Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 >

Purge server cache

February 27[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. DS 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golovko[edit]

Neologism. gets lots of Google hits as a surname, but very little else. has been speedily deleted once already. Francs2000 00:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism (it even admits in the article) and recreated content. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, fails Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-admitted neologism. Ifnord 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it found some google pages about it, seems to be a valid slang form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkova (talk • contribs) (user's first contribution to Wikipedia)
  • Delete, seems to be a prank (used in GWB's diaries? Come on.) --Mr. Vernon 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be non-notable neologism or protologism, likely even a hoax. --Kinu t/c 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does look questionable, but there are google entries on it!! sounds all stupid but seems to be some kind of german-english --FRIED 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn silliness. You're having your legs pulled. Kuru talk 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KimvdLinde 03:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron Stanley 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Martinp 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NG Avi 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 06:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i find it interesting to get to know more about the colloquial usage of english in non-english speaking countries ... h.e.n.g.s.t. 13:43, 28 February 2006
  • Delete. Neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Adbarnhart 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was bad article. DS 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls (Duff and Lohan film)[edit]

This is a several-years-old rumor, always involving Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff, and always given a "name" that is a variation of Mean Girls, including Bad Girls and The New Girl. Editors' "source" is jossip.com (a gossip site); it has never been reported by a legitimate source. RadioKirk talk to me 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Blogs are not to be used as primary sources. --Aaron 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Royboycrashfan 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, unverifiable gossip from a blog --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism. Ifnord 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, crystal ballery, gossip. --Kinu t/c 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom --lightdarkness (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Kuru talk 02:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films should, at a bare minimum, have IMDB entries before they have articles here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Mmeinhart 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Note that Hilary Duff has a movie soon to be released entitled Material Girls co-starring her sister [1] and is in negotations for a movie The New Girl in which at least one fanboi on IMDb believes will also have Ms. Lohan. [2] —Wrathchild (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michigan user 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, but somebody please make this film. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I wonder if A1 could be used here? Since this is total speculation, there's no possibility for expansion of the article. -Jcbarr 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...as much as I'd love to see them together in a film... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal bollocks. -- Krash (Talk) 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Ifnord 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the majorettes"[edit]

High school student-made movie, no where near the cult favourite status claimed in the article. Ifnord 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) OMG. It is a movie. I did not double check with IMDB. Mea culpa. Withdraw nomination. Ifnord 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetMediaZone[edit]

Appears to fall short of the guidelines of WP:CORP. Although their status as a web design firm generates many Google hits, the only hits I can find are those designed pages and company-released press releases; no independent media coverage. Clearly doesn't meet criteria 2 or 3 on that page. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to the author of the book. Normally I'd keep the page history, but not after seeing the author revert back to the copyvio version, thus D & R, with no prejudice toward creating a decent article using original text. — Mar. 6, '06 [08:54] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media[edit]

  • Delete, nn book, the article itself is a c&p of the book review on amazon.com and part of User:Striver's WP:POINT. The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians. An Admin is already looking to block the user from editting wikipedia. Also (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva Jersey Devil 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significantly rewritten to show some notability; I'm rather afraid that an Amazon.com book review doesn't quite do it. On a side point, the POV of the user in question has little if any bearing on the validity of the article, and neither does the fact than an admin is looking into blocking the editor. Such matters are grounds for an RfC or RfA, and have nothing to do with AfD. Scimitar 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment certainly and I don't expect anyone to do that. I just wanted to point that out to get others to keep a look out on the massive amounts of pages he keeps making so that none of his WP:POINT edits get through before he is banned/blocked.--Jersey Devil 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable writer, made articles for CounterPunch and wrote a book. They are stalking me and AFD every article i creat that is mildly relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, and now, they have gone so far that they are AFD'ing article that are not even relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, but solely since i created them. Further, the block threats are bogus, they have nothing that big on me, they just hate my edits. Also, how in the world does this article has anyting to do with WP:POINT? Another bad faith arguement.--Striver 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- nom focuses mostly on article author, and doesn't articulate good cause for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lila Rajiva. Incidently, Amazon.com is copyrighted, so is the Amazon.com book review also protected? I too want to say that the nominator should not focus on the creating editor, but rather the content of the article. Focus on the user somewhere else, not on AfD. Pepsidrinka 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with possible redirect to Lila Rajiva. Content of article is possible copyvio (from amazon.com), thus not to be merged. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia:Notability criterion are for non-fiction books, but WP:BIO#People still alive would seem to indicate that it is a print run of "5,000 or more", or possibly even a smaller print run with a readership of 5,000 or more (multiple readers through library distribution). Schizombie 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a fairly notable book from a notable author. Article needs cleanup, but hardly a candidate for deletion, independent of any supposed WP:POINT being made. Turnstep 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established --rogerd 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiability please. Produce a review from a notable source, and I'll vote to keep. Otherwise, Delete. In other words, if you can't find citable material for it other than the source itself, it's not worth keeping. What would be in the article? Wikipedia is not a synopsis clearinghouse. --Mmx1 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eehhh... is amazon.com good enough? or powells.com or Library of Congress catalog? Maybe this?--Striver 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the LoC catalog, the rest are all booksellers. --Mmx1 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LILA RAJIVA The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media is about "how the perverse logic of torture has infected the language and psychology of the American imperial project," says investigative journalist Jeffrey St. Clair. Elliott Bay Book Company, 624-6600, 6 pm, free. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Listings?oid=25636

--Striver 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABU GHRAIB: Author Lila Rajiva will talk about her book The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, which examines how the torture of Iraqi prisoners was whitewashed by the media. Presented by the Marxist School of Sacramento. 7pm Th 12/15, free. Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th St., (916) 799-1354. [3]

--Striver 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Language of Empire
George Bush and the folks over at the nightly news have done their best to make sure that we've all forgotten about that bad PR incident known as Abu Ghraib. But author Lila Rajva hasn't forgotten. Her new book, The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, explores the psychological and political fallout of walking naked Iraqis on a leash and dressing them up like Christmas trees. In Other Words, 3734 SE Hawthorne, 232-6003, 4 pm, free

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=35700&category=22195

--Striver 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we were to keep this it needs a massive cleanup removing the POV apart from the fact that it is substantially a copyvio. Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 04:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You vote delete since it quotes a review? omg... --Striver 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone has removed the copyvio text which most of the article consisted of. It is now a substub. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it realy a Copyvio to quote the books review? --Striver 04:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Amazon either owns the copyright on that review, or they paid good money to license it for use in their business. I have seen several of your submissions which contained copyrighted text. In the future, please make sure that all of your submissions are written in your own words. Rhobite 04:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... so where does the line go when quoting? Can i get the link to some Wikipolicy? --Striver 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting something is fine, copying it in its entirety (or a substantial amount thereof) isn't. US copyright has allowances for Fair use, other countries have similar setups. MartinRe 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Striver-cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I went looking for the notability guidelines on nonfiction books, and couldn't find them. Nobody's ever come up with any? --Aaron 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Pepsidrinka. Sandstein 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Worthwhile topic, just needs a legal article and NPOV editing.Vizjim 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't need articles on random books. If it becomes notable and there is discussion on it beyond the topic itself, someone can write a real article on it. --Martinp 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lila Rajiva and delete (if her article survives AfD), otherwise delete outright. The book itself is non-notable; it gets only 523 Google hits, the majority of which are mere bookstore links. --Aaron 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - book is decidedly NN. Crzrussian 19:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Aaron --Colonel Cow 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pepsidrinka. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then delete. The book is currently like #340,000 on Amazon, so does not need or deserve its own article. Batmanand | Talk 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatent advert, unencyclopedic, no context, & copy vio too. Would reconsider pending complete rewrite. -- Krash (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David_Wong_Louie[edit]

vanity, non-notable. Genb2004 01:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Promotional. --Mmeinhart 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has published novels for general readers. --Vsion 06:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable. Gets 9660 Google hits. JIP | Talk 07:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem notable - anyone can publish novels for "general readers." The UCLA link on the page doesnt work, this appears to be nothing more than original research.
  • Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 09:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable - a lot of google hits that aren't wiki-mirrors MLA 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Well-reviewed author published by major trade house; no question regarding Wikipedia-notability. Did somebody get a bad grade in a class he taught? Monicasdude 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - appears quite notable. Crzrussian 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's really quite well known. -- Samir ∙ TC 08:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. -- Krash (Talk) 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Overwhelming Keep. Notable novel in The Barbarians are Coming, worthy author. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author Nigelthefish 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many people have written books. Jimboy0 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rajiva[edit]

  • Delete, nn writer and part of User:Striver's WP:POINT. The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians. An Admin is already looking to block the user from editting wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media)-Jersey Devil 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this an AfD nomination? 'cos your nom explores the article author significantly more than it explores the article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable writer, made articles for CounterPunch and wrote a book. They are stalking me and AFD every article i creat that is mildly relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, and now, they have gone so far that they are AFD'ing article that are not even relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, but solely since i created them. Further, the block threats are bogus, they have nothing that big on me, they just hate my edits. Also, how in the world does this article has anyting to do with WP:POINT? Another bad faith arguement.--Striver 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You keep mentioning WP:POINT, and I'm not seeing it. What is the point Striver is trying to make by disrupting Wikipedia? It seems to me he is trying to get some information out there, but that's not disruption. He may be violating WP:SOAP, or wrong, deluded, POV, who knows, but not in violation of WP:POINT. · rodii · 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best analogy I can give is that Striver is wikibombing to boost the notability of individuals doubting the official 9-11 timeline. He started by slapping a POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks, demanding that the official timeline be called "9/11 Bin Laden Conspiracy Theory", i.e. putting it on equal footing with the rest of the ideas at the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories page. To do this he cites a policy that requiring a "significant minority" to believe in any alternate theories. To boost the significance of these people, he has resported to creating articles for them. Then created articles which he could cite (e.g. 9-11: The Road to Tyranny). Then created items like Problem Reaction Solution to boost notability of the former. Notability in this case is highly circular. On the individual's pages he's claiming that they're notable because they are the most famous among those that hold these alternative views. Then on Talk: September 11th Attacks he claims that these views are notable because these people hold it. --Mmx1 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you make good points here. Striver is kind of trying to make a Wikipedia:Walled garden, and clearly pushing a POV. All I'm saying is that it's not a WP:POINT violation; I'm not defending it or voting to keep it. · rodii · 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, journalists are presumptively notable, and no evidence shown otherwise. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are journalists presumptively notable? Burden of proof is on notability, not the other way around. How exactly does one show non-notability? You can refute reasons for notability, but there aren't obvious criteria for non-notability.--Mmx1 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and merge in The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media. Author seems to satisfy WP:BIO#People still alive "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". It does seem Striver's gone overboard adding articles mostly relating to one broad topic, but I wonder if WP:POINT isn't more relevant to the proposed deletions than it was to the creations? Schizombie 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep if author can cite print media regarding the author; Merge to The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media & Delete if not --Mmx1 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ABU GHRAIB: Author Lila Rajiva will talk about her book The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, which examines how the torture of Iraqi prisoners was whitewashed by the media. Presented by the Marxist School of Sacramento. 7pm Th 12/15, free. Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th St., (916) 799-1354. [4] --Striver 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching for straws, aren't you? It's a calendar! Does "Parents without Partners" deserve a page too? --Mmx1 04:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started here, but i put the rest i found on the AFD for the book. --Striver 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reluctantly. Gets 71,000 Google hits [5] and 8 Google News results [6] so she is notable in the far left community. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view on Google hits - Might not be the best way to judge. There might be other Lila Rajiva's that the search engine might be throwing up. Sbohra 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Strivercruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlike most of the 9-11 related cruft produced by the original author, this individual does appear to be notable. Sandstein 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no case made for deletion other than dislike of the originator or subject. -- Simon Cursitor 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable per capitalistroadster. While I sympathise with Blnguyen's comment, this article does seem to be about someone who is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article to exist. MLA 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Simon Cursitor. Vizjim 15:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only media citing the author or the book are bookseller reviews (not media) and blogs. --Mmx1 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be somewhat notable, and while I agree the author's (of the article) postings have not generally been good, they shouldn't be blanket deleted.Not my leg 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge in The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media as per Schizombie comments above. --Mmeinhart 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Simon Cursitor Sbohra 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above - she is clearly notable enough as a journalist/commentator. Batmanand | Talk 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Ad hominem is not a criterion for article deletion. -- Krash (Talk) 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm skeptical as to the readership of Dissident voice and the use of Google News. Its wiki page gives no indication as to its readership and Google News indexes many smaller publications as well. It indexes my college newspaper (its readership estimated conservatively at 1500) too. Should [Chris Kulawik] (an undergrad columnist) get an article too? He gets 5 google news hits and 30,000 ghits, too. --Mmx1 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, regardless of who created the article. Bhumiya/Talk 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable journalist regardless of article author and subjects the journalist covers. Nigelthefish 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notablity not established --rogerd 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Luzio[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly notable, and there isn't much information in this article on why he is notable. Mr. Vernon 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Based on what's here, he seems to fail the professor test, and he is, in fact, a professor. Fan1967 02:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a professor, just follow the link. Seems to have published around 170 articles, many with resonable to high citation numbers. Page needs serious reworking however, this reads like advertisment. --KimvdLinde 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I find at his own list of major publications [[7]] is about twenty papers, all of which are co-authored with 3-6 others. Doesn't really seem to establish him as notable Fan1967 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yup, of the past 2.5 years, what about earlier work? --KimvdLinde 04:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What you're saying is that if you devote enough energy to searching, you can find something notable about him. Fact remains that the article does not indicate any notability. Fan1967 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nah, non-notable is not only determined based on the page itself. and as I said, it needs reworking. --KimvdLinde 05:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotional autobiography. --Mmeinhart 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • . At the moment it might be speedied as an attempt to contact someone. It even has his e-mail. It leads me to think it might be a copyvio of his Cambridge page but it doesn't seem so. He holds an important position and has a number of important papers to his credit and keep and cleanup.Capitalistroadster 04:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a perfect article, but the man directs the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research. That makes him far more notable than the average professor. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 09:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ikkyu2 but tag it with all sorts of clean-up messages MLA 14:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ikkyu2. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ikkyu2. And the standard "professor test" is pretty silly; I'd love to nominate an article with the explanation "no more notable than the average King of France" and watch what happens. Monicasdude 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of the deletion criteria are silly to ridiculous. I don't think AfD is the place to debate that, though. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Director at Cambridge is pretty notable. Would he be listed in Who's Who? Avi 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable.[8] -- Krash (Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Avi. Metamagician3000 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Asset Lifecycle Management[edit]

Well, here's a page that looks copy & pasted straight out of an advertising pamphlet, or slides from somebody's motivational business speech. This page was prodded, then the prod was removed, so now it's going to AfD. Isopropyl 01:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:VSCA (or some combination therein). Does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic regardless. --Kinu t/c
    • Addendum: DO NOT keep and rename as suggested below, as the contents of the existing article have little if anything to provide in the way of an encyclopedic topic on Asset Lifecycle Management. --Kinu t/c 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Apears to be a whole bunch of business babble for the sole purpose of directing people to the company's website. Fan1967 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Asset Lifecycle Management per Mr. Smith & cleanup. LOTS of cleanup. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads as a consultant's pitch at the moment and directs to a single "firm". Not sure how this could be cleaned up and not come out as original research. Kuru talk 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Thanks all for the input, I will reword and rework the information on this topic so it aligns better with Wikipedia policies, thanks Disaas 03:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self Promotion MiracleMat 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename to Asset Lifecycle Management. That concept gets 60k ghits[9], so the idea is at least notable in the business circle. (the artical as named only gets about 9 hits.) ---J.Smith 07:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create an article on Asset Lifecycle Management which does appear to be notable unlike CALM. The current article is pure promotional material and not encyclopedic MLA 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There might be a case for writing an NPOV article on customer lifecycle management or asset lifecycle mananegement, but this ain't it. --Martinp 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wordy, repetitious, advertising; vague prose puffing up the obvious. To call it "original research" would imply originality or research. Smerdis of Tlön 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good points. It's a buzzword bingo bonanza. It still reads like an essay (i.e. original research). Not encyclopedic. Fan1967 18:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet. Vanispamcruftisement. -- Krash (Talk) 15:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap change[edit]

Delete. Prod tag was removed. Sending here for review. Article appears to be used as ad conduit. Monkeyman(talk) 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Copyvio. Copied from [10] Fan1967 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Delete as copyvio, tagged as such. Even if allowed, not really notable enough for its own page. Turnstep 03:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: copyvios are not speediable unless they are from commercial content providers and less than 48 hours old. The site may qualify as a commercial content provider, as they appear to use the content to sell advertising space, but it is much older than 48 hours. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, removed the speedy bit. Turnstep 14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, mentioned above.  (aeropagitica)  07:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio. --Terence Ong 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio Avi 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert/copyvio. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate magic encyclopedia. -- Krash (Talk) 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Klein[edit]

Delete. Apparently self-authored biography. Frequently vandalized (check history), personal attacks made on author(s), incorrect, useless as viable information due to the frequency and persistency of vandals, unsuitable for a public forum. Jhabrem 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We don't delete articles due to vandalism or difficulty of maintenance, and autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. Getty Images is notable, and its co-founder probably is too. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep notable, per Adrian. FCYTravis 06:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reference, I don't dispute any of the claims of the nomination; however, none of them are grounds for deletion. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many articles like George W. Bush and Tony Blair are often vandalised, does that mean we nominate those articles for deletion. --Terence Ong 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine, However, we might need a disambiguation page given that the US President of CNN is also called Jonathan Klein and a search for "Jonathan Klein" CNN gets 36,400 hits [11]. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep seems notable but the article needs cleaning. --Tone 16:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. If an article is frequently vandalised, we have tools to control that; deletion is not one of them. Hall Monitor 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm wary when it says "the company has become the most profitable and succesfull in the business" without sources. Willing to revisit if someone cleans it up, but for now this is an uncited POV mess. -Jcbarr 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with strong cleanup. -- Krash (Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There is enough support from established editors here to hang on to this article. A good sign of this is that several of those who would originally have deleted came to revise their opinions later. Those who did not, it is reasonable to assume, are not persuaded but they do not have the consensus with them. -Splashtalk 22:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Museum[edit]

Interesting but non-notable and self promoting. Main contributor User_talk:ReyVGM was warned repeatedly for linkspamming this web site on computer game articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick link check on google[12] shows very few external links. It seems other sites tend to link to the content of VGM rather than the web site being a portal in its own right. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional. --Mmeinhart 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Also, the author managed to bloat this delete page :( --Hetar 08:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being linked to does not establish notability, and neither does being mentioned in passing by other websites, including IGN and the NY Times "online diary". No evidence of "multiple non-trivial published works" as in WP:WEB. Melchoir 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the site, but it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria set out in WP:WEB. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a web directory. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up, then keep -- Simon Cursitor 12:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ikkyu2 Withdrawn. No vote. But, please, fix up the text. This page is impossible to read. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving this a Weak Keep until I find some substantial evidence. Thirty seconds of Google+Alexa digging notes GameFAQs links to it for screenshots (example). (edit: Found one of the joystiq articles) (Edit again: Clearly I need to read the arguments before I vote. This is way above and beyond most of the crap websites that are even borderline on AfD. That a "staff member" is editting the article is irrelevant to the deletion argument) Nifboy 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think a link from GameFAQs makes something notable? Melchoir 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A link, singular, no. But essentially being an offsite reference for screenshots? Hell yes. Nifboy 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no quantity of links, singular or plural, that can help us write an encyclopedic article. Melchoir 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not inherent. Justifications are good enough. Request that ReyVGM goes back and tidies up this discussion to take up less space, though! Vizjim 15:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to neutral after the latest cleanup. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, but notabilty well established. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable site, fails to meet WP:WEB, and you made my head hurt by bloating the crap out of this page.  RasputinAXP  c 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My vote disappeared? The site has notability. Thomas Buckwalter 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site." Rey mentioned that it was in NY Times and two european magazines(1 coming in April). Also links from other major websites could be seen as advertising. The only problem I see that goes against this document is the fact it isn't linked in the actual article...but if Rey had put links in the article people would have said he was bloading or advertising...--Revo 13:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that this userid was created yesterday and the only edits until today have been to this afd. Not that I'd accuse anyone of vote stacking or worse. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: I used to have an account but forgot the username/password and I don't usually edit things on here, I come to Wiki usually to look up info(since it is primarily a encyclopedia) and when I saw this arguement I made a new account. I promise that I am not anyone else who has voted and do not have the same IP as anyone who has currently voted(I believe I might have made a comment as an IP before making this account)...--Revo 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity about non-notable website. -- Krash (Talk) 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Are you kidding me? This site gets referenced all the time on US video game forums. It's an enormous repository of screenshots, promo scans, etc. This is probably the dumbest AfD I've read yet. Why not go ask on any of the multitude of major video game forums whether it's notable. As a long-time admin of a video game website myself, I cannot believe I'm reading this (and no, I haven't made a page for my forum). The only think I would think as tolerable is a rewrite if there's promo-like problems with it. If you have GameFAQs or GameSpot, this is also notable as a video game site. Just because the majority of people who troll these AfD lists aren't ardent video gamers shouldn't create a crusade against our articles (although I have never editted this article myself). Thank you! Bobak 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. ReyVGM 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but attempt to clean up. Reycount 10:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too important to the video game community. AyrtonSenna
  • Keep Discordance 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote Debate influencing? VGM Board Post about Wiki Article I am not sure what this means. I am not voting since I do not have an opinion on the matter. Though I have had an article deleted on me and it does sting a bit. --170.20.11.116 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I added the {{afdnewbies}} template just in case someone thinks they can ballot stuff. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be careful on the debate influencing accusations. Some of these votes are legit members. The insistence on assume good faith should swing both ways ;-) -- Bobak 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify: The {{afdnewbies}} notice doesn't imply bad-faith. I've found in cases where new users are likely to turn up, there is no harm in using it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notability is questionable, but I'm leaning keep, cleanup, and warn ReyVGM that his behavior is unacceptable. --InShaneee 04:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What behavior if I may ask? Read that thread without prejudice and you will notice that I never told anyone to come here and vote and after the voting started I never told anyone to come here and help. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because out of all those users only 2 already registered users decided to come and help with positive comments. There was no voting yet when I made that post.
      • "Go in and defend it" are your exact words, along with "why aren't the others helping". Aside from that, you've been rude to other users on this page more than once. --InShaneee 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not massively popular, so I'd only go on "weak keep" on grounds that in this case the site can't really hurt, and I think a website is definitely notable enough if I've run into it several times based on references outside of Wikipedia; I'm bumping it to Keep on grounds that this is seems to be an editor squabble and when articles go on AfD over this, nobody's having fun in the end. It's a bad way to start debate. Or at least that impression I was left with with the debate below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: This page has been refactored for legibility. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  c 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, speedily.--Sean Black (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2badazz4abandname[edit]

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable -- from their article, "2badazz4abandname is currently without a label and distribute all of their music for free on their website." Tagged as db-band — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Kuru talk 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per above. --Mmeinhart 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Allaby[edit]

This article was speedied (by me, incidentally) by WP:DRV decided it should be allowed to run its course here. Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Allaby.-Splashtalk 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as very non-notable. At the most, mention his name in Students for Global Democracy - assuming that article itself survives AfD. Turnstep 04:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -Mmeinhart 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just not that notable - nor is the student organization. Kuru talk 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vice-president of a non-notable student organisation. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with User:(aeropagitica). JIP | Talk 07:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article's been redeleted, with an edit summary consisting of '?'. Suggest reundeleting for the purpose of this AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I can see the article, I recommend Speedy delete CSD A7; failing which and in accordance with deletion review's decision, delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was unaware of this second nomination. I was looking through the Feb. 18 page of the backlog and noticed that that it was closed as "delete" yet the link was blue. I then clicked on the article and saw that it appeared to qualify for WP:CSD#A7 and I deleted it. That having been said, I agree with my own original analysis and recommend delete. — Feb. 27, '06 [09:33] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong
  • Delete per User:(aeropagitica) --kingboyk 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete leader of deleted organsiation. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the creator of a nonnotable organization doesn't get you notability. Postdlf 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universism[edit]

This page has been deleted before: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism 2, and the speedily-terminated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism (3rd nomination). However, Deletion Review has opted now to undelete this article and send it back for reconsideration. Important information is available to editors of this debate a the follow link to the Deletion Review debate. I abstain. -Splashtalk 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per national media coverage. I just saw a segment on it on CNN today, which means people are probably going to look for information about it here on Wikipedia. Turnstep 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two appearances is US News and World Report, the front page of the LA Times, a mention in a New York Times op-ed piece and at least one (perhaps now two) appearances on CNN all add up to notability. I don't know if it's due to this group promoting itself or what, but it seems it has come quite a way since their first (clearly premature) article and its VFD over a year ago. I would dismiss any one of those media mentions on its own, but they've got enough coverage that I'm certain people will search for this. That being said, keep on eye on it for POV and third party verifiability and the like. -R. fiend 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and watch per R. fiend -- the existing article needs work already. bikeable (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral When becomes something new wikipediable? The earlier deletes were justified as far as I am concerned, but this is a growing organisation thatis gaining traction. --KimvdLinde 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the last time this article was deleted as non-notable, the subject has simply accumulated a few more passing mentions in the media. I see no evidence the group/"movement" has become more notable for any intrinsic reason beyond these media mentions. As I said in the deletion review discussion, I don't see the additional information (at least what was provided in DRV) as terribly substantial, or as providing the verifiable and neutral information that we would need to create a neutral article. I concur that this will need close watching for NPOV (and the linkspamming that was common with earlier versions) if kept. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The growing amount of verifiable material now gets it over the line for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rbellin. There's a difference between serious news media coverage and some smirky feature pieces; quality vs. quantity, as it were. Universism has gotten a few numbers, but only one can be considered even arguably serious. --Aaron 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If something is noteable enough for the front page of the LA Times, it's more than noteable enough for Wikipedia. NoIdeaNick 08:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BBC, NYT, LA Times, CNN feel this is worthy of coverage; that's enough. Suggest improving the references to those particular instances of coverage, however, as a priority to making the article keepable; date, time, perhaps brief excerpts or summary of content. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The media references are passing mentions and do not indicate that it is "a worldwide religious movement" with any substantial number of adherents. If we are going to be impressed by a mention in U. S. News, we should note that according to that article, the Universist organization in Birmingham, Alabama—where the group was founded—is small enough to meet in a coffee shop. Their website does not indicate a street address or a telephone number, and I haven't been able to find any indications that they have one. With regard to the claim that there are 7000 "registered" Universists, the website says [13] "a number based upon people who have submitted a statement to Vox’s website agreeing with Universist principles and asserting that he or she is an Universist." It would be interesting to have a count of the number of people who have physically attended a Universist meeting of any kind. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Dpbsmith makes some very good points here. However, I think the remedy for this is not deletion, but to include such critical analysis within the article. -R. fiend 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point of these comments is, I think, that if we cut the article down to verifiable facts and remove the self-promotional language and the media mentions, we're left with not much more than a group of people meeting in a coffee shop. I meet people in coffee shops all the time, but I don't claim these meetings are notable subjects for encyclopedia articles. In all this discussion I've seen no verifiable evidence that the group itself has become notably large or well-established. No such evidence was produced for the prior VfDs. So the debate here reduces to whether the media mentions, in themselves, make the group notable, if it wouldn't be without them. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the group were six guys in a coffee shop then CNN, LA Times, US News, BBC etc wouldn't bother with them at all. While obviously not everything they report is hard-hitting, pulitzer-caliber material, these are well respected news organizations. We're not talking the Weekly World News, or even the Sun. For an encyclopedia that has articles on god knows how many internet memes, it seems that just widespread familiarity is enough to at least deserve mention. Take away the internet mentions of the Star Wars Kid and what do we have but a guy pretending he's weilding a lightsaber? (We all used to do that when we were young, let's face it.) -R. fiend 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The interesting thing to me here is that you suggest cutting the article down to verifiable facts, and removing the media mentions. The media mentions *are* the verifiable facts; they are what we have to go with. Those are the notability criteria we have; those are the notability criteria we're stuck with. That means that, given the community consensus about what merits notability, these are the articles we're going to have: editorial compilation of various media mentions deemed notable. If you don't like that (I don't like it either), debate it at the talk pages of the various inclusion/deletion criteria, not on AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood me to be asking for the removal of the media mentions from the Universism article, rather than offering an account of why I believe the group isn't notable, based on the available facts, despite the media mentions. I recognize that other editors believe the media mentions in themselves make the group notable, but I disagree. I don't see how mere media mention establishing notability is a matter of settled consensus policy. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I suspect we have is perhaps a dozen groups of twenty or so people in various cities, meeting in coffee shops and each others' living rooms, plus a very fancy website, plus a guy who is very skilled at giving newspaper feature-writers suitable material for them to use. Now, religions have indeed been started on much less. (Indeed, when you think about it, how else could any religion start?) But this isn't a religion yet, and seven thousand people who checked a box on a website saying that the text on the website expresses their views is not quite the same thing as seven thousand people who have travelled to a physical building and taken a year of instruction and gone through a ceremony... It will be interesting to know how many people actually show up at the Sept. 14th Universist session in Montreal. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure they don't have 7000 actual practicing Universists, and I made the article reflect that better (I also changed it from "worldwide" to "international", which I think better reflects the scope of the group). I think if we look at this less as a religion and more as an organization it looks a bit better. Certainly a religion with a couple thousand members is miniscule, but an organization with that many is not so bad. Not that I'm saying they even have that many, but it's clear it's not a local group anymore (something that wasn't clear at the first VFD). As I said, any one of its media appearances I'd shrug off, but all of them together I think mean something. I too am curious about how many will appear at the convention. I'd guess less than a coupel hundred anyway. -R. fiend 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup -- I think they have finally met the bar for notability with the LA Times article. Careful policing may be needed to keep the article true to the facts (as for example, Ford Vox's account of "Why isn't there a Universism article on Wikipedia" [14] isn't) but that should be avoided as a criteria for deletion decisions whenever possible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and watch. Notability has been sufficiently established, or at least alluded to. Significant enough to have an unauthorized Canadian fork. -- Scott eiπ 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a schism already... Dpbsmith (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems remarkable.[15] But possibly deserving of a POV tag. Links/references need some secondary sources. -- Krash (Talk) 15:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under criterion G4 (recreation of deleted material). (ESkog)(Talk) 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steeling the Mind[edit]

Non notable minor conference. JoshuaZ 03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Previous article of this periodic event was deleted from the encyclopedia by concensus. There are hundreds of these things that take place across the country during any given season. The encyclopedia doesn't exist to list them, and this one is not particularly notable. - WarriorScribe 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this was already deleted by a AfD consensus[16], but a sock puppet of User: Jason Gastrich (who was the original author) created it again. Arbusto 04:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per Arbusto / previous nom. Kuru talk 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per Arbusto / previous nom. This looks like a marketing stunt. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberscience[edit]

nn, advertising. Company only garners 776 hits on Google. Fails WP:CORP. み使い Mitsukai 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Fitzgerald[edit]

Non-notable Dianacruft. PROD tag removed by anon. :sigh: FCYTravis 03:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete its actually much closer to being crankcruft, but either way its nn. JoshuaZ 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --KimvdLinde 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZ, though the theory that the Windsors are shape-shifting reptiles is amusing. Fan1967 04:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Mussssst keep Charlssss ssssecretsss. 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre. When I added that, I used the ~'s macro, and it just included the date rather than my name. Wasn't trying to be anon... Georgewilliamherbert 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation[edit]

This page serves virtualy no purpose but to smear the founder of Scouting. If this page remains it will set a precedent for other people create pages containing nothing but speculation on long dead people's sexual activity. Such pages would include how Mohamed raped Aisha, and how John Lennon had sex with his mother (and no I'm not going to write that about Lennon).

grazon 04:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Before you call this article a WP:POVFORK, look here, at the section called 'On his sexual orientation' in the main article for Robert Baden-Powell. You can see that the topic is summarized concisely in the main article, and that the article under nomination is linked from the main article as a spinout due to length. After looking at that, and maybe at the discussion on the main article talk page, if you still want to say it's a POV fork, be my guest. :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why so much detail? Why isn't the short statement in the article enough? How much information do we need on something like a person's sex. orientation? I think this much is too much. --DanielCD 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too much information isn't part of the deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an old comment of mine. But yes, there are situations where too much information can turn an article into crap, regardless of what the policy says. Quality writing/communication of information involves knowing what to leave out as well as what to put in. In fact, the whole idea of writing anything involves defining what you are trying to say, and to say we should just add all the information we can means to throw out the definintions. Articles are crammed with crap all the time, and the concequence is that they become unreadable garbage. I'm glad I'm not crass crass enough to put some of these assumptions to the test. --DanielCD 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And another thing to set the record straight: I'm tired of people taking my comments and trying to imply that I'm wanting to delete legitimate info., as that is not what I've said anywhere. I simply can't fathom that people don't understand the concept of economy. --DanielCD 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I hate these sorts of revisionist smear articles. Also, this may be a POV-fork from the Robert Baden-Powell main article. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Comment: It's only a "smear" if you assume that any variation in sexual orientation is a bad thing. I don't believe this to be the editorial position of Wikipedia. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: everything in context. I believe, in context, that reducing the founding of the Boy Scouts to the alleged pedophilia of its creator is a smear. I suppose others may disagree; pedophilia is not normative in our society, however. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Keep Fairly written article exploring a controversy, with a number of sources. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Accusing someone long dead of having a sexual attraction to children is revisionist smear. Or are child molesters just another "variation in sexual orientation"?grazon 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have some facts to back up that Baden-Powell was a "child molester (sic)"?? Carlossuarez46 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an NPOV discussion of a significant set of studies of Baden-Powell. However, it might be better merged in his article. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Well-sourced compilation of research on a controversial topic, but should probably be in the main article. Night Gyr 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Appears to cite sources and is NPOV, doesn't appear to original research either. Too long to merge into main article but seems to stand alone well enough. - SimonLyall 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . It does not appear to be a personal attack, and while some are opposed to homosexuality, there is no valid reason why that alone should be a criterion for deletion. TNLTRPB 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What part of Child Molester isn't getting through to people?
  • Delete Why do we care if he was a closet gay or not? His sexuality was his business not mine. The rest of the article about his supposed attraction to youths seems largely unsourced. Jcuk 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge into Robert Baden-Powell if desired; it can't be left like this, as it's a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I didn't do my homework; specifically, I didn't look at the relevant debate on the Baden-Powell talk page. I don't think there's actually a POV dispute; no one disputes that Jeal wrote this book and that the assertions that are in the nominated article are drawn directly from that book as sourced. The article is summarized in the main work and linked to therefrom. Therefore, changing my vote to Keep as is, which is to say a reasonable article branch due to length, not as a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As per Ikkyu2, POV forks must not be left as standalone articles. However large the main article is, this does not warrant its own article. Having an article about someone's sexual orientation because they may have been homosexual is a POV decision in itself; where are the articles about people who are purportedly heterosexual? Do not encourage POV forking. Proto||type 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been asked to re-examine my vote. I have done so. I stick with merge, the differences of opinions being expressed here alone is enough to conclusively prove that this is a POV fork. Proto||type 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no need to delete. After reading Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell I am convinced that the article is not a POV fork; its creation was debated extensively and the consensus was to split the content. Someone immediately proposed a merge and was overwhelmingly shot down. And now it's on AfD? Please. Melchoir 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A POV fork is a POV fork, even if there was a consensus to create said POV fork. A bad precedent to create these articles. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
This article does not present a POV different from its main article, and if anything it seems to be an attempt to de-emphasize the subject in the main article. It was not intended as a POV fork and it doesn't look like a POV fork. The principle that really bugs me here is that AfD is being used as a super-consensus that trumps the ordinary consensus without even understanding it. I don't mean to insult, but it is clear to me that the voters previous to me were not aware of the origin of this article. Melchoir 19:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Jcuk and ikkyu2. -- Kjkolb 11:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, as it appears that it is a well-sourced view that has been split off because some people are uncomfortable with it. If they wish, they should provide their own evidence disputing the position. -- Kjkolb 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As I am the user who originally gathered and posted the material in the main Baden-Powell page (and then consented to the POV fork so as not to have an unbalanced article, since a fair synopsis was left behind), I have some thoughts on this matter. First of all, it is the farthest thing from my mind to "smear" Baden-Powell or his memory. As I already expressed on the talk page of the main article, this kind of analysis does not "smear" the man, it makes him more real, and humanizes him. "Revisionism" is what historians do, as our base of information grows. The material was carefully sourced, it is based on the authoritative biography of the man, and the theme of his homoerotic attractions (coupled with his misogyny) has been shown to run strong throughout his entire life. This is not some chance apocrypha blown out of proportion, indeed I could have written an article twice the size and adduced much more relevant information, had I had the time. But this suffices. Now, however, not only are the Scouts here not happy with having removed the "incriminating" material to a separate article, they are trying to further mask it by burying it into an unnecessary "book review" article when what is of encyclopaedic interest here is NOT a book review but the homosexual leanings of a man who founded the greatest youth organization in the world (the American branch of which has turned homophobic and militantly religious). Thus what needs to be deleted is the book review article itself, and this article on his homoerotic inclination preserved. Haiduc 12:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your additional input. FYI, this can't be speedied while there are any dissenting opinions outstanding. -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Should not have been forked in the first place. David | Talk 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not POV fork and original research. --Terence Ong 14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I can't see why this isn't part of the Robert Baden-Powell article both metaphorically as it surely should be in that article though with length reduced, and also literally as I can't load the relevant talk page due to work network restrictions. Whatever can be sourced and NPOV'd should be in the main Baden-Powell article. MLA 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after pruning of more wild accusations. --MacRusgail 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the non-gossip content into the main article. Homosexuality is not a smear. Changing vote to Keep as per the arguments put forward by Rlevse Vizjim 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual attraction to underage males is approaching a smear though. --MacRusgail 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Proto. And the people shouting "child molester" need to look up "molest" in a dictionary. It does not refer to having an attraction to someone (or a class of someones). Carolynparrishfan 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the sourced content. Merge only if the "pruning" makes this aritcle incredibly short. It just shouldn't take up this much space in the main article. That would be much more of a de facto POV fork than having a subarticle. Its only smear if you think that being gay is a scandal. As an Eagle Scout I am not offended. We shouldn't have articles on everyone's sexual orientation, but some instances seem obviously notable. Lincoln comes to mind. Baden-Powell would meet that level of notability as well. After rereading the article and some of the comments here, I'm convinced a merge would be inappropriate. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative research POV fork on non-notable issue. Weregerbil 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by speculative research you mean extensively sourced from secondary reviews, by POV you mean that no one has actually raised a POV issue, and by non-notable you mean that books have been written on it... then yes. Melchoir 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This was heavily debated on the talk page of the article on Baden-Powell and the consenus was to have the separate article with a summary in the main article. The book review page should stay too, it simply needs expanded into coverage of the full book, not just 5% of the book. After the fork from the main article, a merge was proposed and shot down quickly. Merging the content back into the B-P main article would simply reignite an already debated issue. This sexuality article is not a POV fork. Just so everyone knows, I am Scout leader and I am obviously NOT trying to bury the entire issue. My feelings are: the book review should cover the whole book, the sexuality article should stay where it is because no one can conclusively prove he was a homosexual--it's all second guessing and supposition, and the summary on his orientation should stay in the main article.Rlevse 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My son and I are BOTH EAGLE SCOUTS and my views on this afd have nothing to do with BSA's current policies. Rlevse 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am in agreement with Rlevse, and I retract my previous statement that the fork was POV. I do not think that was the main factor, but the disproportionate length of the discussion in comparison with the whole article. Merging would be a mistake. Haiduc 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the article is well sourced and well written and THIS Eagle Scout also feels as though the content is highly relevant considering the Scouts' current policy discriminating against young gay men. It is not a smear, and certainly not 'revisionism'. CaveatLector 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I'm so sick of this nonsense. Look, people, there was a lot of talk over on the main Baden-Powell article, and it was decided by everybody, and there were more than a few users involved, that this was the best way to handle things. So now you, a bunch of users who haven't been involved with the main article, who haven't spent substantial time editing it, are going to say that you have a better understanding than those people who have? Jeez. -Seth Mahoney 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every wikipedia user brings a different perspective to the table, Seth. Some of us know little about Scouting (I was only Second Class myself), but we have spent time learning about the Wikipedia deletion policies and processes. Sometimes that perspective can be just as valuable in a deletion discussion as that of the editors involved in the creation of the articles. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete whatever his orientation, there is no need for a separate article. We dont have Winston Churchill's sexual orientation or George Michael's sexual orientation, etc etc ::Supergolden:: 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people who actually worked on both articles disagree. Are you disputing their reasons or are you unaware of them? Melchoir 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the facts of this article can be found in the Robert Baden-Powell main article. (The rest of this has nothing to do with why it should be deleted.) IMO, this article just adds some pretty sleazy and meanspirited insinuations which would easily be libelous if the man weren't dead. Baden-Powell grew up in Victorian England, attended a public boarding school, and served in the British Army for much of his life. That kind of life would make any man seem a little odd from a contemporary viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianGCrawfordMA (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 February 2006.
    • Yes, many of the facts can be found in the main article, because that's where they came from. Have you wondered why? And, "sleazy and meanspirited"? Did you read past the title? Would you make that accusation to the faces of the contributors who wrote it? Melchoir 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging would likely over-balance the main article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that is a smear is not supportable. The content comes largely from the book by Jeal, which is very well researched. I agree with User:Haiduc that this gives us a more rounded view of B-P and allows us to respect him as someone who is truly human, who faced challenges about his sexuality and lived honourably with them. To many people he is a hero and they can not face up to the fact he had weaknesses. There has been much debate about this among those who have contributed to the article on Baden-Powell. They reached a difficult consensus. To delete it or merge it back into the main article would be against that consensus. --Bduke 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Colonel Cow 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I shouldn't have voted so quickly. Keep, actually, per the wishes of the editors (note talk page). --Colonel Cow 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for reconsidering. Melchoir 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: claiming he was gay is one thing claiming he had a thing for little boys is smear and that is what the author is claiming.
  • This is so irrelevant, but look: Claiming he "had a thing for little boys" is not smear if it is true. -Seth Mahoney 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: and this book just happens to be published in a decade when homosexuals are having "issues" with the BSA? The authors have an agenda and it is not to just write about Baden-Powell.
  • Again, so irrelevant, but look: Agenda or not is irrelevant as far as determining the truth of the claim is concerned. Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is getting rather unclear. That 'homosexuals are having "issues" with the BSA' is POV. You could just as well say that 'the BSA are having "issues" with homosexuals' - an issue that Scouting in Canada, Australia and Europe do not have. If the "author" refered to is Jeal, the author of a well researched biography, then he had no view on the BSA issues. He is British I believe and wrote the book before the BSA issues came to a head with Dale. You can not sensibly call the conclusions of a well researched biographer a "smear". It is clear that Jeal had no such intention in writing his book. --Bduke 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Comment: Yeah I could have phrased it the other way but that would have beeen POV as well.
And I checked into when Jeal's book was published and you're right.
I don't know why I thought it had been published within the last five years.
Was there are large # of articles that sited the book as proof that Baden-Powell was a child molester published in the last four ::years? 132.241.245.49 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between being a child molester and being attracted to boys. The article (and book) is claiming the latter, not necessarily the former. We should be careful with our wording in order to be very sure that people who swing by this page and drop off an impulse vote know what they're voting about. -Seth Mahoney 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not believe there have been articles suggesting he was a child molector. Let me make one point very clear. The article we are discussing does NOT say that Baden-Powell was a child molester. Jeal does not say that either. --Bduke 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a term for someone who gets sexual joy from viewing nude photographs of children? 132.241.245.49 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pedophile' would be one such term. Note that this is still different from 'child molester'. -Seth Mahoney 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok then 'Pedophile' is what I should have said instead of 'child molester'. 132.241.245.49 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I'm not even sure the claim being made was that strong. -Seth Mahoney 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? 132.241.245.49 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article up for deletion? While it notes that some authors have raised the question of pedophilia/pederasty, others suggest the possibility of a latent pedophilia, possibly not even something RBP was aware of on a sexual level, and still others describe him as a repressed homosexual, an even less restricted category. Like I said, I'm not even sure that the article is quite making the claim "RBP was a pedophile". -Seth Mahoney 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jeal claims B.P. was attracted to Kenneth McLaren because he looked like a boy of 14.

BTW [17] it looks like the book was reprinted in 2001. 132.241.245.49 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it's not a POV fork, why can't this information be in the main article? Why can't the main article simply say, "Baden-Powell was most likely a homosexual..." etc.? The fact that there is a felt need to move this material strikes me as odd. We don't have Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation even though creating such an article would have solved an edit war at the Abraham Lincoln page a year ago. Again, a terrible precedent-- work it out on the main page. 199.111.227.177Please Don't Block
Have you actually looked at the main article? The information is concisely summarized there in a couple of paragraphs, and a link to the article currently under AfD nomination is present there too. That makes this a spinoff article due to length, not a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a terrible precedent to follow Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles? Melchoir 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The Wiki guideline you quoted says: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious." Now, read the article up for afd and the talk on the main article. This is exactly what occurred: the new article was created to keep the main one harmonious and per the guide this is perfectly legit as long as all POVs are represented in the new article. As for the case in question, I'm fine with that. Rlevse 08:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would shout amen, except... "not necessarily"? What, are the guidelines usually a bad idea? So... confused... Melchoir 09:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he read, "It's a terrible precedent to follow the spinout summary style articles," as a statement, not a question.  Your question mark at the end kind of got buried between the end of your long link and your sig.  Would that unconfuse the confusion? - Kkken 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POVFORK. -- Krash (Talk) 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been over this. Melchoir 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's well written, well documented, and clearly important. GRuban 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm against merging because the s.o. article is so long that the rest of the B-P bio article would have to be made nearly book length to keep it properly proportional.  I'm against deleting for some different reasons than those given so far, though.  One is that I see two arguments going on at cross purposes here: (a) What should the s.o. article say? and (b) Should the article exist?  IMHO, "a" is more suited to the s.o. article's talk page than this AfD page, but that can't happen if the article is deleted.  Also, I answered the challenge in earlier discussions to read the 670-page biography that the s.o. theme depended so heavily on.  Although the book is "sympathetic" and well researched, and thoroughly dismantles all the bios that have accused B-P of outright homosexuality or whatever, its own psychobabbly conclusion of "repressed" homosexuality is easily countered using information provided in the book itself.  Unless the last 80 pages have a surprise in store for me, I'm going to submit a rewrite of the s.o. section in the B-P bio article, with a very different story line (but not till I get back from ski week).  However, I'm only interested in the B-P article.  After my rewrite proposal for the s.o. section in it, others might want to discuss the s.o. article's content on its own talk page–and again, that can only happen if the article hasn't been deleted. - Kkken 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not directed to anyone in particular, as it has been said several times that this should be decided on the talk page. I think that in this case, deciding the article's fate here, or some other location, is appropriate because decisions should always be subject to review, otherwise we would not be able to rectify bad ones. -- Kjkolb 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a separate issue, I think that his sexual orientation as described in the article is as a pedophile or ephebophile, not a homosexual. The fact that the person is attracted to a sexually immature person is what is most important, not the sex of the other person. A man attracted to young girls or a woman to young boys would not be called a heterosexual, at least not as a complete description. I mention it here instead of the talk page as it has not been satisfactorily resolved there (the main article's talk page), but the talk page should be the place for further discussion. -- Kjkolb 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete Unencyclopedic material. To start making articles on the variancies of individual peoples' sex lives is nonsensical. People, get a grip. --DanielCD 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DanielCD above. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete content covered in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. This level of detail is not needed and is unencyclopedic in nature. FloNight 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article length, NPOV, needs to be said... all these things are irrelevant. The issue here is more fundamental than any of this. If it doesn't fit into the main article, even if it is in no way a POV-fork, it's still not encyclopedic. It also opens up doors to people making all kinds of goofy articles I leave to the imaginiation. And no, the already stressed deletion/AfD system can't just be left to sort them out. I'd prefer not to let this buck get passed. --DanielCD 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment I am not sure I understand your "If it doesn't fit into the main article, even if it is in no way a POV-fork, it's still not encyclopedic." I am sure you are not questioning the practice of spinning off sections which are overlarge. That is the only reason it was spun off, as far as I am concerned. As for the material not being encyclopaedic, I beg to differ. In today's intellectual environment is it of the greatest interest to examine closely the habits and motives of our ancestors, especially (and unfortunately) when it comes to the sexuality of important figures who are role models in today's world. Many scholars have studied and written about the sexuality of Lincoln, or Alexander the Great, and there is no argument in scholarly circles that there is value in that research - as opposed to, say, the sexuality of Lincoln's chambermaid. If Jeal (and other scholars) focus at great length on the erotic motivations and impulses of the founder of the Boy Scouts, who are we to claim that this research is irrelevant, and should be kept out of encyclopaedias?! Forgive me Daniel, I have a lot of respect for your work here, but I think you are the one who is passing the buck with this approach, and promoting a culture of denial. Haiduc 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I mean fit as to both size and relevance. You can get overdetailed on some things, and I simply believe that this is a case of that. If we are squeezing in so many details that they need to spill out, perhaps some should be pruned rather than making a new article on something so specific.
sexuality of Lincoln, or Alexander the Great: Are you serious? Look, I understand what you are saying here, but make me a case that this guy is that important. Would you make an article on George Bush's sex life? This is not an historical figure. No one said anything about it being irrelevant. Examining the sexual habits of our "role-models" is just not something I agree is productive. Cuture of denial? That isn't my intention here, and I hope it's not taken that way. About passing the buck, I mean in the sense of not passing it to the Wikideletion system have to deal with articles popping up on every Jim, Jake and Bob's sex life because this could set a prescendent.
I don't mean it's irrelevant or unimportant; I don't mean to imply that at all. I know this is important to some of you and likely to many others as well. I just think it can be reconceptualized a bit. Perhaps an article on the controversy overall around this guy? I'd need to read into it with more detail, but I hope you can see what I mean. Instead of gearing it to be about so-and-so's sex orientation, how about "So-and-so and the Scouts" or "The So-and-so Controversy" or something that is not quite so focused and in which some other material could be added to round out the subject.
Believe me, I'm not trying to censor or deny anything. I'm just trying to help make it fit better into the encyclopedia as a whole. I mean the concept of the article is unencyclopedic, not the content. I changed my vote to a simple delete.
All this is beside the point as to whether it is POV or not; I haven't given that aspect much thought up to now. That's why I said POV or not; the concept is what I'm questioning, as well as possibly undue weight. --DanielCD 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's incomprehensible to me that we could delete material for being too detailed. Wikipedia articles are meant to grow. Once a subject is notable enough for an article, he is notable enough for as many sub-articles as the sources will support. You say " make me a case that this guy is that important". So you think he's just important enough for mediocre coverage, and that's it? Melchoir 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said either guys. An encyclopedia gives an overview, and yes, there is some information that will have to be sacrificed. You can't fit the entire world in here and have a book for every article. Why don't we have a description of Abraham Lincoln's fingernails? It's valid info, right? It's the truth. And yes, there are levels of importance among individuals. This guy is not going to get the same level of coverage as Napoleon. People go to Books for information in this kind of detail, not to an Encyclopedia. --DanielCD 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't get the same level of coverage as Napoleon, it can only be due to either lack of interest or an overabundance of people who think like you. People go to books for this kind of detail only because we haven't provided it yet. Melchoir 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I flatly disagree with that. I hate to break your heart, but this isn't a book-writing project. The preferred sizze to article is 30kb or less. And they have info trimmed from them all the time to make them fit. Info is frequently not thrown out, but it is rephrased or reworded. The articles aren't meant to grow forever. --DanielCD 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming articles is not the only way. Or shall we list Wikipedia:How to break up a page and Wikipedia:Summary style for deletion? More relevantly, shall we eliminate Wiki is not paper? "The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details. Wikipedia can do both." No one is forcing you to increase the depth of Wikipedia articles, but I have a big problem with deletion of in-depth content just because. Melchoir 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said that either. My point is to use judgement, and all those policies assume people will. Why don't we nominate five hundred articles a day to the AID, even though only one can be reviewed in a week?. Nothing says we can't. And this case is not even a wish-washy one. To add too much detail can turn an article into shit. --DanielCD 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judgement? You don't like articles on individuals' sexualities. That's just too bad. This article does not violate any policies, and it is a positive addition to Wikipedia with great potential. Melchoir 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me? I'm not sure where you are getting this "don't like articles on individuals' sexualities" stuff from. And no one is talking about violating policies. I'm bugging out ot this conversation as it has gone out o a limb and I think the limb has just broken off. My point never ever was to delete anything but the title concept. My point is to re-conceptualize this article - something with which I can't fathom why anyone would have a problem with. But I'm not going to get hostile over it. If it's deleted, the world won't explode, and if it's kept, my brain won't melt. Have a nice day. --DanielCD 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-conceptualize? You voted "Strongest delete". Where am I getting "don't like articles on individuals' sexualities"? You said "To start making articles on the variancies of individual peoples' sex lives is nonsensical." I don't make this stuff up. Melchoir 02:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't continue to micro-explain every word I say. It just goes on and on. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, I just think our debate has peetered out in its usefulness. I yield, sir. --DanielCD 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the encyclopaedic content of this article amounts to "two people have speculated on latent homosexuality despite his being married and father of three children." It's a POV fork as stated above. It's also based on speculation, albeit apparently well-informed. The correct way to deal with this content is to include a suitably neutral statement in the main article - exactly as we decided recently in respect of Jack Hyles and the associated controversy fork. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a POV fork, and reviewing published material isn't speculation. So it needs more sources; doesn't (almost) every article start with just one? Melchoir 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV Fork at worst, undue weight at best. cmh 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC) changing my vote see below cmh 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankfully it isn't a POV fork. It would be undue weight if it were merged, but not if it's kept. Melchoir 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not a POV-fork. But giving so much weight to a person's sexual orientation is too much focus (IMHO). Please note my comments above regarding re-conceptualizing. --DanielCD 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a Content fork, even if it isn't a POV fork, and those are bad too. Let's talk about BP on his own page. If its too long to accomodate this information then that is a signal about this information's importance so lets get rid of it. My previous vote stands. cmh 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Let's talk about BP on his own page": That's an awesome idea. It's been done. Melchoir 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. My point is that BP's sexual orientation is material for the BP page. I am not referring to discussion on editing BP entries, I am referring to my opinion that the page in question should be deleted because the material belongs in a different entry on Wikipedia (and in fact is present there already). cmh 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, sorry. What do you mean by "If its too long to accomodate this information then that is a signal about this information's importance so lets get rid of it"?? Melchoir 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I take it that one reason the BP page doesn't have all this info in it right now is because it was perceived as bloating the BP page. My point is that if it was bloat on the main page, it's bloat on its own page. Therefore we can do without it.cmh 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has any ever heard of subpages from main articles? That's what this is. Rlevse 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any discussion that isn't on this page isn't relevant. This is where the debate is guys. --DanielCD 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undue weight --Ryan Delaney talk 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? I assume by "undue weight" you aren't agreeing with the decision to split this content from the main article in the first place? Melchoir 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - oppose merge on the basis of "undue weight" (it would swamp the parent article) but it appears encyclopaedia. Guettarda 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging it into the parent article isn't the issue. I suggest no one use the term "undue weight" anymore as it's deliberately being interpreted in a fashion that is clearly not its intent. It's undue weight in the sense of overfocusing overdetailing something that could easily be reconcieved into a better package. --DanielCD 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad infinitum We should drop the whole thing simply because this conversation is not worth the space it is taking up. But, as a couple of closing thoughts . . . different time periods will have different perspectives on what is encyclopaedic and what is not. The ancients would be laughing themselves silly over this whole to-do. "What is the big deal," I can hear them say, "the fellow obviously loved boys more than anything else in the world, gave his life to them, and for some reason kept his hands off them. And did not care much for women and only put up with them when he had to. What else is new, he's just like us!" But we are not among the ancients, we live in a real culture of denial, one that has disneyfied a complex and very bright man into some paragon of modern middle class virtue, when really he belongs much more among the ancients than among us. This has led several top notch historians to put great effort into debunking that myth.
The reason Jelks and (presumably) Rosenthal felt obligated to dwell at such length on this topic is because it is counterintuitive to most readers and thus instinctively dismissed, for reasons I will not go into over here, but having to do with the natural conservatism of most people. Thus if you are going to present such an eccentric point of view, you better be able to back it up. They, who know the topic better than any of us, obviously felt they could back it up. For us to casually mention the outcome of their research, without summarizing the argument in enough detail to convey its strength, cheats them and the reader of their due.
Than being said, I share your discomfort with the apparently prurient nature of the article. I would not object to changing the title. But how to make it encyclopaedic and easily findable? And how to get away from the clinical terminology without obfuscating the point that it is his erotic drive that raised him to greatness? We could call it Baden-Powell and pedagogic eros or some such, but that begins to look like original research. You suggest discussing general controversies about him. But I am only aware of this one. The Scouts will not be pleased to have all this land back into the main article, and I too think it is a bit too thin to accomodate lengthy discussions. What to do? Haiduc 03:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are dealing with a kind of unique situation here. As long as we can make a caveat that this person's sexuality was important to this historical organization, it might be ok. We can try to work together, all on the same side of this, and brainstorm and see what ideas we can come up with. How about "Homosexuality and Scouting"? Perhaps too broad? Let's make a new section below and see if we can't better define this event happening before us. --DanielCD 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it seems people want to keep this crap but get rid of anything questioning Hitler's sexual orientation.
  • Keep It's long enough to stay on its own, but the sourcing, POV, and writing needs to be improved, but that can be delt with later. Crumbsucker 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like this a lot. It should be expanded, actually, if possible. Encourage expansion of content on notable subjects, including breaking off content into subarticles where it is appropriate. Obviously people on the "delete" side are coming at this from two directions: some think it is excessive information (deletionism), and some people suspect POV in the basic nature of the article. I don't think either is correct. Deletionism is a worthless philosophy for reasons that have been stated and restated; the POV issue is irrelevant to me, because I figure you could branch out articles on several other aspects of the man's life, if you had enough information to work from and it was in a notable context. I'm not going to have a bias against this because it deals with a controversy; it's only natural controversial stuff gets the most attention. If I'm trying to grow a garden I'm not going to go and pull up the first plant that sprouts because it got things looking uneven by sprouting earlier than the rest: some things will get done sooner, some will get done later, and some will never get done. Everyking 10:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-conceptualize Changing my vote from delete, as I don't see that as quite the point. I think it should be considered that, while intentions here may be noble, having an article purely on (or at least titled) a person's sexual orientation would lead to others making articles with much less noble intentions, and would simply like to make a plea to giving some thought to that aspect. I'm not sure what to suggest. --DanielCD 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its sufficently long and informative that it can not be merged to his article. JeffBurdges 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is POV...why should only the straight, and in some people's point of view good be written about Baden-Powell. So he was gay, and the millions-strong organization he founded frowns on that orientation. Seems encyclopedic to me. The censorship of this article would be a smear on homosexuals: should we all live in the closet to please the nominator? Carlossuarez46 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I still think this is a content fork (non-POV), but don't want to give the idea that I think the material is unencyclopedic. I just think that a balanced treatment of this issue should be read along with the core biographical information on his life. If this information was located in a broader article treating the issue of homosexuality in scouting I might feel differently. But I think that biographical information on BP is best placed on the BP page to put it in the proper context. I do not feel that bidirectional linking is strong enough to tie the material together. Note that there is good treatment of the issue on the BP page already, so there might not be much more to merge, but I vote Merge nonetheless. I don't think the issue is serious enough to require deletion of the page history. cmh 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (ETA: further, I agree that asserting his homosexuality is not a smear although speculating on his pederasty is surely loaded. Also, since we're all representing, I was a Chief Scout here in Canada. cmh 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You'd have to be the Governor General to be a Chief Scout. (Adrienne? Ed? Is that you? ;-) )  I know, you meant you earned the Chief Scout's Award.  Just couldn't resist.
  • Keep. A POV-fork is an article that discusses only one side of an issue. If it were "Robert Baden-Powell's homosexual orientation", it would be a POV-fork, but as it is, it should discuss in a NPOV fashion a facet of his personality, i.e. his sexual orientation. If one thinks that it is NPOV or not, that is another story -- in any case, it should not be on AfD. bogdan 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think that title difference is correct as far as assessing whether it is POV or not. And I certainly think it is crass to imply that articles of this nature should be immune to question. --DanielCD 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change or keep name?[edit]

  • Comment Homosexuality and Scouting sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps not that exactly, but something close. These two things are both historical and important and affected each other to an extent that an article might be a good idea. Then it could be rounded out into (what I feel would be) a more rounded article, where you could give much more context and related material and give the reader a better overview of the situation while still retaining the details. --DanielCD 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts? Though, I dunno. I mean, we have this one issue, and tons of gay jokes, and current anti-gay actions by the American Boy Scouts. Is there anything else to cover in an article like that? -Seth Mahoney 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although, would an article like this open the door (maybe appropriately) for articles like Homosexuality and the YMCA, Homosexuality and the YWCA, etc.? Setting this sort of precident is, I think, something to consider. -Seth Mahoney 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all looking like that. Perhaps as long as we can make it clear that this is a unique (I use that loosely) situation in history, and that it's directly because of its historical importance that it exists, then it might be ok. Perhaps it's a problem we can't solve right now; maybe we'll just have to do it and see what happens. Then next time we'll have more ground to stand on. Opinions/objections? --DanielCD 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't see why combining this with the current issues would be a bad idea. That might make a good article. Perhaps this has some material of use: Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America. --DanielCD 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexuality and the human race?! Haiduc 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point with this one (seriously). --DanielCD 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
current issues = "current anti-gay actions by the American Boy Scouts" etc. --DanielCD 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried to raise two points above, which it looks like is confusing people, so I'll try to separate them out more carefully:
  • 1. What content could Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts cover? It seems to me like there isn't all that much, but I'm far from an expert.
  • 2. Does anyone have a problem with creating an article that would set a precident for other similar articles, like Homosexuality and the YMCA (I don't - in fact, I think that would be a good article, and I've already got some sources somewhere).
-Seth Mahoney 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear from the Scouts here before forming an opinion. Haiduc 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just hit an edit conflict, but I'll power through it:
How about a new article on Sexuality and Scouting? Controversies_about_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Sexuality would be a good seed for a section on the Americans. Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is relevant to the topic, but only a couple of paragraphs directly concern Scouting. A new article could focus on modern policy and culture, and RBPSO could be linked in a section named "History". Melchoir 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, sorry for being obscure. It was just my clumsy way of pointing out that we should not be too inclusive so as not to lose focus. Also, this issue of eros as inspiration (or corruption) in Scouting history is by no means limited to the Americans - they are just the ones who have taken the topic to extremes, maybe for lack of historical information. Haiduc 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of B-P's sexuality is of interest to people around the world. Scouting has no problem with homosexuality in Europe, Canada and Australia. The clash with the BSA is a minor irrelevant matter to them, so do not swamp the content of this article in the BSA controversy mess, please. --Bduke 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Simmons' sexual orientation --> Gawd, I'd hate to see that one come up!

Well, I'm all out of suggestions at this point. Like I said above, perhaps it's not a problem we can solve right now; maybe we'll just have to do it and see what happens. --DanielCD 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Aaron 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAEC (AM)[edit]

(from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WAEC (AM)) Delete. Nonsense. 66.32.249.17 01:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Came across this article on Wikipedia:Neglected articles; it looks like it was never closed out. Restarting the AFD process to get both pages closed. Based on the content of the existing page, it looks as though this was a bad-faith nomination to get an article deleted for the sake of vandalism.--み使い Mitsukai 04:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, my vote is Speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. If this is kept and closed out, the above VFD page will have to be closed and archived as well.--み使い Mitsukai 04:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no plausible cause for deletion offered. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I think its notable, its a radio station. Bad faith nom, especially since the nom says its nonsense, the article did not read as nonsense at all. Mike (T C) 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anons aren't supposed to nominate articles for deletion anyway. I'm closing this. --Aaron 07:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 wanted to clarify that anonymous users are allowed to nominate for deletion; it states this specifically in the deletion info. pages. TNLTRPB 08:27, 27 February 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. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank C. Ingriselli[edit]

The company (Global Venture Investments) that he is president and CEO of isn't particularly notable (367 Googles). He has only 48 Googles himself, and what does he have to do with Texaco (in the Googles)? King of Hearts | (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable biography. How many people in the world are experimenting with alternative sources of energy? They don't need their own WP articles unless they are pioneers or innovators in the field and there is no evidence supplied that the subject of the article is either of these.  (aeropagitica)  07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I second aeropagitica's comment. TNLTRPB 08:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Jaspers[edit]

This article does not meet WP:BIO. Article appears to be vanity with such statements as him being a "busy" person. A google search for "Dave Jaspers" bring 522 hits and not all of them this particular person. In the last two years there have been 8 edits to this 3 sentence article. Arbusto 05:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 05:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only useful information is that he runs a particular religious sect and that is already covered in the sect's article MLA 15:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While not terribly notable as an academic, he does seem to be minimally notable as an evangelist; a musician with his touring schedule would be notable (national tours). Monicasdude 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Nigelthefish 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada (disambiguation)[edit]

This article is useless, if someone is searching for Canada they expect to find the country, not a section of the Auschwitz concentration camp. If they were looking for that, they would search for the Auschwitz concentration camp. Delete changed to keep after seeing the recent changes. Tev 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete information as per nom and redirect to List of Canada-related topics so this doesn't get recreated again.--み使い Mitsukai 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, disambig page is useless because the only other meaning is too marginal. Deserves a brief mention in the Canada article, though. JIP | Talk 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has a "This article is about the country, for the yadayadayada" notice on the Canada (country) now Jcuk 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep, as a result of many recent additions and as per notions in my note below. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak delete I don't think the prior dab/hatnote is/was improper (For other uses, see Canada (disambiguation)) but I agree the solitary entry is marginal. Are there other locales or items named "Canada" that could be added to the dab? Similarly, if it is nixed, there's no reason to include brief mention of this sxn of Auschwitz in this article about the country across the pond; expand there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now the mention of the Canada building is only a couple sentences in the article on Auschwitz. --thirty-seven 10:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. A lot of the items currently listed in this disambig page seem frivilous and should be removed, especially the lists of every non-governmental organization with 'Canada' in its name. However some things, most especially the historic geopolitical meanings of 'Canada', justify this disambiguation page. --thirty-seven 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I hate pointless dab pages. I don't think there's a need to mention the Auschwitz reference in the Canada article. MLA 11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say there are other places locally known as Canada, at least in our region there is one, albeit written Kanada (as Canada is written Kanada in Slovak language). The dab page might grow as more such places are uncovered and inserted into WP. My solution would be standard stuff like This page is about country, for other uses see dab at Canada page and no other reference (to Auschwitz etc.) in the Canada article. Ruziklan 14:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Weregerbil 15:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've thoroughly updated the page. Tweak it as you wish, but there's no reason to delete it. Mindmatrix 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mindmatrix -- now rewritten to be a useful disambig page. Jkelly 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's full (maybe a little too full, but that's fixable). --Rob 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent disambig page! :D --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 18:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that it’s now useful. (I agree with Rob that it’s got a bit too much—imagine if every organization with the name ‘Canada’ was listed...). —GrantNeufeld 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously Canada should go to the county, but historically speaking "Canada" meant many different things, including the Ottawa River, The Canadas, etc thus the need for a disambiguation page - Jord 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A good disambig, is notable Nick Catalano (Talk) 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep to distinguish between Canada, The Canadas, and Canada Lee, but I doubt we need things like Made in Canada and Blame Canada on there. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful disambiguation page. NoIdeaNick 02:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are a lot of Canadas out there. It's creepy. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good disambig. -- Samir ∙ TC 08:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote): I like the article, but it's not exactly a disambiguation page - many of the items noted merely have 'Canada' in the name, and wouldn't be confused with the word 'Canada' by itself. Peter Grey 08:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune. youngamerican (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But make more like a disambiguation page and less like an indiscriminate-list-of-things-that-all-feature-"Canada"-somewhere-in-the-name-of-their-article. -- Krash (Talk) 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The reference to Wikipedia being the only source of reference info is the nail in the coffin. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. -Splashtalk 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COEBA[edit]

A worthy enough aim, but I find it hard to establish notability. Sounds like somethign widespread, but turns out to be a ministry of a single church. COEBA gets a few Googles, but as an ETLA many of these are not for this organisation. "Conference On Evangelizing Black America" gets around 150 unique Googles, including numerous directories. I know it has established an average of 1.5 churches per year, but is that actually a notable achievement? Maybe it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per non-notable unless someone can provide a source of membership to establish wider notablity. Delete redirectConference On Evangelizing Black America. Arbusto 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Fundamental Baptist circles an organization "should" fall under the authority of a church. On the other hand, this church could not have accomplished this without the aid of a large number of supporting churches ("members" referenced above. Arbusto) The costs are just too high. To date, COEBA has started over 20 churches with two more to start in 2006. Notability becomes more apparent when you consider what existed back in 1994. Thoughout the U.S. You could probably count Independent Baptist churches pastored by black men on your two hands. Today they number around 50! Over one third from COEBA activity. Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens. --Ben 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens." Wikipedia is not a primary source, therefore this is unverifiable. Stifle 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) So even though the article itself references 8 different articles from external sources that document the COEBA movement in 7 different years, is it still considered unverifiable?? Of course it is verified, but I thought it was being considered for deletion because of "non-noteablity" only. Please identify the reasons for suggested deletion so they can all be addressed. --Ben 15:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) No, you can only vote once. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-wikipedia member wrote regarding this issue:

COEBA stands as the only significant fundamental Baptist effort targeting church planting in black communities. The measurement of this organization's "notability" may be skewed due to a lack of understanding of COEBA's ongoing work. COEBA would be more properly termed a "movement" than an "organization." Its absence of tangible infrastructure renders its success difficult to quantify, particularly by the casual observer. However, closer inspection and polling of those directly affected shed light on this fundamental movement that is nothing short of a phenomenon.

In addition to the more than twenty churches planted, this effort has single-handedly redefined the perception of black Americans in fundamental circles. Of the more than 10,000 fundamental Baptist churches in the United States, significantly fewer than 100 are pastored by black American men. Most fundamental Christians have never served alongside a black person. The great majority of the pastors of those 10,000 churches have been acquainted with COEBA on some level. This has led to an unprecedented effort to understand, accept and evangelize black people either directly or indirectly through the ministry of these churches. COEBA has done more to raise awareness of the need and potential than all other efforts combined.

Throughout the 1990's, COEBA was a rare and dominant church planting voice in fundamentalism, thereby helping to spark a revival of church planting emphasis in many circles, irrespective of race. In the movement's brief twelve-year history it remains the unrivaled source of counsel, inspiration and hope for pastors, laymen and Christian workers with issues regarding fundamentalism and the black community. There simply is no other cause that holds the position that COEBA has in fundamental circles. More than 300 churches support this effort verbally and through financial contribution. A majority of fundamental Bible colleges and organizations stand firm in endorsement. With nearly five million missions dollars given through the ministries of COEBA churches, COEBA has proven that its foremost commitment remains that of world evangelism.

Perhaps the most important facet of this movement is its training of the next generation of Christians, i.e., children in churches across the country. These youth possess great talent and skill and are leaders among their peers. Should the Lord tarry, they will grow into America's first measurable generation of fundamental black Christians.

COEBA's regional and national gatherings have consistently drawn representatives from hundreds of churches, Bible colleges and Christian organizations. Its most effective work, however, is through grass roots influence, counsel, education, encouragement and peer-to-peer contact. The impact of the COEBA movement vis-a-vis fundamental circles is an ever-evolving force that is changing the face of fundamentalism.

It takes time, and, perhaps, a generation to change the psyche produced by decades of missteps regarding Black America. Still, there are many on the bandwagon. Here is what several prominent fundamental leaders have said about COEBA: (the quotes below are copied from a 1999 COEBA magazine)

"COEBA, the vision of Lou Baldwin, a preacher of the gospel, draws my admiration and attention because it applies Bible remedies to the sinful human hearts of Bible-starved souls..." Bob Jones III - President, Bob Jones University

"I thank the Lord for the COEBA movement with the great objective of soul winning and the building of churches... This organization is doing a work that is much needed." Dr. Lee Roberson - Chancellor, Tennessee Temple University

"New Testament curches are the salt and light America needs. Praise God for Pastor Lou Baldwin and COEBA -- a gift from God to Black America." Dr. Sam Davison - Pastor, Southwest Baptist Church

"Pastors across America should thank God for raising men like Dr. Lou Baldwin ... It is my prayer that through COEBA many thousands of lives will be influenced as we move into the 21st century." Dr. Paul Chappell - Pastor, Lancaster Baptist Church - President, West Coast Baptist College

"COEBA is on of the greatest biblical missionary movements of this generation." Dr. Don Sisk - President/General Director, Baptist International Missions, Inc.

"This is a movement that has the hand of God upon it. The Lord has provided visionary leadership through Dr. Lou Baldwin to reach so many millions with the gospel." Dr. Clarence Sexton - Pastor, Temple Baptist Church - President, Crown College

--Ben 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm project[edit]

nn project, vanity page. search for "Paradigm project" UK on Google only gives 515 hits. Alexa rating of just under 1.4M. Fails WP:WEB. み使い Mitsukai 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darbism[edit]

Made up religion, not notable, 4 google hits. Dragons flight 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Metta Bubble 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3 Google hits, and the article states "not much is known about Darbism, and in order to learn more about the religion you must join a chapter" - which is another way of saying "this information is utterly unverifiable". Sliggy 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn "religion", with text mainly taken from teh under construction site, although I think Sliggy's statement is incorrect. JPD (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as bizarre nonsense. Crzrussian 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sliggy's point. Kuru talk 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy --Colonel Cow 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Protologism; probably made up in school one day. -- Krash (Talk) 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as a "religion", How is this different from christianity? there is just as much proof about this as there is about all other religions. 3 google hits just means its not followed by many which is fine get of their backs. Its what !THEY! follow NOT YOU.

!


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

Dawg[edit]

Not a vote to delete. Article appears to have been deleted out-of-process. I have restored it and am now subjecting it to the normal deletion process. The reason given for deletion was "nonsense". Nohat 06:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a slang guide (WP:NOT). I don't see why this was restored. Please consider WP:SNOW next time. --Hetar 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4 recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • G4 does not apply to this article because the article was undeleted per the undeletion policy and when it was originally speedy deleted it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Nohat 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could I please have a pointer to where the original out-of-process discussion took place? (Or did an admin just nuke it on sight without any discussion at all?) All I can find is this fourteen-month-old VfD which was closed with a clear consensus to delete. --Aaron 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Aaron. Otherwise Delete per nom. Doesn't even belong in wiktionary. Metta Bubble 08:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non speedy. Disagreements with the Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria do not belong on AfD. Follow community consensus process every time; that way, no one can claim that AfD runs according to inconsistent or unfair rules. To be clear: Doesn't meet speedy delete criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as has already happened! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 10:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:CSD, per ikkyu2. —Caesura(t) 13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Aaron. --Terence Ong 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Merge into another article, one that has something to do with slang (possibly the entry on slang), then redirect the origional page. But don't delete. Dr. B 15:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Merge, & Redirect per Dr. B. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Dr. B. Since this article would qualify for CSD G4, I have created a redirect to African American Vernacular English. Feel free to change to a more appropriate redirect. --SYCTHOStalk 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goober Adventure[edit]

Was proded as "No verifiable sources, no Google hits on title or publisher name, besides the whole article just generaly screams "hoax"."; all this is still true. It's for a not yet released computer game. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not crystal ball. --Blue520 07:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Even if it isn't a hoax, neither the game nor the developer company get very many Google hits. — TKD (Talk) 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way this is going to be notable. This is someone's pet project, not a title which will change the face of videogamedom. Author even "signed" the article. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. -- Krash (Talk) 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew D. Soleyn[edit]

Delete - This may be a an attack page (Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject), as well as a non-notable biography. I marked it with a CSD A6 template, but the article creator removed it. So to be fair to the article creator I am placing it in afd rather than replacing the CSD A6 template. Royal Blue 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per {{db-attack}}. I can't see how the contents of this article serve to do anything other than disparage the subject.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A6.--み使い Mitsukai 07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. --Hetar 07:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A6 as attack page. I decided to retag it... maybe the author got his cheap laugh and has stopped paying attention. :P --Kinu t/c 07:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. Attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, non-notable person. Thue | talk 11:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William J Mullan III[edit]

User Mrmanhattanproject placed a afd on the page but did not create the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page and blanked the page with the afd template, I assume this was accidental. So I am putting this up for Mrmanhattanproject Blue520 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - nn bio, should fit CSD A7 --Blue520 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note why is the the contents of Articles for deletion/William J Mullan III being added to William J Mullan III?
  • Speedy A7.--み使い Mitsukai 07:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per {{nn-bio}}. WP:BIO refers for criteria. There is no reason why he can't set his own website up for the purposes of self-promotion; unencyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)  07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 as notability not asserted; would be delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic otherwise. --Kinu t/c 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article asserts he has his own TV show in the New York area; I think that rules out A7, unless someone can point out that his show is less notable than, say, Robin Byrd's. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per A7. --Terence Ong 10:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly speedy. A Google search for William J Mullan show came up with one completely unrelated hit. [19]. At best, it is shown on community television in his hometown and is unverifiable.Capitalistroadster 11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Nudism[edit]

Was tagged PROD, but removed by anon without comment. Relisting here under the same rationale: Nonnotable neologism with less than 125 google hits, most of them wikipedia. According to the talk page, mainstream groups within nudism have never heard of the term. Night Gyr 07:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synola Ltd[edit]

nn corporation, advertisement. 163 hits in google, company fails WP:CORP. み使い Mitsukai 07:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, with a redirect to The Legend of Zelda series thrown in totally of my own accord. This discussion conflates two things:

  • The name "Zelda Universe" has official provenance. The pratice with items like this per Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is a redirect to the parent when they don't have stand-alone notability. No one has suggested that the official site does.
  • The name "Zelda Universe" is also a fan site. Nothing has been presented to suggest that it satisfies the notability guidelines.

So, given that neither one nor the other can stand on its own, delete and redirect is the appropiate outcome. In the event that greater notability arises (for whichever incarnation) it's trivial to replace the deleted content.
brenneman{T}{L} 13:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda_Universe[edit]

*EDIT - Withdraw request for deletion, request page re-write - Zelda Universe is the official name of Nintendo's Zelda.com web page, as well as all international iterations. A fan site does not hold presidence over an official site, and this article is nothing more than an expanded summary of the "about" page on the fan site. TSA 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete - Zelda Universe is *now* the official title of Zelda.com, but this name was not actually chosen or implemented by Nintendo until March of 2001 ([20]), while Zeldauniverse.net was launched at least a month earlier. A fan site does *not* hold presidence over an official site, but people who visit Zelda.com probably do not regularly refer to it as "Zelda Universe" (since typing Zelda Universe into google will yield the fansite before the official one, and typing zelda.com will yield a site that is labeled "The Legend of Zelda"). And even if a person does refer to Zelda.com as "Zelda Universe", this sort of occasion is exactly what disambiguation pages were invented for. Deletion is way too harsh, and honestly I think you're only proposing such a thing because you are the owner and operator of a rival Zelda fansite. Andi- 11:53, 27 February 2006 (EST)
  • I'll have to second that, don't delete. There is really no good reason for deletion here. The fact of the matter is that this site has been the largest fan-site in the Zelda community over several years, and one of the bigger game-specific fansites on the entire web. To me that alone makes it worthy of it's article. Not to mention your reasoning behind the proposed deletion is pretty weak. There have been few to none mixups throughout the years between ZeldaUniverse.net and the official Zelda site, Zelda.com, which has only used the name "Zelda Universe" irregularly for the past few years. And as the user above me pointed out, that's what the disambiguation pages are for in any case. The article needs to be cleaned up and rewritten however. Lars-Christian
  • Comment - no vote. Name conflicts with an official site is not a criteria for listing. Let the lawyers sort that out. However, with an Alexa rank of 72,971 I don't know if it meets WP:WEB. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no vote. The criterias are a little vague, but I would believe it meets them, seeing as it has been featured in several magazines, as well as on TV in France. Not my call to make however, so I'll leave that up to those in charge. Lars-Christian

Additional input: This isn't a vandetta or anything, it's about being accurate. Perhaps I was too brash, but something has to be done. Zelda Universe should, first and foremost, point to an article about the | Official Zelda Web Site. There, on the same article, can be information about this site, or a tag at the top which directs people looking for the fan site to go to another page. I thought I read that infringing on IP or misleading information was grounds for deletion - but please understand I do not want this content removed because of any other reason than it is taking the place of the official Zelda.com website. It is confusing to a fan who does not know any better, and yes there have been fans who confuse content on Zelda Univerise.net for OFFICIAL information endorsed by Zelda.com (Zelda Universe). That's my rationale. And Zelda Universe was used since 1995 on the AOL portal page of Nintendo. Camp Hyrule linked to it in the chat room used then. The website Zelda.com did not use the name Zelda Universe until it was launched as its own hub site - beforehand Zelda games got their own micro sites. Also, Zelda.com was originally a domain for pornography, and Nintendo went to court to retain the domain. Or else earlier Zelda.com would have been around sooner. --TSA 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. It is just pretty much a carbon copy of the site's about page. I know this because I'm the one that did it. I figured some other people would've straightened it out by now, but evidently not. I couldn't care less what happens at this point. --Captain Cornflake 19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Additional input: Wouldn't information on the official Zelda website go under the Zelda page? Why would an official website for a video game (which contains nothing but official information) need its own wikipedia article? Does Coca-Cola.com need its own page, while we're at it? Just for the record, I will admit that I didn't know that this wikipedia article existed until I decided to do a random wiki search (ironically, it happened to be just a few hours after TSA suggested the article for deletion. But now that I do, the page will be updated quite a bit.Andi-

Edit: The page has been changed a bit, and the fact that "Zelda Universe" is also a name for the official website has been pointed out (And a link has been provided). Andi-. 21:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thomas Wilson[edit]

Delete - this person/player has little encyclopedic significance, not to diminish his importance to the Cardiff Cobras, but this seems pretty clear Masonpatriot 07:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, noting that the Cardiff Cobras are just a student team, and their individual players are neither professional or notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Proto||type
  • Delete, a player student team in a country where the game is hardly played. JPD (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MacRusgail 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per nom. Kuru talk 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CybOrgasMatrix[edit]

Insanely obvious astroturfing, this is a non-notable trademark, already covered in sex doll Defenestrate 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the keep vote, I'm all for a merge with sex doll. I think that RealDoll should be merged with sex doll, as well. And I'd like to get rid of fleshlight. Generally, there are some ugly trademarks all around the sex toy article. If it is a single sort of something, and a trademark, to boot, I'm all for getting rid of it. Sex doll really covers both RealDoll and other makers AFAIK. I don't have time to do all this myself.

Also, while I should assume good faith, I am suspicious instead. Esoterik1 has a very short editing history that includes the creation of this article, and insertions of links to this article in other articles, but nothing else. This is a classic pattern for astroturfers.

Due to the nature of this topic, one should expect a higher than usual instance of unregistered users and/or sockpuppets. Note that in RealDoll's history page, more than half the edits were done anonymously, and the great majority of those were by people of good will. See the long response under Keep (below) for more on the tradition of anonymity in on-line forums that deal with sex dolls. Esoterik1 IS a nom de plume/pseudonym/sockpuppet, created SPECIFICALLY for this contribution. Any contributions I make in Wikipedia that touch on this topic, even peripherally, will be made by Esoterik1. Without revealing more about myself than I am comfortable sharing, as it happens, I am a published author. Clients and peers Google my name with some regularity. If the only acceptable editors for this topic are those who have registered with their real name and listed personally identifiable information on their User page, then a Google search on my name would include an article on sex dolls in Wikipedia. Speaking strictly for myself, I would rather voluntarily blank the article than suffer possible negative professional and/or personal consequences. Wikipedia would simply have to wait for a braver contributor than I, or a wiser one who doesn't freely admit to first-hand knowledge. And there's the catch. The Acid Test is: what do you know for sure? Incidentally, I don't feel the same way about other topics I write about. In other respects I enjoy attribution, kudos, and laurels. In this instance, the knowledge that my contribution made a difference will have to suffice. BTW, I like your handle. It's a cool word, rich with history, and one that has been in my active vocabulary for many years.--Esoterik1 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what astroturfing is, but this article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement of an otherwise non-notable instance of sex doll. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was politely asked to reconsider my vote in light of the article re-write. Without intending any offense towards any WP editors, my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines leads me to continue to recommend Delete for the reasons I already stated, with no prejudice towards the idea of merging this article content with sex doll. I think the comments of Esoterik1 above with regard to a desire for anonymity WRT this topic are understandable and, therefore, the edit history of that user shouldn't prejudice evalution of the contributions solely on their own merits. I still don't know what 'astroturfing' is. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Defenestrate, for re-evaluating the article after the re-write. I appreciate your "due diligence". This review will be closing soon, I would imagine. Is anyone else going to look at the edited version or give the 15-second video clip (linked below) a glance before that happens? You might feel differently about the new version of the article, and the video clip might satisfy any question of notability. If not, your criticism might lead to a needed improvement. I would regret it if the effort to write it (and especially the time it took to ask the company for a license for the photo) turned out to be a complete waste of time. One hopes to make a difference. --Esoterik1 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On account of a major edit to conform with NPOV policy. Intensifiers were aggressively deleted and word count was reduced from 679 to 473. Give it a second look, please, and let me know if the changes made a difference, or if further editing is needed. As the author who seeded the core information, I feel responsible for at least bringing my contribution to the topic up to Wikipedia's high standards. The characterization of "Insanely obvious astroturfing," though a clever bon mot, is speculative, and, as it happens, inaccurate. But rather than take it personally, I was led to ask why the article might be so perceived. The resulting edit is an improvement on account of that input, however, and I am grateful. I started to cite references and quotes for each point, but it began to read more like a dissertation than an encyclopedic entry, and the increased length didn't seem justified by the topic. So I went the other way and slashed whole sentences, making it, I believe, more neutral, pithier, and more interesting on account of brevity.

I was guided initially by the prior existence of the Realdoll topic, which has been in existence since August, 2003. It has survived 2 AFD reviews (one in November 2003 and the latest earlier this month), and it is now a stable article, though currently slated for clean-up. I found 2 existing references to CybOrgasMatrix, one under Sex doll and the other under Pandora Peaks, but they weren't linked to anything internal or external.

I have no axe to grind, although I have become somewhat ego-involved with the article as my time spent contributing and discussing it here has grown. I would characterize myself as an enthusiast with a dose of expertise who should (by consensus) eschew the tendency to evangelize. I was moved to contribute because this is something that interests me, and I know some stuff about it that I felt would be interesting to others (and that's as much as I care to share of my personal life in this area). Because it was personally interesting, I know more about the topic and the industry now than I did when I began to write about it, since a useful contribution imposes an obligation to do a good deal of research.

Popularity: In support of the argument for inclusion, here are the results of some search engine tests run mid-day today, Feb. 28, 2006, on the word "cyborgasmatrix" with adult filtering turned off-

  • Yahoo Test: 1280 hits, reduced to 1270 when clicking on the last page. However, Yahoo's advanced search form does not support the exclusion of the manufacturer's website, and that skews the results upward.
  • Google Test: Starting with the widest parameters first, there were 1430 hits for the word "cyborgasmatrix" with adult filtering off, and omitted results included. Repeating the search with the manufacturer's website excluded and omitted results excluded yielded 1060 sites listed, which reduced to 283 websites when clicking on the last page. There were 4 hits for the spelling "ciborgasmatrix" (3 with omitted results excluded), and 6 hits for "cybergasmatrix" (4 with omitted results excluded). Using the lowest values for these searches yields 290 websites.
  • Alexa Test: Ranks cyborgasmatrix.com at 406,325 over the last 3 months, with 20 linking sites.
  • The Doll Forum The CybOrgasMatrix section of the Doll Forum has 1218 posts on 128 different topics dating back to early 2002. Although this isn't a place one would think of going for a Google Test, it is worth considering when evaluating the popularity of a specialty item like this. It's membership is comprised of over 14,000 registered users who seem to be well fairly well-informed doll enthusiasts. It has a number of forums within, 9 dedicated to specific dolls, RealDoll and CybOrgasMatrix among them. It appears to be a good place to go to gauge public opinion on the product. A Wikipedia search yields 218 references to "Doll Forum." Due to the personal nature of the discussions, all but a few brave souls use handles rather than their names. This tradition seems to have followed RealDoll into Wikipedia; a brief glance at the history page accompanying the Realdoll article will show you that of the 66 edits to date, half of them (34 to be exact) are anonymous contributions, either by unregistered users, or by people who don't log in when making the edits.

According to several of the posts in the Doll Forum, the CybOrgasMatrix has never been advertised. They claim to have been around before RealDoll, but they spent the first 7 years working in development and research, outside the public eye. All of their customers have come to them by word of mouth, forums, or search engines. The company has attended only one trade show. In the course of obtaining the license to use the image of the doll used in this article, I learned that the BBC was interested in filming a documentary about CybOrgasMatrix, but it came to nothing when they were informed that due to work under development they would not be permitted inside the factory, even without cameras. The apparent lack of marketing or media relations might explain why more people aren't aware of the unique qualities that distinguish CybOrgasMatrix from anything else, but that is pure conjecture on my part.

Noteworthiness: However, the argument for inclusion ought not to rely solely on popularity. It is noteworthy for the innovations mentioned in the article, namely: the degree of realism that is unmatched by anything yet invented in its category. Although that wording does not appear in the article, at first blush it is wildly POV. But I'll back it up below.

When I saw that there was a stable article on the Realdoll, I reasoned that if that information was fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, then an invention that represented a significant improvement over all Prior art would be relevant by the same standard. I was surprised that the topic did not yet exist. The case for relevance and basis for inclusion can be summarized as follows:

  • Sex doll, Realdoll, and Pandora Peaks have all withstood Wikipedia peer review and are now stable articles.
  • CybOrgasMatrix is an invention that represents the current state-of-the-art in terms of realism, with significant improvements over anything that has been invented in the past. As such, it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own topic.

The basis for this assertion comes from Plato, who said that true knowledge is based on firsthand experience, and the best that can be said of anything else is that is a "correct opinion," however well-informed it might be (I am paraphrasing Benjamin Jowett's translation here). That was the seminal influence for my contribution (sorry; it was too tempting to resist). I would not have bothered to contribute on the basis of mere opinion based on something I read. I submit to you that anyone who has direct experience with the CybOrgasMatrix AND the Realdoll, and who isn't too shy to share that knowledge, will validate the 2 points that make the invention unique and distinct from all Prior art, namely the degree of realism achieved by lifecasting, and the tactile realism of the material used in its manufacture in simulating human flesh. Because it is not as well known (yet) as RealDoll, a lot of people may be unaware of this distinction. Although I am speaking freely in the context of this discussion, this is not a POV issue, because it can be verified by anyone motivated to do so. It would be most informative to hear from others with "true knowledge" who are willing to come out about this issue. True knowledge in this case can be as simple as the personal experience of having seen and felt the 2 side-by-side at a trade show, for instance, and not necessarily that someone happens to own both of them. I can certainly understand if someone is reluctant to share due to social taboos and stigmas. After all, the early prior art was pretty absurd, and no one wants to invite ridicule. Short of true knowledge, if someone is going to evaluate the merits of inclusion or deletion, I would think that at the very least they would want to take 15 seconds to verify this for themselves in order to make a more informed decision. I believe that could be accomplished simply by watching the first 15-second video clip on the official website (adult content, but very soft; interesting, but not offensive). It should play in Internet Explorer; I'm not sure about other browsers. I chose that clip as a representative example that immediately illustrates my point for the purposes of this discussion. However, linking to it in the article would be improper.

Dolls category propriety: Regarding impropriety, I chose to delete CybOrgasMatrix from the Dolls category. I listed it there initially because I noticed that the RealDoll was also listed in that category. But upon further consideration of the fact that most people going through the Dolls category index are kids or parents looking for toys and action figures, clicking on a text link that brought them to the RealDoll or CybOrgasMatrix article would very likely be an unwelcome surprise, possibly a damaging one. As you will see if you follow the Wikilink above, RealDoll is still listed there. I will leave it for the community of Wikipedians to determine if this is correct, but as far as my contribution goes, a sex doll does not belong in the Dolls category.

Merging with Sex dolls topic: It may well be the consensus that the CybOrgasMatrix topic should be merged into Sex doll. The argument has some merit, and there is an existing discussion topic in Talk:Realdoll that speaks to that issue. My first post on the Talk:CybOrgasMatrix discussion page posed the same question. If this turns out to be the consensus, had we not best apply the same standard to all sex dolls? In that case, shouldn't RealDoll be listed under Sex doll, as well. The advantage that RealDoll has that no other invention will ever have is that it was the first of a new generation. That's golden to an industrialist. Just ask Ping-pong, the makers of the first table tennis ball, or the people at the Crescent Tool Company, who invented the adjustable wrench. The company name is now synonymous with the product, the activity, or even the industry. Xerox and Figidair are 2 more examples. That should be enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia Companies, but does that, in and of itself, merit inclusion to Wikipedia? Esoterik1 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ignoring arguments about relative commercial positioning vis-a-vis RealDoll--that's not Wikipedia's issue. Merge all this stuff with Sex doll, and turn that into a balanced article about the sex doll phenomenon and not advertising about about how soft and lifelike this or that plastic is. (Wow, that video made me want to wash. Ick.) · rodii · 16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like advertising copy and nn. Asides, vote is delete regardless of these comments: The article creator's lengthy rebutalls and user talk campaign might suggest to a less charitable person than me that there is some personal (pecuniary, commercial) interest. Assume good faith, yes, but sometimes you have to call things as you see them. And, is that thing ugly or what?! --kingboyk 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Infinity[edit]

Do not meet WP:Corp. Not notable - 500 google hits. Self-promotion. Sleepyhead 08:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean D. Kuty[edit]

Was de-proded by 69.164.172.95 with out explanation, prod was "Non-notable biography", before that it was marked as "db-bio" (CSD A7). Blue520 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio --Blue520 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. No assertion of notability. Let's git'er done. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per CSD A7, non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LainOS[edit]

This was a small project that just spawned some ideas and discussion. LainWM was never popular (according to [Sourceforge's counter] it's been downloaded about 4,100 times over the 27 months from release to today.) NikolasCo 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Slam[edit]

A non-notable subsection of an IGN web forum, dedicated to organising Halo tournaments in Australia. Was originally tagged for proposed deletion, but the contributing IP removed the tag. Proto||type 09:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn web forum, vanity. --Terence Ong 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this is better than the average webforum article, it needs references from verifiable sources to meet WP:WEB. If these can be found, I will look at changing my vote. Keep. This article now has verifiable references therefore meeting WP:WEB. Well done to those people who have improved it.Capitalistroadster 11:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a start, CBN Media, the owners of the website in question (Cyber Slam), which is a lot more than the forum section pictured has nothing at all to do with IGN. Please at least get the facts straight if you wish to flag an item for deletion. Secondly, it takes time to make a great Wiki entry (for some us anyway). I'm learning as I go but at the moment all I'm noticing is people who are very keen to get rid of new content and discourage people from contribiting. Third point, there are a number of people on the same IP as me, my guess is one of them wrongly removed the original 'flaged for deletion' item. On a fourth point there are many website Wiki entires with a lot less content and many with out-dated and very nn content. While this point may not be a valid argument to some people, it does make you wonder why its hard to get new stuff on Wikipedia when the delete happy people seem unable to find anything unless it is new. With more time to add the notable content, I'm sure people will reconsider the entry (again, some of us do not have as much free time as others). Sixth point, If the delete happy people read the Cyber Slam entry they would have noticed there is more to Cyber Slam than just a forum. The delete vote above by Capitalistroadster referers to webforum which implies a skim of the content and a click on the image. The entry by Terenceong1992 is the same and states nn web forum, again clearly someone who did not even read the entry. Tigger-oN 12:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB Computerjoe 12:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are two claims of notability. Firstly, that it is a notable web forum - I don't see evidence currently that supports this claim. Secondly that it is a notable organiser of FPS tournaments. Capitalistroadster's point refers to the need to verify this information. If either of these claims are verified by independent sources then that would probably satisfy the notability criterion and I'd change my vote to Keep. As it is, the article currently says that Cyber Slam is a forum for buddies to hang out at and is an organiser of some FPS tourneys. On the process, it isn't wrong to remove the Prod tag - it should come with an explanation as to why it is being removed. That tag is different to the AfD tag that is currently on the article which wikipedia process does not approve of removing, there's no blame attached here. MLA 12:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said that I'd change my vote if the sourcing happened and the emphasis of the article reflected something notable and I have. Good job by the editors of this article, much better than those who just complain about their article being deleted and do nothing to improve it. MLA 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - The Cyber Slam entry has been updated. This is far from complete, however I just throught I would inform people. Tigger-oN 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a good job has been done with the update in emphasizing the notability of this place and adding references. NickelShoe 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forumcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again we see a very clear delete vote from some one that has not even read the entry, and if they have, feel that a site dedicated to running and hosting online Tournaments in Australia can be classified in one word as forumcruft, a word that does NOT appear on Wikipedia, nor could dictionary.com find an entry for it. Clearly this user has no intentions of leaving a valid delete reason, but is more than happy to delete an entry from newbie. I would like to ask that Krash's vote be seen as a non-vote on the grounds that forumcruft is not a word. Tigger-oN 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reconsider. I have been doing some research and I now understand a little bit more of the Wiki culture. While every effort was made to make the Cyber Slam entry valid as far as the Wiki guidelines, I can't help but think there is something drastically wrong with the deletion process.
  1. The user/admin Proto flagged Cyber Slam as a non-notable subsection of an IGN web forum, dedicated to organising Halo tournaments in Australia. Cyber Slam has nothing at all to do with IGN and while Cyber Slam has organised Halo PC events, it has also done a LOT more for online gaming in Australia. Key word, Australia, which has a much smaller population than the UK or USA, so the impact on a global scale may make Cyber Slam appear as non-notable. Australia wide however we are known. The user/admin Proto is also a member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. 'On a personal level, there is a questionable joke on the Proto user page. Something I find somewhat offensive and surprising for a Wikipedia Admin.
  2. The user/admin, Terenceong1992 stated the reason for deletion - nn web forum, vanity. Terenceong1992 is currently on a Wikibreak, so it is unlikely this 13yr old Singaporean has seen the changes that have been made.
  3. The user/Admin, Computerjoe stated that Cyber Slam did not meet the WP:WEB standard. The entry has been updated since then. If there are now any sections that the Cyber Slam entry is weak on, please inform me so I can source the content from Cyber Slam staff and players.
  4. I have also been looking into vanity (in relation to Wiki entries) and the use of fourmcruft and I'm guessing the Cyber Slam entry would come across as vanity to many people outside of the Gaming community of Australia. It is a real shame very few of the online Gaming community of Australia are not also Wiki Admins. These people would be the real judge as to how notable Cyber Slam is, at least in Australia.

I've noticed heaps of Wiki entries that seem to really be nn in comparison to the Cyber Slam one. I do totally understand that just because there are invalid entries does not mean there should be more invalid entires. It just seems to me that some people are keen to delete new stuff because it is so much easier to find. Here is a very short list that took all of 5 minutes (I've noticed heaps more, I just can't remember them!):

If the Cyber Slam entry is to be delete, I at least understand a lot more about Wikipedia process and how the Wikipedians Admins work. Tigger-oN 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've done a good job updating the article. Please assume good faith regarding AFD discussion - Terence Ong is a very experienced AfD debator for instance. There is a tendency to bias in favour of internet/gaming articles on wikipedia in my opinion so there has to be something that makes the article stand out as notable which I think you've achieved. A couple of votes have changed to keep as a result of your good work and at present, I'd be surprised if the end result was delete. Of those you've listed, Fileplanet is notable in my opinion but I haven't heard of the rest. If you want to list any of them for deletion then you should feel free. MLA 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, even with the references it doesn't met WP:WEB. The SMH reference makes only the slightest passing reference, the 2nd one is coverage about a tournament, the 3rd is an online entry form!, the 4th is simply information about ACON 5 event, the 5th an opinion piece by someone clearly not independent (he later became involved in running this event) and the 6th is a info piece which is clearly sourced from Cyber Slam. Cursive 12:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Cursive I don't see how coverage of a Cyber Slam Tournament on free-to-air television could be seen as invalid at all! To get any coverage of any tournament on TV can only be seen as notable. The opinion piece was from someone independent at the time the article was published. Part of what makes Cyber Slam interesting is the fact that the players and the public can and do get involved. Cyber Slam invited Mike Longley to assist with the Final because he had such strong opinions. There are more References, however (sadly) its taking time to get them from the Cyber Slam staff. Tigger-oN 12:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harrison (Ingenuity Project)[edit]

While I am just as glad as anyone can be that Ryan Harrison has such great success in the Intel Competition, he has yet to make a contribution which I would consider important enough to merit a personal article on Wikipedia. Also, I think this page reads more like an adverstiment than an article, which supports my feeling that it is purely for ego of either Ryan Harrison or someone on the Ingenuity staff. chemica 09:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 5th in an Intel Competition doesn't appear to equate to notability. MLA 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per nom. Feels like vanity as well. Kuru talk 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even close to notability. --kingboyk 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to La Salle College. I do not think that having every single reference to an article neither in the article nor in English is meeting WP:V. This is the English Wikipedia, and as it stands it is impossible for most people in the world who choose to read this article to verify its contents. One or two of the sources even require registration! However, AGF says that the sources say what it is claimed they do and this only barely touches the two-thirds level, so I think a smerge to the school is probably enough. I'm just going to redirect and leave the merge to someone else from the history; painful detail about the headteachers upbringing would not work well in that article, nor would much more than a mention in the infobox. -Splashtalk 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lau[edit]

Delete :Non-notable and also NPOV and a lot of nonesense--Rjstott 10:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The principal of one of the ten most famous schools in Hong Kong is more than enough of a notable person to be mentioned here. Moreover, the article is in this current non-neutral state only because it has received heavy vandalism from people against Paul Lau, which are anonymous users. If these vandalism materials are being reverted, the article is certainly neutral in general. The current state of the article without a biography section, is only a transitional state as if many other comprehensively-written biographies were at their early weeks. I believe with this proposal of deletion rejected, the article will certainly receive improvement and expansion. As an experienced editor on Wikipedia and a person who knows Paul Lau in real life, I'm certain that I can expand the contents of this article while keeping it neutral, provided that it's not being deleted right here. Deryck C. 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Deryck C., I do not agree that the article is not notable. In fact, a number of principals of the schools under the category Secondary schools in Hong Kong have their own article. Moreover, the problem of NPOV is not a reason for deletion. Microtony 14:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable or significant. The school of which he is principal, La Salle College, does seem notable. This is not the same as making him independently significant or notable; at most he deserves a mention in La Scalle's article. The only information in this article that might not be appropriate in La Salle's is that he plays the harmonica. Sliggy 14:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Microtony. Paddytang 00:17, 28 February 2006 (GMT+8)
  • Delete First every school gets kept. Now every school principal? Absurd. Sorry, but school principals are not inherently notable for being a principal. A smerge to La Salle College could be in order. FCYTravis 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With the school's fame, Paul Lau often appears on newspapers in Hong Kong. This give him enoughly significant importance to have an article, according to the rule stating Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events on WP:BIO. Deryck C. 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would be delighted to reverse my opinion if you can provide verifiable sources for your assertion Lau has achieved "renown or notoriety" via newspapers in Hong Kong. Thanks. Sliggy 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Sources supplied below. I would be happy to provide on request translations of the Chinese sources cited below. On the other hand, even if this article is to be deleted, speedy delete/merge doesn't seem to be an option because the article has been existent since December 2005. Speedy is only applicable to new articles. Deryck C. 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that I can't read Chinese and the scmp.com references require me to subscribe/pay for access, so I can't use the sources (that have been kindly provided) to verify Lau's notability.
    It might also be interesting to note that there is no article about, for example, Anthony Little, the Head Master of Eton College (a notable English school).
    Finally, I do think the best place for verifiable sources is within the article itself. Sliggy 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment about Anthony Little is that he definitely deserves an article. He doesn't have one just because nobody wants to do this, perhaps tedious, job. Deryck C. 08:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. One sentence at La Salle College should suffice quite nicely. -- Krash (Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it hasn't got better, I go with a short entry to merge --Rjstott 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If Deryck Chan can supply verifiable sources for his assertions, I will gladly vote to keep this article, otherwise delete it. Hall Monitor 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the recent update proves the non-notability bit, there's nothing here that most of us non-notables could match!--Rjstott 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to pages (in Chinese) mentioning or quoting Paul Lau on news reports: http://life.mingpao.com/htm/2005hkcee/cfm/content.cfm?Path=news2/news031.htm&CFID=2156222&CFTOKEN=22862644 http://www.hkedcity.net/article/education_issue/050225-003/index.phtml http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/news/show_news_f2.cgi?type=focus&name=20041124&id=727620

in English: on SCMP.com, one of the most notable English newspapers in HK, need to register http://education.scmp.com/ZZZZQP4GA9E.html http://education.scmp.com/index.html?GXHC_gx_session_id_FutureTenseContentServer=f5f3b51f1f99f3ae

--Deryck C. 08:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More news sources http://www.singpao.com/20050709/local/734105.html http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/radio5/familyteach/20050303.html http://www.epochtimes.com.tw/bt/5/6/20/n959553.htm --Microtony 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: As most users proposing a "delete" stated that they would reverse their vote if verifiable sources are provided and those sources are already stated above, there is no point to delete the article. Deryck C. 14:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please note my opinion remains delete as I cannot use the quoted sources to verify this gentleman's notability, as previously mentioned. Sliggy 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You may retain your "delete" because it's up to your own choice, but you cannot verify the sources doesn't mean the sources are non-verifiable. Deryck C. 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One even more unreasonable point concerning your action is that you don't know how to read Chinese, but before you ask for help in translation or verification of the sources you conclude that you cannot confirm Lau's notability. There are many many Wikipedians who are neutral about this issue and knows how to read Chinese, such as Huaiwei or Jiang. They can act as neutral adjudicators in this dispute. Why don't you ask for help before you come to such negative conclusion? Deryck C. 07:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a source to verify the article's content. None was provided. (The article still lacks any references, by the way). Sources were, however, provided for those who could read Chinese and/or were willing to pay for the information. I was very careful in phrasing my subsequent comment, in that I couldn't verify the article's content. Then you declared that I had verified the content; when I commented on this incorrect assertion you declare me to be "unreasonable". This does not seem terribly polite. I am entitled to a viewpoint, however incorrect you might deem it to be. Sliggy 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I might be a bit impolite, but please note the fact that Microtony and I provided sources. It's your problem not knowing how to read Chinese. You cannot read the sources doesn't mean I didn't provide the sources. Deryck C. 04:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,as this article has back to neutral, so i think the "deletion" warning has to be removed. Paddytang 15:08, 5 March 2006 (GMT +8).

Attention that Wiki is not the platform for arguing, please be serious, even Mr. Slig please.Paddytang 00:57, 6 March 2006 (GMT +8).
  • Delete:I think having an article for this person is okay, as La Salle College is one of the most famous school in Hong Kong. However, the aricle content shows nothing about his work in this school as a principal. It is like if we just talk about the childhood of George W. Bush, but do not mention his work during his presdiency in US. --150.101.72.85
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tangent[edit]

Made up? Move to Wikipedia space? Zondor 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as made up nonsnese. --Terence Ong 11:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Terence Ong MLA 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-referential and nonsense. Kuru talk 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Terence --Colonel Cow 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense and neologism. It's called 'web surfing'; it's been around a while. (In fact, there were hypertexted documents before the web.) Peter Grey 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Protologism. -- Krash (Talk) 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMuleP3P[edit]

Delete. The file sharing program "eMule P3P" does not exist, and will most likely never. All it is is a forum and one zealot fanboy -- the creator of this article. The screenshot is not a "beta" of eMule P3P as it purports to be, but a screenshot of eMule. The given "release date" is an arbitrary future date. --Haakon 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 11:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a serious project, as 2 domains have been reserved: emulep3p.net and emulep3p.com, so just a matter of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.14.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, vanity article about future software. Crystal Ball and all that, per Mr. Ong. Kuru talk 20:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball and likely hoax. The term "P3P" sounds like BJAODN material, though. --Kinu t/c 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Come on folks... Computerjoe 21:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Crystal bollocks. -- Krash (Talk) 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep: no direct evidence showing that this is nonsense. A bit of AGF is allowable. Deryck C. 14:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AGF has little to do with my nomination. I don't assume the article starter wrote the article in bad faith. I believe he does think eMule P3P is going to be a great file sharing application, but the problem is that the application does not exist and shows no sign of existance beyond a low-activity web forum (his posts are about all the activity there is). Even if the application will spark into existance at some future date (which I think is highly unlikely, given my basic understanding of how the supposed technologies involved work), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's fine if he wants to get more exposure for this potential future application, but Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for it. Haakon 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild delete. Seems to be a real project (I see no evidence that it is a hoax), but software does not exist and the article is probably premature. Article's re-creation should be allowed if the software materializes. Vlad1 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gance[edit]

Delete as Non notable organization. Probably Vain Article -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Gance is a new Dutch-based company owned and managed by Exteres BV — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Parklane (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as non-notable +/- vanity/advertising/hoax. Ifnord 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that author of article removed the AfD tag --Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then it was replaced with a {{prod}} by Xyzzyplugh (A good idea, but likely to be removed by author as well) so I reverted the mess back to AfD. Ifnord 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't notice that there had been an AfD placed and later removed, when I put the prod there. --Xyzzyplugh 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 following withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Cenizal[edit]

Numerous, numerous unverifiable and unreferenced 1950s Filipino actor and director stubs, of which this is an excellent example. As per the decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Zobel. Apparently non-notable Filipino actress. No IMDB entry. No real evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and there is certainly no verification for anything in the article other than "she exists". Hellpits of redlinks. Created by the same author as Premiere Production, which was also deleted, due to issues with WP:V and suchlike.

The other stubs in this AfD batch are: Jaime dela Rosa, Rogelio dela Rosa, Max Alvarado, Amelia Amante, Anita Amor, Vic Andaya, Lito Anzures, Armando Araneta, Dely Atay-Atayan, Mario T Barri, Herminio Bautista, Tony Benroy, Rino Bermudez, Jose Padilla Jr, Ramon d'Salva, Francisco Cruz, Abraham Cruz, Myra Crisol, Amado Cortes, Abelardo Cortes, Melita de Leon, Luisa Acuna, Jose Nepomuceno, Ace Vergel, Zaldy Zshornack, Cynthia Zamora, Crising Aligada, Jose Bernardo Alcedo, Dolphy, Carmencita Abad, Carinosa, Cesar Ramirez, Chichay, Manding Claro, Dalagang Ilocana, Tessie Agana, Bituing Marikit, Johnny Arville, Aruray, Rosa Aguirre, Soledad Aquino, Armando Araneta, Pacita Arana, Eddie Arenas, Alicia Vergel, Carmen Rosales, Perla Adea, Susan Roces, Maria Ballesteros, Celso Baltazar, Aring Bautista, Nelly Baylon, Teddy Benavidez, Bentot, Imelda Concepcion, Rudy Concepcion, Nori Dalisay, Teroy de Guzman, Matimtiman Cruz, Carding Cruz, Meldy Corrales, Tessie Concepcion, Flor de Jasmin, Jose Corazon de Jesus, Gerardo de Leon, Van de Leon, Cris de Vera, Jose de Villa, Nestor de Villa, Tita de Villa, Violeta del Campo, Gloria del Mundo, Larry Alcala, Kundiman ng Puso, Rodora, Angel Esmeralda, Linda Estrella, Zeny Zabala, Carlos Salazar, Ruben Alcover, Pacita del Rio, Rebecca del Rio, Emma Alegre, Guy Donato, Manding Claro, Richard Abelardo, Tony Arnaldo, Mike de Leon, Jose de Villa, Mario T Barri, Fermin Barva, and Fred Cortes.

I'm not even convinced I've found them all. I'm working through them now tagging them all to this AfD. To make (failing in) verifying these even more (less) fun, every name is a pseudonym, and not the person's real name. Proto||type 11:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD withdrawn, please close. After comments from JJay and Last Malthusian I wil try and find an alternate solution for solving this. I'll {{prod}} the first five articles and see what happens with them. Proto||type 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is 1950s Filipino cinema even represented in IMDB? Maybe there are printed reference works that need to be consulted. If it is difficult to verify these articles, they should be moved out of article space, but if they are based on some offline source, we should give Filipino editors a chance to check them. u p p l a n d 11:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This woman was and is a major star in the Phillipines. A simple google could have confirmed that. She also has an IMDB entry. Let's stop the cultural bias. -- JJay 11:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The regional bias would be allowing this gibberish to remain on an encyclopaedia purely because it is about a non-Western topic. The same policies and quality-checking must apply to articles from all cultures. I cannot find an IMDB article on this lady. I found a reference to one movie she ahd a very minor role in [21]. Proto||type 12:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click on her name you would see that she has an IMDB entry. Also how do you know she had a "very minor role" in the one hollywood flick? Have you seen the movie? The recent article on her in the Philippine Daily Inquirer implied that she was a big star at one time in Asian countries and has made a significant number of films. Apparently you have not bothered to try to verify any of the articles you have nominated. Furthermore, calling this material "gibberish" is astoundingly insulting to people interested in this genre. I believe these noms should be immediately withdrawn. -- JJay 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the 'articles' in question, you will see that they are, indeed gibberish for the most part. And your insinuation that I 'did not bother to try and verify these articles' is incorrect. I did indeed attempt to verify these articles. There were many more created by this user which have been verified and matched up to IMDB sources; I did not nominate those for deletion. Please try and assume good faith. Nevertheless, I have been convinced that this is not the best way to remedy these articles, and so I have withdrawn this AfD. Proto||type 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. --Terence Ong 12:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination. This is impossible. User:Edbon3000 has created a metric truckload of articles about Filipino actors/actresses, many unquestionably of poor quality in terms of Wikipedia style as well as English (e.g. inserting his email address), and has been unresponsive to messages on his talk page trying to get him to write better articles. That may be cause for concern. However, the question here is these articles, some of which are verifiably notable, many are probably notable but unverified, and there's no way we're going to be able to sort through a combined nomination for all of them. I say 'close nomination' and not 'speedy keep' because some of these articles undoubtedly need to be deleted, but this isn't the way to do it. --Malthusian (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a big task. Should we therefore not bother, because it's a big task? If you think individual nominations are the way to go, good luck to you. Thought - what about PROD tagging the lot of them? Proto||type 12:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck to me? You're the one nominating these for deletion, and since it won't happen like this it's up to you to find an alternative avenue. On the other hand, PRODding them might work. Edbon seems to be a create-and-run sort of editor - I've never seen him improve his articles after the initial edits, or defend the ones that have come up for AfD - so he probably won't take the tags down. --Malthusian (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this AFD is asking a lot of editors. I can't offer a vote as I can't check them all right now. Prodding may be a useful tool here, my main concern with prodding is that doing that to all of these may just be moving the issue to prod and the same difficulty arises in that there are so many of these and they're not necessarily all directly related articles to each other so it's going to take quite a bit of effort for editors to work out which should be kept and which not. MLA 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: PROD rules specifically forbid adding the PROD tag to articles which have been previously AFD'd, regardless of the result of the AFD. "Move to PROD" is not a legitimate AFD result. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-Guardians[edit]

An article about a non-notable fourm of a website. 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable forum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeezer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 February 2006.
    User's first edit —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
    • Comment - how notable? As I said before, it only has 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Perhaps not in the US but in the Malaysian/Singaporean district and it has a total members of 12000+. How can it not be notable? Jeezer
  • Keep Think that it's a rather good forum and worthy to be kept. Bombardment 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
  • Keep Notable forum of a highly popular game.DericStevens 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
  • Keep Fairly notable site. AlexLimTehChok 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
  • Ro-Guardians forum thread re. Wikipedia article —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:25Z
  • Delete. No evidence that it meets WP:WEB in having verifiable sources of its influence on the outside world. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable despite 12,000 users. Ragnarok Online already xlinks to ro-guardians.com. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:27Z
  • Delete, per nom. 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The policy on this issue is clear. This is not yet notable or big enough to warrant a page of its own. Batmanand | Talk 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. — Rebelguys2 talk 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 12:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CapitalistRoadster. It's hard to imagine how any fansite could be notable, unless perhaps it demonstrably changes the commercial product about which it enthuses. (As for affecting the outside world. .  ) While the article is written in charmingly loopy English (for me, a minor unintended plus), it edges toward libel at one place near its end (a major minus). -- Hoary 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Hoary's comments. I'm all for large, primary fansites having articles provided notability is established, but this ain't that. Kuru talk 17:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, this forum sounds notable since it has a bunch of members, but how much encyclopedic information about the site is out there? Enough to fill an article?
The members of Ro-Guardians are known to be friendly, however we do have a few cases where members go wild and start flaming, insulting others and posting irrelevant/obscene materials. These members will be immediately banned by the admin for such childish behaviours.
Isn't this true of every internet forum? And how much of the section about Gameflier is truth/POV? Isopropyl 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB per Capitalistroadster. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website / webforum. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website and forum. --Terence Ong 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Crzrussian 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as [{WP:WEB]] Computerjoe 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn forum --Colonel Cow 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm starting to see a bad trend here, where people view Wikipedia as a collection of web links ("Hey, it comes up in Google a lot, so it must be notable! We need to get on there!"), and suddenly everyone wants to get their own site on Wikipedia. Not every web site is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT seems to apply here. --Elkman 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_green_room_-_UoE_Secam[edit]

Delete - opinion; IMO not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Marknew 11:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Indiscriminate information. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly non-notable. Probably vanity/in-joke MLA 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 15:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of it! Honestly, we're not all like that at Exeter University. Mon Vier 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not sure it's possible to be any more trivial. Kuru talk 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made up at college one night. -- Krash (Talk) 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty administration[edit]

This article about the administration of the British Admiralty is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It is also hopelessly out of date. It is about the current (1911) state of affairs, so there's no good historical information, either. There might be some information that is still accurate, but verifying the article, statement by statement, does not seem worthwhile. I have uploaded and updated many 1911 EB articles, but some are better off deleted. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article applies to the Admiralty at a time when then the Royal Navy is possibly its highest point, the most powerful naval force in the world with the building of the modern Dreadnought-type battleships and before the rise of the aeroplane. The article describes posts that are referenced in biographies of senior British naval figures (on their rise through the Admiralty). GraemeLeggett 12:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute this. :-) However, an encyclopedia should be up to date and not consist of snapshots of various times. The text will still be available, as there is a project that is working on making an online version of the encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 13:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean wikisource, then is it not a move with a soft redirect and and not a deletion?GraemeLeggett 17:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica would want to have this article transferred. They may have their own system of proofreading and such, but I asked them. -- Kjkolb 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping that I'd want to keep this article but it's not notable as it merely refers to the breakdown of administrative and bookkeeping roles. It's basically a bit of the Civil service at a particular point in time. HM Treasury doesn't refer to it's internal governance structures from various points in time for example. MLA 15:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework, merge, and redirect: The complaint that this article is out of date is correct; it's one of the first articles on the list for reworking in the 1911 verification project. The historical aspects worthy of preservation (as opposed to transient setups) need to be excised and merged into Admiralty, and the whole article should then be redirected there. Please DO NOT delete this article, as it would cause headaches for the 1911 verification project -- I'm currently working on verifying that we have no remaining missing articles (i.e., redlinks), and deleting articles within the 1911 namespace would make unnecessary trouble at this point. Alba 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Whiteside[edit]

Copyvio of cdbaby.com James Kendall [talk] 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A8 as copyvio, performed copyvio process on it. -- Mithent 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: above nominator has failed to have good faith. I think he may have even added the copyvio. What is really need is {{unsourced}}. I think that this is evil. We should be considering that this article is fairly new. We should also take into consideration the various element of new editor and how we may be less WP:DENSE --CyclePat 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as copyvio or Delete as non-notable. Not sure what's going on here that caused CyclePat to get worked up. I can't find google evidence of Kenny Whiteside's notability but happy to be corrected on that if appropriate. However, it does appear to be copyvio. MLA 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CyclePat. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, A8 Copyvio. Pat gets worked up sometimes about really odd things. He likes shouting "bad faith" at people a lot too, from what I've seen. He's a nice guy, though.  RasputinAXP  c 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the copyvio & Redirect to The Cleftones. -- JLaTondre 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 22:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Adjuster[edit]

  • This seems too much like proselytizing for it to be in Wikipedia. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not proselytizing, but I agree it would seem that way because NPOV is not fully achieved. This is a philosophical concept that is not entirely unknown, just the word symbol for it. It may be that this part could be edited to improve objectivity. I do think the article needs expansion if it is to stay, and it should become NPOV for the conceptual idea as well as linked to the other articles in Wikipedia that discuss the similar/parallel philosophical/relgious concepts. Hanely 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MLA. POV fork. Urantiacruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krash, You have a history of voting for deleting articles. What is this word "Urantiacruft"? Why should the article be deleted? Urantiacruft is a meaningless word and doesn't exist anywhere. The editor who wants to write the article deserves an educated, reasonable, answer and vote. Hanely 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hanely, You're observant of my actions, but that has little relevance right now. "Urantiacruft" is a portmanteau combining the words "Urantia" and "cruft". I'm sorry if that was not clear. As stated above, I feel that the article should be deleted because a) I agree with User:MLA, b) it appears to be a content fork, and c) I think the article is little more than cruft related to Urantia. -- Krash (Talk) 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krash, Thanks! Yes, I can see how you perceived it to be a fork. But the history of the article talk page shows that editors need to either split the article or make a series, this is currently in process and ongoing. I believe it was the editor's attempt at getting that started (same with epochal from that article). Cruft? I followed your link and skimmed; well - you're entitled to your opinion, of course, and it is worth considering, and should go without saying, but it's uninformed IMHO. Esoteric is more accurate. IMHO. (I also saw fancruft, and agree only by the word-symbol for a concept that is actually reasonably known among spiritual philosopical and religious thought. I think it should be kept until the editor has opportunity to fine tune it, though I would understand if you insist it be fine tuned before posted. Keep Hanely 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much time does the editor need to fine tune the article and what tunings are in the works? That said, I'm not really sure if fine tuning or even major rewrites would remedy the real problems. Everything from about the second paragraph on is badly POV, written in an unencyclopedic, soapbox tone. Without any secondary sources, the article qualifies as proselytizing original research. Cutting all the problems would leave little more than a glossery term per User:MLA. -- Krash (Talk) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krash, It is changed more now and still going. I vote to remove request for deletion Hanely 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term "thought adjuster" is important enough to merit its own article, and developments / improvements should continue to make it a better article. My thoughts on the objections listed so far:
  • "proselytizing" / NPOV -- I agree POV isn't up to wikipedia standards. I've made some additional improvements. Just having an article on a religious term doesn't mean the intention is to prosyletize, the article is meant to explain a rather central concept to the The Urantia Book. Lack of neutrality in and of itself is being stated as the main reason to delete the article, but wikipedia policy directly addresses this as not usually being reason enough. I don't believe this is one of those exceptional cases where shortcomings with NPOV are enough to merit the drastic action of deletion. Good faith efforts should be made by editors to improve the NPOV and address concerns.
  • "cruft" -- More correctly, it's beta. Articles rarely spring forth from Zeus' forehead as an Athena of perfect prose, that's never been a reason to delete an article. Krash, if you have more of a "release early, release often" Cathedral-vs-the-Bazaar mindset toward software, this is best seen as an "early" release of text on the subject.
  • "content fork" -- A "content fork" is mainly when an accidental or unintentional duplication of an article occurs, which isn't the case here. This is the natural growth of a topic beyond the space considerations of the parent article.
  • "POV fork" -- Perhaps because the POV has had a prosyletizing feel it was thought to be an attempt to put that POV in this article? I'm guessing... It'd be helpful to clarify the "POV fork" argument, because while I see the NPOV shortcomings, I don't see how this is a fork.
  • "Without any secondary sources, the article qualifies as proselytizing original research." -- Could you cite support for this argument from wikipedia policy? Setting aside "proselytizing" as a separate issue, I know the policies well and your basic argument was a new one to me. The wikipedia policy page No original research doesn't say a "secondary source" is needed in order for an article to not be "original research". The "original research" policy is that articles themselves can't be original -- this article clearly cites that its reference is The Urantia Book and it isn't inventing the term "thought adjuster" or the explanations about it. As this book is in the public domain, direct links to an online edition of the book were even possible, going above and beyond what most articles are able to attain regarding verifiability and adhering to "no original research".
  • "glossary suffices" -- The entry in the glossary is a short two sentences, and links to this article, exactly because in no way can the glossary by itself adequately get across the topic. It requires treatment in an article.
In many ways this can be seen as analogous to articles on Scientology terms like Thetan and Operating Thetan, just to cite a couple of examples out of hundreds on wikipedia regarding NRMs. I'm not a Scientologist (or a "Urantian" for that matter, though I know the topic well), but I recognize that movements such as these have beliefs that readers may be curious to read more about and wikipedia is a place where those topics are appropriate. I would agree with MLA on nearly all the terms in the glossary, that they don't merit articles on their own, but of the handful that do, Thought Adjuster is very much on the list. My "keep" vote is as someone who has read the book. Wazronk 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wazronk - good points, all of them. More accurate than my understanding of forks, etc. Thanks Wazronk. Hanely 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Blue ribbon. I'll do my best, but I'm going to be fairly brutal. -Splashtalk 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon (anti-tobacco, anti-second hand smoke), Anti-tobacco, anti-second hand smoke[edit]

non-notable Grocer 13:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Anti-tobacco, anti-second hand smoke per Xaosflux, below. -- Krash (Talk) 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong? What is problem? What change should be done to continue putting this article in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRibbon (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and articles must have a neutral point of view (the links go to the relevant policies). The current article is just advocacy, however much I might happen to agree with it (eg. there is still debate as to the significance of second hand smoke as a health hazard; certainly prolonged domestic/workplace exposure appears to somewhat correlated to health damage, but there is little evidence on the dose-response relationship). Anyway, the links in the page go to more advocacy, rather than reliable sources. I can't really see a way to re-write the article to get the required balance, hence my opinion. Sliggy 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also delete Anti-tobacco, anti-second hand smoke now it has been added to this discussion. Passive smoking covers the medical issues, smoking ban the campaigning side of things. Sliggy 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Blue ribbon as this a worthwhile addition to the list of uses of blue in ribbon symbolism. MLA 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as above. Leave us smokers alone! Keresaspa 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MLA. Ardenn 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, along with Anti-tobacco, anti-second hand smoke -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real additional info for the prospective merge. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article indicates that blue ribbon anti second hand smoke campaign exsists in Canada, never says "let's join the campaign."

Existence of the campaign is obvious fact. Is telling about this campaign wrong in Wikipedia? "Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign" has independent article. What difference lies between these two campaign? BlueRibbon

  • Delete. Advocacy soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and create a Redirect to True Combat: Elite. - Bobet 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCombat Elite[edit]

Advetising. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 15:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn game mod MLA 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T Delete It's no commercial advertising. It presents a FREE mod for a FREE multiplatform game. It gave me weeks of fun with (mostly) cool people. It's like presenting a community too. The only similitude with commercial stuff is its quality. Besides that, there are entries for the whole Quake series, etc... and this one should be removed ? pollen.--Pollen2 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just saying "it isn't an ad" doesn't make it less an ad. Even re-writing it to have a more neutral tone, you'd have to establish notability. Kuru talk 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing more than an advertisement. --Hetar 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T Delete This is THE FREE mod that works on all major platforms (Linux, MS and Mac) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.226.166.160 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Delete per this. If you guys could please post the stuff above to the url below so we can keep the wiki page Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am for Redirect as well, per nlitement. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Strong Delete both articles per this If somehow a silly admisntrator who doesn't know a bit about games comes and thinks he fits it right for deletion, I will personally discuss about the issue of "AfD whoring with game articles by game-illiterals" to the Wikimedia Foundation and founder of Wikipedia and its siter projects, Mr. Jimmy Wales. Wikipedeia works on consensus, not threats of wiki-action. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as un-cool as that link is Naconkantari, I fail to see why that should change your vote on the other article, which is well written, and accurate. And as much as I hate to say it, many of the editors on wikipedia DO know nothing about games, or just enough to make "dangerous" judgements. Doesn't make the person you quoted in the link right, but it doesn't make the people who are saying this mod is "non-notable" right either. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable game mod. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO Not Delete Does not qualify as advertising, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.150.143.10 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't don't delete, in other words, delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I already created an article a week ago about True Combat: Elite. God, I'm just so ashamed... I'm not going to tell why, but this is something unprofessional from the team that I'd see. I feel quite bad that a duplicate article ended up into VfD right ago, and my article wasn't even edited at all after my somewhat decent article. I'm going to arrange the weapons list on my entry into a table, or someone else very nice could help me out. Sorry, I edited my comment since you must understand how angry I got. I am a more irritatable person than the Average Joe. Thank you. EDIT: So I'd just redirect to my article. --nlitement [talk] 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to True Combat: Elite, which is a well-written page, as per nlitement. Almost 75,000 Google hits implies notable enough. -- Mithent 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe that neither this article or the other one similar to it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article per WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Although the software is what the article is about, I believe the website's Alexa ranking notes how isolated this software is from mainstream attention. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to True Combat: Elite unless that gets deleted too, in which case delete. --kingboyk 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. --InShaneee 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No context. Advert. Serious cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 17:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to True_Combat:_Elite. By the way, this game is actually notable in the video game community. Mods are the one group of games where Alexa rankings are largely useless because players only need to visit the website once. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KGB archiver[edit]

advertisement Grocer 13:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. (Well, it's not technically a consensus but it's the right thing to do.) Ifnord 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omizuri[edit]

I created this page with a misspelled title thanks to a poor web source. The actual page is now correctly spelled and called Omizutori. Kansaikiwi 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per author's request. JPD (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Omizutori. Chances are if the author made the mistake, others might as well.--み使い Mitsukai 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Mermaid Plausibility[edit]

Great name for a band, but no clear assertion of notability and the 87 Google hits are mainly mentions on other people's myspaces. If they had a record deal it would have been in this article. Daniel Case 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable band vanity. Disagree on the name point - seems like something made up in school one day. MLA 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't bite. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per nom. Kuru talk 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Nature (1979), Man of Nature, The Return of Man of Nature (1982), Man of Nature III (1985), Sexy Dancing, George Humein, Gigaman, Man of Nature IV (1988)[edit]

The page is rubbish, and the movie doesn't exist. Good enough reason? Eixo 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add Man of Nature, The Return of Man of Nature (1982), Man of Nature III (1985), Sexy Dancing, George Humein, Gigaman. This appears to be an elaborate hoax. Please suggest evidence of the contrary. -- Krash (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add Man of Nature IV (1988). At what point does this become vandalism? -- Krash (Talk) 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No IMdb listing. All the redlinks should have been a clue, too. Daniel Case 15:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Upgrading my vote to delete all, since other movies are up for nomination. None of the sequels turned up in the IMdB search I did, linked above. Daniel Case 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further update: my vote applies to the newest addition, as reported above. Daniel Case 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MLA 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per Krash's modification to this AfD MLA 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the movie so it exists Abc85 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well. However, if we can't verify this (which is why we searched the IMdb), we can’t put it on Wikipedia. Daniel Case 17:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. The article on the supposed sequel should be looked at too. Capitalistroadster 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crank per nom. Kuru talk 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all, crank(s) per nom. Kuru talk 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it were a movie, it's nn with no IMdb listing --Colonel Cow 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all as per Krash's changes. --Colonel Cow 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And Delete MoN IV as well. Kudos to Krash for his work exposing this fraud. --Colonel Cow 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for sources for movies and actors. None found. FloNight 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I saw the movie with my own eyes. And look at Man of Nature III. It has a blue linked actress which appeared in other movies. Even though IMDB doesn't list the movie it exists as I saw it. Abc85 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the article on Sexy Dancing: It has an external link

Abc85 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Ehm, yeah, it's a link to a home video of some high-school kids goofing off. Oh, and Man of Nature III was directed by the main character in Nabokov's Lolita. Gotta like the effort you've put in though. Eixo 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, none of it is verifiable. It's probably a practical joke. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the star in Man od Nature III was Elizabeth McGovern, a well known star of movies. Please check it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abc85 (talk • contribs) .
I'm sorry, but the movie doesn't seem to be verifiable. Can you link to a webpage or name a book that talks about this movie? I don't see the movie here: Elizabeth McGovern at IMDb. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AND when you posted this completely ridiculous reference in this article, all your edits lost some credibility. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the IMDB has a grudge against this movie like it has against Casino Royale (1953). I am here to inform you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abc85 (talk • contribs) .
    • Because the Casino Royale in 1954 was part of a CBS show Climax!, so it wasn't a separate production. Besides, Casino Royale (1954) returns results in Google, unlike any of the names in this hoax. --Colonel Cow 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable --rogerd 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straight delete: The problem is knowing when we cross from hallucinations and fantasies to vandalism. I can't see these as being actual wp:vip matters (can't see my way to blocking), but they're clear hoaxes/lies. Geogre 16:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last eruption[edit]

The article is completely idiosyncratic. Almost everything on it is incorrect or at least contentious, e.g. see [22], [23] and even volcano for a discussion of what an active or an extinct volcano is. Last eruption refers to the last volcanic event of a volcano - what about bradyseism, increased fumarole activity etc.

But the real problem is the assertion that "The date of last eruption determines the classification of the type of volcano", which is not really true, and so nullifies the whole point of the article and make my attempts to figure out how to fix it not really lead anywhere. Jll 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic per nom MLA 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopeless. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The date of last eruption (not the eruption, the date) is an important piece information, but I can't see how it could make its own article. Peter Grey 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Nigelthefish 14:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Tappenden[edit]

Article successfully deleted due to a previous AfD nomination. Non notable model and equally non notable Page 3 "personality". Vote is therefore the same as before, as there is no change: delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. Daniel Case 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Just as non-notable the second time around. No evidence of notability supplied to change previous vote, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G4. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methionylglutaminyl...serine[edit]

This article is a hoax, as it is not an accepted way of naming protein to use their residue sequence, as it varies from one organism to another. Blastwizard 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax per nom MLA 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a hoax, but unencyclopedic. Probably does appear in Guinness Book. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ikkyu2 Edgar181 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it is WP:V as being in the Guinness, I see no reason why this is encyclopedic. One could create articles for the drawn out sequential name of every protein, a good number of which are many times longer than this one. Tryptophan synthase is good enough for me. --Kinu t/c 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a hoax. Verifiable. Minutely notable. Unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Eye[edit]

Blatant advertisement posted by Rolandirwin (talk · contribs) who also has added spam links to other articles. I find it hard to believe that a site that features (according to their own count) 780 pictures should be Australia's "leading travel stock photography library". All the images I checked were taken by either Roland Irwin or Elsie Irwin. Seems to be just someone trying to make some money from their holiday photos. Furthermore, if we assume that Rolandirwin is "Roland Irwin", isn't it also vanity? Delete, including the image Image:Innereye.gif. Lupo 14:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cut away the content-free promotional language (which I've just done) and you end up with a one-sentence substub. No Alexa rank, and it's impossible to google for sources (in any case, I can't find any). —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising spam per nom MLA 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam per nom. Kuru talk 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvertisement for site which does not meet WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 00:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvertisement. Mmm...spam. -- Krash (Talk) 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Davison[edit]

The article was PRODed with reason: "does not meet standard for author/actress, unverifiable". Article was then blanked twice probably by somebody else than author but as the blanker was an IP address it cannot be said for certain. Thus I decided to take the article into AFD as I am not sure whether blanking meant support for deletion or objection. As for the PROD reasoning, existence of Rebecca Davison can be confirmed via Google, she realy published those poems. I added link to the article. As for notability I am not sure. Thus my position is neutral. Jan Smolik 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete not someone I've heard of, the link in the article doesn't work for me, and I can't find that much google evidence. The stuff about her relatives isn't sufficient for notability. I don't know how notable her poetry is, if someone can show that they are sufficiently notable then I'll happily support. MLA 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That link is wierd. Today it seems to be on the different address (different number before booksearch.htm). Anyway it is the only result of Google search : "Rebecca Davison" "Life's Visions" [24]. But this only says it is not a hoax, it does not state notability. --Jan Smolik 18:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded it, thanks for taking care of this Jan. She simply doesn't pass notability required for an author, that being the publishing of a book or, in this case, a collection of poetry. Having one or two poems in a larger volume just isn't enough. The article also reads like vanity, what with the Nicole Kidman comment (that was the unverifiable part). --TheMidnighters 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spuriously not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is an actress and writer, but IMDB does not know of her unless she is this Rebecca Davison and Amazon in the UK does not know of her unless she is this Rebecca Davison. Either way, she is yet to make her mark. AndyJones 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie_Castleman[edit]

Delete. Vanity page intended to advertise a non-notable business. Alexa ranking on donniecastleman.com is 2,759,253. Only way I can see keeping this is if he turns out to really be a notable musician, in which case article could be rewritten. Xyzzyplugh 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement, non-notable, probably vanity, possibly copyvio. Doesn't claim to be an especially notable musician. MLA 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per list by MLA. Kuru talk 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Vanity, non-notable musician Nigelthefish 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Lopez[edit]

Not notable MacRusgail 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Taylor[edit]

Non-notable DJ Computerjoe 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very obvious delete. I was about to speedy this, but since it's on Afd already... Friday (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • aww, heck. A redirect is ok too. Afd is heavily loaded, so I'm going to be bold and a do a speedy redirect. I'll leave the Afd open for now in case anyone disagrees, but if someone agrees and wants to close it, that's fine with me. Friday (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not support redirect. Not unique.[25] -- Krash (Talk) 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This would be a valid speedy too, if anyone wanted to do that. Friday (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 04:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and red[edit]

This is basically a list of things that are black and red. There doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic value here, the only scope for encylopedic value would appear to be either if it was a substantial list or had clearly explainable meaning. Having the Albanian flag listed because it happens to have black and red colours in it isn't encylopedic. I intend to list a couple of other similar articles. MLA 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the other similar pages that I am also putting before AfD
Blue and yellow
Green and black
Green and white
Red and green
Red and white
White and blue

These are all part of Category:Colour schemes, I haven't listed the Cat or everything in the cat as there are some the rest appear deserving of articles. MLA 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the easyness of creating such garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as colorcruft. Suggest deleting Black and white (colours) too. -- Krash (Talk) 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't nominate that one primarily because it seems to me that there may be a possible cleaned up article on that where I don't think that to be the case with any of the rest. MLA 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable. -- Krash (Talk) 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, and I didn't see my toothpaste listed at its color combination. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Freedom[edit]

nn organization. A search on Google for "Committee for Freedom" free-market Yale only garners 258 hits. み使い Mitsukai 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition Act of 1861[edit]

This article was prodded and a detailed comment left on the talk page. I thought it would be better for AfD where it could get some discussion. My own personal opinion is delete as it is a mess and can always be redone at some later date with better content. If this AfD prompts somone to write a better article this week, then keep. Here is the original prodder's thoughts

The reason for this proposed deletion is that the article seems confused. It partly seems like it's trying to define the crime of sedition, but also gives the impression (by the title) that it is speaking about a single piece of legislature. One statement, which I deleted, said that this was also known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, but those laws were passed in 1798. In addition, I have found no reference to a "Sedition Act of 1861" on the internet except on Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps the article is meant to refer to the arrest of war protesters and southern sympathizers in 1861? Fightindaman 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
We do have an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. It seems the first reference to the '61 act was [26]. No source was given and the user is inactive, so... Shimgray | talk | 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: this article doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to confuse. As mentioned, a Google search turns up nothing [27], and a Google Scholar search doesn't turn up anything for the term either [28]. The title of the article may be referring to the "Sedition Conspiracy Act" of 1861 [29], or just the "Conspiracy Act" of 1861 [30]. But neither of those turns have many Google hits, either. [31][32] (The second at least has some.) In any case, this article is completely confused. Maybe even speedy delete as nonsense. bcasterlinetalk 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I found a reference in Google Groups [33]. In fact, this article seems to be taken verbatim from a quotation in that thread. But the quotation is not attributed, so I don't know where it came from. It's still a poor article, which probably falls under WP:CSD A1 (little or no context), so my vote is still delete. bcasterlinetalk 17:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless somebody can verify/clarify/rewrite it. Fightindaman 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't find a single reference anywhere to the name of this act as given in the article, that doesn't come from Wikipedia. Tagged as {{not verified}}. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the (not verified) tag doubles the length of the article. Nothing to cry about. Melchoir 22:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerbox[edit]

Non-notable group. Only reference I found was this website; everything else on Google is written in the first person. Melchoir 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This has more than a whiff of OR to it. -Splashtalk 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Establishment[edit]

buzzword Grocer 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. A sentence or two in the campus (or equivalent) article would probably be fine. (Which I have just discocvered is something it already has. Given MediaWiki's case sensitivity problems, I don't think the redirect would be a good idea.) -Splashtalk 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReceSs[edit]

  • Non-notable group. The only reference I could find was a student newspaper, and I don't think that's enough. Melchoir 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if you feel strongly about this AfD, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerbox, which I believe is a similar case. Melchoir 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly have no idea how I'm supposed to add to the discussion, so if jsut editing this page was the wrong way, I'd like someone to tell me the right way. It it means anything, receSs is an actual student organization at GWU, as can be seen here. The entry in question was written by members of the troupe, so there's no need to fear us accusing wikipedia of slander or spreading false information. At the very least, please wait until after the weekend to decide anything for the page. Because all the members of the troupe are students, we have schoolwork to do during the week, and cannot devote too much time to improving this entry before the weekend. Zernhelt 17:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is absolutely the right way to add to the discussion. Unfortunately, ReceSs does not seem to have achieved the notoriety necessary for an encyclopedic article that adheres to our policies on verifiability and original research. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people) for an idea of how high the bar is set. I assure you that we don't delete articles for being too short or needing improvement, so you don't need to spend so much effort here. If you can think of something that makes ReceSs more notable, such as a national award or media coverage, just add it to the article. Melchoir 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per and well said by Melchoir. Simply doesn't appear notable enough. --Kinu t/c 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa whoa whoa, receSs is one of the oldest college comedy groups in the country. Our alum have gone on to do such things as moving back in with their parents, starring in FedEx commercials, and getting normal jobs with a wife and kids. I think you people are mean.
      • I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes in life, you're not going to get what you want; presumably that's one of the lessons you learn in college anyway. Melchoir 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that the age itself is an issue regarding deletion, of course, but there are certainly older college comedy troupes; offhand I can think of several at my former school, including The Exit Players (1984), The Viola Question (1985), The Purple Crayon (1985), and Just Add Water (1986). While they are relatively popular in the amateur comedy scene and have notable alumni, none have Wikipedia articles, and rightfully so, I feel. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it makes any difference, I can vouch for receSs' notability. I am a GW student and can say that receSs is a driving force on campus. They consistently make positive contributions to not only the GW community, but the comedy community as a whole on a national level. ReceSs is one of the oldest and most historically rich college comedy groups in the country. It would be a shame to see this article deleted because of lack of notability or importance. They make GW and America laugh, and laughter is the most important thing in life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.164.102.27 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 February 2006.
  • In all reality, this group has had several members move on to create their own performance groups, such as the No Time Players, Gibney and Gore, and TJ Miller, all with respective amounts of fame and fortune. However, on the basis of your own guidlines, the sheer volume of shows Recess itself has performed on and off campus greatly exceeds the minimum of "5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)" for musicians. Perhaps if we had each played an instrument during our show we wouldn't be being deleted? At approximately 150 people per Recess show, plus one show each semester at a new Comedy Festival (averaging 300 attendees), plus our current rate of three charity shows per semester (averaging 100 attendees), and seeing as how this marks the fifteenth year Recess has been on campus, this would say that Recess has performed for well over 15000 people. These numbers do not even include the fact that originally Recess performed weekly shows rather than monthly. But if you hold comedy groups to a different standard than such "notable" musicians as Racey, Maldita Vecindad y los Hijos del Quinto Patio, or The Arrows. Haven't heard of them? Me neither. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csingel (talk • contribs) 12:24, 1 March 2006.
    • 1) I don't see Wikipedia articles on No Time Players, Gibney and Gore, or TJ Miller. 2) WP:MUSIC refers to purchases of released, published material, not exposure at performances. 3) You say "we wouldn't be being deleted". Indeed, you aren't being deleted. Melchoir 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are, but what am I?

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sparrows[edit]

Clearly vanity page. Rama 13:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so too. CyrilleDunant 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most of these "folk musicians" aren't such in any real sense of the terms... --MacRusgail 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable (yet?) --Tone 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but what about the linked page Andrew Phillip Tipton which also lacks significant notability. Come back in a year or so. Budgiekiller 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per nom. Kuru talk 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COOPER[edit]

This article was de-prodded as showing some notability; however, based on Wikipedia:Notability (people) for artists I don't think this artist qualifies (Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field). James084 15:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. --Optichan 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominators is right. However there are other measures of notability. Shown in many shows, mentioned in many publications. More notable than many of the college football players, porn stars, and college lectures that we keep. I do wish, though, we knew his first name.Obina 12:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 it stands it's an nnbio and noone cares enough to add in a third-place runner-up in a tv show... -Splashtalk 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshawn Evans[edit]

Nn/Vanity MacRusgail 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, not sure I'd call it vanity, but it would seem to fail notability completely. Kuru talk 00:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point of Information This may be the same Marshawn Evans that was third runner up in the Miss America contest and was a contestant on "The Apprentice." But I do not know for sure. Kushboy 03:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Expand with above details. Heck, why didn't they mention that? Her bio does mention the same corporation, so it is the same person. Rebecca Jarvis from the same season and other contestants have pages, so I assume that alone fills notability. Thanks for the catch, Kushboy. Kuru talk 04:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an#d this is not encyclopedic. Scottish Gaelic profanity is also up. MacRusgail 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, more info than just dictdef, and useful to linguistic research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? It just tells you how to say fuck and shit in Portuguese, it doesn't even tell you anything about the history and distinct nature of the swearing. --MacRusgail 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and the Scottish Gaelic profanity one is full of bull. In fact, it even contains a phrase I once translated as a joke on the internet elsewhere. --MacRusgail 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dude, I don't know what is up with your deletion rampage, but it is obvious people have put in a lot of effort and time into this particular artcle. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but dictionary like entries are valid in encyclopedias. The encylopedia entries provide more background info and flesh out the meanings of how the language works. --LifeStar 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't tell you how the language works - that's the point, it's just a glossary. --MacRusgail 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is not "a dictdef" but it is a mere list of dictdefs on a single topic. This content is far more lexical than encyclopedic and per WP:NOT, the community decided long ago that dictionary entries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Having said that, this would be excellent content for Wiktionary (specifically as an Appendix. Transwiki and replace all links in Wikipedia with cross-wiki links. (The other "Profanity of xxx" lists should also eventually be moved over to a Wiktionary appendix.) Rossami (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly violates this anyway - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not_a_dictionary#Wikipedia_is_not_a_slang_or_idiom_guide
  • Comment Why can't this be classified as almanac? --Grocer 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we can devote whole artices to the English Fuck, Shit, and Crap (which recently survived an AfD), then this can stay. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a proper article. --ImpartialCelt 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm obviously going to suggest keep and that the nominator rescind this nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Allan, Duke of Kent[edit]

Delete Hoax, so far in edits Lord Allan has been the Duke of Wellington, Baron of Wessex and Duke of Kent. Prince Edward is the Duke of Kent --Royal Blue 16:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proletariat Ireland[edit]

Non-notable/vanity Demiurge 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notability is not established by either the article itself or by the linked website. Also, the author of the article, User:Ojis is the founder of the group according to his user page. Demiurge 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Guliolopez 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A founder of the group, the group has been publicised. Prehaps a page for new groupings should be made where links to them, but not articles about them can be placed?Eiri Amach 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.A.A.R.T.I.[edit]

Delete: Article is not encyclopedia, non-notable, and may violate Wikipediia Policy Eldarone 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as something somebody made up one day ::Supergolden:: 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be non-notable fan fiction. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. --Kinu t/c 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic. Kusma (討論) 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somebody's random fanfic. To quote the article "This is complete fiction, of course, none of these events have happened or may ever happen," If it's from a notable fictional universe, it doesn't even say which one. --Wingsandsword 04:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment To quote the last section of the article: "of course you will have to ask my permission before using this information.", in other words, a GFDL violation (and vanity) as well on top of it being random, apparently Gundam, fanfic.
  • Delete per above, or even speedy as copyvio since the author certainly can't be asked permission when it propagates through mirrors... Samaritan 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Bible Contradictions[edit]

Original research. Articles consisting entirely of original research should be deleted per WP:NOR and WP:DEL -Cynical 16:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Eldarone 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, its not original research - go look at the source 'Undestanding Catholicism - Rick Jones'. It is a widespread, existing belief among protestants that the teachings of the catholic church contradict the bible. I felt that quotations were the best way to present very complex arguments, easily, concisely in a NPOV. Crippled Sloth 17:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Direct biblical interpretation (rather than cited discussion of published interpretatitons in an appropriate context) is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Religion. If the particular beliefs of Rick Jones are being discussed, they should be treated as his beliefs (rather than as facts) and discussed on an article about him. —donhalcon〒 17:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Thats why its not an interperetation - its an index of quotes which protestants believe to contradict each other. It is a cited discussion of rick jones beliefs - but theyr not just his, they are the beliefs of most protestants. And I didnt present them as fact, hence the word apparent. Crippled Sloth 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes (see point #2). I know a lot of protestants who believe various things, including that the King James bible is not in any way an authoritative translation of the bible. Most of them acknowledge Catholicism as a form of Christianity (which the article denies). Regardless, a Protestant perspective is not necessarily the same as a "biblical" perspective, and from a standpoint of verifiable encyclopedic fact that's irrelevant anyway — matters of religious interpretation should be left to religious websites, not online encyclopedias. —donhalcon〒 17:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, why cant an encyclopedia have an article on a theological dispute? I never said all protestants agree with Rick Jones & Jack Chick - but many do. No, i never presented protestant and biblical as the same - i presented the king james bible and biblical as the same. If this intent is not clear, edit the page - dont delete it.Crippled Sloth 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have an article on the Protestant Reformation, which covers the differences between catholicism and protestantism in encyclopedic detail. —donhalcon〒 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it does not give near the detail, on this specific dispute as the article we are discussing. There are significant differences. Crippled Sloth 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. A properly cited NPOV article would be fine IMHO, but list of quotations is just tedious. It is like having an article about the sinking of RMS Titanic which just presented a list of passenger names and whether they died or not. Jll 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are not indiscriminate. It is the best way I could think of presenting what is an important, major theological dispute in a NPOV as informatively and concisely as possible. Wikipedia is not intended as a source of general entertainment - there are plenty of tedious index style articles. The point of the quotes is that they make the representation of a viewpoint beyond doubt. Its very different to the titanic example as it allows the religiously inclined to determine for themselves if the contradictions exist. If you think the page is quote heavy, write some analysis. Crippled Sloth 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ill change most to some. The source would be the statement of faith of any major protestant denomination.Crippled Sloth 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This doesn't really help on its own, since it is only an example. I would also echo the comments that others have made about the WP:NPOV problems. Jll 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No longer withdrawn: Unless the article is significantly altered to include sourcing of the information, context, and evidence that it does not violate WP:NOR I feel it should be deleted. If it is changed I will withdraw my vote. Not my leg 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not my leg (talk • contribs) .[reply]

keep done. Crippled Sloth 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The entire section of quotes is still just that, a list of quotes. If you want to write an article about a position (so-and-so feels catholicism is not christianity) then do it. As it stands now it is still a list of quotes preceeded by a brief statement of "context." I would suggest taking each of your sections, writing what Rick Jones, or someone else, believes, and using the quotes to evidence their position. I am open to recinding my vote, but at this time I remain in favor of deletion. Also can I suggest that you begin posts after the first with comment rather than keep as it will prevent people from thinking you are trying to vote multiple times.Not my leg 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am, for the moment, withdrawing my vote for deletion. The article still has major problems, but I am willing to wait on casting my vote now. I am not voting to keep yet either, but I will take my discussion to the talk page.Not my leg 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment After looking at the article, and trying to discuss some possible changes I have decided to change my vote back to being in favor of deletion. As the article currently stands I don't know how it can be salveged. I tried a rewrite, but couldn't get through more than a section without stalling and being at a complete loss for how to make this NPOV. I think that there may be a topic somewhere in there, but it would need a total rewrite.
  • comment Ive made significant changes. What current reasons for deletion still stand? Ive got some ideas fore more sections in typical article style which would make it more article like. Ive put some in the talk page, but im too tired to write them now. Crippled Sloth 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR violation that cannot possibly be remedied as long as the article remains in its current form. I could very easily dig up entire scholarly articles debating the "true meaning" of almost every single Bible passage listed, so to simply dump the quotes onto the page without any attempt to provide context renders the article useless. In addition, the article is also a rather nasty - some might say outright bigoted - WP:NPOV violation ("Catholic views" vs "Biblical views"? That's not just opinion, it's Catholic bashing.). --Aaron 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well biblical views vs catholic views is how many protestants see it (reported POV of some protestants not authors POV), call them catholic bashers if you like. Im reporting this oppinion objectively, not holding it. Its a genuine theological dispute, to claim that reporting it in detail is nasty is censorship. If catholicism is consistent with the king james bible then the 2 views should be the same. As I used a NPOV i left this assesment to the reader. There are a huge number of christians who claim the bible is accessable and says what it means. That profesional scolarship is required to understand the bible is a biased oppinion. If you want to write a section at the end about those who believe that the bible needs expert interperetation, be my guest. Crippled Sloth 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's irrelevant that "many Protestants" see it that way. The terminology is inherently biased and directly implies "Well, there's the Catholic view and then there's the Christian view." It's a thinly-veiled way of saying "Catholics aren't real Christians." That's an opinion, not a fact, and opinions are not allowed to be posted as fact on Wikipedia. And I'm not accusing you personally of holding these views; it would be fine with me if you did, as that's your business, not mine. I'm purely concerned about the article and whether or not it adheres to Wikipedia policy. By the way, Catholics generally don't use the King James bible. --Aaron 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not posting it as fact - im posting it as the oppinion of 'many protestants'. Isnt that clear from the article?????? If not EDIT IT TO NPOV. dont just cry for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crippled Sloth (talk • contribs) 15:13, February 27, 2006
  • Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, nor for discussion of opinions outside the context of articles about the persons or organizations who publish those opinions. Moreover, comparison articles are almost never encyclopedic, nor do they often maintain a neutral point of view. The content in the article is clearly written to advance the notion that catholicism is incompatible with biblical texts; there is no conceivable way to edit such content into a perspective that respects the breadth of religious interpretation that is required to preserve a neutral point of view. —donhalcon〒 20:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not supposed to have to edit it to make it NPOV; you're supposed to make a good faith attempt to create it as NPOV in the first place. (Which I fully believe you did, by the way; I just don't think your attempt was successful.) In any case, I don't think a few edits will fix the problem; the article itself is presenting a specific argument, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Aaron 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia has an article on arguments for and against the legalisation of recreational drugs. Thats arguments in a debate if ever i saw them. I understand im supposed to make in NPOV - but i thought, and still think i had done. A catholic counterargument would make it more balanced, but i dont know enough. Crippled Sloth 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- personal advocacy. AnonMoos 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does everyone think im POV? Im reporting the oppinions of people who are POV/advocating personal oppinions. Tell me how the non quoted text is biased and ill change it. Fix it, dont delete it. Crippled Sloth 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotations you have provided are all based on one individual's point of view, or the point of view of a particular ill-defined group of individuals. The addition of "(some)" to a few of the sentences that carry a point of view does not significantly mitigate the point of view expressed by that text. —donhalcon〒 20:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to define any group of protestants. Some should be added to all sentences. The quotes cannot be considered biased as they are quotes. The article is about a debate in which the "point of view expressed" is the proposition. If you believe other perspectives need to be written from, then request that this occurs rather than that the article be deleted129.234.4.76 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that any perspectives on religious interpretation should be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. If you want to present a religious interpretation and/or contrast views on it using a confrontational, quote-heavy style, start a blog. —donhalcon〒 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not posting interperetations as fact. Im posting interperetaions as reported oppinions.
  • Delete - POV, soapbox, original research. Gentgeen 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given. What is a soapbox? 129.234.4.76 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've reformatted the page to make it easier to read. Nobody's comments or votes have been changed. --Aaron 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given. 129.234.4.76 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, some things to be going on with when working on this article: avoid weasel words such as "It is a widespread (but not universal) belief...". This tells a researcher and a casual reader precisely nothing about the scope and depth of the topic under discussion and, more importantly, attempt to cover a Point of View. Articles shouldn't be partisan and WP:NPOV is a guide to avoiding this stance. The article tells me nothing about the dispute between the two authors but instead prompts in my mind the question "What line is the author trying to push in the debate?". Secondly, presenting illustrative quotes to raise awareness of a debate is not the same as contributing an encyclopædic article about said debate. How to write a great article is a good guide towards constructing something for inclusion in WP. Please read it whilst thinking of further improvements. Why not precis the debate? What is the context? What are the points of view of the contending authors? A NPOV guide to the debate is worth far more than a series of quotations which are really quite boring to read. Sources and citations for researchers? Is this debate continued in journals of religious studies? References to these would be really worth having for any researcher interested in the debate. In summary, NPOV; introduction with topic & scope; analysis of POV of subjects' work; one or two illustrative quotes so as not to disrupt the flow of the article; summary if appropriate; citations, references and further reading. I hope that my comments are useful. I would like to read about the debate but I can gain nothing from reading this article as it stands.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and Original Research (and badly done at that, so possibly not even serious). Str1977 (smile back) 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given.129.234.4.76 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment POV - If weasel words are the issue, could someone please rephrase the article to remove them. If unequal representation is the problem, then lets find an expert on catholicism to add a catholic response section. I see the rebutals as extreemely complex, and do not trust myself to transcribe them to NPOV reliably. Original Research - Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones (www.chick.com). 129.234.4.76 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 23:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned, most importantly that it violates NPOV. While one could request it be neutralized rather than deleted, salvaging this article would require changing the title, the structure, the wording of every single section and adding major content. In other words, it would require deleting what's there now and writing something completely different, so therefore... delete it. We shouldn't be keeping something just because its content is related to an encyclopedic topic. Tuf-Kat 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't agree more, Tuf-Kat. --Cúchullain t / c 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tuf-Kat. AndyJones 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way to edit this down to NPOV. Slippy0 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see how that is so. 129.234.4.76 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: 1) the fact that it's quotes makes it original research. Possibly someone else's, but original research nonetheless. An article on the alleged controversy might be encyclopedic, but only if the controversy itself is verifiable. 2) The Bible is inconsistent with itself - you can't reasonably expect any document to be entirely consistent with it. 3) Mainly it violates NPOV as it is merely thinly-disguised Church - bashing. The Catholic Church doesn't claim the catechism is consistent with every single word in the Bible. I only looked through a few examples (I just couldn't take any more) and they all said, not that the Catholic Church isn't Christian, but that it isn't Protestant, hardly a fact meriting it's own article. Peter Grey 08:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line of argument being reported, is that the catholic church isnt biblical. Crippled Sloth 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does Biblical mean? NPOV is violated by the implication that the catechism is flawed, that the contradictions imply something. The Bible is interpreted in a particular context. Aside from the lunatic fringe that believes the Bible is to be interpreted literally, there is no objective measure of what it is to be Biblical. And, again, the catechism isn't intended to be Biblical by Protestant standards; you might as well have an article that the Theory of General Relativity isn't Biblical. Peter Grey 18:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biblical means consistent with the bible. That the catechism is flawed/contradictions mean something is not an implication. Its the oppinion of many protestants which i am reporting in NPOV. "there is no objective measure of what it is to be Biblical" - most protestants, in fact almost all christians would disagree. Most believe that the bible is literal except for certain well defined parts (the parables) - especially the reported speech of jesus is considered literal. This is an important article as these contradictions are behind much protestant rejection of catholicism - which is noteworthy. No one in their right mind would consider the theory of relativity a biblicaly/christian doctrine - catholicism on the other hand... Crippled Sloth 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All that you're saying is that Catholicism isn't Protestant (in fact a very specific meaning of Protestant), not that it isn't "Biblical", whatever that is. You're also saying that Catholic (and presumably Greek and Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox) perspectives are not valid in assessing what is Biblical. You might want to check, you know, the Bible, it mentioned Jesus' opinions of the Pharisees who believed they monopolized interpretation. Peter Grey 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I thought I had gotten out of this, but I can't help but come back in now. When you say that almost all christians would disagree that there is no objective measure of what it is to be biblical you are doing one of two things. Either claiming that catholics are not christians, which backs up that this is personal advocacy, or claiming that almost all christians agree to a strict literalist interpretaion of the bible, which is patently false. Most don't care about wearing cloth of two different fibers, for example. Even those that do accept a strict literalist interpretation usually grant some wiggle room for potential human error in transcribing the perfect word of God. Otherwise many would argue that a strict literalist interpretation would make the bible not internally consistent. That is another topic though. The point is that your claim about the meaning of biblical is by no means agreed upon by "nearly all christians". Not my leg 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment i cant see any definition of biblical other than "what the bible says". Some Protestants claim that the inconsistencies mean catholics as non christian (they see christian and protestant as synonymous). This line of argument i am reporting, not advocating. Possibly my last comment came out wrong. what i meant to say was "nearly all christians do not think you can interperet the bible however you like and still call yourself a christian". Most christians see some books (ie gospels) as strictly literal, and others as metaphorical (ie genesis). Not - its all whatever you want it to be. 129.234.4.76 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • cant see any definition of biblical other than "what the bible says" That's the bias right there. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity. Peter Grey 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Summary of the defense case thus far. There seem to be 4 main areas of debate.

  • 1. Is it NPOV?

I would say so. Its intended as an article on the belief that catholic dogma is inconsistent with the bible. Such a belief is biased and some would call it church bashing. I think i have reported it in NPOV - the quotes from the catechism are catholic view fact. The quotes from the king james are biblical view fact. The commentary is relatively short (and i believe completely objective). If anyone still believes that to be biased/weasel words ill change it if they tell me whats wrong. I think thats everything. It doesnt give catholic counterarguments, see style.

  • 2. Is it an apropriate topic to wikipedia?

To reitterate Its intended as an article on the belief that catholic dogma is inconsistent with the bible. If such a belif had a name (something-ism) this dispute wouldnt arrise. The fact that it does not have a such name does not change its appropriateness as it is a theologicaly important, published belief. If you can think of a better name for such an article, then by all means suggest a move - i was at a loss when writing it.

  • 3. Is is original research?

The quotes given for each argument are the same as in one of the sources, Rick Jones - Understanding Roman Catholicism.

  • 4. Style

Yeah, its not great. It could really do with more context, and more sections than just the quotes one (for which ive put suggestions in the talk page). Im new to wikipedia, and was under the impression that people could submit work in progress articles and people would help them finish them. If this is not the case, and articles should be finished/rounded before submission then i guess delete it, ill "finish" it outside wikipedia and resubmit it.

  • On NPOV. What exactly do you all define NPOV as? I undestood it to mean 1)giving all opinions in reported speech, and 2)not using biased/weasel words in commentary. As far as i can tell ive done this. Are there any requirements ive missed?

Crippled Sloth 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of different descriptions of what 'NPOV' is, but presenting original research expressed in one book as accepted fact is definitely not NPOV Cynical 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, with a nice big helping of NPOV-violation on the side. --Wingsandsword 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV... Misleading, and prejudiced. In addition, the author's points are highly debatable and are all one-sided opinions/interpretations of the Bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.8.237.206 (talk • contribs) 13:19, March 1, 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. This is one person's original research being presented uneqivocally by another. Similar criticisms could be levied against many other sects and religions in their interpretation of scriptures. Similarly this is just evidence, not fact and not analysis, for criticisms of the Catholic Church, and as such is just a list. This could be filtered and entered into an appropriate article. Donbas 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Context-free quotes selected specifically to portray one side in a positive light and another in a negative light - why is there any debate on this at all? I see no third views, no discussion of underlying theological concepts for either side, and no rationale for the quotes as chosen except they make Catholicism look bad to Protestants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.126.61.241 (talk • contribs) 13:39, March 2, 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep don't let one religious group censor this legitimate contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.92.201 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "one religious group", as the various users who have voted to delete so far are not all members of one denomination, or even one religion. Likewise, removing non-encyclopedic content from an encyclopedia is not "censorship", but rather judicious editing. —donhalcon╤ 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a valid article. Yes it needs some editing, but there are clear and justified points regarding biblical authority and catholic belief. This SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. The points made are of interest, and seem to be based on a genuine look at the bible and catholic beliefs. Adrian Baker 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: some additional anon comments regarding deletion have been registered at Talk:Catholic Bible Contradictions; they should probably be taken into account as anonymous contributions to this discussion. —donhalcon╤ 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake, Easton & Hunter Draut[edit]

The kids are 7 years old and appeared in one episode of a sitcom. IMO not notable enough, Delete. --Tone 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 04:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMC.TV[edit]

Pretty obvious advertisement Paul C 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, TV channels are notable IMO. Mike (T C) 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TV Channels are usually notable enough. This one is an obvious copyvio from here, but since 48 hours have passed it doesn't merit speedy deletion anymore. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Normally TV channels are notable. However, the article in its current form is more of an advertisement than anything else. --Hetar 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we don't delete articles in need of cleanup. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we leave it as it is, in the hope that some magical fairy is going to come along and wish this advertising into an encyclopedic format? From reading this article, I don't know if this is a free-to-air, cable network, or webcast channel, what nation or language it is in, or anything of an encyclopedic nature. Instead, I'm left with a bad feeling of marketing promotioan mumbo-jumbo, and am being told that "the secrets of life revealed" has something to do with this channel/website/portal/whatever. Heck, the only way I know i's a TV channel is because "TV" is in the article name, and the article throws that into doubt. Delete as copyvio and avertising (not speedy, as the timeframe has passed) unless an encyclopedic stub is produced by the end of this discussion. -- Saberwyn 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The procedure is to keep the article at AfD and slap a copyvio tag on it. List it at pages with copyright problems. If it's not fixed within a week, it'll get deleted there. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Television channels are notable. I have cleaned the article up. Proto||type 11:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Where did you get the information regarding this being a cable channel? All I see on their website are webcasts and some kind of satellite thing (and even that sounds like you watch it on your computer). ergot 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here. It might be satellite rather than cable, but I think this means it's cable. Proto||type 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't seem to be either. You download something called onlinetv.exe and watch those your computer. I didn't see any reference to those streams being available by another route. ergot 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm. If it's just a streaming video channel, then there needs to be something to establish its notability. I'll look into it, but I might change my vote. Proto||type 10:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for taking the time to clean up the article. Regading the discussion, this page on the web site states it's satellite. On another note, since the article's been wikified, There might be less reason to delete it now. (Though I would stil consider it far less notable than the 6 free TV and the 20 or so cable channels run by UBC, non of which have entries, but I have no idea what their (or other satellite channels') viewership is like, and that shouldn't be the reason this article shouldn't exist anyway.) Paul C 10:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kickliquid[edit]

Non-notable band --MilkMiruku 17:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn; 740 hits on Google, the large majority being users registered as "kickliquid" on various forums. Article's assertion of being the "[g]reatest band in the universe" is highly dubious. - Rynne 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete {{db-band}} candidate. WP:Music violation - indie label album/single releases, chart positions, non-notable members.  (aeropagitica)  21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nn per nom. Kuru talk 00:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-notable. Tuf-Kat 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Rylie Cramer[edit]

5 years old, only minor role in a tv show, not notable. --Tone 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, be sure to weed out anything referring to them by looking through "what links here" Obli (Talk)? 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MLA 11:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weeding done. MAde me go and trim the List of twins article, too, because that hellpit of redlinks is causing all these nn twin article to be created. Proto||type 11:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander and Jackson McClellan[edit]

5 years old, only minor role in a tv show, not notable. --Tone 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MLA 11:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Roger Barton. Mailer Diablo 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Barton[edit]

Extremely unnotable, 1 year old kid that appeared in a known movie. --Tone 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable according to WP:BIO#People still alive criteria. Jll 19:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. "Actor" it was a one year old kid who couldn't say movie, doesn't know what a movie is, and just laid there in diaper in a scene that was only shown for about 7 seconds. If this kid grows up to be an actual actor (you know, with lines and other normal actor stuff) then include him. But right now he's about as notable as the trashcan droid in the first movie. Batman2005 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non-noatble per nom. Although I disagree that the trashcan droid from the first movie is non-notable - heck, here's probably on wiki at Minor droids in Star Wars (joke). Kuru talk 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tone - your AfDs might have been better bundled together - the AfD page shows how to do that MLA 11:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Proto||type 11:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and leave a redirect to his father, Roger Barton (where this information is also held, which would save having to fix the whatlinkshere) Proto||type 11:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roger Barton. And yes, wikipedia does have something on the trashcan droid -LtNOWIS 23:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is amazing, i love the trash can droid. Batman2005 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT as was — what Kusma said. -Splashtalk 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DMC.TV Paul C 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like an unnecessary redirect. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Use English Jll 20:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jll. No researcher will use a non-Latin alphabet to search the English WP for an article title, surely?  (aeropagitica)  21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if DMC.TV is kept, and tag as {{R from alternate language}} if this is the Thai name of the company. Also, as a redirect it should be deleted via the proper process WP:RFD. Kusma (討論) 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comment above. I've copied + pasted non-latin text before (names of languages) and the redirect is quite useful. --Grocer 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharsis[edit]

The article itself says it's a new manga comic, Googling "Journey to Pharsis" gives only WP/fork hits, so does "Pharsis manga". Obli (Talk)? 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits for "Journey to Pharsis". Says it all. Jll 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-comic Zzzzz 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was HMMM. Clearly Wikisource material were it not the fact that I suspect this text of the license itself is probably not public domain or GFDL. So I'm not going to transwiki and will tag as a possible copyvio. There is no indication that the text itself is licensed under the license (if it were it couldn't be transwikied) not that all rights are released, so we have to presume they are not. -Splashtalk 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I realised it has been deleted as a copyvio before. I agree that it is indeed such a violation and have now re-deleted it. Just because the license is for free software does not mean that the license itself is free. -Splashtalk 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Developer's Public License[edit]

Unencyclopedic. I had originally prodded this, but GeorgeStepanek (talk · contribs) asked me to list it here so that it could be considered for transwiki to WikiSource. I don't really think it needs to be there as the Firebird folks are legally required to redistribute it as long as Firebird remains in existance, and it isn't used for anything else. But I don't really object, either. No vote from me for now. Thoughts? Craig Stuntz 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was going to AfD InterBase Public License since it's more or less an identical case (though a slightly different license) to the above, but it's already been deleted. What's more, it's been deleted and recreated a couple times in the past. I see that this article has also been deleted as copyright violation, which is kind of odd as it's a dump of a license which clearly gives permission to copy! That said, it's clearly unencyclopedic, and whether or not you'd like it on Wikisource it doesn't belong here, so I don't want to quibble with the old deletion too much. --Craig Stuntz 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki sounds like an excellent idea to me. Thanks Craig! GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon NetBattle[edit]

Advertising, non-notable, non-verifiable, POV. DavidFarmbrough 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Fairly large number of users at one point - entirely notable (although 'notability' isn't even part of the deletion criteria). I do agree it has POV problems, but POV articles on valid topics should be fixed, not deleted. Cynical 18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. Agree with User:Cynical Jll 19:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - I agree, having read the above - hopefully someone with knowledge of the MUG can go and do it. DavidFarmbrough 09:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up- I have downloaded it on my computer and I'm glad to find an article on it, which probally took the guy who made it a long time, so why destroy the guys hard work? Yes, it has flaws, but someone can fix it. Oldrin Dude 09:16, 4 March 2006


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (Canadian musician)[edit]

Vanity, nn. Delete --Ardenn 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, part of a walled garden of bandity articles. Stifle 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, per the number of Google hits they generate I'd view the band as at least sitting on the edge of my personal keep line. I'd be inclined to keep the band article, but merge this guy into that rather than giving him his own article at this time. Bearcat 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
- ulayiti (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crash Kelly is a notable band here in Canada. Funny how it doesn't have its own article. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems that the Crash Kelly article was recently deleted. It seems to me like there is a clear case for undeletion given the views of our Canadian editors and this Spin article [34]. If we had an article on Crash Kelly, this could be merged. Capitalistroadster 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crash Kelly is a notable band here in Canada, has released an album with another to arrive this spring, and has toured extensively on an international scale (N. America & Europe) [36]. Sean 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to runway. Mailer Diablo 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane Landing Field[edit]

Delete as blogcruft. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Possible speedy delete - No assertion of notability. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 18:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like cruft to me. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Jll 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant blogcruft. --Kinu t/c 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as A7, not even trying to establish notability. Kuru talk 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Kuru. -Jcbarr 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to runway to dissuade recreation. Proto||type 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite delete as worthless information on an unimportant blog of interest to only a few people. I like the idea of a redirect to runway as per above. Cool3 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolinsky sable[edit]

Delete mass copyright problems San Saba 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it a copyvio?Bjones 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, heres one of the pages that was copied http://www.paintersstudio.com/brushes/brushtypes.php San Saba 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, subject to change pending a rewrite.Bjones 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Copyright problems have a separate procedure. And only the most recent version was a copyvio. I've taken that part out. NickelShoe 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because - well, because, hell I didn't know that, and I've now discovered that the brush I bought today is apparently made of exactly that! Guy 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and rewrite. as an artist, this a familiar and famous type of brush. pschemp | talk 07:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Has only received one vote after being de-orphaned. - ulayiti (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merits its own article. If it's a copyvio, stick a {{copyvio}} template on there to follow proper copyvio procedure. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there was a copyvio from this 2002 webpage, but I've deleted it. The rest seems legit. Melchoir 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Loat[edit]

This is the entire text of the article: "Lily Loat was, for many years, secretary of the National Anti-Vaccination League of Great Britain." The remainder of the page? A list of publications (all two of them), two external links, and -- naturally -- "See also List of vaccine topics and Vaccine controversy." When an article is created as an excuse to post external links, it's called "linkspamming" and it's a criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think this is much different just because the links are internal rather than external. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor Society (University of York)[edit]

non-notable organisation Dangherous 18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-club Zzzzz 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is well written and has had several editors. It is interesting and is mildly notable. I see no reason to lose this material from WP. --Bduke 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also original research; how is this even mildly notable? Melchoir 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-trivia. --InShaneee 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The case for notability seems weak, but more importantly in its current form it's just advertisement / vanity. Is without a doubt the most popular and most active walking society at the University of York verifiable? Is there actually more than one walking society at that university?. Peter Grey 08:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seriously doubt the notability of most university clubs MLA 11:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Handball at the Summer Olympics. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Olympic Handball Tournament[edit]

Delete. Content has been merged into a single Handball at the Summer Olympics page as per conventions for Olympic sport pages. Only one page was linked here; it has already been updated. Andrwsc 18:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Lbbzman 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect.. Merge if necessary. -- Saberwyn 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zula Productions[edit]

Sounds suspiciously like spam. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam Zzzzz 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. No discussion as to notability of subject.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promoting advertising. --SYCTHOStalk 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, suspiciously spamfull per nom. Kuru talk 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom -- pm_shef 16:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of domain hacks[edit]

Original research, the list only limits itself to the few possibilities the editor can come up with, we've also got the domain hack search utility to find an endless amount of domain hacks for us, writing this article to completion would essentially mean listing every possible output of that search engine. Obli (Talk)? 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not:... 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Jll 19:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. jareha 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah, it's an one thing to have a list of articles we have on sites or people that use domain hacks (eg Del.icio.us, Daniel J. Bernstein), another to have a list consisting entirely of external links. (And disclaimer: I added to this list. Twice. What was I thinking, again, I wonder? There are days when I can't recognize a dumb idea =/ ) I say pick a few good examples and discuss them on Domain hack - which it already does - and have that xona search thingy in xlinks - and it already has that too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. wwwwolf said it best above. A domain hack category for existing articles on sites classifiable as such would be a quite welcome replacement. Rob T Firefly 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The case for retention is well argued I think. -Splashtalk 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John FX Knasas[edit]

Delete. This appears to be a non-notable professor at a minor college. Crzrussian 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep; has published four nontrivial books, actively stocked at Amazon (a sign of signficant readership) [37], Google search shows author is regularly reviewed by specialty journals in his field. Monicasdude 20:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: at amazon, 1 book has 2 copies left and 3 books out of stock. All seriously obscure IMO. Crzrussian 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pretty low sales numbers on that book... no opinion on inclusion, but if kept this should probably be moved to John F. X. Knasas.
  • Author's comment Philosophy books generally sell poorly... who reads them besides philosophers within their own interest area, anyway? Amazon sales aren't a good criteria, since libraries are the main purchasers of philosophy books, and they purchase directly from the publisher or through distributors. Also, Knasas has 32 cites in the ISI Web of Knowledge over the last 18 years or so, which means he's active, publishing and recognized. And within the realm of Catholic philosophy, he carries weight... not a "big fish" but up-and-coming. Erik Norvelle 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note... I am the author of the article... I'm going to be actively involved in making it a useful article that serves as an entry-point into contemporary discussion in metaphysics within Catholic philosophical circles (Knasas is a thinker I'm studying for my doctoral research). Erik Norvelle 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun[edit]

Almost everything in this article is (or will be) already included in the Command & Conquer: Tiberian series article, which I recently completely re-wrote. Although some of the storyline points in this article are missing from the Command & Conquer: Tiberian series article, they will soon be included anyway as I work through the game and write the storyline.

It should be converted to a redirect page, but I'm not sure if that requires a deletion first or not (so I'm putting it up for consensus just in case) nomination retracted  -- Run!  19:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is suggested, but you usually do so on the talk pages of the two articles in question (do a WP:MERGE Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages process). Basically, tag the Merge From on the Tiberian Sun article and Merge To on Tiberian series, note this on both talk pages, explain why there, wait a few days, and then merge and redirect.
AfD is the wrong place for the note/consensus. Good that you thought to ask for consensus, but this is the wrong place 8-) I suggest/recommend you cancel your nomination here and do the merge process on the articles per above. Georgewilliamherbert 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not sure how to cancel it; do I just delete the section? Also, sorry for mucking up the title for this AfD ;)  -- Run!  20:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usual way to cancel is simple... put HTML strikethrough ( < strike > text < /strike > ) around the nomination, and below that explain why (which we've already discussed). It will be closed by an admin from there. Georgewilliamherbert 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as NN-bio. Angr/talk 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Simmons[edit]

Don't think a "guitar tech" qualifies as notable. Myspace used as evidence as notability in prior revisions. Lbbzman 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Edited to add: I listed here on AfD rather than speedy or proposed deletion due to the constant attention from vandals. I'm not sure why such a non-notable page would be attracting their attention, so I'm willing to concede that I may be missing something here. Lbbzman 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Zzzzz 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matson and Isom Technology Consulting[edit]

Coporate vanity article WP:CORP; text copied from corporate website http://www.mitcs.com/company/; no external sources. BrownHairedGirl 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Vegaswikian per CSD:A1 (empty). Stifle 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer Division Marduk[edit]

Delete: The article has been up for a week with no content at all.

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no content... could go speedy.--Isotope23 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A3. Tagged. --SYCTHOStalk 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, empty. -- Mithent 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per Sycthos. Kuru talk 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick "Havoc" Parker[edit]

Fancruft. Everything there is to say in this article will fit nicely into Command & Conquer: Renegade  -- Run!  20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom Zzzzz 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. Kuru talk 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. No need to bring to AfD, be bold. Proto||type 12:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 23:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Hassan[edit]

Fancruft. Everything that can be said about this character can be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series  -- Run!  20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the school article. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venice High School (Florida)[edit]

Delete Extremely Weak Keep - Just a normal high school; it doesn't seem to warrant an encyclopedia article to me. Starwiz 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though a concensus has already been formed on this topic; I apologize for not doing enough reading before I nommed this article. Can I nom it for major cleanup now?  :) Starwiz 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but will never be deleted as a group of sad, friendless, lonely geeks with no liveslosers will now magically arrive and suspiciously all start voting keep, almost like theyve arranged an organized campaign or something... but shurely no-one would go against the spirit of wikipedia like that would they? erm..... Zzzzz 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be appreciated if you would kindly take it upon yourself to remove your personal attacks and insults. Silensor 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Not one verifiable high school has been deleted from Wikipedia in over a year, get over it. Silensor 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All things change, User:Silensor. including my vote ... :x — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is verifiable. Carioca 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles aren't kept because they're verifiable, but this article should be kept because it asserts some degree of notability. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only notability requiered by Wiki/Schools is verifiability as I read it. Jcuk 23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. There is, however, no clean-cut consensus to Wikipedia:Schools itself. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, not big on pages for high schools, but the criteria is pretty minimal. Kuru talk 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear past precedence on high schools, and this article is more than a substub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per consensus at WP:SCH. Although note that WP:SCH does inherently imply that verifiability confers notability, which is not the case. Proto||type 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, my change of vote doesn't imply a change in my take on WP:SCH. This individual school is notable, most are not. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this school is notable; nn schools (WP:SCH notwithstanding) really shouldn't be kept unless we want to jump to the second million articles overnight, and then the lists of schools and categories of schools etc. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This particular school makes a fair claim to notability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain an ally trustworthy[edit]

Delete. Seems to be an editorial. No context, no idea what this is. Wickethewok 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)WickeThEwok[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay & recreation of a post on someone's userpage. I'd speedy it if I could figure out a criteria for it.--Isotope23 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Seems to just be commentary. From Yoda, judging by the title. Kuru talk 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that was.--Isotope23 14:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum smith[edit]

Nonsense, entertaining nonsense (to a degree), but nonsense nevertheless Budgiekiller 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nomination out of process. Image tagged with {{no license}} as I4 speedy delete. Aaron 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Andrewprincz1.jpg[edit]

Non-notable person, Wikipedia:autobiography. Thue | talk 21:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent game developers[edit]

This page exists for the sole function of linkspamming. There are only 3 or 4 wikilinks in the whole list; the rest are external. It's very nearly a speedy deletion candidate as a CSD A3 (no content except for external links). Chick Bowen 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 06:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-noteworthy. - XX55XX 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A3, no content to speak of. Tagged. Stifle 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I pruned the weblinks and redlinks, which leaves four entries. I'd call that redundant - and a category would be *much* better here for reasons whihc are obvious from the edit history, we don't need spam magnets. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell[edit]

This was prodded, but it (miraculously) had previously survived VfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell, which resulted in no consensus, though no one actually wanted to keep the article as it was. User:ERcheck said "seems to be copied off of an old faculty website, Heinrich & Russell no longer with IU, Molenda retired; makes no sense to have an article on all three ". I couldn't tell you if anyone is important enough to have an article out of this bunch or it should be deleted outright. NickelShoe 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete page. James D. Russell may meet WP:BIO and if that is the case, he should get his own article. The other 2 appear not to.--Isotope23 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ BRossow T/C 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and split into three articles, and let the individual articles stand or fall on their own merits. There's no sensible way one article should be covering three people unless they're triplets (cf. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen). Peter Grey 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted per A6. --InShaneee 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Devlin[edit]

No supporting evidence of assertions in article - suspect it was written by Ryan himself Budgiekiller 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Kyoto Protocol seems the obvious thing to do. -Splashtalk 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Credits[edit]

I propose this article to be deleted. What is described is vaguely similar to the CDM, and perhaps mixed up with green investment schemes. The term the author used 'kyoto credits' is sometimes used interchangeably with credits from CDM and JI, though it is not official terminology. The author also cites no sources. Jens Nielsen 10:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kyoto_Credits")
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per CyclePat --Colonel Cow 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kyoto Protocol or to some article on emissions trading scheme (too lazy to look up what it'd be right now). The term Kyoto Credits isn't notable itself. MLA 11:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smokinghotkova[edit]

The page is (IMHO) obvious nonsense and has no place on Wikipedia. Urban Dictionary, maybe. ⇒ BRossow T/C 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's a real term used to describe Russian women, go to any Russian dating forum/message board and ask. Chill grammer nazi's.


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 04:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin Head Express[edit]

non-notable Grocer 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Props to Apple- E.P. also exists --Grocer 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Incredibly nn: four hits on Google, all from MySpace. I tagged Props to Apple- E.P. for speedy delete as well; the article asserts only 20 copies were made. -- Rynne 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Couple of months old, local band. The track they have playing on myspace isn't half bad, though. Kuru talk 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no objections to a speedy per Rynne. Kuru talk 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-band}}. Template added. -- Krash (Talk) 19:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete is ok by me too --Grocer 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight For Freedom[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable and mostly unverifiable Nazi band. No mention of any albums ever released and no sources cited. No entires on Amazon or AllMusic.com. Far cry from WP:BAND which suggests two full-length albums for notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Tagged. --SYCTHOStalk 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sounds good to me. There seemed to be a weak assertion of notability so I tagged as prod - and then an anon removed it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No real objection to a speedy, however. PJM 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman{T}{L} 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OYAKO[edit]

Dictionary definition in a foreign language. No evidence of widespread use in English as claimed by author. See related articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryugaku and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyako Ryugaku. Delete. Fightindaman 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmix[edit]

Advert tag removed without cleanup or rewrite. Gets a few Google hits, but they look like spam. Created by a user whose only other edits seem to be adding links to this; {{advert}} tag removed by user in same netrange as creator. ergot 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kosmix is not a spam site. There was a pretty extensive article about them in the Merc that you can read here: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13791484.htm. They also won a DEMO god award (http://www.demo.com/demoletter/011116.html#more) and power the search on the Healthcentral network. Article should not be deleted.
  • Delete. I originally got involved with this when somebody mentioned it on AfD, asking why this apparant spam was let stand while their article was being proposed for deletion. It does get a few Google news hits, but they seem to all be press releases from Kosmix (and I didn't see any being picked up by any major outlets). Listing here following removal of {{advert}} tag, which indicated to me that if kept, this would always look like spam. Search engine seems to still be in alpha. But, they do have an Alexa ranking of 43,539 (not unusual for spam, and well short of WP:WEB). If this gets kept, it will need a rewrite, and ideally by someone whose IP is not in the 66.253.xxx.xxx range. ergot 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert. -- Krash (Talk) 18:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I really don't get persuaded by "but we have other articles that I might not like" kind of arguments, since we're talking about this article. That said, the case for deletion is weakly made and I imagine an efficient, well-referenced article would probably survive if this software becomes noticed in future. -Splashtalk 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cone (e-mail client)[edit]

No evidence of wisdespread use, market share, user base, coverage in reliable sources, innovation or any other form of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Mr. Guy. "Pine-like" and "innovative" would seem to be mutually exclusive terms. Kuru talk 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kuru. Stifle 11:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not seen any objective userbase numbers implying that Cone is significantly less significant than many (or even just some) other e-mail clients known to Wikipedia. As for innovation, Cone may have a user interface similar to Pine, but anyone claiming that Cone isn't innovative in the text-based e-mail client sector just doesn't know what they're talking about. -- Julian Mehnle 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it appears that you are saying that this entire field is insignificant.--SCooley138 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs expanding.
  • Elm, Mutt, Pine, and probably ELMo all have similar interfaces. This does not preclude innovation as all of these clients have different feature sets. I believe that Cone actually has the largest feature set, and has some that are unique to text mode email clients.
  • Second, it is under active development and Does have a userbase. This is more than can be said about at least one of the other clients listed here, which is quite dead and won't even compile on current version GLIBC.
  • Does not fall under any of the categories which require deletion, nor does it meet any of criteria that mark it as indiscriminant information. SCooley138 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

With the permission of the author, I used a lot of text from the official website to better describe the subject. Please, those of you who have voted for deletion, give it a second read, and reconsider. SCooley138 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web 3.0[edit]

Delete Vague speculation on a vague idea that doesn't yet exist. Polpo 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crystal ball speculation, and not even very good speculation. Fan1967 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Speculation/Original Research --lightdarkness (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Web 2.0 until a clear definition of what it is supposed to be emerges. Kusma (討論) 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speculation and silliness. Kuru talk 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kuru. -Jcbarr 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 08:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thule beyond the border[edit]

MMORPG currently 'under development' that right now is pretty much just a licenced engine and some promises. Delete as advertising. --InShaneee 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the owner of the site www.thule-online.co.uk and also host the game server. May I add that the game is actually fully working and has been for 3 years, you may join the game for free. The "under development" bit is a NEW game we are designing using the same engine but completly redesigned. I added this entry as I'd like to add some game faq's and let our players edit the contents, hints & tips etc for the game. 22:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • That contradicts what is said in the article. The article says that Astonia has been finished for years, but Thule is still under development. ("It will eventually (loong into the future_ be completely independant from it's inspiration with regards to storyline and gameplay.") Unless this changes, delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. I will reconsider my vote if the claims in the article are wrong, and it indeed is about a finished game. Kusma (討論) 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if the article is kept, please reupload the screenshot as a PNG instead of a JPEG. Kusma (討論) 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain it this way:

We bought the game engine of a game called Astonia V2. Astonia V2 is no longer operating and has been superseeded by Astonia V3 a much improved version. We purchased the license to V2 engine. our intention is to use this engine and make a whole NEW game. Meanwhile we are using the old "world" as a template and have expanded massivlely on it by adding our own quests gfx etc. If you were to view the forum activity you'll see that this is very much an active community and an active game which is fully working. I can understand the confusion between the "under development" and "fully working". i will reupload the image as png if the entry is "accepted" ...never though it was this hard adding an entry to wikipedia!.....

00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There are still a couple more problems with this topic. First, it fails the (not yet active) inclusion guideline WP:SOFTWARE, having only about 500 forum members. More importantly, it fails the verifiability policy, since there seem to be no independent sources writing about this game (correct me if I'm wrong). Third (but that can easily be corrected) it reads a bit more like an ad than like an encyclopedia entry. The way it looks like right now, the game might be worthy of a Wikipedia entry in the future, when it has become more notable, but I don't see that it's there yet. Kusma (討論) 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Never mind...please delete the entry. I don't desire a wiki entry this much...too much hassle. 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


How can anything fail a not yet active anything? The game is active (ie. up and running), the community is active, permissions are active. It's under development in that it's being continuously developed, quests added, graphics improved, engine developed, etc., as is the case for most active online roleplaying games. It's in their nature. I notice in the complaints regarding this entry a lack of proper research though. How big does a community have to be to be included though? This is not just a piece of software, the software is being used by other games as well, and may or may not be used by 5000 people. It's worth reading that whole page though: "The bound of 5000 users is only one of the criteria for notability, and is intended for software of general use (e.g., a text editor); notability of specialized software is better established by the other criteria." It's quite clear we're not talking about a text editor. Other criteria could be an active and growing community.--84.208.123.136 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As the lead developer on Thule I am shocked over the ignorance shown by the moderators here. We have 539 registered users. That is those who is registered, we have several more who play the game but do not visit the MB, but then again some who visit the MB do not play as well. As for the game it is quite as Gekko says fully operational and we move each day further and further away from what MoA was. We have a build server where we update the game, and thus I think we can safely say that the play server is not under development. It just gets updated..:P See how easy it is to twitch the meaning of words just like you yourselves do? Anyway I see no point in continuing this argument as it seems you guys have already made up your mind. Arild N. Lund

  • Delete as advert. Completely unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to add that this article was speeddeleted due to copyright infringment. That issue has been sorted out as the owner wrote the article and also added a note on the webpage. Why you guys are suddenly discussing other nonrelated "powerfreak" issues is beyond me.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RebelthePhoenix[edit]

I put this up for prod, but the article's creator removed the tag, so I'm listing it here instead. The article is about a band that appears to fail WP:MUSIC. They have no Allmusic page, and I can find no commercial listing of any kind for their album. Google finds only two pages with the band's name: one is a wikimirror, and the other is on MySpace. Also, the article's creator re-inserted a copyright tag at the bottom of the page after I had removed it and suggested that he acquaint himself with the GDFL. The username of the article's creator is the same as that of a member of the band, making this a likely violation of WP:VAIN as well. For all of these reasons, I believe that it should be deleted. -Colin Kimbrell 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be, but I googled around a bit and couldn't find anything, though it certainly feels like there should've been one. If you have better luck, let me know. -Colin Kimbrell 12:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGW wrestling[edit]

None notable e-wrestling website stub. Not notable. Englishrose 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not-notable spamvertising. Proto||type 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, among other things. Stifle 11:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Phoenix[edit]

None notable e-wrestler. Englishrose 23:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, am I nuts, or is this someone's character in an online game? Maybe speedy delete is more appropriate. Kuru talk 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. I've tagged it as such. Proto||type 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGEto Asphyxia apparently. This seems to have stood for now, so it can be dealt with editorially since there's evidently not much desire for actual deletion. -Splashtalk 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asphyxiation technique[edit]

What's this, a how-to manual for murder? No objection to all the information being available somewhere on WP, but when it's organized in this way I think we're on thin ice. --Trovatore 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure but I lean towards keep. I would go into more detail on my reasoning, but I see that there's a major edit tag right now, so I'll wait to see what changes before bothering. Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems a little more CSI oriented than Godfather. The forensic link seems to support that. Squicky, but I'd also wait on the "major edit". Kuru talk 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Asphyxia#Causes: Morbid, but encyclopedic, as long as it doesn't turn into a how-to. Peter Grey 07:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per Peter Grey's comments. --moof 08:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who started the asphyxiation techniques article to create a unified structure for various methods and terms used in forensics, combat sports, in military application. After some research i've however discovered that several methods such as strangulation are not pure asphyxiation techniques, and i'll create separate articles for these. I agree that it would be pertinent to merge it into the article on asphyxia, and i'll do it myself. ---Marcus- 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So my issue is with the term "methods" and similar terms that imply intent. If the article were about ways in which people get asphyxiated, no problem. When it's about how to asphyxiate people, it seems kind of iffy. Could you remove all references to "method" and "technique" and suchlike? --Trovatore 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No methods are descibed in detail. However this is an encyclopedia, and no topic should be too "iffy" to be covered. Asphyxiation is a major component of chemical warfare and other forms of violence. You can see the full list here. ---Marcus- 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My objection is not to describing them in detail, but to calling them "methods". --Trovatore 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging complete. There seems to be a lack of words to replace "method" and "technique". Accidental strangleholds are rare, and they are definitely(and primarily) "methods" and "techniqes" for asphyxiating a person. ---Marcus- 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing links there; improbable search term. -- Krash (Talk) 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's been merged and redirected during the AFD. Please don't do this. Wait for consensus. Stifle 11:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to short circuit debate, do a close otherwise it looks like we've been stifled (as per Stifle) Carlossuarez46 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACW Torak[edit]

None notable e-wrestler-- Englishrose 23:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable wrestler. For something that should blatantly be deleted, but dosen't qualify for WP CSD, try using {{prod}} next time. --SYCTHOStalk 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, possibly speedy. Kuru talk 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, could probably get this as an nn-bio. Tagged as such. Proto||type 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Kitsune[edit]

None notable e-wrestler--Englishrose 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable wrestler. Ever consider using {{prod}}?
  • Delete, again with pages for people's game characters. Kuru talk 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nn-bio. Tagged as such. Proto||type 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SiteScape[edit]

This may or may not be a significant product. This article is blatant spam. Just zis Guy you know? 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it's not improved (it's barely even a stub). Only one incoming link (from a 'list', natch). No information about why the product is important or why I should care. --kingboyk 23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context). Tagged. --SYCTHOStalk 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Scythos. Kuru talk 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalology[edit]

This appears to be a neologism unique to an unknown medical journal. It doesn't seem to be used on the Internet except on Wikipedia mirrors and silly message board discussions. —Guanaco 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No PubMed hits. Thatcher131 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary, unless it's not real, in which case delete. It's right in the article that it's a facetious usage. Peter Grey 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facetious it is, but also useful, just as the word widget is useful. Michael Hardy 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would reconsider pending reliable sources. -- Krash (Talk) 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle 11:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Championship Wrestling, ACW Ragnarok, Bloody Valentine[edit]

Another none notable E-fed. Judging by username, the article is also vanity. Englishrose 23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:Added ACW Ragnarok, Bloody Valentine sub-pages. I didn't know that a few others of the previous e-wrestlers I'd nominated were related and put them in seperate AFDs. Victor Laureano and ACW Torak are two others related. Basically to clarify these articles are made up events or characters for a fantasy wrestling federation called ACW. Englishrose 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable. --InShaneee 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for non-notability. Hangedman 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all. Proto||type 12:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoeler[edit]

Neologism, dicdef, and as far as I can tell, ungoogleable. Plenty of hits, but all the ones I saw were for the surname -- Aim Here 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Accurizer 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Rynne 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and probable attack page. - ulayiti (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ulayiti. Silliness. Kuru talk 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism based off Libby Hoeller with no evidence of usage. Originator blanked the page.--Isotope23 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, it does not make sense that this page is based off of libby hoeller; that is a false claim. However, the page is blank so just delete it completely and let it go.

freakin hoelers —The preceding really bizarre unsigned comment was added by 151.188.16.11 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 February 2006.


  • Indeed. Speedy Delete. Nonsense, dicdef, attack (pick one) Grandmasterka 07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_27&oldid=1142647369"