of the article. If it is, then he is non-notable. Moe ε 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:41, 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 [20:40, 10 April 2006]

Wilberforce (band)[edit]

Non-notable. Nothing on allmusic. 21 Ghits for Search&as_epq=Madame Fruitbowl&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off . Have played to audiences does not constitute a tour. Upcoming tours are crystal ball.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was (speedy) redirect. — FireFox • T [20:41, 10 April 2006]

Albel Nox[edit]

Shabby unsourced fancrufty stub about what appears to be a video game character of no immediately evident notability, judging from the Google results. PROD deleted without comment. Sandstein 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, totally non-notable, uninformative, unencyclopedic. -- P199 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect to Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, the game where he originates, and the article where the text originates. Nifboy 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:46, 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 merge and redirect to ALL (band). bainer (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Reynolds[edit]

Fronting a bundle of red-link bands doesn't seem to be sufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:46, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Crime Squad[edit]

Originally I proposed this game for deletion due to no evidence of notability and since the website of the creators has no Alexa rank. The author of the article removed the tag. I must say in his favour that he did attempt to explain that: He argued that Alexa is not a fair measure and that I should have used Google or Yahoo instead, which I did: 783 total Google hits, of these 33 unique ones; Yahoo gave a total of over 1000 hits, but only 62 unique ones. (I also tried Altavista, with a similar result.) He also said that it is listed in the List of controversial games (where an unregistered User:67.190.124.84 added it); well, in order for a game to be controversial, it should have caused a controversy - am I wrong? You'll have to do much better to persuade me that the game is notable; until then, my vote remains delete. - Mike Rosoft 00:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Saforrest 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honest question here, as the original author--what's the notability threshold? Please don't tell me that, like obscenity, you know it when you see it. Thanos6 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Notability. But yes, there's definitely an element of subjectivity. --Saforrest 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I'm going to respectively disagree, and say that to me, this counts as notable.
        • Fair enough; what part of the WP:WEB criteria do you think this site fulfills? Delete per nom pending a positive answer. RGTraynor 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            1. 2; it won the TOP DOG award from "Home of the Underdogs" (they are having website difficulties at the moment or I'd give you a link). I suppose that could qualify it for #1, too. Thanos6 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This game changed my life. --Pjakubo86 05:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pjakubo86 has 3 main article-space contributions, 1 of which is nominating for deletion an article where everyone else has voted "strong keep". —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:25Z
  • Delete per nom. Montco 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability; Wikipedia is not gamefaqs, nor a soapbox. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:22Z
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for disagreement on what counts as notable. Thanos6 12:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thanos6. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read its Google coverage, and I'm not impressed. Delete. DS 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely has not established notability. NTK 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like a creation of a demented right-wing activist, does not sound the least bit notable. Haikupoet 02:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "s?" Thanos6 06:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Sorry, finger slipped while voting, I meant to say delete. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the article does not indicate any sources for notability, which is dubious to say the least. Sandstein 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl. -- Scientizzle 21:21, 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 as unverifiable or hoax. Kusma (討論) 02:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Brotherz Productions[edit]

Tried PROD; tag removed by article creator. This likely could be speedied, but there seems to be some suggestion of notability. Notwithstanding that, it seems eminently clear either that the production company is non-notable (as one would infer from the article and in view of one's getting zero Ghits for either "Wagon Brotherz Productions" [as spelled in the title] or "Wagon Brothers Productions" [as given in the lead]) or is a hoax; in any case, delete seems appropriate. Joe 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i'll fix that typo.--Jcreator11 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your removal of the PROD tag was altogether fine; it was your (funny) alteration of the AfD tag (to "This article is nominated for yo momma") about which I warned you on your talk page. I surely understand that you're new, though, and think your tag editing was altogether excusable. Joe 03:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If you want to see that it is real check out myspace.com/wagonbrotherz its real, i dont know why you think it isn't! EENC333
    • Comment Even if we take this as a real "production comapny" (and it's eminently possible that it is), it nevertheless is simply non-notable at this time (but after you release your first big film, it would be entirely appropriate for us to have a page about you). Joe 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This may not be a real production company, but it is a real thing. It is a name that we put our movies under. All the movies listed are real and have been made. Check it out and see at the Myspace address. They are pretty funny and entertaining. This should be kept because we are entering a movie into a local film festival.
      • Delete per nom. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a space for advertisements (WP:NOT). The criteria involves notability, not whether your indie film is entertaining or funny, or whether you enter it into a local film festival. RGTraynor 20:03, 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 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Symposium[edit]

Creating page for orphaned AfD by 81.138.210.67. I don't know what the original criteria were... Alexa rank > 1 million though. -- Mithent 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user I mentioned contributed this to this AfD's talk page: 1: This is not an informative article, it's an advertisement for a commercial service; 2: It is inaccurate and misleading - there are many similar services 81.138.210.67 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Flowerparty■ 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mediocre Alexa data. Royboycrashfan 01:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website and low Alexa ranking. --Terence Ong 04:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup. The google spamming using subdomains of e-symposium.com is annoying, and these things are probably the conference equivalents of diploma mills, but we can't ignore the idea of an online conference as a new form of communication. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:37Z
  • Comment: I have marked it as a copyright violation and listed it on copyright problems. -- Kjkolb 09:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quarl. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per 81.138.210.67, in case it is not a copyright violation. -- Kjkolb 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's spam or not, notable or not, but it's a copyvio, and I recommend leaving it to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 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. SushiGeek 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Isasi[edit]

speedied once and recreated; formerly nominated here, but sent over to copyvio. the current version is non-copy vio and i've cleaned the history, so i'm bringing it back here for a proper decision. 488 ghits, 6th is wikipedia. He:ah? 01:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In its current form, the article is only a stub, but this person has some public profile in debates about biotech etc., and is at least marginally notable. An article can be justified. Metamagician3000 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. Google brings up alot of good hits. Royboycrashfan 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable person and expand it. --Terence Ong 04:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is Isasi a notable figure but she is mentioned in two other Wikipedia articles. --Loremaster 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Blink484 22:37, 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 delete as per Kahuroa. DS 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ua[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Nor does anything in Craig's discussion of these episodes allude to 'Ua'. Bucketsofg 05:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Kahuroa 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's so plainly nonsense, then why did you contribute two edits to it back in January and February of this year? [1] [2] The latter is just a categorization change, but the former has significant textual changes, in which you seem to accept the existence of a deity called Ua. --Saforrest 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the history of this article goes back to 2002, and there is quite a bit of information in it; could it that dictionary uses one of the alternative spellings? - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provisionally, until Kahuroa answers my above question. --Saforrest 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Delete, my question was effectively answered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu. --Saforrest 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 01:51, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Moses[edit]

Not notable enough --Light current 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. Royboycrashfan 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said below, the WP:BIO criteria are guidelines. They are not necessary for notability.
      • An to further, notability isn't even a guideline. T K E 07:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Saforrest 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nnbio, per RoyBoy. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - "Institute Professor", presumably the equivalent of "University Professor" at other instutitions, is a prestigious title and one which I doubt is given out lightly. Macsyma, as essentially the first computer algebra system and a precursor to modern CASes like Mathematica, Maple, and Magma was a very significant addition to the world of mathematics and computer science. His administrative roles (e.g. provost of the university) are also pretty high-level. --Saforrest 02:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Revising my vote. The contributions Moses has given to mathematics, directly to the development of the previously mentioned algorythm, do seem to be significant contributions that would meet Notability (Academics), even if it's only proposed. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable. --Terence Ong 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable academic. Metamagician3000 09:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Saforrest. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, being one of fifteen MIT professors to hold a particular distinction is a sign of notability per se. Monicasdude 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. TydeNet 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite per TydeNet ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full professor at MIT. JeffBurdges 13:48, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Rice, III[edit]

Subject is a former District Court Judge (a county-level position); does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Prod tag was removed by author. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BIO and Google test. 19 Ghits. Royboycrashfan 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note that meeting WP:BIO requirements is not a necessary criterion for notability (for example Ray Nagin doesn't meet them, but no one would deny he's notable). However, it looks like advertisement. --Saforrest 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ray Nagin passes alternative tests. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Interesting point; I'd never question the notability of a mayor of a large city, yet it doesn't seem to meet the WP:BIO sentence I quoted. (Side note: I think Nagin would also pass WP:BIO by virtue of media attention). OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Federal district court, or state district court? If he was a federal district court judge he'd be definately notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly agree that a federal district court judge is notable, but Rice seems to have been a state district court judge. Joe 05:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Joe 05:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a former state district court judge and this does look like advertising. Montco 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he were a federal judge, he would say so, and he would not be working in private practice now. Local judges are not notable without additional accomplishments. Serving on a committee means nothing, if he has no notable accomplishments as a result. NTK 10:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, feel free to post on my talk page any answers. What is notable about a judge? Being English I have no idea what the difference is between a federal or state district judge, much less why either of them should be notable. I cant see any reason I would do a biography on anybody working at Harrogate Crown Court for example.... Cheers. Jcuk 16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't think there is a set policy on judges. State judges can be notable and Federal judges can be obscure. But your state district court judge is going to be more likely to have your run-of-the-mill cases like car theft, assault and the occasional murder. Sometimes state judges like Lance Ito become quite notable because of a notable trial, O. J. Simpson for instance. A Federal judge requires you to get a Presidential appointment, which can end up becoming political, and you also get a shot at constitutional issues. If someone could point out a case with major implications that Judge Rice presided over, that would change my opinion. So as in everything here at Wikipedia, it's very subjective, for me I like a rule of thumb. Montco 02:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even district court judges are notable within a state legal system. Plus, different states have different titles for "district": for example while at the federal level districts are the lowest tier and circuit courts are the appellate branch, in the state of florida circuit courts are the original jurisdiction courts and district courts are appelate branches. Anyway, it grants him notability. I do have to say however, all Federal Judges are notable as they receive their appointments from the president of the united states. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:42, 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.


  • This individual is now retired according to the law firm website, www.ricefamilylaw.com. I don't see it as an advertisement and I don't see that a man who made numerous legal decisions including those upheld by the NC Court of Appeals is not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in Wikipedia. He was one of the first judges in the Wilmington area to put a reported in jail for contempt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.50.131 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (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. DS 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snob fiction[edit]

Non-notable, possible nonsense. Google search is misleading. (Results showed 708,000 for Snob fiction but only 4 on what the article is about; and those links are the wikipedia article itself, answers.com (mirror of WP) and a page that isn't written in English).

Here is what the article (that wasn't written in english translated to: 

I must greet here the birth of a new literary movement, 
certainly still confidential, 
launched by my pupil 
and friendly P. Jourdan: 
the SNOB FICTION. 

Here the funny article and scholar who refers to it in Wikipedia: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob_fiction 

Keep writing...

Trying to keep this short, it looks like a hoax. Moe ε 02:06, 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 08:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged and Disputed Victims of Government (Arizona) & Pennsylvania[edit]

Pure soapbox, from the article title on down. Irredeemably POV. Calton | Talk 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And add Acknowledged and Disputed Victims of Government (Pennsylvania). --Calton | Talk 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and User:Royboycrashfan. --Saforrest 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and Roy. My PROD is still up on the Pennsylvania article, but it seems eminently possible that, as is his/her right, the article's creator will remove it, so I don't have any particular problem with Calton's bringing this to AfD. Joe 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since I'd already tagged Arizona before I discovered the existence of Pennsylvania, it seemd only fair to put them together, Prod tag notwithstanding. Didn't intend to step on any toes, just putting them at the same level. --Calton | Talk 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

These articles fails to violate any WP:NOT criteria as stated: 

   * 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
   * 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
   * 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
   * 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
   * 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
   * 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider
   * 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
   * 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
   * 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored
  1. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not
   * 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground
   * 2.2 Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy
   * 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy
   * 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

An article that gives an overview about wrongful and disputed convictions in a particular state is valid.

One commentter says the article is "Pure soapbox, from the article title on down. Irredeemably POV." He is free to take issue with particular cases. Because of DNA evidence, the government admits to falsely convicting over 170 innocent people in recent years. Is it POV to accept the government's opinion? Only a small percentage of cases involve DNA evidence, so obviously a large number of other innocent people have presumably been convicted. That is reality, so accept it. --Danras 03:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notwithstanding what I expect is agreement betwixt us apropos of conviction errors and the like, it should be noted that even a collection of altogether factual information can present POV problems, but that, even assuming arguendo that the pages you've created are written from an altogether neutral point-of-view, they still fail WP:NOT. Notably, your pages, inasmuch as they are simple aggregations of ostensible wrongful convictions/punishments (and concomitant weblinks), seem to be "repositor[ies] of links" and "indiscriminate collection[s] of information". Joe 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The links on the pages can be removed. They are there for documentation purposes, but they are not needed for any questions about accuracy can be resolved with user web searches. The links are not there to advertise particular sites. Perhaps only a few general links should be listed at the end in an external links section. The supposedly "indiscriminate collection[s] of information" is highly organized by county and date. People are more interested in what happens in or near their home county than they are in highly discriminate intellectual distinctions. Of course there needs to be more state listings and perhaps other national listings as well. --Danras 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, now it's original research, to boot, Danras. --Calton | Talk 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coughs, c'mon Carlton. To clarify that. The goal of the project is for encyclopedic research. To include such an article is to verify the claims for research preferences. Now, that involves your point as to the notabitility of the article. However, this is sketchy ground for Wikipedia because it involves legal action. I would delete because of this factor; I am in no way comfortable with anyone citing this for a paper, in which Wikipedia is a growing acceppted reference. I am not voting, that is a would. T K E 07:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete In and of themselves, the subjects in the article MIGHT be notable and worthy of inclusion, if there is genuine controversy over their convictions. But the title itself is POV and the article is little better. I would advise creation of individual pages assuming the claims in the article are true and someone is capable of writing it NPOV. Montco 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 07:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:40Z
  • delete the title itself is POV. delete per nom. --Bachrach44 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename something better, like list of suspected wrongful convictions by jurisdiction. "Victim of government" sounds like political prisoners, not mistakes in criminal justice. Peter Grey 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for people to fight their legal battles. -- GWO
  • Delete: pure POV trash. --Hetar 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Montco. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep from a human rights perspective, this is a helpful article. Munckin 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per Montco. "Victims of government" is inherently POV. (Peter Grey's suggestion might work...) -- Scientizzle 21:34, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of three-letter English words[edit]

Words fail me. "Why?" is about the best I can do. kingboyk 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. hey, why not?  ;-) Seems to have been a vfd a couple years ago, which it survived 17k/32d according to the talk page. Can't seem to find it in the archives, though . . . --He:ah? 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information? Because some of them aren't even English words? Because it serves no useful purpose? With regards to the previous nomination I think in the old days they just got discussed on the Talk pages (?), so for the record the article has a previous nomination. --kingboyk 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is in no way a collection of academic or normally useful information, you never know when someone could use a list like this to, say, do something for school in 5th grade or brush up on their scrabble skills. With that said, i'm changing my vote to weakly neutral; on closer inspection, as you point out, it is NOT a list of three letter english words, but rather three letter combinations of letters that are theoretically possible to pronounce as a word, suffixes and prefixes from other languages like "psi", non-words such as c02 (which is a redlink as C-zero-two rather than CO2) . . . So i'll leave it up to the rest of you. --He:ah? 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm afraid you're going to have to provide more of a rationale than that for an article which has been around since November 2004 and has approximately 100 edits, particularly since lists also exist for one-letter English words and two-letter English words. See also Three-letter vowel-less English word. I'm not a big fan of these collections myself, but we need to think carefully about our deletion criteria before we start in on these. --Saforrest 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Words fail me because the concept is just so appalling bad. If you want to keep it because I can't explain quite how bad the article is, fine, but maybe have a think about's what best for Wikipedia? --kingboyk 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the other articles you mention (with a view to nominating them) but none are quite so bad. They are shorter, provide some commentary and a little context. --kingboyk 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you're saying. I think it's useful to distinguish accepting the article in its current form from accepting the idea of an article called List of three-letter English words, as you seem to have done above. --Saforrest 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for coming back to discuss this. I'm nominating the article as it stands and as I see it with little prospect of improvement into a useful encyclopedic article. Of course if it were to be massively cleaned up whilst the debate is in progress (and perhaps given a new name, as it wouldn't be just a context-free list) I may well reconsider. For now I have it firmly in the class "listcruft". Hope that helps explain my nomination and position. --kingboyk 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Handy for Xwords but otherwise useless--Light current 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's certainly in my paper encyclopedia, and therefore "encyclopedic" by definition. Not sure about some of the words that folks have added over time, but that's a vandalism issue, not an AfD issue. --William Allen Simpson 04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per nom. --Terence Ong 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP is not paper. We do keep word lists. -- User:Docu
  • Delete If I went through the OED, this list would contain over a hundred five thousand words. T K E 06:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this list is of too little use and is in danger of becoming too large. JIP | Talk
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, if they want it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:42Z
They don't. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No better or worse than other lists. Not in danger of becoming too large - in Scrabble the three-letter word list is no greater than 1000 entries. Were do you stop? Four-letter is in the thousands - I'd say there. Outriggr 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why? Not ego. Bad fad. Sly moo, thy oaf. Boo. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. I cannot imagine any other encyclopedia having such a list and not because of space limitations. -- Kjkolb 09:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Man, how sad! Not bad, all are top... well, I give up on trying to write in three-letter words (because there isn't one for "article") but this, along with One-letter English words and List of two-letter English words, is a useful and comprehensive resource, more than just a random collection of information. (Any foreign words or mistakes should be dealt with with edits, not deletion.) ProhibitOnions 10:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Can someone explain why we need this list? (i.e. why it is not 'listcruft'?) Once that's clear to me I'll happily change my opinion to keep but for now, it's a hard to maintain list of questionable usefulness. I'm not seeing the HARM in having it but not the usefulness either. For now: Delete ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit out the non-English and nonsense words. It's stuff like this that makes Wikipedia cool and different. I don't think it's harming anything, and it's not too long. It's no less worthy than many other lists. (I'd stop here too; no four-letter word list.) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This really isn't up to the point of indiscriminate and really, is listcruft hurting wikipedia? Not much, if at all. Kotepho 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Especially given the Three letter rule I think that this list is unencyclopedic, being a fairly indiscriminate collection of information, in a way in which One-letter English words, List of two-letter English words and Three-letter vowel-less English word are not, as they give exceptions to general rules and provide context on the lists, in a way in which the three letter list doesn't and couldn't as far as I can see. --G Rutter 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Useful if we ever get around to writing the mad ape den[3] article. · rodii · 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please remove nonsense words Yuckfoo 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a random and indiscriminate collection of words that happen to have three letters. Something like this would normally lead to cries of listcruft. MLA 08:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's hardly random and it has clearly delineated criteria for inclusion/exclusion, all in all a good list with a long pedigree. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or words. See also WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and make the content fit the title. Ardric47 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a List of Four-letter Words begining in C and ending in p. Avalon 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic. How long it has been around is irrelevant. Martinp 04:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic. May be served by the corresponding category in wiktionary. `'mikka (t) 01:55, 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. SushiGeek 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Coach[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Supposedly some really terrible game. There are no links to professional reviews. There was previously a link to a forum thread, which of course isn't exactly a reliable source in proving this game to be notorious for poor quality. I'm sure this is the next worst thing since Big Rigs, but there needs to be proof. And who's to say they won't release a patch to fix issues? It has been out for less than a week. Drat (Talk) 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please examine the contributions histories of unknown participants, in particular IP addresses.

  • Strong keep Its a sequel to Cricket Manager, a highly notable game. Just because the quality may not be good has nothing to do with it's reliability. As far as reviews go: it's a sim game. Those tend to have less reviews, and more website reviews like wargamer.com or it's equivalent for sports games. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Give people a chance to add more info? Give a chance for reviews to come out? Really no need to be such a fussy busybody, who is this article hurting? Let things evolve for once you pompous ogre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.164.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep No harm being done here, shirley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.114.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - How on earth can a game be put on List of video games considered the worst ever 4 days after release is beyond me. I'm removing it from that list. - Hahnchen 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep look its so unfeasibly bad its actually brilliant and i cant see why "proof" or "professional reviews" is needed when clearly everyone who has played it so far agrees and the person who has raised this complaint clearly has never seen it cause they are too busy hunting round wiki for things he can try and get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.11.107 (talk • contribs)
  • delete if no reviews can back this up wikipedia is not for random heresay. if someone can find a link to reviews that say it is a Notably bad game then i may change my vote El cid the hero 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For a wikipedia user you have terrible grammar and punctuation - especially if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. May I suggest to the powers-that-be that this vote and any further votes from El cid be stricken from the record as he's clearly too mentally naive to take part in grown up debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.202.158 (talk • contribs) Strike, personal attack. --kingboyk 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as you seem to be new here I will give you a few pointers on getting started. 1) You have only contributed twice on your IP address, and on the second occasion you only corrected your previous comment. Unless you create your own username, and increase your number of contributions to Wikipedia, many users will not consider your views to be of a high value. 2) Wikipedia is not a battle ground so please don’t insult other users who hold a different opinion to yours. 3) This page has a lot of useful information about Wikipedia and reading it might aid you in becoming an editor.
  • Delete Quality or whether you like the game matter not a jot. It's newly released and defaults to non notable, unless some evidence is provided to the contrary. --kingboyk 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all keeps. --Terence Ong 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment err....I'm confused. Can we get some comments for concensus? T K E 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not link to any independent sources, whether professional or not, that confirm that the game had any or all of the flaws described. If sources are added to the article, I may reconsider this vote. --Metropolitan90 16:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : The screenshot shows Ed Smith with 115 off 68 deliveries. I don't know how that could be anything other than a bug. -- GWO
  • Delete unless properly sourced. Otherwise, it just looks like a hatchet job. Reinstate if the software ever gets a proper release. --- GWO
  • Delete unless rewritten with verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Saberwyn 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up with more information about notability and sources cited. The current page is not a lot more than an attack page. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep. --Haham hanuka 08:18, 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. SushiGeek 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voicestick[edit]

NN VoIP provider Hpuppet - «Talk» 15:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 02:48, 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:Barkersa/Teaching Problem Solving. bainer (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching Problem Solving[edit]

Contested PROD. In view of our already having a problem solving article and in view of this article's being little more than a how-to guide WP:NOT, delete seems in order. Joe 02:58, 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. DS 14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montography[edit]

A photographic image technique, not apparently widely known or published, except on the inventor's web page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable (but who doesn't love a "crystal [that] possess[es] super-artistic powers"?). Joe 03:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "vanity photographic effect"...vanity? Royboycrashfan 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the author threw that into the description after I described it that way in my PROD tag, which he or she removed... a little odd. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    o_0 Agreed Royboycrashfan 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think perhaps the article means to say that the technique is a vanity one, scilicet that it relates to the appearance of the photograph and is unnecessary for the production of any given photo (he/she means to employ, I think, the physical and not the metaphysical sense of the word)... Joe 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VSCA. Haikupoet 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, this is not by any means a widely known technique which is why it must be defined. Please have a look at [4] for more examples of this wonderful and amazing technique. He built the lens himself it must be montography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestatebird (talk • contribs) 04:13, April 10, 2006 (User's ninth edit)
  • Comment That "this is not by any means a widely known technique" seems to militate strongly against its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Joe 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP is neither a promotional venue nor a web host. Try Geocities, or perhaps pitch it to a trade magazine or a DIY magazine. Haikupoet 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Time seems to move faster in a montaaaage ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this "innovation" sounds and looks identical to kaleidoscopic and prismatic multi-image filter systems - as have been in use and production for decades. It certainly is not called "montography". I know for a fact that these systems were in use in the 1970s, but were almost certainly in use long before that. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Homer[edit]

Unverifiable autobiography by User:StarHeart. Rhobite 03:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because I imagine that the creator of the Homer page may apprehend bad faith in this nomination, in view of his having had editing disputes with the nominator, I should say that I too was nominating this article for deletion; indeed, in adding the template, I experienced an edit conflict with Rhobite. In any case, this user seems altogether non-notable per WP:BIO. Delete. Joe 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 03:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. siafu 05:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the redlinks, which are to link to notability, are er... red. T K E 06:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TKE ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity page. — MediaMangler 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hateful and unsourced - also, he does not seem to see that either might be a problem. Lundse 08:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. Obviously, none of the above have made any contribution to the world and hate those of use who have.
If not for me, Neil Michelsen would not have been motivated to write his Tables of Planetary Phenomena.
One of the main advances in modern Astrology is Astro*Carto*Graphy. I tutored Jim Lewis, the founder of Astro*Carto*Graphy into Astrology, besides introducing Jim to his business partner.
In the mid '70s, when I was in the Air Force, I was the one who came up with the idea of flight mechanics taking coolers to the mess hall to fill with ice enroute to their job in the hangers so that they would cool down with cold wet handkerchiefs so that they'd stop passing out from heat exhaustion during the hotter part of the year. Now, every flight mechanic around the world takes an ice cooler to work during summer.
With a little help of the Unitarian Universalist Church of America, I was instrumental in stopping the Soviet Union from initiating an ICBM attack on America during President Ronald Reagan's administration.
If you ask Louis Freeh, President Clinton's FBI Director, I was the first Astrologer to pinpoint the source of the 9/11/01 attack to an area east of Kabul (using Astro*Carto*Graphy).
Oh, by the way... what contributions to humanity have you losers made?? StarHeart 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy123(talk) is a loser and he votes Delete. Vanity article. 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am also a loser who has not contributed to the World nor to humanity. I've attempted to do some online research into Andrew Homer's notability, but it seems that everything available concerning him on the web is what he has written himself. Oh by the way, I don't have an article about myself on Wikipedia, and if there were, I would expect it also to be deleted for non-notability. — MSchmahl… 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Child, Get a life. StarHeart 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already got one, thank you. What would I need with two? — MSchmahl… 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andrew Homer" gets 695 ghits. My name, similarly quoted, gets 16,300 last time I checked (yes, I am vain enough to track these things...). Yet I am not notable enough to get an article here, nor should I be. This article is vanity, unverifiable, and not really suitable for Wikipedia. Delete Oh, and StarHeart, please consider using the formatting codes used here to make your replies properly indented. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable, vanity, hateful, unsourced, etc. Pretty much the gist of most of the contributions from this user it appears. --Chris Brennan 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a blog post (a vanity blog post at that) and not a Wikipedia article. Mystylplx 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Andrew Homer has seen into my heart, and found that, unlike him, I have contributed nothing to the world. I must vote Delete so that evidence of his exposure of my secret shame be forever erased from Wikipedia. Also, he vandalized my userpage. Herostratus 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a vanity article; the author's not notable, and is editing his own bio. In addition to all this, the United States Marine Corps aviators and mechanics in the Pacific in WW 2 were using ice to keep cold all day (and probably the United States Army Air Corps, though I don't have documentary evidence for it... they weren't stupid and talked to the Marines. Which doesn't matter a bit regarding this article, but does indicate that the author's propensity to self-inflate their importance and innovation. Georgewilliamherbert 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I was hallucinating when every flight mechanic and supply staff member, at Altus Air Force Base, came to by Budget Office to shake my hand to thank me? Sad you don't have anything meaningful in your life to recount. Other than hiding behind a keyboard, have any of you little boys made a serious effort to validate my claims? Have you checked the archives of the Unitarian Church? Have you called Louis Freeh? Have you read the article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists written by an American general and an American admiral stating that the closest America ever came to receiving a first-strike with nuclear weapons was during Ronald Reagan administration in the early 1980s? Why start actually DOING something, now, in your uneventful life? StarHeart 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made the following contribution to humanity: I formatted your contributions to more closely match how we do things here so that us losers will look less askance at them. Because, being losers, we tend to focus on picayune stuff like that rather than earthshattering stuff like putting ice in coolers. Hope that helps me out in the astrocartographic plane... ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrously obvious vanity page. The ice anecdote is particularly bogus. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ice thing did it for you? Just speaking personally, I was a little skeptical about whether Mr. Homer averted nuclear war with the USSR. I suppose that's just the loser in me talking; as someone who has never accomplished anything in my life, I have trouble recognizing the valuable contributions of other people, for instance those who have saved humanity from mutually assured destruction. Rhobite 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean, it wasn't prompting someone else to write yet another baseless treatise on astrology that did it? siafu 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is truly amazing is that even while saving the world and making so many other contributions to humanity, Mr. Homer still manages to be the man to see if you want to buy real estate in the Albuquerque area. Nothing wrong with being a real estate agent, but I don't think I've ever seen a more severe case of Walter Mitty syndrome. — 209.183.206.14 13:30, 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 either delete or userfy. I'm going to delete the article and then userfy it. SushiGeek 09:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Leonard[edit]

Vanity Page Antonrojo 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G7. Antonrojo, the sole contributor, is the nominator. Royboycrashfan 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Royboycrashfan 07:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Check out the edit summaries. It appears that an anon created the article in the discussion page, and then Antonrojo copy+pasted it from there. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [After edit conflict]: Actually, it's a recreation of a speedy deleted article created by someone else Leonarjw (talk · contribs), who used the Talk page of the deleted article to object to the deletion/re-create the article: Antonrojo just moved the re-creation to Article space. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to User:Leonarjw. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as it's created by its subject who is a registered user. JIP | Talk 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as any claims of notability are vague and unverifiable. I would have voted "keep" if there'd been evidence of notable books or papers, or whatever. Metamagician3000 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I would have done this but wanted to give User:Leonarjw a chance to defend the article. Antonrojo 15:00, 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. DS 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregan Wortman[edit]

vanity, non-notable. Appears to have been created for advertisement purposes Maximusveritas 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joe 04:03, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Short Code Directory[edit]

Not notable, thinly disguised advertising. Google finds exactly one hit for "The Global Short Code Directory" and it points to the site itself. Jpatokal 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article doesn't even explain what a "short code" is, or why one would want to organize them. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. A short code is one of those five-digit SMS phone numbers owned by mysterious agencies that advertise on kid's shows. I looked it up :-) Haikupoet 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kill more advert in the face. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:45, 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 Speedy redirect to Alexander Samsonov —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:11Z

General Samsonov[edit]

It is a duplicate of Alexander Samsonov, which is an much better and already established article. --Spot87 04:22, 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. Shanel 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey and Scotty[edit]

Non notable webcomic, probable vanity and/or spam. Alexa ranking of 3,393,699. Rory096 04:22, 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. Shanel 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche outs from BASEketball[edit]

Basically just a list of quotes from a movie that don't deserve to go on Wikiquote, or IMDb, for that matter... pretty much gives away the movie, and isn't really that needed Mysekurity [m!] 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete To make the nom NPOV: Quotes from a movie do not deserve an article unless a massive impact on popular culture T K E 05:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a textbook example of cruft. --Eivindt@c 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:TKE. JIP | Talk 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mysekurity. Steve Perry! -- Kjkolb 10:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what other articles give away all the jokes in a movie? ProhibitOnions 10:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TKE. --Joelmills 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eivind. Such a textbook example of cruft that it might actually be worth archiving as a particularly magnificent specimen, for a cruft textbook. NTK 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Archived in my sandbox if you'd like to use it. T K E 04:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it may be worth keeping as a reference, and in the userspace so as not to violate WP:POINT. I once saw someone had a page in their userspace that was about all the telephones in an area; funny stuff. -Mysekurity [m!] 00:20, 11 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 delete. Shanel 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hasselhoff Images[edit]

Non-notable, unsourced internet fad. Was {{prod}}ed, tag was removed, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 05:06, 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. DS 14:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessy Schram[edit]

Not notable Pjakubo86 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Notable actress, has an IMDB profile, has been in many TV shows. Keep. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup it would seem she has been involved in some notable work. I would just hope that someone other than her agent cleanup the page. Montco 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without hesitation, this is a television actress with a fairly long list of credits on IMDb. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on precedent. I think only very famous actors should be included, but the bar on notability for actors on Wikipedia is fairly low. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong Keep" - She is a famous actress, a regular on Veronica Mars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.37.18 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 April 2006.
  • Keep Actress (with named character and recurring, speaking parts) on more than one production by major studios (e.g. Warner Brothers, CBS Paramount) and with wide distribution. Counts as sufficiently notable for me. Average Earthman 14:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Metamagician3000 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 merge. SushiGeek 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27th Denarian Fleet[edit]

{{Prod}} was contested, so here we are. Utter Star Wars cruft, delete. GTBacchus(talk) 05:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm part of the Star Wars Wikiproject, but it seems non-notable. _-M o P-_ 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this looks too obscure to merit a Wikipedia article. Try Wookieepedia instead. BryanG 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, a merge to List of minor Star Wars organizations would be acceptable too. BryanG 17:06, 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 deleted as not even particularly amusing. DS 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jabia[edit]

Delete. This is a vanity page. Prod removed by author. cmh 05:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh this screams BJAODN. Incredibly creative. T K E 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Montco 06:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/prank, not even a micronation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:55Z
  • Delete. Could have been speedied--it's nonsense. NTK 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary it is not "unmeaningful" nor "incoherent". It falls more under the category of "vandalism" or "hoaxes" which CSD G1 says are not nonsense. Hence the prod and subsequent AfD. -- cmh 13:58, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexetech[edit]

Delete: Unimportant, not notable, personal attempt at advertsing very small ebay business. Also the target of unhappy customers vandalising the page. TydeNet 06:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN. Outriggr 09:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 14:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither versions of the page are notable. Bige1977 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to quote 40 year old virgin: "we sell your shit on ebay.com"........yeah, non notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; even speedy as it's now little more than an attack page on a plainly non-notable subject. Samaritan 23:22, 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 [20:47, 10 April 2006]

Queen's University Muslim Students' Association[edit]

This article is written in the first person, making it clearly a vanity page and possibly OR. Beyond that though, we have always held that campus groups are inherently non-notable till they do something. The national group already has a page, and there's no need for a seperate page for each college campus that has a chapter. Bachrach44 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete. TydeNet 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Campus chapters of student groups almost never notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:39Z
  • Delete per Bachrach44.
  • Do Not Delete. I think they should not be deleted as their article provides awareness for students at Queen' University about the club, informing them of their presence and of the various services they offer. Therefore I disagree with deleting their article.Mamounm 09:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mamounm's only edit is at Queen's University Muslim Students' Association. NTK 02:58, 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: listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead. — sjorford (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish-Argentines[edit]

Nothing wrong with the topic, but this text is taken, without explicit permission, from http://www.nordicway.com/argentina.htm. It has had a copyvio tag added and removed twice, because one user claims that "if the website doesn't publicy state the copyright the article can be on Wikipedia" (see Talk:Swedish-Argentines). Another user seems to be convinced by that claim and has removed the tag again today. u p p l a n d 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No vote yet. My understanding of copywrite law is very, very slim, but that it is understood unless the express release of material for public use; it is to be assumed for domain space and bulk text? T K E 06:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't tell whether you are saying it is or is not copyrighted. Anyway U.S. copyright law as well as copyright law for countries abiding by the Berne convention / TRIPs agreement (including every country in the WTO), says that all work is BY DEFAULT COPYRIGHTED, even without any kind of registration or explicit notice of copyright. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:36Z
      • Yes, by default is what I thought. Thanks. T K E 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is normally handled at WP:CP (this happens every day). —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:38Z
      • I know that. As I pointed out in the nomination, a couple of users are not allowing the copyvio tag to remain, claiming that WP:CP does not apply. Sorry if I was unclear about that. u p p l a n d 07:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright violation. The article is taken from here and the reason given for its removal is that there is no copyright notice. However, a copyright notice is not necessary for material to be covered under copyright. -- Kjkolb 14:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can do better. Plagiarizing is never a good thing, even if there's no copyright problems. / Peter Isotalo 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyvio ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted to the copyvio notice. Nobody has yet provided any evidence that the original author has explicitly permitted Wikipedia to copy this text under the GFDL. Further discussion should take place on either WP:CP or the article's talk page. Wikipedia takes copyright protection seriously, whatever some people might say. — sjorford (talk) 09:37, 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. Shanel 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:03 04/05/06[edit]

A timestamp that looks interesting in middle-endian (American-style) Gregorian calendar common era year-modulo-100 time-first date/time-stamp. Not notable in my opinion. I also doubt the person(s) in the article were the first to notice a pattern here. At best I would like an article on interesting timestamps that lists this and others. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:14Z

  • Delete, this timestamp is simply not notable enough. Nothing of interest can have happened in that one second. And furthermore, people can't even decide which day it was on. JIP | Talk 07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not encyclopedic. Fluit 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a register of random thoughts. NTK 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like someone is going to find this article without knowing why it is supposed to be funny already? —Ruud 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fluit. ConDemTalk 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable except as trivia, which Wikipedia is not for. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 9 April 2006 @ 14:17 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom with things like leap seconds, pi day, January 1st, 2038 3:14:07, etc. Kotepho 15:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "On April 5, 2006 (in the US) or 4 May 2006 (in many other countries) at 1:02am and three seconds, ie. 123 seconds past 1:00am, the time, written traditionally, was:

01:02:03 04/05/06 So one could cleverly say "The time and date? Oh, its... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6!"....the trouble is it takes more than one second to say the above sentence, by the time you've said it.......it isn't! Interesting and quirky maybe....but not to the point we need an article on it. Jcuk 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough for an article, but maybe a mention on April 5 and May 4? Timrem 18:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is nothing encyclopedic that can be said about the subject. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP and Fluit. —LrdChaos 05:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will never happen again. Therefore, notable. You could add JIP's issue (British time standard vs. USA time standard for month/day) by asserting it happens on either April 5 or May 4. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then there's the fact that we haven't established a universal convention on whether to write the date or the time first. 01/02/03 04:05:06 was over three years ago. Did anyone notice? JIP | Talk 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. The point I was trying to make in the first sentence of my deletion nomination was that there are many arbitrary choices to make before arriving at 1,2,3,4,5,6 refering to this particular point in time. What if the Gregorian calendar were designed differently, what if daylight savings time was different, what if Jesus's birthdate had been more accurately known, etc. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-10 08:39Z
    • Five minutes ago will never happen again, ever. Doesn't make it that notable in my eyes, though. —Ruud 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it will happen again, in 2106, 2206, 2306 ... --Metropolitan90 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it happened in 1906 CE, 1806 CE, etc., and it will happen in 2017 (year 106 in the Taiwan/Republic of China's Republican era), and it happened in 1998 (year 2006 in Ethiopia's Incarnation era), ad nauseum. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-10 08:46Z
  • Keep. Even though this is just one second, New Year's is only one second too. Royboycrashfan 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: New Year's has significantly more cultural impact than this. -- Saberwyn 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Happens quite often, really. It will happen in every '06 and, in '67, it happens with another number added on as well. Simply not too important.--Pal5017 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better Merge --Haham hanuka 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best merge into an article such as 100000 (number) as an "interesting" but trivial number. It is already mentioned on the April 5 page. — RJH 14:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not for trivia. As much as I would like this to stay or at least merged somewhere else, I'm not sure it belongs. Amalas 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One bad joke by one journalist. Peter Grey 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just too trivial. Sandstein 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. Also US-centric. 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)~
  • Delete. Sorry, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 03:52, 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 09:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tee for Two Publishing[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Zero google hits for their company as titled. Only 9 Google hits for "Tee for Two Music Publishing" which was probably their intended title. Bige1977 07:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlism[edit]

Non-notable, and WP is not a crystalball. Delete. — 89p 07:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I saw this domain some years ago in a geek mailing list, so it is possibly notable, (but maybe only spam). (domain registered in September 2002). Cate 08:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable: googlism.com has Google rank of 7, Alexa rank of 16,000, and I've certainly seen this website enough. Nothing crystal ball about the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:48Z
  • Keep. How does this fall under crystal ball? Feezo (Talk) 09:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - faintly notable, I guess. Metamagician3000 09:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quarl. ConDemTalk 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've used it from time to time over the years. Bige1977 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopædic. 1() 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - LD444 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not a crystal ball Yuckfoo 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep From Wikipedia:Notability (websites), "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ---"The site has been featured in PCMag.com, About.com and ZDNet.com."Spencerk 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with all the newbies/puppets (including nominator) voting delete? —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-11 06:44Z
  • Keep, per Spencerk. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 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 into American Pie (film). SushiGeek 09:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stifler[edit]

This is an American Pie (film) character that appeared in some of the movies. I don't think he is notable enough for an article. If voting to redirect or merge, there is a question of which movie to do it with. -- Kjkolb 07:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge. I guess there should be a new article on the series and include the characters contained therein. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:51Z
  • Delete. If no one has seen fit to write about any of the main characters of the films, I don't see why we need to merge, let alone keep, this article. --Saforrest 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to American Pie (film) TydeNet 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge and redirect to American Pie (film), or an article on minor characters in that film if same exists. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 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 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryder's law[edit]

Nominated for deletion because article appears to be a non-notable neologism created for a sensationalistic SciAm headline which Seagate doesn't even agree with. It's the exact same law(doubling every 18mo), when corrected for timeframe(wikipedia article makers originally miswrote the timeframe), as Moore's law. And it didn't hold up at the time the SciAm article was wrote, for the last several years. Lesqual 08:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - The name stems from a sensationalistic Scientific American article. The "law" itself is based on two data samples - what data density was many years ago and what it is now, and it doesn't fit any other range of data, particularly the last several years. The use of the name is very small, leading me to believe that Wikipedia is the primary source of the information for people using it. I could concievably publish a column in a respectable newspaper entitled "Bush's law," that the second president in a dynasty's administration always end horribly, based on George W Bush. But I would be ignoring John Quincy Adams, I would be coining a neologism, and so it would be wrong for Wikipedia to write an article about it, particularly one that mistakenly alleges that W is not the son of Barbara. Correcting that misrepresentation would not fix the article. Placing it under "American Political Dynasties" might. Likewise, renaming this to 'Hard drive areal density growth,' along with analysis, while too dry for a SciAm column, might fit an encyclopedia. Or filing it under a 'related phenomena' heading in the Moore's law article could work. Or deleting it and writing those articles anew.Lesqual
  • Yeah, delete it. Moogleii
  • Merge into Moore's Law, possibly create a section to collate other laws relating to computer trends. (yes, I changed my vote) --ZachPruckowski 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been rewritten. Lesqual misrepresents the website, it has no affiliation with seagate. nevertheless, the law is fundementally wrong and seems to have been written from a sciam article while vastly misquoting it (1956-2005 = 10.5 years, 100 billion fold increase = 1000 fold increase). the law is wrong, but the article needs to stay there to say that. --Qleem 08:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Agreeing with Qleem.) While the law is wrong, it is mentioned out there (e.g. on the Internet). Therefore, people who never heard of it before, and are interested in it are likely to search for it. Wikipedia should offer the correct information to them. The article has been rewritten and is now a whole lot better: it states very clearly that the law is wrong and how the wrong statement originated. That's exactly what an encyclopedia article on this law should say. – Adhemar
Question: Does "Smerge" mean "section merge" or something? I've never seen it before (haven't been in many AfD discussions). --ZachPruckowski 09:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Smerge" is a contraction of "slight merge", coined by User:R. fiend. It means merging a few key facts from an article, or a summarized version of it, into another article (as opposed to a regular merge, which can imply merging all of the first article's contents). –Sommers (Talk) 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if and only if no supporting evidence is produced to demonstrate that this is not a neologism.
    "Kryder's Law" gets only 568 hits on Google, compared to over 2 million for "Moore's Law", which implies it is not a widely-used term. Moreover, most of the first page of those hits (apart from Wikipedia's article in second place) seems to consist of references to the SciAm article of that name, not to the "law" as such. So it is not at all clear that it belongs on Wikipedia. The fact that the article has been rewritten to acknowledge the mistake does not change this: if the information is incorrect, it should be removed, not kept with a disclaimer!
    The verifiable information in this article -- the concept of such a law applying to storage growth, and the figures showing how fast it's happening, and the implications for computing -- could usefully be merged into Moore's Law. But if there is not, in fact, a widely-recognised law named for Kryder, we must not suggest there is one. — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wikipedia:Deletion_policy on neologisms: Reasons for deletion: "Original research (including the coining of neologisms) - but if it's a source text, it should be moved to Wikisource (see below)." The article did not, in any way, shape, or form, coin the term Kryder's law, whether or not it is a neologism is irrelevant. SciAm certainly used the term before the article was written. Qleem 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or perhaps provide a redirect to a section ender "Moore's Law" as suggested by others above, which should give brief mention of the "Kryders Law" story. Right now this article is a primary source of misinformation, of the sort much beloved of Wikipedia's detractors.

--Panzerb0y 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

has the misinformation not been corrected? Qleem 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The huge growth in hard drive capacity is a major driving force in computing, with important societal implications ranging from privacy loss to copyright law. It is technologically distinct from Moore's law, which deals with integrated circuit density. That Scientific American, a widely respected publication, may have coined the term hardly makes it less notable. --agr 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that the issue is that the name may have been created by a wikipedia editor, who proceeded to draw some wrong conclusions from the article. --ZachPruckowski 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the link to the SciAm article [5] (which is given in the Wikipedia article in question). The title of the SciAm article is "Kryder's Law."--agr 19:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's non-notable, for one thing. Only Wikipedia mirrors and direct references to the Scientific American article use it. Whether Scientific American coined the term is less important than whether other people now use it. And other people *don't* use it. I can't believe all these keep votes suggesting it should be kept because it's used on the Internet--it isn't used at all.
    And while it's true that the Scientific American article has as its title the phrase Kryder's Law, that doesn't mean the article is really trying to introduce something called Kryder's Law. It'd be like me publishing an article about an archeologist which compares him to Indiana Jones, then titling the article "'Indy' Smith". The title is just an attempt to make a clever comparison. Ken Arromdee 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint seems to be about the title of the article, not it's content. It's the article that is being proposed for deletion. The article describes a very important phenominon in the computer industry. The original SciAm article coined a name for it. If you have a better name, suggest one.--agr 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you thought the name was important enough to "correct" an editor who claimed the name was created by Wikipedia. If so, then it's important enough for me to correct the correction.
The phenomenon itself doesn't actually hold true. If you feel some pressing need to describe it anyway, it would have to be merged into Moore's Law and described as an incorrect belief. Ken Arromdee 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms by Wikipedians is frowned on yned the no original research policy, so a correction was in order. I'm not sure what you mean by "phenomenon itself doesn't actually hold true" -- that there has been dramatic improvements in disk storage capacity is indisputable. But this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. --agr 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that this is "out there." What is wikipedia for if not to accumulate pages on knowledge that would not be included in standard reference books? Obviously people know about it, or no one would create/contribute to the article. Don't erase all the work and research that people (myself included) have put into this. Qleem 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important article as now written, since it provides good information about one of the three primary hardware enablers of computer technology, the other two being processors and networks. This has nothing to do with Moore's Law and I would not merge this with the Moore's Law article. Rather I would suggest changing the title to something like Disk Drive Areal Density Growth and removing all but one of the references to Kryder's Law, leaving only a link to the unfortunate SciAm article and the statement that no such "law" was ever proposed. http://www.storagemojo.com
  • Keep I keep hearing Moore's Law, Moore's Law yada yada. As the poster above says, this has nothing to do with Moore's Law. RTFA and you'll find that, according to the SciAm article's data, HD growth has been far slower than Moore' Law would predict. Moreover, Moore's Law has jack squat to do with HD growth. To quote from the page, "the complexity of an integrated circuit, with respect to minimum component cost, will double in about 18 months." Note, if you will, that that's integrated circuit, not magnetic storage capacity, nor magnetic storage cost, nor anything else to do with Kryder's law. Moreover, smerging would directly contradict the last section of the Moore's Law article: "Not all aspects of computing technology develop in capacities and speed according to Moore's Law. Random Access Memory (RAM) speeds and hard drive seek times improve at best a few percentages per year." To recap, the Law applies only to ICs and semiconductors. Smerging would be foolish at best, and destructive at worst. Qleem 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal I've gone through and reread all the criticism and keep arguments here and on the talk page, and the sciam article, and the article itself. It seems the major objections are: the name, and the perceived relationship to Moore's law. The major arguments to keep seem to be: It's written, it's out there, Wikipedia editors didn't coin the neologism, it's a distinct phenomenon from Moore's law, and it's an important idea that needs to stay on the wiki (feel free to add more objs or for below this if I left anything out). My proposal is two-fold. Firstly, the article could be rewritten to be very clear on just what it is this law refers to, namely platter bit/sq inch density growth in hard drives, not capacity, nor price/GB, nor anything else. Secondly, the article could be moved (and Kryder's law redirected to) Hard Disk Density Growth or similar. The link on Hard disk would need to point there too. This would put the article under a more "encyclopaedic" name, remove any ambiguity, promote a more thorough rewrite, and still maintain the content and the ability for people to search for Kryder's law. Qleem 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It *isn't* out there, except in that single article--Google shows little to no use--and it *is* a neologism. Just because the title of the Scientific American article is Kryder's Law doesn't mean it isn't a neologism; the Scientific American article is not really using it for a law any more than the hypothetical Bush's Law is a law or 'Indy' Smith is a nickname. Moreover, the supposed content isn't true. As even you admit, hard disks don't grow at the speed that Moore's Law predicts, which was the original contention.
It's true that you can write an article about disk drive space that doesn't use the original name and doesn't make the major claim of the original article, but there's only a semantic difference between "delete the article" and "rewrite the article into something that's completely unrelated to the original except that it has disk drive space in it". If you're going to do that, we're better off deleting the article, writing the disk drive space article separately, and not even pretending that the disk drive space article has anything to do with this one. Ken Arromdee 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should bold this, since so many people manage to miss it: according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy neologisms are not grounds for deletion unless they are coined by the wikipedia article. In response to Ken, it is my experience that writing an article from scratch is almost never better than rewriting an existing, closely related article. Is anyone actually opposed to moving it? Qleem 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its use as a name for a law is a neologism coined by Wikipedia. The Scientific American article didn't seriously use it as a name for a law, despite containing the word "Law".
As for moving the article vs. creating a new one--you are already proposing creating a new article. You're just not calling it "creating a new article". It doesn't have the same name as the original article, nor does it state the same central point; I'd call that a new article. Go ahead and do it, as long as you're *sure* that your "same article" doesn't have any of the questionable content from the original. Ken Arromdee 20:45, 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. — FireFox • T [20:49, 10 April 2006]

Yellow Moon (comics)[edit]

This webcomic has been previously deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Moon, and the arguments remain the same. You can see the comic here and the empty forums here. It's not a popular comic, it is just one of thousands hosted on comic genesis, a random free comic host. Originally took it to prod thinking that the previous subject matter having been deleted would make it simple, turns out I was wrong. - Hahnchen 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment CSD A4 does not apply. It specifically requires "a substantially identical copy", which is not the case in this instance. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Rearranging the words of an article doesn't suddenly change the reason it was deleted in the first place. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 10 April 2006(UTC)
  • Delete. Webcomic's own site counter says that it gets 279 visitors a day and 1,954 per week (or 1,210 page views a day) (UTC)

MikeBriggs 20:04, 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 [20:49, 10 April 2006]

Open Source Software in Europe[edit]

Essay. Original research. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 09:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace North[edit]

Non-notable specialist in zebras and human male anatomy. Googling for "Grace North" zebra or "Grace North" prostitute finds nothing relevant. Weregerbil 09:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - this looks like a joke, hoax, or whatever. Metamagician3000 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I'd be happy to interpret the second part of this article as being indicative of an article "that serves no purpose but to disparage their subject" WP:CSD - A7 - Politepunk 10:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A6 and A7. –Sommers (Talk) 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Thos should have been speedied as db-attack, not AfD. NTK 11:37, 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. -Doc ask? 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Club[edit]

nn, possisbly vanity, only sources are from internal college newspapers, and as such is of interest only to those at the college. Needs a real assertion and justification of notability; it currently does not have that Batmanand | Talk 10:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Comment: Could be significant for women's history at the College of William and Mary, and I would be comfortable voting "keep" with good references, but the current weblinks are not really sufficient. Has anything been published in print about it? I looked at JSTOR which includes the complete The William and Mary Quarterly 1892-2000. It has loads of hits for Phi Beta Kappa and various other societies, but nothing on "Alpha Club" (nor is it found elsewhere in JSTOR). Any other useful search terms? (BTW, why is The William and Mary Quarterly a red link? Even my Swedish university library has that journal.) u p p l a n d 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - Changed to a clear "delete" vote, as no improvements have been made to the article or its sourcing. u p p l a n d 08:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I put a prod2 template up on this. As far as secret societies go, Skull and Bones at Yale is notable. This one isn't. Brian G. Crawford 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest your comment that it is of interest only to those at the college - I don't find it interesting, and I am at the College. :) With that in mind, I agree with Uppland that it is keepable if sources can be found, but lacking something on its notability I'm inclined to delete it. For now, I'll abstain. -- stillnotelf is invisible 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Haham hanuka 08:22, 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 speedy delete. — FireFox • T [13:16, 10 April 2006]

Chris Busse[edit]

Speedy removed, prod removed. This guy is just non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as funny as this page is, Chris seems to me more notable in his head than in the real world, despite the fact that he is, in his own words, a "genious." Sir Isaac Lime 13:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as per nom and a complete vanity page Tyhopho 13:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- PFHLai 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity; nonsense Bucketsofg 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Completely non notable biography. Bige1977 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio, blatant silliness. dbtfztalk 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nomination. BJAODN. TydeNet 04:26, 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. -Doc ask? 11:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use-Case Responsibility Driven Analysis and Design[edit]

Seems to me not to be notable enought to have an onw article →AzaToth 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep because the question here isn't notability. This is a fairly narrow subject which may be very notable in its field. The question, however, is "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide" and whether it voilates that. Roodog2k 14:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the concept appears to have been invented by the main author of the article. I haven't found it on any website except for his company, a submission to a journal (it is not clear if it was accepted or published) and sites that use Wikipedia content. If proof of outside usage can be given, I would consider keeping the article. -- Kjkolb 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb's comment. Cedars 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertisment. This is the existing practice in software design, just with a fancier name. Peter Grey 18:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, among other things. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GfloresTalk 05:48, 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 SPEEDY DELETE NTK 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semperfis (Band)[edit]

This is a kids band formed a couple months ago. Cute, but totally unencyclopedic. Should be moved to their own host. NTK 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author requested deletion. NTK 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox • T [13:16, 10 April 2006]

Galactic 7[edit]

Seems to be a vanity page, no encyclopaedic content Jack 11:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sir Isaac Lime 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no google hits other than this article, sounds like absolute nonsense Tyhopho 13:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nomination. Rubbish. TydeNet 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either bullshit or a minor item in a minor book associated with some Star Wars role-playing game. -- Saberwyn 12:11, 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. -Doc ask? 11:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Pommella[edit]

Non-notable →AzaToth 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. NTK 11:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems to have won enough international awards to be at least somewhat notable. If, of course, it is all true. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 9 April 2006 @ 14:21 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recommend AzaToth take time to write a more substantial reason than "non-notable" - all that means these days is "I think this should be deleted". Tell us a good reason why. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he gets very few unique Google results for someone who is supposed to be notable on the web. -- Kjkolb 04:54, 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. -Doc ask? 11:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenhouse Productions[edit]

non notable →AzaToth 11:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. NN TydeNet 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hard to verify and establish notability. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per stifle GfloresTalk 05:50, 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 [20:50, 10 April 2006]

Dan Miles[edit]

Non-notable. Most google hits for Dan Miles & wrestler are for a coach, this kid is an amateur wrestler. Sir Isaac Lime 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN-Bio, fails WP:BIO, can probably squeeze under CSD A7 criteria (Although, he does try to assert notability, but it still doesn't meet WP:BIO) --lightdarkness (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lightdarkness. Bucketsofg 13:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 15:49, 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 speedy delete. — FireFox • T [20:51, 10 April 2006]

Pro Wrestling Express roster[edit]

The fact that none of the names on the list actually link to the people/teams mentioned should be the first clue that this list is useless. Sir Isaac Lime 12:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability; no context; unremarkable group. Bucketsofg 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless. Bige1977 15:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Bucketsofg MLA 08:46, 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. Friday (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan de Sade; Ian Walsh[edit]

Person does not meet notability criteria. Article created by the person himself. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity Sir Isaac Lime 13:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Bucketsofg 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will state, in defense of the article, that the measure of some does not always match the measure of others thus creating the dispute. The article was not created due to vanity, but due to notability throughout the independent professional wrestling circuit in the past seven years. If I can be cited for lack of notability, I could cite a thousand articles for my own measure of note and lack of knowledge. Then again, we come to Wikipedia to learn about things which we haven't the knowledge or we wish to learn. As a colleague of many wrestlers listed on this site, worker of many shows, and center of much controversy throughout my career, I e-mailed Wikipedia on this subject. Also, with neutrality shown in the article, there is no glorification nor burying of said subject. Not everything on this site is recognized by the world before placement or publication. As long as this site is broad in its vision, I have that right to create my own little footnote in history... or perhaps you could tell the thousands of people for which I performed that I never existed. -Ian Walsh [email protected]
  • Delete. Vanity. I assure you, Mr. Walsh, not being listed in the Wikipedia will not erase your existence from the planet. Contrary to what you state, YES a subject must be recognized by the world before placement or publication in Wikipedia. This isn't a phonebook. 70.60.152.14 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The wrestling league he was in doesn't even have a page on wikipedia. Bige1977 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local/regional wrestling is not notable. Fan1967 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. -- DS1953 talk 19:34, 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. Shanel 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of Fire (digital artwork)[edit]

Orphan page describing a single piece of art which has no further notability beyond the site its posted on Tyhopho 13:06, 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 NTK 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Cafe[edit]

Non-notable, self-promotion. Lhlhlh 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Very notable within San Diego (the seventh largest city in the US); almost as notable as The Casbah in the San Diego music scene. I'm not entirely sure if strong local notability (and mild notability within punk/alt music in general) is enough. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This venue has done alot to influence the San Diego scene, even more so than The Casbah which is 21+. Since its all ages, it allows more exposure to differnt bands for a wider audience. Also many bands have started off playing here that evenutally became very influential on the national level. So I think removing this article won't do any good for wikipedia. RiseRobotRise talk
    I have moved the above unsigned comment down the list to keep the nomination at the top where it was originally MLA 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Che Cafe is notable both in the context of the punk/indie scenes in southern California, but also to the UCSD student cooperatives. Kellen T 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Agreed with the above two users. The fact that it is an all ages and non-profit space makes it quite different than the Casbah. It has managed to remain open for 25 years and shares ties with 924 Gilman and the Smell as being influential in the local music scene. The che was a staple for the early-mid 90's Gravity Records era bands, as well as the late 90's hardcore scene. hotdiggitydogs 15:39, 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. -Doc ask? 11:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Smell[edit]

Delete: Non notable, self-promotion. Lhlhlh 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. See WP:NOT; this is highly POV and reads like an advertisement. Has no place in an encyclopedia, and if it does, requires desperate re-write. TydeNet 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This venue has done alot for the Los Angeles Music scene. Yes it could use a re-write, also there is ALOT more information that could be added to this site, this article does have alot of potential to be a great article, I don't think deleting this would do a service to wikipedia - RiseRobotRise 11:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Not self promotion. Could use fleshing out and rewriting, though. Kellen T 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with the above users. This space is to the current Los Angeles music scene what 924 Gilman was to the 80's Bay Area punk scene. Also, I put up the stub but am not involved with the Smell (rules out self-promotion IMO) and I can recognize its importance despite the fact that I have never lived in Los Angeles. hotdiggitydogs 15:36, 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. -Doc ask? 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zone Forums[edit]

This is a very small discussion forum with somewhat under 50 members. Does not pass WP:WEB. It's at AfD because of a contested PROD. Joyous | Talk 13:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - any forum that can actually list its active members without having to scroll down needs to have seriously notable active members to justify an article. Average Earthman 14:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the online democracy thing seems to be new and unique. Can it be found anywhere else?
    • It's not new and unique just because you do it online. Huge numbers of small groups in the past have operated on democratic principles. Average Earthman 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom; any perception that the "online democracy thing" is "new" involves the aphorism that history begins when you become aware of it. We were doing it on the UMass system twenty-five years ago. RGTraynor 20:41, 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. -Doc ask? 11:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual fidelity[edit]

This is at best a candidate for wiktionary; as it stands it's an unencyclopædic personal essay. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite as it can be much more than a dicdef or an essay, though it is not currently. It would be interesting and encyclopedic, for example, to have an article that discusses sexual fidelity across cultures. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 9 April 2006 @ 14:19 (UTC)
    • Delete, dicdef. Discussing sexual fidelity across cultures makes for much better magazine articles than encyclopedia entries. RGTraynor 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a dicdef, and it's been around for a good long while, so I don't see it becoming anything more. Brian G. Crawford 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but note in closing that the deletion was for the content (or lack thereof) rather than the subject matter, and the article could be recreated if done seriously. --Trovatore 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: monogamy rather than fidelity... the two terms are not synonyms sounds perfect for wiktionary. Peter Grey 18:04, 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 [20:52, 10 April 2006]

Exogamy and Endogamy[edit]

The article is billed as a disambiguation page, but it's unclear that it serves any genuine purpose; it simply concatenates two opposite terms (in a way unlikely to be searched for), gives dictionary definitions of each, and then points the individual articles. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not useful. Article is about a year old hand hasn't been revised since. Bige1977 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's accurate description MLA 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 11:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.C. Confidential[edit]

Article is entirely copied from this page (taken from Google cache as page is no longer available) Jack 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Copyvio Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is older than 48 hours, so it cannot be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of AfD. -- Kjkolb 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page should be deleted anyway despite copyvio as there is no info - that's why I AfDed it. Jack 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there is a choice, listing it as a copyright violation is preferred because it is less work. It just sits on copyright problems for a week and is deleted without discussion unless someone objects. -- Kjkolb 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the info Kjkolb I'll list it there, does sound like the best idea. Jack 09:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a review site. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 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. -Doc ask? 11:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Snap[edit]

Delete probable hoax, cannot be confirmed with Google because words are too common SailorfromNH Talk - Contrib 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Irish snap" with "card game" turns up 620 results, all about a card game named Irish snap. Whether it is actually notable or not, though, I can't tell. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 23:25 (UTC)
  • Comment - delete vote withdrawn per User:Cuivienen, but not sure what to change it to, article seems to refer to specific individuals the author knows, and does not establish notability, but the game may be notable enough for inclusion in a better article. SailorfromNH Talk - Contrib 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it's actually a game, and anyone can verify the rules, firm up the first section and delete the part about the game in the common room. Fan1967 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per stifle ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sam Blanning(talk) 15:21, 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 Proto||type 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haterhouse[edit]

Delete. Non-notable venue. Only 24 Ghits for "Haterhouse" (and 117 for "Hater House") discospinster 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User "Discopinster" is clearly not the sole objective force in deciding whether or not this venue is "notable." This venue has meant a great deal to very many people in michigan, and the subjective nature of a claim such as the one made should be reviewed. The entry "Haterhouse" has recently been edited, sources cross referenced and many internal links added (all of which obviously qualify to have their own wikipedia entries.) reconsider this, please.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not appearing to have any impact whatsoever on anything or anyone outside of Kalamazoo MI, I fail to see how this is notable. Also, simply linking to photos doesn't add any more substance to the article. 70.60.152.14 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a residential house where local garage bands play. Bige1977 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Nothing notable here. FloNight talk 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look like another 924 Gilman. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 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 [13:15, 10 April 2006]

Dirty Dick's Opium Emporium[edit]

Complete hoax, inappropriate. Joshdboz 15:25, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical integer[edit]

The only given reference is to Weisstein at MathWorld; his only reference, in turn, is to a "[email protected] posting, May 11, 1997", whatever that means, by one R. Schroeppel. The definition itself seems like a reasonable one to make, but people who want to make up words should publish them in journals like the rest of us. --Trovatore 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I looked for it on Google and it is mentioned on a few educational sites, especially in China, but none of them work. Some of the stuff on Weisstein's is crap, at least the science encyclopedia, but I don't know enough math to make a decision on this. -- Kjkolb 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into algebraic integer. As the article notes, the "radical integers" are a subring of the algebraic integers, and the algebraic integer article already mentions them in passing. Anyway, I'm not sure this is quite a neologism: for example, Maple's help system defines a "radical number" as the following:
A radical number is defined as either a rational number or i , or a combination of roots of rational numbers specified in terms of radicals. A sum, product, or quotient of these is also a radical number.
and I can find other mentions of "radical number" on the web. So a "radical integer" by the definition in this page is exactly what one would expect it to be, namely a radical number that's also an algebraic integer. But it doesn't seem to be used enough to merit its own article. --Saforrest 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not all that persuaded that it's obvious a "radical integer" should be a "radical number" that's at the same time an algebraic integer, and anyway I don't recall hearing "radical number" before (may be internal terminology to Maple). Unless the term can be better attested, I don't think WP should claim that this is what "radical integer" means, even inside the algebraic integer article. --Trovatore 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After searching the web for a little while, it seems that this R Schroeppel character is a bona fide researcher in the area of theoretical cryptography. You can find lots of published papers by him on some fairly mathematical topics. But I found no reference for radical integers. It seems like a very noncontroversial definition, but I suppose we can't allow even noncontroversial definitions that are in violation of NOR, right? If this is a violation of WP:NOR, merging is not appropriate, we have to delete. If it turns out not to be a violation, then let it stay in its own article. -lethe talk + 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He even has his own Wikipedia entry: Richard Schroeppel. This is Rich Schroeppel of HAKMEM fame. That is not to say he meant "radical integer" to be more than a nonce term. LambiamTalk 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDeleteSee below Book mentions it. Kotepho 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment note that the book cited above is by Weisstein, and is therefore not independent confirmation. --Trovatore 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it isn't, but it is published. Thus, it is not original research. We want to be verifiable and don't really care about truth. My qualms about MathWorld's accuracy do not matter. Kotepho 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't buy it. If Weisstein were a number theorist it might be different, but he's not. His choice of terminology should count for approximately nothing. --Trovatore 04:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem reporting what he is reporting from a decently credible source. I'd love to see the mailing list post or other papers, but I think this meets our standards without them. Kotepho 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. I don't think Weisstein is a "decently credible source", on this topic. He has kind of a history of putting dubious and poorly-attested mathematical terminology in his enclyclopedia. --Trovatore 04:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was refering to Schröppel as credible, not Weisstein. Even given that I think that the book has inaccuracies that does not proclude us from reporting what it reports and not asserting anything (which is what we should be doing). The New York Times screws up and we still use them as a source, no? No source is perfect; verifiability not truth. Kotepho 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability doesn't mean we don't make distinctions among sources. We don't have to blindly accept everything that gets an ISBN. We don't really know what Schröppel said, and anyway he doesn't seem to be a number theorist either. For that matter even if he were a number theorist, his use of a term in one posting on a mailing list wouldn't constitute much evidence that it's an accepted term in the number theory community.
  • However I have left a message on User:Henrygb's talk page; he was the one who added the link on the algebraic integer page. Could be he knows something more specific about it. But if that traces back to Weisstein too, I think we have to delete. Verifiability is not a suicide pact, and we don't have to jump off every cliff Eric jumps off. --Trovatore 05:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way, if the New York Times screws up and we find out about it, we don't report what they said as fact. In the rare case that their mere reporting of the alleged facts is notable, as opposed to the facts themselves, then certainly we can say that's what they said. That's clearly not the case here; the fact that MathWorld uses a term is not in itself worthy of encyclopedic notice. --Trovatore 05:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can say that what this article and MathWorld are saying is untrue, just that is isn't notable. I am not sure that it is notable, but my bar is low because we are not made of paper. However, the searching I have done has not found anything else either so it is unlikely that this concept is worthwhile (at the moment) or that someone would come here looking for an explaination. Kotepho 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. There is just not enough source material to make a solid article about this: we have Weisstein's encyclopaedia, citing an email, and the Maple help file, which uses another term. I found one reference to radical number on MathSciNet, which was a Russian paper in the 60s talking about something completely different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just does not seem to be enough to establish this as even a somewhat marginally used number theoretic term. We definitely should not create Wikipedia articles based on basically one Internet posting by even a respected researcher; it's not even clear whether he is using it as standard terminology or it's just a temporary term he made up. Just because Weisstein and MathWorld have chosen to propogate this terminology does not make this standard terminology. --C S (Talk) 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, the source should satisfy WP:Verifiability, which the Internet posting clearly does not. In terms of verifiability, MathWorld may not work either, as Arthur (below) has casted doubt on the article's validity; given there is at least one mistake there, we really need access to the original posting. --C S (Talk) 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently this is all my fault - sorry. I don't remember the edit [6]. I don't really care, but if radical integer is deleted it looks as if the algebraic integer article should be rewritten to state the fact without using the terminology. --Henrygb 08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may not be the same as a radical number (above) which is an algebraic integer; is the golden ratio a radical integer? The mathworld article claims such, but it also claims there are cubic equations which are not solvable by radicals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment wow, good catch, I hadn't noticed that at all. Maybe the article meant "quintic"? Anyway now I'm sort of curious; is the golden ratio a "radical integer"? You'd think this result (the general one, not just for the case of the golden ratio) might be the sort of thing RS might have gotten around to publishing if the proof had held up, which makes me wonder if he found a mistake later. This has gotten mildly more serious; the issue now is not just whether MathWorld is pushing a non-accepted terminology, but whether they've made an actual mathematical error here. But it's definitely an interesting result if true. --Trovatore 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the golden ratio, try . LambiamTalk 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very nice! How'd you come up with that? --Trovatore 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The content of the radical is 1 + 2φ; that this is φ3 follows from the Fibonacci relationship. Septentrionalis 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't we just email him at redacted? My maths background is not all that strong or I would myself. Kotepho 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad idea. Not me, though, I think. Anyone who wants to can find the e-mail in the history; I think we shouldn't leave it here on the page. --Trovatore 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me it I restate some of the above. First off we need to distinguish between
    1. "radical numbers" numbers created by addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and extracting roots
    2. "radical integers" as above but no division allowed.
    3. "the radical of a integer" - product of prime divisors.
  • 1 and 3 are both well known, with solid references. Golden ratio is an algebraic integer not sure if its a radical integer. Radical numbers are not the same as algebraic integers, 22/7 is a radical number but not an algebraic integer. I've emailed Schroeppel. --Salix alba (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Algebraic integer. Makes more sense to discuss it there and the book is enough to satisfy WP:V for me even if we don't get the original source. Is it notable? Dunno, but whats the harm in keeping it? Kotepho 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know we don't like mailing lists, but math mailing lists that reputable researchers use show that the idea has some exposure in its area. Furthermore, per kotepho, the fact that this is contained in a book makes it verifiable, regardless of the original source OF the book; when a book is published we can trust that the author and publisher vet their sources, and if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us, as long as there's no reason to suspect bias. Frankly, I'm surprised this concept originated as late as 1997! Schroeppel (below) doesn't mention any source he got it from, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Mangojuice 12:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, I think the notability of this term is negligible, and so we should merge it rather than keeping it as an article on its own. I still believe it's adequately verifiable, however. Mangojuice 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Schroeppel claims to have proved it himself. He probably did, and it's a nice result that would be nice to have. Unfortunately it hasn't been published in a reliable source. (People, we can't rely on Weisstein!!! Talented as he obviously is, his quality control standards just aren't good enough in this sort of area. What's good enough for Weisstein should not be automatically good enough for us.) --Trovatore 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree here with Trovatore. WP:Verifiability does not say that we just include anything that we can verify, it's necessary that the sources be reliable also. Here we have an article whose contents are backed up by one source (it's unfortunate that Schroeppel's email, posting, etc., can't be used, but that's how it is); this one source is an encyclopedia, a source whose authority and reliability is supposed to rest on the sources it cites. In this case, it's clear that this source's standard are not as stringent as Wikipedia's. Not only that, but no, we don't just trust the author and publisher. In particularly contentious cases (as in this one), what is usually done is that we look into whether the author is reliable. This reminds me of the time Weisstein claimed (and still does) that geometers don't use 2-sphere to refer to a 2-sphere. He apparently got this idea somehow (from looking at outdated books, I imagine) and then goes on a whole long spiel about how topologists and geometers differ on what to call the 2-sphere. In my experience also, his error ratio is quite high, and his goofs can be quite bad. What's funny is that he goofed on the entry under discussion, but I suppose that's not really going to change your mind as to reliability. --C S (Talk) 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It seems like something someone would have thought about before, and maybe there is another source out there. But this is just speculation. All we got so far is that Schroeppel made up this term "radical integer" in a discussion on a mailing list, with the help of others he proved some results in the list discussion, Weisstein mentions this in his encyclopedia. That's not enough. Now, I've often thought Wikipedia is too stringent at times, but what about in this case? I feel it's wise. I mean, who are we supposed to credit the theorem? Schroeppel says it wasn't just him. What about the proof of the stated result? Are we just supposed to state the result and then not say anything more? If Schroeppel put it up on his webpage, it would be different (for me and some others I'm sure), but he says he can't find the preprint! It seems that maybe he could find it, but he says that it assumes too much knowledge of the list discussion, so it's possible editors trying to use the preprint to create the article would have to violate WP:NOR in a substantial way. --C S (Talk) 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a response to this; see the talk page. Mangojuice 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trovatore. If some evidence could be provided that the term is more widespread than is suggested by what's been written so far during this discussion, then I might be persuaded to change my mind. Certainly if Weisstein and an offhand definition in a mailing list discussion are the only sources, then this is not enough. Dmharvey 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see the relevance of the concept. One could as well define "square root radical integers" where taking roots is restricted to square roots. Relevance matters. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so the relevance would be to the claimed result (namely that if a number expressible by radicals starting with rationals is an algebraic integer, then it can be expressed by radicals starting with ordinary integers). As I say, that's a nice result, but I don't think that from the sources we have, we have enough to claim in WP that it's true. If we could verify the result, then there might still be a question whether "radical integer" is genuinely accepted nomenclature for the concept. But if we can't verify the result, then as you say, keeping the term (even as a redirect, I think) would be kind of silly. --Trovatore 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure about that; Schroeppel clearly claims to have proved it, and if we source it to him, we are doing our job (and it's the sort of thing which ought to be true. Septentrionalis 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt it's encyclopedic if stated as "Schroeppel claims to have proved...", which would clearly have to be in the text under these circumstances, rather than simply inferred by the reader by looking at the references, given that the proof hasn't had formal peer review. I might feel differently if we had the proof available to us to check; "legalistically" I suppose that's not supposed to make any difference, but I'd call this an instance of WP:SENSE; if the result has a proof that we can follow, and we check that it's right, then it's verified. --Trovatore 17:33, 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 [20:53, 10 April 2006]

Saint and Sinners Entertainment[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Only one google hit which was their own blog. Bige1977 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 11:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancing Old Boys, OL's)[edit]

Another "we used to go a school" club page. Non-enclyopedic Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete too local to be notable --Bachrach44 17:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing wrong with the article. Description of an old boys club of a Public School. Not advertising, informative of a very usual custom at top private schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwaters (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non-notable group of people, could have been tagged {{db-group}}. Samwaters, author of this article, removed the AfD notice with no good grounds to do so offered.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Boys' Associations of important schools do have some notability but the information can easily be included in the main article about the school. Lancing College already has a section that mentions the OL's and what is in this article of importance can easily be merged there. So, merge and delete. --Bduke 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twintalk Entertainment[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. 137 Google hits, but vast majority are from press releases and promos. Bige1977 16:09, 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. NTK 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henson trust[edit]

Original Research by K. Pope →AzaToth 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Needs major cleaning up, but I don't see how it qualifies as OR. -Lhlhlh 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs wikification and cleanup (writing is somewhere between OR and POV). The similarity between the author's username and the name of the law firm in the external link leads me to believe that the article was originally created as a promotion for that firm. I removed the external link. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OhNoitsjamie. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but write more about human rights component. Munckin 07:22, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The get out clause[edit]

Another non-notable band that are not enclyopedic Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7.--blue520 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiki Tokai[edit]

Is this an article? →AzaToth 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like animecruft, but given precedent, I'd say Speedy merge with Vandread. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep if someone cleans it up and makes it proper summary -> main article. Kotepho 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. It appears to be a copyvio but all the sites matching it on Google are WP mirrors. Doesn't seem very notable. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I love merging but I hate merge votes on AfD, because people just say to merge and then leave the issue alone. The truth is, there's nothing in the content of this article that needs merging into Vandread, which has good information on this character. Mangojuice 11:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep as per above. Monni 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article has enough info on this character. Kevin 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft (preferably) or redirect. MCB 05:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Definitely needs a bit of wikifying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. --Tango 15:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. OSU80 03:38, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Makes Five[edit]

Non-nptable, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Still only a local band that hasn't released an album yet. RJFJR 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7.--blue520 17:06, 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 [20:54, 10 April 2006]

William Legros[edit]

nom. for deletion only claim to fame is being a very distant relative of some famous people. well, who isn't? --M@rēino 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per the original prod reason "Non-notable historical figure. Wikipedia is not a database for geneaological research" removed by User:S J--blue520 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like someone's pet genealogy research. --Saforrest 17:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced genealogy cruft. Tearlach 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. Danny Lilithborne 02:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. TydeNet 05:15, 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 [20:54, 10 April 2006]

Kvantilbarði[edit]

nom. for deletion appears to be a hoax; animal pages certainly aren't supposed to be listed like this. --M@rēino 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the original prod reason "Reads like a hoax, can't find any collaboration on google, needs verification" removed by User:S J.--blue520 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like a penguin, the image is named "Penguin.jpg" and was uploaded three months before the article was written. Finally, penguins are native to the Antarctic, not the Arctic (i.e. Iceland). Pretty clearly a hoax.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saforrest (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Hoax. There are no Icelandic penguins. Fan1967 01:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provably false. Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 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 [20:55, 10 April 2006]

Intellectual and creative work[edit]

nom. for deletion This is original research; see talk page for evidence --M@rēino 16:58, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John(Jack)Graham[edit]

nom. for deletion President of the Shawville Midget Tournament??? --M@rēino 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Midget could be in the sense of junior, such as Midget ice hockey.--blue520 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is the mayor of a town in Quebec that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about; that's not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio per Metropolitan90. MLA 08:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 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. -Doc ask? 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honesty Company[edit]

nom. for deletion nn purveyor of adult-themed greeting cards. --M@rēino 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP--blue520 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree w/ Blue520
  • Please Don't Delete I've edited it to make it Neutral Point of View, using the American Greeting Cards and Hallmark entries as templates. ~Kimberly aat thehonestycompany.com
  • Strong delete per Blue. Joe 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Delete!!! Doesnt Deserve to be on Wiki Parvezht 01:27, 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. — FireFox • T [20:55, 10 April 2006]

DesignbyGecko[edit]

Uninformative article on non-notable design agency. I should know, I run it. DbG01 17:25, 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. -Doc ask? 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gein (band)[edit]

Doesn't appear to belong here. ?Not well known band. See WP:MUSIC Mother of pearl 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Notable band; entry should be longer and more detailed as well. waxwing slain 02:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has entry in allmusic.com; has a few titles available at Amazon with several customer reviews; that's more that can be said for many of the bands that have entries here. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this band is notable and can be verified too Yuckfoo 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep might as well as long as info is correct.Neanderthalprimadonna 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Yuckoo Spearhead 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T [20:56, 10 April 2006]

List of Hindi Film Stars who have been to Mauritius[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted

delete as unencyclopedic. Chris 17:32, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCC MB Docket 04-232[edit]

Original research and/or copyvio from [7]. See also talk. AfD in 2005 was no consensus with little participation (description taken from PROD attempt) ArglebargleIV 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup and/or Rewrite topic is notable to television censorship as it was a proposal that was proposed by the FCC. Bige1977 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a copyvio. I think the subject is notable, but needless to say, it can't stay as is. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rudd[edit]

Delete. Weak keep.Article seems to concern a very questionably notable individual whose notability is restricted to a small portion of history concerning Columbia University. Topic does not seem encyclopedic. Strothra 17:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC) vote changed per revision --Strothra 00:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have never heard of him, but a Google search gives 28,500 hits. Some of the first of these come from established news sources (PBS, Salon.com, msnbc) which have apparently found him interesting enough even nearly 40 years after the events to interview him or write about him. u p p l a n d 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable member of the sixties antiwar movement, not just at Columbia. Fan1967 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic is still obscure and has failed to attract users to wikify the article as stated in WP:NN. Also, he is currently a mathematics instructor for the University of New Mexico but clearly fails to meet the standards set in WP:PROFTEST. Further, I doubt that all 28,500 of those hits refer to the same Mark Rudd. You should attempt googling "Mark William Rudd." This search brings up only about 5 hits. One of those is an interview, the others are mostly about his courses at UNM. He also does not seem to have made any significant impact beyond his circle at Columbia where he was an advocate of violent revolution. --Strothra 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His notability has nothing to do with his current job, so the professor test is irrelevant. A more specific google search [8] still returns over 20K hits, and they look specifically relevant to him. I've never heard him referred to using the middle name, so I'm not surprised those hits would be low. Fan1967 19:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Mark was one of the central figures of the radicalized anti-Vietnam War movement; to say he made no significant impact beyond his circle at Columbia is not much more accurate than describing Usama bin Laden as someone whose principal influence was on airline security. The online New York Times index shows over 300 articles relating to him, from 1967 through to this year. There should be zero question about the notability or encyclopedic nature of the subject, and the nominator should withdraw this remarkably inappropriate suggestion to avoid embarassing himself or herself further. Monicasdude 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair to the nominator, the article deals almost exclusively with the Columbia SDS, and almost totally ignores Rudd's activities with the Weather Underground. He's right that the article needs work. Fan1967 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to be further fair to the nominator, Monicasdude should withdraw uncivil comments MLA 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not address what he contributed that makes him notable. There is not sign that this individual changed anything as a result of his actions. He created nor was involved in any lasting organization or institution nor were any created due to his actions. Further, simply being noted in a media outlet such as the New York Times does not establish his notability nor does a high google count. His personal impact on society would establish his notability. There seems to be no significant impact and his name is one which is certain to be forgotten outside the realm of an extremely small few. Hardly a subject for encyclopedias and history books. Also, I'll refer back to the fact that no one seems to wish to wikify or contribute to the article in any serious manner when there has been a tag on the article for nearly four months. This is enough to nominate the article for deletion and to follow through with the deletion. Monicasdude, you see adamant about keeping the article, perhaps you should put your actions where your mouth is and actually attempt editing the article rather than putting uncivil comments in the afd discussion. --Strothra 13:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The student antiwar movement of the sixties is not "certain to be forgotten outside the realm of an extremely small few." Nor is the Weather Undergound. Rudd was a significant actor in both. Fan1967 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep does appear to be notable but the article is in serious need of work as it is a long way from wiki standards and no-one seems to want to improve on it. MLA 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffBurdges 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to justify your vote? --Strothra 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Yikes, are you kidding? Rudd was a central figure in the SDS and student movements of the time; I was eight years old and I still remember him. RGTraynor 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Badly in need of a cleanup, but that alone is not grounds to delete it. Ben Aveling 10:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiki policy, it is grounds for deletion when it seems that no one wants to clean it up.--Strothra 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are, at the very least, hundreds of articles that have been tagged for cleanup since long before this one. Why are you so anxious to target this? Fan1967 21:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one's not special. I'll get to others as I find them. Either way, I feel that at least the attention which is brought to this article, if kept, through AfD dicussion should get people to edit it sooner.--Strothra 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In need of cleanup, NPOV, and copyvio check, but topic is notable enough. Gamaliel 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but article needs serious cleanup. Notable enough, and there are several other articles on Weather Underground figures. RobLinwood 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original article was way too long and kinda boring, but I think my revision is an improvement :-) And he was a figure of nationwide importance. TimothyHorrigan (talk · contribs)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angie mason[edit]

Non notable artist. Google search for "Angie mason" +artist yields only 760 results. Rory096 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN, vanity. RGTraynor 20:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as vanity. I'm not convinced the artist is non-notable, it seems like a pretty good resume but I'm not familiar with what a typical artist's resume would look like. Mangojuice 17:45, 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 [11:34, 12 April 2006]

Warring Factions[edit]

Non-notable browser game. -Lhlhlh 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article uses exclamation marks, for Pete's sake. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be notable MLA 09:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any notability or proof of membership - for all I know, it could have half a dozen players. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 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. -Doc ask? 11:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BankBlackwell[edit]

Non notable internet bank advertisement. Google yields only 206 results. Rory096 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Joe 18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Claims to be "first African-American Internet Bank." What's not clear to me is what makes a bank "African-American." Marketing? Ownership? Beyond that, appears to fail WP:CORP unless customer base stats can be located to prove otherwise. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert, doesn't appear to be notable and the claim for notability appears to be a marketing tool even if the research isn't original, just not cited. MLA 09:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup. Yes its supposed to be at least run by African Americans. And its gotten some press Washington Post. The rub is that they aren't yet open since they haven't been fully capitalized. If folks think that the article should go until they open, I don't have a problem. The article is blatantly promotional and should be cleaned up. Montco 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I live in Boston, read the business section daily, and have never heard of this outfit. The most recent news listing being in January isn't very hopeful either. RGTraynor 20:22, 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. -Doc ask? 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenplec[edit]

Prod tag was removed without comment; seems to be an addvertisement for non-notable Irish music website (Alexa rank:126,930). Subject claims to be "is irelands biggest unnofficial irish music website" but I'm unable to find third-party verification of that. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is claimed as Ireland biggest unofficial irish music website based on the amount of members and the amount of traffic going through the site as compared to all other irish music sites. User:CraigMcD
  • Delete per WP:NN and overall quality of article. Danny Lilithborne 02:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Possible userfy to User:CraigMcD. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 03:20, 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. -Doc ask? 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath[edit]

Full of original research, many sources are unverifiable, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Furthermore, constant edit warring. Constant problems without resolution. Level of notability doesn't merit this activity. I wrote the bulk of this article and previously fought to keep it. There will never be an objective version in current condition as all editors (for and against) are too biased and too polarized. Hamsacharya dan 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)c[reply]

  • Comment This notice added by 999 (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet of Adityanath/Chai Walla/Baba Louis. Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE BENE: All the anonymous voters are suspected sockpuppets of User:Hamsacharya dan ---Baba Louis 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have all the IP addresses - why don't you do a WHOIS lookup? I've done so - and they're from all over the world. Nice try Baba Louis, but the only confirmed sockpuppets are your own. Hamsacharya dan 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the WP:SOCK page Dan. For policy purposes, meatpuppets are considered the same as sockpuppets. And anonymous users from "all over the world" who only showed up to vote but have not edited WP prior to voting don't get counted. ---Baba Louis 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what a meatpuppet is Baba Louis. And if you're going to make accusations, you better substantiate them. So far the only policy violations I've been marked with are 3RR for dealing with your nonsense. You on the other hand are a confirmed sockpuppet. How you have the gall to come on here and start throwing around accusations is beyond me. Hamsacharya dan 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per my nomination. I don't know if I need to do this, but just in case. Hamsacharya dan 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recently discussed with a vote to keep - see Archive 1. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First time around was nominated for deletion by our very own Baba Louis. If this isn't proof positive of the incessant edit warring and inability to come to resolution, I don't know what is. Hamsacharya dan 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Didn't this just go through an AfD about two weeks ago? Edit wars are not a valid reason for deletion. Fan1967 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fan1967. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Silentswan 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit. {{unsigned|999))
  • Keep, just went through an AfD recently and it was voted to keep it then too. ---Baba Louis 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Baba Louis is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Chai Walla [9] Hamsacharya dan 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi HD. Yes, I Chai Walla, once used the same laptop as Baba Louis to edit an article while on the road. No we are not the same person. This has already been explained to you. I am no sockpuppet. You fought to keep this article a couple of weeks ago. Something has changed. If you want to enlist the support of people for your amazing "about face" on the fate of this subject, I would suggest that you pour out your reasoning on the discussion page as per WP policy. I have no clue where you are coming from and I suspect others are in the same boat or flotation device. You rarely explain yourself or your edits and this is in my opinion the main reason there are conflicts between the editors on this subject. You constantly scream "sockpuppet", but in reality many wonder if the shoe isn't on the other foot, so to speak.-Chai Walla 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 61.1.113.72 04:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 203.200.99.67 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep please it satisfies the bio page Yuckfoo 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I also recall the recent AFD on which I expressed no preference but noted the edit warring. As that was kept, there seems to be no reason to change now. MLA 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 66.117.147.56 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 125.23.20.131 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 86.10.229.248 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a perfectly fine bio to me. Ekajati 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That doesn't address the issue of edit warring. It looks fine because we've been removing the original research. But it keeps coming back Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirant jones (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This AFD is full of sockpuppets!--Adam (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holy mother of sockpuppets! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 136.182.2.222 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And per talk page. Kalagni Nath 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shiv leela 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has only 4 edits.
  • Delete per nom. 59.144.178.255 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep Maybe this page needs to be referred to an administrator Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 212.188.244.101 12:37, 11 April 2006(UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep - previously AfDed with a vote to keep. There's a whole raftful of meatpuppets here!!! -999 14:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 999 (talk · contribs) only has 3 edits this year before April 3. You might want to consult with WP:BITE before making accusations. Why are you only interested in creating or voting in AfD's for articles written by me? Why did you appear exactly when Adityanath disappeared? Likely a sockpuppet of Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla [10] Hamsacharya dan 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 59.94.244.239 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.241.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per very recent AfD; AfD is not the terminal solution for content disputes. And note to whoever: stop the sockpuppetry. It fools no-one. Sandstein 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ... and I'm no sockpuppet. This is, however, an article of questionable merit, and the author himself is the nom, claiming it to be original research and unverifiable. I suggest we take his perspective at face value. RGTraynor 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - while HD may be the original author, there have been at least 5 other editors working on the article. At least one other editor is on the pro side with HD. The article as it stood in my last version is completely cited. All questionable references had been removed per the NPOV dispute on the talk page. So this is NOT the case of an author asking for his own article to be deleted. ---Baba Louis 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - three of which are confirmed sockpuppets, including yourself, and still yet to be vindicated despite clamorings to the otherwise. [11]. Previously you nominated this article for deletion. Why the sudden change of heart? Hamsacharya dan 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - it's rather hard to be a sockpuppet of someone who has left Wikipedia - or hadn't you noticed that you and your buddies chased Adityanath off WP? And since the other user you mistakenly think I am has not voted, there is no violation of WP policy. CW & I are still not the same person, however, regardless of what you think. ---Baba Louis 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - what is this, another laughable attempt at deception? Try him at his new username Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) - Sysop Gator (talk · contribs) witnessed the whole thing. Hamsacharya dan 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment so now you're stalking him? Nicely obsessive, like all your other interactions on WP. ---Baba Louis 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-The subject of this page is a known personality, published author and alleged Guru to quite a number of people. In this sense there is valid cause for a page on this subject. That the subject has made claims which cannot be substantiated is another issue. This issue is best sorted out by discussion among the editors in line with WP policy as to the specific points and merits for inclusion, exclusion or conflicting views. This page was recently voted keep in a recent AfD. Why delete it now?-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. -- Speedygonzalous 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Chai Walla is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Baba Louis [12] Hamsacharya dan 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hamsacharya dan, I am a sockpuppet in your dreams, only. I wonder what most of the Admins think of the unsigned Deletes without comment? Sheesh Kabob and give us all a break-Chai Walla 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 62.129.121.63 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
Note The three delete votes above were all entered by 82.151.241.186 (talk · contribs). Fan1967 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've stricken out these copycat votes to make clear that they should be invalidated. It seems like the proper thing to do. If that is incorrect policy, my apologies. Hamsacharya dan 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a thread like this one, where so many of the votes are so dubious, I don't think it matters. They weren't going to count for anything anyway. Fan1967 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.177.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Better to see as honest a representation from the movement/mission/group/sect/body themselves217.34.121.233 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I have officially requested mediation. Rjensen has violated WP:NPA in personal attacks, slander against me, accusing me here on this page of committing fraud and being associated with militia groups, both on this page, and in comments on the editing history of the History of the United States Republican Party. He has also violated the reversion limit rule in reverting that page 4 times in one day. This is to notify Rjensen of this dispute.Citizenposse 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something; how is this pertinent to the AfD? RGTraynor 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen made one of his personal attacks here on this page. Policy requires posting notification on all affected pages.Citizenposse 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you must discuss this on an AFD page, please don't create another enormous header for it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:11, 12 April 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 08:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of New Hampshire[edit]

Documented facts:

  • New Hampshire Declared its Independence on January 5th, 1776, six months before the Continental Congress issued its Declaration of Independence.
  • New Hampshire adopted its Constitution on January 5th 1776, long before the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 and more than a decade before the US Constitution was ratified (by the independent Republic of New Hampshire, as the ninth ratifying state) on June 21, 1788.
  • New Hampshire functioned as an entirely independent country between January 5, 1776 and Jun 21, 1788, with a republican form of government, under the title and seal of "Rei-pub Neo Hantoni" and "Republica Neo Hantoniensis" (as of 1784, when the state Constitution was revised).
  • During its period of total independence, it issued passports, collected tariffs, raised armies and activated militias (which operated independently of the Continental Army), coined money, held elections, issued letters of marque, constructed naval vessels for combat, etc.
  • The period of the independence of New Hampshire was at least as long as those experienced by the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii, and almost as long as the Republic of Vermont.
  • It appears that The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Republic of South Carolina also declared their independence prior to the joint declaration of the Continental Congress.Citizenposse 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page. There absolutely was a Republic of NH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.238.62 (talk • contribs) .

there never was a so-called "Republic of New Hampshire" see Revolutionary New Hampshire: An Account of the Social and Political Forces Underlying the Transition from Royal Province to American Commonwealth Dartmouth College Publications. Hanover. 1936. Page 180 says: "On September 10, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was read before the legislature, whereupon an act was passed by the provisions of which the province assumed the name of the "State of New Hampshire."

The notion of a so-called "Republic of NH" is therefore a fraud concocted by militia groups in the 21st century. --Rjensen

  • Question: I figured it was some sort of hoax. But my question is: is there enough info available to rewrite the article to describe the fraud, and what the militia groups say about this topic? --JW1805 (Talk) 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a single internet site with this term used in this context (although perhaps this is one (see post 1459). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rjensen. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of the two links provided, neither uses the word "republic". I'm no scholar, so I can't extrapolate a meaning to that, but it was worth mentioning. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am currently researching further, however the original Seal of New Hampshire held the title "Rei-pub Neo Hantoni", which is "Republic of New Hampshire". This version of the Seal remains in existence and is published by the state government on the cover of its official copies of the State Constitution. I can document this further if people are not in such a huff to jump the gun with their prejudices on this topic. Please do not be precipitous, allow a researcher to find further references. I can say that New Hampshire declared its own independence and named itself a Republic BEFORE the Continental Congress issued its own Declaration of Independence. When the US D of I was read before the New Hampshire Congress, it was accepted and the Congress voted for statehood. If you look at the dates here, you'll see I'm right: NH was an independent Republic before the US Declaration of Independence even existed. For the record, I am not and never have been a member of any militia group, so Rjensens aspersions are pure libel and slander. Citizenposse 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • South Carolina also declared independence before July 4th. What does that matter? All the 13 colonies were independent states until they ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1781. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii redirect to Texas or Hawaii? No, they do not. That someone has shafted the Republic of South Carolina is not an excuse to continue the injustice here. It is not the purpose of encyclopedias to bury, hide, suppress, or revise history to suit a left wing political agenda. Document it all, and let the people decide. Citizenposse 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is bog-standard "original research" -- Citizenposse is coming to his own conclusions based on his own research, not reporting on what scholars, legal experts, or even random joes are saying. And at least one of those cites relies upon on obvious typo to back up his claims (see Grand Army of the Republic). --Calton | Talk 07:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the Commonwealth of Virginia comment below MLA 09:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to redirect per Virginia, then you must also redirect Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii as well. Are you prepared for the firestorm of THAT action?Citizenposse 23:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. They were both speedy kept. If this is a hoax, you'd best stop playing games. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No games are intended. I'm trying to point out that Republic of New Hampshire is being held to a double standard.Citizenposse 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii are recognized political entities by all historians. Do a Google search and you will find lots of links. "Republic of New Hampshire", I can't find a single relevant link for. That's the difference. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is you are terrible at searching. I did a google and quickly came up with the references below. Thus, you apparently have an agenda here. Citizenposse 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"original research" is an excuse, not a justification. I need to find other documentation, which I do not have here at present, but which I've read in the past. What is the rush? Why the steamroller? Saying SC was "shafted" is merely a term, in that they didn't get the same treatment that Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii enjoy. Citizenposse 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: pure OR. --Hetar 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and keep. Article as is - is a mess. And have people get the image from the first state seal and the documentation from the state congress then. Keep it NPOV and trim. - Sparky 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is a flag and a seal. Let editors find more references. Justforasecond 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if they do not? Do we go through this again? And in how much time? Air on the side of academic caution, delete it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Political history should go into the New Hampshire article. New Hampshire's postcolonial period should be treated consistently with that of the other thirteen colonies. Of those, none are treated as if they were separate republics during that period. The Republic of South Carolina article refers to the state's status during 1860/1861, while Republic of Maryland and Republic of Georgia each refer to countries on different continents. Alternately, create articles for each of the other Thirteen Colonies during their post-Independence, pre-Confederation phase. -Ben 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

"I. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the general court by the people and expressed in article 4, part II, of the constitution for the Republic of New Hampshire, the general court shall reestablish and constitute a superior court of common law having general jurisdiction to provide justice for all and immunity for none. The common law court shall hear all actions arising out of the common law as usually practiced on in the courts of law prior to 1784, with strict adherence to all guaranteed rights reserved by the people and enumerated in the New Hampshire bill of rights and pursuant to part II, article 87 of the constitution for the Republic of New Hampshire." I can find hundreds of other bills dating back to 1989 on the state legislative database: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/index/ which also use the term "Republic of New Hampshire". It stands to reason that if the state of New Hampshire uses the term in its legislation that it must be accepted. Citizenposse 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, in this context, it seems like the "Republic of New Hampshire" is some sort of official name for the state of New Hampshire? So why shouldn't the page redirect there? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, as I've told you before, the Republic is a different entity from the State. The State is an artificial corporate person which is governed by the legislators. The legislature brings the corporate State into being through its Acts, but it not itself the State, any more than the stockholders of Pepsico are the corporation. An artificial person cannot be made up of natural persons. It is a legal impossibility. Citizenposse 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just out of curiosity, what else are artificial persons made up of? Septentrionalis 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a distinction found at law, actually, even if Citizenposse is mucking up the meaning and confused on the applications. A corporation, for instance, is deemed an "artificial person" under the law. RGTraynor 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not my question: In any sense in which NH can be said to be "made up" of natural persons, so is any corporation. So what is Citizenposse's point? Septentrionalis 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"At 1.30 o'clock the procession formed in front of the town hall, headed by the Hopkinton Band, Robert M. Gordon of Goffstown, Chief Marshal, Capt. Charles Stinson Post as escort, and marched to Carr's Corner on the southerly side of the river, and then returned to Monument Square. The monument was presented to the town of Goffstown by the donor, Henry W. Parker, and accepted by George L. Eaton, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. The dedicatory ceremony was performed by the officers of the Department of the Grand Army Republic of New Hampshire.
    • This is almost certainly a reference to the Grand Army of the Republic subject to a transcription error, not some reference to a century-old revival of a post-colonial organization. -Ben 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original Constitution of New Hampshire was framed by a convention, or "congress," which assembled at Exeter, December 21, 1775, (in accordance with a recommendation from the Continental Congress,) and completed its labors January 5, 1776. This was 9 months before the events referred to by User:Rjensen.
  • NH Secty of State's Records of the Seal of New Hampshire See page 41, depicts the First State Seal (of 1776) with the title: "Sigill Rei-Pub Neo Hantoni". The Seal of 1784 also says "Republica Neo Hantoniensis" (Page 42). The 1848 to 1870 seal also says "Republicae Neo Hantoniensis" (page 43). So does every other Seal in the document up to 1916, when the current Seal was adopted. I believe that this conclusively proves my point. Citizenposse 03:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. Your evidence seems to prove that the "Republic of New Hampshire" the same entity as New Hampshire, in which case it should just be a redirect. Just like Commonwealth of Virginia is a redirect to Virginia. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, as I've told you before, the Republic is a different entity from the State. The State is an artificial corporate person which is governed by the legislators. The legislature brings the corporate State into being through its Acts, but it not itself the State, any more than the stockholders of Pepsico are the corporation. An artificial person cannot be made up of natural persons. It is a legal impossibility. What is your bug?Citizenposse 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is the Republic of Texas any different from Texas? How is Republic of Hawaii any different from Hawaii? You are arguing for a double standard.Citizenposse 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can prove that the legislators are not the state: Legislators do not, and cannot be made to pay any taxes, or have any deductions taken from their $200 per session pay. They are not servants of the State, the State is a servant of the legislature.Citizenposse 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a double standard between NH and TX/HI, and correctly so. Texas and Hawaii each had a long existence as totally independent political entities with diplomatic recognition by European powers. None of the original colonies had such an existence, and New Hampshire's postcolonial existence should be consistent with how Wikipedia treats them, not with how it treats Texas or Hawaii. -Ben 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1784 NH militia flag bearing "Republicae Neo Hantoniensis"
"Framed Fragment of a Rare New Hampshire Militia Flag, hand-painted silk with central oval medallion with a wooden-hulled ship in dry dock on beach. Flag hanging at aft has garter surround in blue with gold lettering 1784 SIGILLUM REPUBLICAE NEO HANTONIENSIS. Second oval panel below also has blue ground with gold lettering 1st BATTN. N-H 2d REGT.. All with laurel wreath surround and 5-pointed rayed star surmount, framed in oval mahogany frame 26.75" x 32.5". "
"The old Latin phrase "Neo Hantoniensis 1784 Sigillum Republica" around the circular seal was replaced with "Seal of the state of New Hampshire 1776." "

Keep it. I am persuaded by the arguments of those who argue that there was a "Republic of New Hampshire." ---Tim Condon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.196.164 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment There was, and is, a republic of New Hampshire. It was formed January 5, 1776; it is guaranteed a republican form of government under the Constitution; its capital is Concord, and it is fully described in the article New Hampshire. Septentrionalis 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like original research. Most of the references given do not conclusively prove anything; they are used as part of the editor's own effort in trying to interpret New Hampshire's various seals. Other references only contain references to "Republic of New Hampshire" as a typo, rendering them completely irrelevant; this can possibly imply that the editor is grasping at straws. There is a single reference to "Republic of New Hampshire" in one document, but it seems to barely call for a merge to the main state history, as it still doesn't imply that the Republic was a recognized entity by historians, other nations, or other reliable sources. It was but a fleeting part of state history, which should be laid out like the rest of the histories of the other 13 colonies are, and per Ben's comment. I do not support a merge, however, as it is original research. Comparisons to the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii are ludicrous and the editor's nomination of those two articles for AfD are a blatant violation of WP:POINT. I will be happy to argue for a keep if more conclusive evidence can be provided. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Calling this fantasy pseudo-history "original research" glorifies it beyond its merits. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Possibly we might wish to consider why, in the most conservative and libertarian state in the Northeast, no one has ever heard of Mr. Posse's intriguing interpretation of the record, but that is beyond the scope of the AfD. RGTraynor 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as not very verifiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a major government entity is created there always is a record, and a date when it happened. In this case there is no record, no date, no document, no citation in any history book. During the Revolution the Province of NH changed its name to the State of NH and never called itself the Republic of NH. All the history books agree on that. In recent years there is a militia group that is trying to set up a "republic of New Hampshire" -- try a google search. They talk about posse's a lot. Rjensen 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and novel interpretations shouldn't be introduced into Wikipedia. Also, a pet peeve of mine, is people who argue there is proof of something in AFD, but don't bother to show the proof in the article. A properly sourced article, rarely needs such a lengthy defense in an AFD. --Rob 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor FinFangFoom 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm convinced there is something to the notion that New Hampshire had a separate existance for a period between the start of the war of independence and the ratification of the constitution. The material in the article, and the material presented here, are convincing enough evidence of that, assuming they're backed up with cites (which ought to be easy). I would oppose outright deletion of this material. What I'm not clear on is why this needs to be a separate article rather than a section of the main New Hampshire article. I'm also not clear on why Citizenposse needs to be so vehement, as his vehemence does his cause a disservice (sorry, but that's the way it is... if two exactly equal cases are presented, consensus here more often seems to go with the case that is presented more softly and reasonably ). I think Merge to New Hampshire with a redirect left behind is the right course of action. (For the record I wish redirects could target article sections, but I digress) ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, merge into History of New Hampshire any information relevant to the few years prior to ratification of the constitution that isn't already there. The term "Republic of New Hampshire" was never used historically. - DavidWBrooks 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Data: The George Washington Papers in the Library of Congress are searchable.[13] he corresponded with NH officials because he commanded some of their militia regiments There are 5 letters containing the words "province of New Hampshire"; There are 35 letters containing "state of New Hampshire"' and zero containing "republic of New Hampshire" So if there was such a Republic, the commanding general was sending his mail to the wrong address Rjensen 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete. If nothing else, it's a combination of an (allegedly) historical article and a commentary on modern-day politics. GMcGath 20:18, 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 08:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemptville District Soccer Club[edit]

NN soccer club. Wikipedia isn't free web space. Delete Ardenn 19:03, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RS Battle[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

  • Delete Not worthy of its own article. See Alexa and what it says on front page on about amount of users. J.J.Sagnella 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this now, the original state of the article before clean-up dictates my vote. Page written entirely by a cabal of about 4 users. Jdcooper 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't the place to advertise web games. Danny Lilithborne 02:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this is not the place to advertise a game. Mark is a noob delete this. (unsigned comment by 149.159.31.110 02:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This is not an advertisement for a game. This is going to be a full history for the game of RSBattle, much like RuneScapes page. We have not yet written everything up, and will soon have the history and all other things up. This page was made by a user of the RSBattle game before anyone had anything ready to put up, hence why it does not have much at the moment. I, along with some other people of this game's community are trying to maintain this article and get more information for it to be put up as soon as possible. All of us who are editing/maintaining are still new to Wikipedia, this would be most of our first pages that we have ever touched, which also is another reason why there is not much on the page (due to us not fully knowing the coding style of Wikipedia, which does have a weird learning curve). DeadmanInc2411 02:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be a guide for the game, it is only in its beginning stages, the community for this game has only just recently been informed about the Wiki site, we should at least get a chance on trying to fix it up, before it is deleted. Any game on Wikipedia could be an advertisement for a game, we are currently trying to decide what to put on the site.Elfmaster 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be shown through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources that this online game meets one or more of the criteria at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline or the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline. -- Saberwyn 12:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not appear to be the work of a major studio, and therefore cannot be considered notable on release due to the weight of support and promotion behind it (and please, no bleating about majors and independents - Wikipedia is here to reflect note, not create it to balance out any perceived injustices). Therefore this stands purely as an advertisement, and not as a reflection on a game that has earned any particular note. No article should be created until it fits the criteria as stated by Saberwyn. Average Earthman 12:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable online game. --Hetar 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. Wikipedia's purpose is not to flog ads for wannabe computer games. If the game gets notable (or the article author proves notability) then an article is justifiable. RGTraynor 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the three editors above; every line in this article screams "non-notable". PS, what's with the vote counter at the top? That's new to me, and probably best left to the closing admin. Sandstein 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, its out of date. -- Saberwyn 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. AFD is not a vote, so I've removed the "vote counter". The closing admin will deal with it. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with all said above.Freddie 22:17, 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 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rosenbaum's Alternate 100[edit]

Critics frequently make "best of" lists. This one does not seem notable enough to include in an encylopedia. The AFI's list has a bit more clout because of the controversy it raised, but even it might be deleted from Wikipedia, in my opinion. Jeremy Butler 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NN Danny Lilithborne 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the link and basic info but not the list itself into Jonathan Rosenbaum MLA 09:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lists like this have been deleted as COPYVIO for a while now, this one ought to as well. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 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 Speedy Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.A. Dickey[edit]

  • Keep - Major league baseball player, clearly notable. MisfitToys 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person who originally nominated this page for deletion (User:68.155.203.161) is clearly trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Has another votes for deletion nomination on another notable Major league baseball player even if he is just a relief pitcher. :-P --Who What Where Nguyen Why 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. This verges on a bad faith nomination. Gwernol 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MisfitToys. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 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 Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 22:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kolb[edit]

This article was nominated by User:68.155.203.161 who could not complete the listing.

  • I do not understand why this would be deleted. It's not the most detailed or anything, but it certainly doesn't seem to go against any of the guidelines. I wonder if this was an act on the part of a partisan anti-Brewer or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cowboydan76 (talk • contribs) .
  • Agreed! It could be chopped down on the analysis, but he is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dschroder (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep clearly notable and verifiable. Gwernol 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - same reasons as above MisfitToys 21:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to play for a major team, that's notable enough for me. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_9&oldid=1116878623"