Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 28

< February 27	March 1 >

Purge server cache

February 28[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 KEEP psch e mp | talk 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ghost[edit]

Band that has released one EP and has no other claim to fame. Fails WP:MUSIC, AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take Action! qualifies as a major national tour [1] and the EP was released by Epitaph Records, a major independent label. The tour alone passes WP:MUSIC. --djrobgordon 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the tour site is an elaborate hoax, I don't see how it isn't verifiable. If it's media sources you want, search "take action tour" on Google News. You'll get reviews or previews from every city it's gone through. --djrobgordon 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you missed the part of WP:MUSIC about tours which requires "reported in notable and verifiable sources". Without that, it doesn't count in my book. -Jcbarr 03:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , still not notable. Cyde Weys 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with djrobgordon. Never heard of the band before this, but they're on a major national tour in the USA, and have more than just fan sites on google, [2]. They're also on allmusic [3]. I think they meet WP:MUSIC. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems plausible that some users may have heard of this band and be looking for additional info. - TRDriver 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anthonycaporale. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 110,000 Google hits for the band [4] and Sub City Take Action date confirmed in Richmond [5]. Has Allmusic.com article and has had coverage in Metal Hammer. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Tone 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jcbarr gives a correct argument in stating this article does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. The one verifiable source of notability is the Metal Hammer magazine. Metal Hammer is a somewhat widely circulated UK rock music magazine, awarding the band with a sliver of notability. I have seen much less notable articles kept (especially via WP:WEB), so I hesitate to delete an article that is borderline failing the relatively stringent music criterion. Cdcon 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster --Colonel Cow 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Cdcon . Metamagician3000 05:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National tour, large (but not major) lable. Notable band. Nigelthefish 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cdcon. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:33, 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 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latigent[edit]

del nonnotable. For (quoting) "one of the world's leading providers of business intelligence" only 143 unique google hits. mikka (t) 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto WP:VSCA. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spamvertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even sure they're Chicago's leading BI provider. Looks like a small Cognos consulting group. NN per nom. Kuru ^talk 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of Wikipedia's leading providers of BS. --Aaron 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You think even Yellowikis would want this? Cyde Weys 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP violation; non-notable company. (aeropagitica) 07:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. CrypticBacon 08:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CORP advertising.--Dakota ~ ° 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Metamagician3000 06:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Nigelthefish 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:44, 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 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawshank pee[edit]

Unverifiable neologism, no google hits. Delete. Fightindaman 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Term is in widespread use in Southwestern Ontario. ~~Leave it in.~~ Enots1
Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Hynca-Hooley 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia contains many articles concerning things that don't appear in proper dictionaries or encyclopedias. This term is used substantially in Southern Ontario. Enots1
- Enots1 has fewer than 20 edits - of which 13 are to the article being deleted here. BD2412 T 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Please only vote once. Thank you. Fightindaman 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BD2412 T 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Aim Here 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-verifiable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --Hetar 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 01:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I was not aware that this was a page for voting. My second bullet was meant to be a response to the "Wikipedia is not an Urban Dictionary" point against my article, not a "vote". Enots1
Delete. --Khoikhoi 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverifiable neologism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, currently unverifiable. ProhibitOnions 05:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to pile on, but, geez .. Cyde Weys 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, piling on. Wheee. I don't mean to be flippant, but since you're asking for advice on how to improve the article: I'm not sure you can. It's a made up term, that does not appear to be in use outside of a small group of friends; a neologism, and not a wide spread one. Kuru ^talk 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps some advice could be given to help me make the article acceptable rather than simply voting "no". Enots1
- Comment: At the very least it needs to be verifiable. That is, you need to find a reputable source that can back up what the article says. Fightindaman 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in Southwestern Ontario, am in my early twenties and have NEVER heard of this before. Mike _{(T C)} 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's a funny term though. For what it's worth, I live in Toronto and I'm in my twenties, and I've never heard of it either. Enots1, I think we're asking for some sort of a reference that backs up the term being used generally. Don't be discouraged, and please contribute more to the encyclopedia. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable dicdef, and Wikipedia is not urbandictionary.com. Robin Johnson 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a protologism that cries itself to sleep at night wishing it could one way grow up to become a neologism. --Aaron 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Plus the article is just about the name, it doesn't even explain how to do it successfully. Peter Grey 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 30+ years of living in SW Ontario, in 6 different communities, I have never heard this.Nimby 16:56, 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 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keithalmli[edit]

Delete This is a vanity page. My first AfD so hope the process is right. cmh 00:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of thing should be in User:Keithalmli. Hynca-Hooley 00:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move page to User:Keithalmli then. —Lifthrasir 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh. It's the exact same thing. Delete then. —Lifthrasir 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Royboy crashfan 01:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shameless vanity. Most editors aren't even as vain on their own user page. ~~Check out google for this "notable" 17 year old - [6]~~ Camillus (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "AlmLi", but still not notable. --CrypticBacon 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops - still, a correct search gives mostly blogs and forums, and self-promotion. Camillus (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For my own info, would this have been better as a SpeedyDelete? Or was putting it here right? cmh 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it here was probably right - there's an assertion of notability there I think, however ridiculous it might be. --kingboyk 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Camillus --kingboyk 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook vanity page, also already on his user page. --CrypticBacon 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already contained on userpage, as mentioned above. Non-encyclopædic article. (aeropagitica) 07:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, already userfied. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page. - TRDriver 08:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. Good AfDing by nom - I think it's always best to AfD whenever an editor isn't sure. MLA 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nonsense. He's only 17, but he's been around the Internet since it was "invented", circa 1971? ergot 16:41, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walmarting[edit]

Vote[edit]

Neologism. The references are a U.S. congressman's campaign website, an article about baseball stadiums, a blog, and a comment on a blog. The articles don't share a common meaning for the term, indicating that it is unstable. No idea who Bob K and D.M. are. Rhobite 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologism. Royboy crashfan 01:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork neologism. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article(s) does this article fork?--Esprit15d 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blogs do not count as verifiable sources. --Hetar 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Jcbarr 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TRDriver 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a dictionary of dubious slang. ProhibitOnions 12:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Hetar --light darkness^(talk) 14:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. Actually, this article's inclusion is consistent with the other articles of its type, Disneyfication (2005) and McDonaldization (started in 2003). When I Googled "walmarting", I got 664 hits, just now. Unlike your experience that it is only used in blogs, I found it used by:
a newspaper columnist quoted on an art site [7]
a union newsletter [8]
a proposed national ad campaign [9]
an anthropology professor's course description [10]
an AFL0CIO magazine article [11]
the transcript of a radio program [12]
an industrial news website [13]
a pr group that works with non-profits [14]

I could go on, but I have no more time. In all of these, the usage was consistent. If you want to delete the article (which would be inconsistent with the other two articles, and I'd bet others, the term is common enough to deserve mention in the article with the debate about Wal-Mart at the very least. I find it curious that I'm the first to weigh in as a "keep". Is there a campaign going on?==Beth Wellington 00:39, 1 March 2006 (EST) (Signed manually on 3 March with information from history page. Apologies, Max1, that it being late at night, I forgot to do so at the time.)

Keep/(transwiki + mege) This makes a reasonable short article. Arguably it's more appropriate to Wiktionary, but could be refatored into a wictionary and section for Walmart. Rich Farmbrough 10:51 2 March 2006 (UTC).
Keep & Improve Beatdown 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve The large part of the user who has, unfortunately, not signed has convinced me that it's important to keep the article while some improvement has to be done, probably with the inclusion of the links the unsigned user has given. I sure hope the many entrances saying "delete" aren't part of a campaign steered by WalMart (the first of them seem to have come within minutes, that looks, to me, slightly suspicious). Also, while "Walmarting" is a neologism that's how many of the words we are using today got started. The word describes a certain way to deal with suppliers which could be - and probably is already - copied by other companies. --Maxl 14:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I initially nominated this article for deletion when it was about two minutes old, but then I googled the term, and see that it does have varied usage. And also, to be honest, I've used the term myself. It is new, but I really feel like Walmart is becoming eponymous a la "google" and the article is worth keeping.--Esprit15d 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --rogerd 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not be an expression used by many right now, but I think its usage will grow when more people become aware of the supermarkets' role in the globalization. For instance, during the last few months the British newspapers (and TV) have started reporting about the growing concern in the UK for the role supermarkets have in both killing local shops and squeezing suppliers around the world - and they frequently credit WalMart for having introduced the current supplier squeezing, making the Brits very aware of WalMart (which was virtually unheard of earlier, although WalMart owns one of the big UK chains, Asda). Thomas Blomberg 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jonathan235 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, having already voted[edit]

For those of you who have voted and are interested in editing the article, especially those who voted to keep, but improve, I've taken a stab at making it more wiki-esque. Comments welcome.-- Beth Wellington 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article should be deleted, because it describes an unstable neologism. However it's good that you've improved it. Rhobite 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rhobite. Do you and I differ only on whether the term is unstable? As I noted in the external links, there is at least usage going back to 1999. That's seven years. Multiple definitions do not make a word unstable. Look at "Kafkaesque", for example. Interestingly, when I looked up Walmarting for a definition just now, here is the first reference I found "Walmart is not available in the general English dictionary and thesaurus. Try: Wikipedia encyclopedia." Evidently, wikipedia is relied on by those in the online dictionary biz.--Beth Wellington 19:19, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Bandito's[edit]

Probable hoax, ungooglable touch rugby team in ungoogleable league. Looks like a student joke -- Aim Here 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I am a Mass Communications and Marketing Lecturer at the Nelson Polytechnic . The internet was set as a democratic , area of free speech . These participants are engaging in the aforementioned activity , however I believe some of the material to be unapproapriate . With some deletion of material in a few places , I believe the article has to be kept on wikipedia .

In summation there is a fine line between what teams can be registered on wikipedia . Professional teams and amateur teams that exist are both approapriate for submission in my educated perspective . User:Mogsheen Jadwat

Great site. keep up the good work!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs)

Keep It is a worldwide club that has about 1000 members, across the world, we ahve even made the news in our country of New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljd47 (talk • contribs)

keep HI i am from poland. Thanxs to this website i took a real interest in touch and have now been offered a scholarship to Oxford UNiversity, to play in their touch team! I can't thank the makers of this article enough! (Svendon)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 07:37, February 28, 2006 (UTC).

keep JUst because you cant google it doesnt mean it isnt a club! We aim to expand our club right around the world, so bandits can take part in our bitter club.(the wet bandit)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 07:33, February 28, 2006 (UTC).

keep It's a proper club , with real players . We play in the Belfast Touch League , which is an official competition . We just don't have an official website yet .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)

keep The Bandito's are a well followed team in Chch ,don't delete the info on the club . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete as club with no assertion of notability. Playing social touch football is not an assertion of notability.

Capitalistroadster 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Capitalistroadster. -- JLaTondre 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)". Capitalistroadster 01:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the problem with it? Makes Wikipedia more exciting. Lighten up! --Teamplayer 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editor's 17th edit on WP. 11 of the previous 16 have been to El Bandito's. Grutness...wha?

Delete, I can't find anything to verify its existence, and Wikipedia is not a repository of things made in school one day. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a social touch club, and that isn't sufficient to warrant an encyclopedia article.-gadfium 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. Cyde Weys 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverifyable, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopædic vanity publishing; unverifiable through Google. There must be better places than WP within which this information can be placed - the club's own website, for example? This information can form the basis of such as website, if required. (aeropagitica) 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hoax. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (aeropagitica). CrypticBacon 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems probable hoax. - TRDriver 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Probably Hoax and if it isn't it is still below the level of notibility required. - SimonLyall 09:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. I'm from NZ and have never heard of them --Midnighttonight 09:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn and hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a hoax, if real is non-notable. Avalon 11:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax especially as some of the socks comments are nonsense MLA 12:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...--Isotope23 14:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or move to BJAODN. --Tone 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or unverifiable, per Avalon. ergot 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to fame is participation in non-notable sports league. No references. Almost certain vanity. Cdcon 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a fan of El Banditos I am highly offended by any calls to delete. Caleby 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. In regards to a previous comment, I highly doubt that the University of Oxford has anything to do with this, and the town of Oxford, New Zealand has less than 2,000 citizens - doesn't seem like a place for a university. -- Mithent 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a university of Oxford in England however

Delete. Not notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty sad Google results. NN. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have saved this for April 1. Moriori 08:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, delete the sockpuppets, and tell one of them that British universities like Oxford don't have scholarships for touch rugby (and there is no university at Oxford, NZ - a couple of milk bars and a pub and that's about it). Sheesh. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reference to the University of Oxford on the website . The side is from Christchurch , New Zealand Vertigo
Delete, totally unencyclopaedic. I may have run into the team while refereeing tag rugby, though. Stifle 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure vanity. Eivind 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, appears that most of the keep votes are by the same person, or persons. rmosler 08:44, 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razza chazza big willy wazza[edit]

WP:VSCA Non-notable cruft Garglebutt / (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 01:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VSCA. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn radio program on a nn student radio station. CrypticBacon 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic entry. - TRDriver 08:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisment. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thatcher131 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delazza pazza WP:VSCAZZA. -- Plutor 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable program on a part-time campus radio station Green Giant 22:27, 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. This is a close case with the straight vote count at two thirds for deletion, but the argument that this webcomic has very little, if any, external reviews has not been adequately answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubble (webcomic)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubble (web comic)- previous afd.

Does not satisfy guidelines for inclusion of websites Google search returns less than one thousand hits, and only 59 unique. None of these are from unbiased sources, just Wikipedia mirrors and livejournal entries. Deleted once already, the new version escapes speedy deletion as a recreation but only just:
Deleted version:

Stubble is an independent humor/drama webcomic by Josh Mirman. It stars the sometimes angsty Clint Wilson and his friends as they experience and struggle with life, love, betrayal, and death. Stubble has been online since the year 2000.

Current version:

Stubble is Josh Mirman's second and longest running webcomic, starting in 2000. It also had 2 spin-offs, a mini-series for Keenspot, The Misadventures of Timmy and Yin-Yang, a story about Roland Warui, the series antagonist. The story is about Clint Wilson, an angst filled semi-goth youth and his friends and rivals.

I find no evidence that this had been mentioned in print or reputable online media, nor do I find any indication evidence that it has had an impact beyond its narrow circle. Delete as non-notable website.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubble received a Keenspot invite, which is good enough for me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Stubble also was in a crossover with Ian Jones-Quartey's RPG World, who does have a notable work. Also per Adashiel. --Videowizard2006 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Crossovers happen all the time in webcomics, they like to help each other out and crosspromote their work. Having a crossover with a piece of work does not make it any more notable. There may be other reasons why this comic is notable/non notable, but the argument you put forward isn't the most convincing. - Hahnchen 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Crossovers do happen, but they are more work than just making one's own comic. Canonically joining 2 fictional universes can be quite a lot of work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, article does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. Dug through Google and Alexa's "What links here" but this was the best I could find. Nifboy 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reinforcing my vote due to a section at Josh Mirman, not only where there's a more expansive entry (no merge necessary), but I like condensing information as necessary. Leave a redirect if you feel like it. Nifboy 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Videowizard2006. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything that pops up in something (borderline) notable doesn't than inherit notability. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would first bootstrap in this webcomic, than every webcomic that had done a crossover with stubble, than every webcomic that had done a crossoever with that one, and on and on and on...
  brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abe and videowizard. In addition, try searching for stubble and webcomic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that search yields 286 unique results, including I'm clean shaven, no stubble, NO NOTHING! And Chaddeh, how would you know? ... Yarr! Link - My crappy blog and webcomic [15] and Cyanide and Happiness, a daily webcomic... I mean, i am partial to McDreamy with his rugged stubble [16]. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and if anyone is interested, leave a redirct to Josh Mirman which already has a section on this.--Isotope23 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brenneman's comment above. Isotope's suggestion works too. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. 159.134.245.26 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting on Brenneman's request. - Mailer Diablo
- For a little exposition: This is a clear case of "argument vs. guideline". Without prejudice to the quality of the arguments to keep here, which are reasonalbe enough, it's more appropiate to look for broader consensus in such an event. Any one AfD draws a very small sample of interested users, but by widening the sample and running a few more days we can more accurately guage community feeling. This drew in a few of the regulars (ahem, e.g. me) but more eyballs is always better. That's all.
  brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, am I a "regular" yet? Man, this is tougher than many. Seems borderline to me, it's been around much longer than many, there's a forum that close to a thousand users (surely some fraction inactive), it has exposure at Keenspot and the artist has done other work. But I cannot find evidence that it's influenced other things significantly, or has been referenced significantly, can't find any metric that it satisfies WP:WEB suggested guidelines. So, regretfully... Transwiki to Comixpedia. Note: this is NOT to be taken as a straight delete, until the material is moved safely somewhere, I would oppose deletion (even though the current material is but a stub)... ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am displeased that this was relisted. It received a sufficient number of responses, and the result was NC, IMHO. Immediate relists should only be done if an AfD only receives a couple votes. My opinion on this AfD remains unchanged. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Abe. Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may have said that twice. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abe. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh Mirman. Do not keep, fails WP:WEB. Proto||type 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, it is probably better to relist it now and get a clear consensus. A true Keep would be a strong argument against a future AfD whereas a No Consensus basically means we will have this exact same conversation again in a few months when someone else comes across Stubble (webcomic), sees that it fails WP:WEB miserably, and pops it up for AfD. I still support deletion, but if keep is the consensus, perhaps an info box in the discussion page stating that will avoid a rehash of this.--Isotope23 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if it doesn't get clear consensus now? Relist it until it does? No. It sets a bad precedent. We're not working on deadlines here, so there's absolutely no reason why we can't revisit the issue in a few months. At least that will give the article time to improve and establish notability. That typically doesn't happen under the gun of AfD, after all. And, if in a few months it still looks like a nn stub, then it only strengthens the case for deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't get clear consensus this time then it will sit for 3 months, it will get AfD'd again, it will still not meet WP:WEB, and it will get another no consensus. Rinse and repeat. Sorry... I'm a cynic. I don't have a problem with 1 relist to break a no consensus. If this is still an obvious no consensus after that though I would refrain from a second relisting.--Isotope23 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a cynical perspective has what place exactly in a project that strongly encourages the assumption of good faith? It's not as if this was an article created by a redlink newcomer, after all. AfD already has a reputation for being unnecessarily combatative and discouraging to contributors. Re-listing except in the case of barren AfDs is a step in the wrong direction. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who created/how the article was created is completely immaterial to this discussion... as is the wider discussion of the place of cynics vs wide-eyed optimists in the context of Wikipedia. You have your opinion of relisting and I have mine. Since I don't think we are hammering out any policy changes here, I'm content to leave it at that.--Isotope23 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. What is going on in this AfD is precisely the same controversy that happens repeatedly with webcomics with some local recognition (i.e. among a small, close community) and little to no global notability. The WP:WEB standard is not precise enough to determine these cases, so by default (and precedent) we will end up including them regardless of the individual vote. Cdcon 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Isotope23. All the arguing in the world about whether it "should" have been relisted this soon or by a certain person is irrelevant; the site doesn't meet WP:WEB, so bye-bye. --Aaron 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Stifle 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V (and WP:WEB by extension) No good sources means no article without doing original research... --W.marsh 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this comic last time around, it seems to be one of Josh Mirman's lesser works. And it's already got a mention in the Josh Mirman article per Nifboy. This has not attained big popularity outside of the Josh Mirman fan circle, maybe had it accepted the Keenspot offer, it would have been different. - Hahnchen 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abe Dashiell. Nothing wrong with making our comics coverage better. -- JJay 09:57, 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 to either merge or delete, therefore Keep. - Bobet 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Combat: Elite[edit]

This janitorial nomination follows on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueCombat Elite. Many of the comments so far are that this game mod is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it's only logical that this duplicate article be nominated too, despite it obviously being of way better quality than TrueCombat Elite. Personally, I question the notability and say weak delete. kingboyk 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 | _#) 01:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi. Here's a list, another one, also here, and something here (to even name a few). There you go. These lists of possibly not-so-played-mods should satisfy your hunger for voting down every possible mod that doesn't satisfy your contribution to demonstrate "notability". Have you ever noticed, that in fact, most players have to visit the website only once in order to download the game and start playing, just to prove your Alexa theory wrong. And for the record, is it not notable enough if TC:E has several IRC communities (#tce.gather, #tce.fi, clan channels, #tc:elite, #tcmappers), EXTERNAL COMMUNITIES ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) LEAGUES ([23], [24]...), FORUMS (truecombat.us, tce forums, fansite forums, etc.), and most of all, >PLAYERS< (over 100 now when Europe's asleep, in the darned early MORNING). To remind you about the number of players TCE has: TCE's developing team hasn't released an update that people have been whining for. I've gone waiting for it. At least 60% of the players have. Let's see how many players will play when TT introduces version 0.49, and after that, a new development cycle: release often. OH AND! I almost forgot! Darn you! Ah, yes, the mod has appeared in several gaming magazines! Oh, darn. Well, gaming magazines are for teenage slugs, so that isn't notable? Naah.. I guess you win, after all. This reminds me of some mod I'll AfD soon: Enemy Territory Fortress; only 20 players maximally play it a day. But hey. Ah, guys, don't worry, I'll code a quick perl script to AfD every game that hasn't hit the shelves or that you have never heard of. Take it as a favor from a friend. I agree with you that mainstream is full of games like SC, CS, ET, AoW, BF2, HL2, GarrysMod. By that I mean the quality shows and cool game ads that MTV plays and which 14 year old teen girls like. Wikipedia is after all mainstream! It's a good idea, indeed. Who wants un-trendy, un-hip, un-advertised subjects on Wikipedia? I don't! Wikipedia would save so much HD space and it will do only good! Anyways, guys, it's very early in the morning, so I'm going to go to bed now - school tommorow (technically today) at ten. :) (The reason why I posted slightly in socratic irony and sarcasm is because it cheers me up a bit, anyways, that wasn't meant to insult anybody, I just pointed out how narrow rationals people use to judge notability. You have research in order to even find something like a small segment from a few articles in a few magazines that I personally can't get (scans excluded), and as a good ol' fan of TCE, I provided you evidence, and I hope you that this is enough for a consensus.) Wikilove--nlitement ^[talk] 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wolfenstein:_Enemy_Territory Make a new section on the page for mods..TheOneCalledA1 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Well written, but notifyability is sketchy. Despite nlitement's combativeness and personal attacks, that magazine scan is enough evidence for me. Keep.--InShaneee 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, god bless your ignorance. Just check my darned comment (nlitement here)!!. What do you want? Is it not notable enough? Well, then if you really want to do your thing, then just AfD every mod article, since a VERY few reach such coverage among the gaming community (which isn't the same as mainstream, as someone a bit less game-savvy said). I'll soon provide you with TCE magazine scans which I missed hard proof for. --84.249.252.211 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an idea! This isn't Modpedia, it's an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 17:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Notability or Delete. There are no impartial references to determine notability. Are there magazine articles or other high-circulation media reports describing this mod? If not, it is not notable. Cdcon 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TrueCombat_Elite. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cdcon Please, read my (nlitement) comment. There are magazines with articles and a DVD. [25]. If you need proof right now, go and buy the magazines. I'll try my best in finding the scans for you. AND PLEASE READ NLITEMENT'S COMMENTS, HE (aka I) HAS LISTED SEVERAL GOOD REASONS FOR NOTABILITY Thank you. EDIT: PC Zone issue is December, not sure about PC Action, but there are articles about it. --84.249.252.211 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, guys. I listed some quite unnotable mods of Battlefield and HL on AfD. Be thankful at least that I did the whole darn job for you that you would've done in one week packed into less than 15 minutes. They would've still all end up AfD'd and as test canines for your "AfD stress tests". So you should give me a star. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines [Here's] the promised scan for skeptics. It's hard to get one of those! That's from the PC Gamer (UK) article I was talking about. Another one available in German PC Action. --nlitement ^[talk] 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TheOneCalledA1 --Mmx1 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say that it is really a good idea to insert the whole article into Enemy Territory, something like inserting every game article into Video games? You don't seem to really understand: is a mod not worth its own articles if it has so many external websites and communities, even reaching such popularity as far as in South-Korea and Japan? Talking about ET mods, ETPub is vanity, and ET Pro should be a merge since it is not even a full-conversion mod (like True Combat: Elite - which would be plain stupid to merge into a section) but a general gameplay enchancement mod. Does anyone of you even have an idea of what Enemy Territory or "video game" is? --nlitement ^[talk] 20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random mod. Possibly mention it wherever the list of mods is. Stifle 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Notability is established by recent edits, keep. Stifle 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Here's a small list:

* Mentioned in two magazines (PC Gamer UK and PC Action, Germany)
* Has outside communities: TCE-Force TC:Japan (the second largest outside community after TC.US (check forums), a good example of how far it has reached in popularity), TC Germany, TrueCombat Finland, True Combat Finland, TrueCombat UK (reconstructed), TrueCombat.us, TrueCombat France
*Leagues: Clanbase ladder, TC League
* Planet Quake
* Moddb page with stats
* Currently playing (02:58 03.03.06) 440 players (taking to notice that the mod has gone one year outdated... beta test version with new version 0.49 coming at the end of Q1/2006 (soon) with 185 servers.
* 2000 registered forum users on TrueCombat.com
* Several active clans
* Et cetera, et cetera.--nlitement ^[talk] 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nlitement, you cannot vote to keep multiple times. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the second keep. Stifle 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd like to note that as someone who has worked in the electronic entertainment industry for years, I can safely say that TC:E is NOT non-notable. So no, I don't think the article should be deleted on those grounds. HOWEVER: if there are TWO articles on the same topic they need to be merged. -e- (Or the other page deleted as it is horridly written).⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a comment, Nlitement has submitted several highly notable mods for AfD, which is very disruptive and a WP:POINT violation. It may interest watchers of this page to possibly vote on those. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, SwatJester, for finally pointing out. And by the way, here's some more accurate and updated stats of players: http://www.csports.net/(10baa0e42hnzq455n1snpkyo)/ModStats.aspx?Matrix=47&Mod=3260 --nlitement ^[talk] 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say this game article should be kept on the grounds that the other, inferior article is deleted. There is sufficient evidence to prove that this mod is notable. Also I think that whenever anyone types in: TrueCombat Elite in the search bar, that they should be redirected to True Combat: Elite. Marthoyink 13:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user's first edit was made here. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:19, 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 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hamilton Ruckman[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO or assert notablity. Looking at the edits leaves the reader with a strong suspicion the article was created by a family member. Arbusto 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. · rodii · 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Page clearly demonstrates the importance of the individual with respect to MIT, both World Wars and the Manhattan Project. Previous comments regarding "notability" are clearly erroneous (read the page!) and the by-product of a bias against the topic (see User Arbusto's various edits of entry regarding Peter Ruckman, which he/she also seeks to have removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)

I read the article. The notability you speak of isn't self-evident, and simply asserting it doesn't make it so. I saw someone with a respectable but not distinguished career in the military, at MIT and in private industry, one of many chief engineers with one company that worked on the Manhattan project. It isn't disrespectful to say there are many like him. I understand that notability is somewhat subjective--this is just my judgment. And it's incorrect to accuse someone of bias just because he referred two related articles to AfD. Please assume good faith—we're all just doing our best to make a good encyclopedia. · rodii ·

Of course, no one "accused" anyone of bias "just because" he referred two related articles to AfD. Try giving it another read. Dozens of individuals who were distinguished vets of WWI and II, chief engineers on the Manhattan projects, authors and instructors at educational institutions as prestigious as MIT. Sure. Very average. OK. That is your judgment. I respectfully disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)

Please don't misunderstand me--it's an interesting story, and he sounds like an incredible person. The question is whether he has any larger significance that would make him noteworthy enough to belong in an encyclopedia. I'm sure we all have people we would like to celebrate. And if I'm off-base and other editors here think he deserves an article, great. That's what consensus is all about. But you're not helping your case with your sarcasm, condescension and distortions of what other people are saying (I never implied he was "average," for instance). Look, this is a big and busy place, and it is under siege by people who are trying to get their pet idea or club or hoax or newly-minted slang term or favorite teacher here--the discourse in AfD is therefore somewhat brusque, even with worthy articles. But no one is trying to be personally disrespectful; even your adversary Arbusto. I'm sorry you feel attacked, and I appreciate your remaining relatively civil. But the question is: is the article a good article for this encyclopedia? · rodii · 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the above anon may be PSRuckman (talk · contribs), judging from the edit history. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every MIT grad or war vet is notable, the only link that verifies what's in the article is a personal essay by his son -- sorry, not good enough. Grandmasterka 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but this doesn't meet the "average professor" test, nor would it meet an "average soldier" test if there were one. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, - TRDriver 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain If, for no other reason at all, because he is the historian for MIT's participation in WWI (86 hits on Google). Grandmasterka's comment that "not every MIT grad or war vet is notable" is irrelevent and sheds no light on the entry or the discussion. No one has suggested anything close to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.46.94 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. --Aaron 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Interesting life though... --Isotope23 21:09, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman[edit]

Vanity for an unaccredited school president/founder with the edits being made by an anon user and User:PSRuckman. Arbusto 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWhile every suggestion deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merit, one cannot (or should not) separate this one from the edits that the above user has made to this page. He/she has worked on the page for some time (and continues to do so) and wants it removed because simply because he/she is not getting his/her way all of the time. The best defense he/she has for his/her behavior is that he/she is being personally attacked. To point out repetition in sentences separated by a single sentence, for example, is (to him/her) a personal attack. No need to take my word for it (since I am so mean, offensive, and nasty), read the edits.
Delete, non-notable. Royboy crashfan 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. · rodii · 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep. The more I look into this the more it seems "Ruckmanism" is an honest-to-god notable issue for many fundamentalist/KJV-only Christians. This goes beyond his presidency of a bible college. Incoming links from a variety of unchallenged articles too. · rodii · 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Arbusto has made numerous inconsistent edits (removing links because Wiki "is not a links page" and then adding his/her own choice of links) and seems to have a poor handle on the language (failing to see repetition in the presentation). In addition, User Arbusto objects to links to notable graduates of the institution - a standard feature of colleges and universities on Wiki. While the institution in question is not accredited (something the entry itself admits), it is mentioned on several other Wiki pages, none of which have been edited by any of the individuals User Arbusto singles out. Thus, the singling out exercise is a mere distraction, and a sily one at that. Clearly User Arbusto has not done his/her homework regarding the significance of this institution and its presence on Wiki apart from this entry. Wiki would do itself a great disservice to allow someone of this mindset to have any influence over the decision to retain an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)].--Isotope23 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please sign your edits by appending ~~~~. And rather than attacking the nominator (who is a known quantity with an established track record, whereas you are anonymous) and bringing in unrelated articles, you should be concentrating on explaining why this article should be kept. A nomination for deletion is not a personal attack--it's a judgment about the encyclopedicity of an article. If you disagree, say why or improve the article. · rodii · 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is being filled with non notable religious leaders. Is this a marketing stunt? David D. (Talk) 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see: Ruckmanism for related interest. Arbusto 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the coaching, but what you have written does not having any bearing on the inconsistent edits or poor use of the language. If he/she has a "known" for this sort of thing, he/she should be suspended. While you are dismissing factual considerations as personal attacks, note all of the time, energy and effort the "known" Arbusto has put into editing a page that he/she now wants removed. It is clear that he/she must have his/her way or everyone suffers. "Established track record" eh? Ho ho ho! —The preceding comment was added by 172.139.42.192

Dear Santa: WP:DICK. · rodii · 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rodii: If that is the best you have, then that is the best you have.

Weak delete, not quite notable enough, although the (questionable) books are a plus. 172.139.42.192, you are hurting your own cause quite a lot. Grandmasterka 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, given that the "nominator is out to get me!" rationale is among the most commonly employed on these pages, I'm surprised it's not numbered, for convenience. Someone ought to make a list of unconvincing/red flag arguments that includes this, and you can throw in the "knows the rules better than you" and "liberal use of hand-waving adjectives/adverbs like 'clear(ly)' and 'obvious(ly)'" . In any case, on its merits, Delete as non-notable. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ApologiesArbusto has finally recognized that his repeated edits were below the standards of 9th grade, public school English. It only took him three attempts. Meanwhile, your paranoid user routine addressed nothing and shed no light on anything. Bad writing will always be bad writing. Learn to cope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.201.150 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 February 2006

Guess my public school English was only good enough to get me my current job. <sigh> · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, or PSRuckman will come along and correct your English. To American. (yes, click the link, it'll give you a chuckle) Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "paranoid user routine" addresses a common -- and frankly pathetic -- tactic employed by new users who, lacking valid arguments for or feeling insecure about notability, neutrality, importance, verifiability and other such normal encyclopedic and scholarly standards for self-promotion, original unpublished research, or obsessive fancruft they try to introduce here, feel the need to resort to out of clear and apparent desperation. But, being new, you don't realize how transparent and ineffective these attempts to bully opinion are -- indeed, they often backfire -- because, being new, you don't realize how moldy and hackneyed the tactics are -- the suggestion that they be numbered is for the convenience of experienced editors who are responding to them, to save typing. Your particular act, I'm afraid, is so old it has whiskers, and if you're frustrated that it's being challenged...well, learn to cope. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (despite 172.139.42.192) as it seems plausible that users may be looking to WP for info on this person, and Notability standard is a work in progress. - TRDriver 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Ruckmanism and Keep.::Supergolden:: 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it seems that Ruckman's principal claims to fame are heading an unaccredited college (unaccredited? who'd have guessed?) and being an author; his books are published by a publisher which looks very much as if it exists primarily to publish his books. This looks like a walled garden to me. I see no credible evidence of wider coverage (zero Google News hits, for example) and though he may indeed be a figure of some note within the KJ Only movement, that is itself a minor movement. Above all, I am having serious trouble finding appropriately neutral coverage of him from reliable sources, I'd say the article is functionally unverifiable from a neutral POV, and the subject is in any case of questionable notability. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just an unaccredited school, but a PO Box.[26] Good luck even finding a webpage for the school, a faculty list, or a course list. Arbusto 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not just a PO Box: Pensacola Bible Institute 1171 Jojo Rd., Pensacola, FL 32514 850-476-1387. Google hit #6 for "Pensacola Bible Institute." That doesn't mean anything except that it exists, of course, but I don't really know what the issue is here. Ruckman is widely known even if the PBI is a toolshed. BTW: here's what loathsome but very notable uber-creep Jack Chick has to say: [27]. · rodii · 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do a reverse address check on that address then tell me what you think that address is. Arbusto 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rodii's change of heart, and several very good Google links, including the following from http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb2.13.html (sorry, but I just can't resist, and have to quote it...): "For anyone not familiar with Peter S. Ruckman, I can tell you in short that he is an antichrist, mongrel-minded, Jew-loving scumbag. However, he is frequently cited as a scholarly authority..." While that clearly doesn't meet the letter of JzG's above criteria of "appropriately neutral coverage", I kind of somehow think it meets their spirit. :-) GRuban 14:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the sig...--Isotope23 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be re-worked into NPOV world. Rob 15:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course: Peter Ruckman has more hits on Google than everyone in this discussion combined. That should pretty much settle it. It is quite clear that this request is a mere rationalization for displeasure that one person's edits were called into question (see the history of the entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.46.94 (talk • contribs)

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400 English pages for kingboyk Results 1 - 10 of about 12,000 English pages for "peter ruckman" Yip yip! That's not counting hits by my name and my old user IDs. --kingboyk 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm amused by the idea that only editors with hits on Google should be able to argue to delete articles. I still think the article should be kept, but I sort of wish some people weren't on my side in this. GRuban 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, didn't you know you don't exist if Google doesn't index you? Thank God I get 6 pages... [28].--Isotope23 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many times is this anon. user going to insult strangers with false assumptions? Arbusto 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ruckman's statements are well-documented. He is one of the best-known polarizing figures in Christian theology. He appears to carry a lot of clout in this field. He is almost certainly notable. Cdcon 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After doing a Google search, I found lots of articles about, referring to, opposing, supporting, villifying, and canonizing Ruckman and his teachings. There's hundreds of different sources regarding him and discussing his theological viewpoints (WP:V is definately NOT a problem here). I really can't see any reason why this should be deleted. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the notion that the person was not notable was not based on any empirical evidence. It was based on personal ignorance, animosity toward the topic, or immaturity with respect to editing. Arbusto (is that is his real name? oh it just HAS to be!) would like to frame that as a personal insult, but, really, what are the other options, given the empirical evidence. Notability should be based on information, not personal bias, ignorance or animosity.
Anon 64.107.201.150, Please read WP:CIVIL and at least try to abide by it. No reason to be a WP:DICK just because you don't agree with User:Arbustoo.--Isotope23 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Ruckmanism into this article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Metamagician3000 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the ballot stuffing by sockpuppets. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge Ruckmanism into here. --kingboyk 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:PSRuckman should probably be discouraged from editing this article, for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I assume PSRuckman and our prickly anon are the same, and a quick google will tell you the likely identity. Editing articles about family members is always tricky territory. · rodii · 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see nothing that indicates anyone is a family member, but, you are right. Arbusto (or Arbustoo) is getting his booty worn out. The repitition in the first three sentences was hilarious! Go Arbutoooooo! GlimmTwin

The fact that User:PSRuckman edited three articles about people named Ruckman, and that one of them, the subject of this article, has a son named...wait for it...P.S. Ruckman doesn't "indicate" a family relationship to you? OK then. I just got trolled, didn't I? · rodii ·

CommentLOL. Sweet. Was focusing on the edits not the persons. GlimmTwin

weak Keep Ruckman is slightly noteworthy in the KJV only movement. JoshuaZ 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toss Out! Clearly non-notable. See http://cvmonline.org/broadcasts.html GlimmTwin

Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [29]. JoshuaZ 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the more reason this article should go. BTW look at the article's edits. Arbusto 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of vandals, sockpuppets and POV edits is not intrinsically related to the whether or not Wikipedia should have a version of the article. JoshuaZ 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be of interest for those on the fence though. Arbusto 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoshuaZ. There should be a "please, get off my side" template. GRuban 14:30, 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 MERGE to Peter Ruckman. Copypaste here we come. -Splash^talk 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruckmanism[edit]

Unnotable word. Created by anon. user and possible vanity. Arbusto 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologism.--み使い Mitsukai 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Peter Ruckman. Not a protologism, an obscure but real school of thought with adherents and adversaries. Google finds a small but diverse group of sites, mainly from enemies[30]. This article needs some cleanup, some sourcing and may have a hard time staying NPOV, but seems like a worthy subject. · rodii · 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment less than 500 hits including wiki-pages, personal webpages, and vanity pages. Article likely started for vanity and it has 7 edits. Arbusto 08:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why you say it's "likely" vanity. It was created back in August, before this run of Ruckman edits, and the edits it has are from a mix of editors. And as I say, it's linked from a variety of places. I agree it's marginal, but I have no reason to suspect its bona fides. Do you? · rodii · 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator the page has three edits, one is a revert of another change. The next edit that adds content is 67.187.32.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who also added this into the Ruckman (person) article[31] No source, but plently of beliefs that is uncited and POV. After that the next editor to add content is 160.147.240.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who added plently of personal belief-information on the Ruckman (person)[32] page, which is POV and unsourced. The other editors fixed spelling, categories, and added this afd. Arbusto 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all I'm seeing there is that some anons added some crappy POV content, which is pretty much the norm here for anons, unfortunately. What makes it vanity? Look, I hate Gastroturfing as much as anybody, but I think we should stick to facts and stop looking for reds under the bed, as it were. Wikipedia policy is that anyone can edit, even anons. The other Ruckman articles seem more clearly vanity. · rodii · 21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the "facts" approach is useful for Arbusto/o. The individual is clearly known as "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman," but Arbusto/o would like to impose his view of how he thinks the world should be. So, he "edits" away "Dr." repeatedly. There is simply no doubt that he does not aim to inform readers of this entry, but instead desires only to impose his quirky views on everyone. Could an attitude be more damaging for wiki?

Keep, and merge Peter Ruckman into here. It sounds like this entity is (albeit weakly) substantiated, and Peter Ruckman is notable only because of it. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Peter Ruckman as he is the source of the term. - TRDriver 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new user as of a few days ago. Arbusto 08:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Ruckman. JPD (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Ruckman. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Ruckman, or likely delete since I am not convinced of Ruckman's notability. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" 2,300 plus hits on Google.

Merge and NPOV-ize. Rob 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Ruckman -- Astrokey44|talk 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Metamagician3000 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete --kingboyk 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. --DanielCD 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [33]. JoshuaZ 19:47, 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. The redlinked editors' contributions are almost entirely to this AfD, so I'm not going to weight their comments heavily. Spacelord is a major contributor to the article, so he's entitled to be heard. That said, there is a clearly dominant delete contingent with concerns over notability and reasons for creation (which may or may not be well-founded). -Splash^talk 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musings of a Thelemite[edit]

Janitorial action. This was a challenged {{prod}} deletion, tagged with the reason "Not of Encyclopedic Value". I've not had a chance to read the article yet so I'm not voting. kingboyk 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that it is a decently fleshed out article, and that book references, even if rare, are valuable in an encylopedia. I think this is certainly the case, considering the limited amount of titles on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacelord (talk • contribs)

Delete as spam. The preceding comment is from User:Spacelord, the only non-janitorial editor of the article. Spacelord is also the creator of Frater Da'Neos, Da'Neos and Daneos. The book's publisher is a friend of Spacelord's, and the book isn't even out yet. In other words, this article is part of the publicity campaign for an NYP book. · rodii · 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They tried too hard to assert notability, it didn't work. Royboy crashfan 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per notability. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. Grandmasterka 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was part of a publicity campaign. I honestly do feel that it is a worthwhile entry. I am acquainted with the publisher, but think about it: doesn't anyone who writes on anything have to have some connection to know about it? As far as notable, the vast majority of things on Wikipedia are virtually unknown and obscure. Is this notable: Destroy 2? The reason I have always found Wikipedia to be interesting is that you can find reliable information on a number of things which you can't find in a standard encylopedia. If we are to delete everything that is "un-notable" then I will have a great number of proposals for the deletion pile, including the above referenced page. Spacelord 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, article created by someone who works for the publisher, I can't see how something has encyclopedic value when it doesn't exist yet. --Chaoscrowley 06:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep it. I went to the Alchemy press page and had myself a look see. The book comes out in February 2006. Seems silly to delete a well fleshed out entry that will be valid in less than a month. It'll most likely pop up again at that time, and what valid complaint will you have then? Keep.

Delete I don't think it's silly to delete an entry about a book not notable yet. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and neither the title of the book nor the author have more than three non-wikipeda google hits. --moof 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, you guys are harsh -- isn't the point of WP to be more responsive and inclusive than traditional print encyclopedias? Looks like the book is legitimate, and if there isn't already an article on the term why not allow an entry in case people are looking for additional information? Seems like we should be erring on the side of inclusion if the only objection is notability, especially since the Notability essay is self-proclaimed as neither a policy nor even a guidline. - TRDriver 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything is to be done, perhaps it should be merged into a larger article dealing with Thelemic authors. The article addresses the interesting question of whether or not Thelemites should write about the Book of the Law, a topic I find interesting. I haven't read the book personally, but aparently it is going to be out soon, and it may be of interest to Thelemites. Regardless, I don't think the info should just be chucked. Perhaps it should be enfolded into a larger article, as I said above. Kha-Sun 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's second edit, the first being to the article in question. --kingboyk 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thelema without prejudice to a future article if this book becomes notable. Currently the article is a discussion of content which isn't an appropriate wikipedia article. If it has some notability at a later point, it would seem appropriate to have the article on the Musings then. MLA 12:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Book lacks ISBN number, doesn't seem to be available for purchase anywhere I can find.~~ These would seem to be minimum criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ISBN 0977691101. Publisher is, indeed, the Alchemy Press. Don't know how I managed not to google that on my first search. No change to vote; not notable enough. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I emailed the publisher, and examined their web page. www.alchemypress.org. It both has an isbn, and can be purchased at this time. Keep it. The article on it is better written than most of the stuff I've seen on here. --Almightyzentaco 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has four edits, the first three were to this AfD. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant information, and has no bearing on the validity of my opinion or vote. --Almightyzentaco 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. That site (nor any other I can see) does not have an ISBN. Dlyons493 Talk 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Factual material. Claims to fame are link to Thelema cult (which has already been proven notable) and scarcity of publication (as addressed in introduction), both of which provide sufficient notability. Improve references. Include external links to related sites. Cdcon 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even though it may be published and have an ISBN number, it's nn at this time (a Google search of "Musings of a Thelemite" returns only five results) --Colonel Cow 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009, 2008, 2010 and 2012 in music[edit]

I think there are only four right now: 2009 in music, 2008 in music, 2010 in music and 2012 in music. At the moment, all these are a list of people who will be eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in that year, so I think they should be deleted because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, so stuff that hasn't happened shouldn't be covered except in extremely unusual cases, which certainly doesn't apply here. Hundreds of performers will become eligible in those years, if not thousands or millions (theoretically), so I don't know why these particular performers are being pointed out, and I don't see any point to adding more. Tuf-Kat 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure these articles aren't even accurate. A performer is eligible 25 years after the first recording, not album. The Violent Femmes will therefore be eligible in 2007, not 2008; Weird Al may have become eligible in 2001 or 2004, but in any case, will have been eligible for some time by 2008. Cyndi Lauper became eligible last year, and David Lee Roth has been eligible for some time. The Smiths will be eligible in 2008, not 2010. Anyway, even if all these were fixed, I'd still think they should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I feel compelled to point out that even if we assume these articles are correct and that only albums count in determining eligibility, Faith No More will not be eligible until 2010, not 2008, and the Butthole Surfers in 2009, not 2008 (assuming EPs are not counted as albums). Tuf-Kat 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...red link? Royboy crashfan 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental link -- this is a group nomination of all years in music past 2006. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom DrIdiot 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. BTW, a group nomination title should include the titles of each of the nominees in the group. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tuf-Kat 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly crystal ballish if accurate, but I'm not seeing the use of these articles or how they can be expanded without becoming a crystal ball. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mike _{(T C)} 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Furthermore, becoming eligible for the Hall of Fame does not a year in music make, nor are the lists complete (and they're arguably POV, since there has been editorial selection in deciding who is listed and who isn't). --kingboyk 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ballism. Cyde Weys 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom --Iffy★Chat -- 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TRDriver 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crystal balling. And I don't even think the list of RRHOF candidates warrants merging with the HOF's article. 23skidoo 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, boot it. Nigelthefish 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not per the crystal ball standard. These should be deleted as a result of disputed accuracy as per above and because they can not be effectively expanded. Years of eligibility for the Hall of Fame could certainly be included in pages on individual musicians, though and perhaps some master list could be compiled, but it would be difficult to decide who to include. Cool3 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inherent POV as to who is included and who is not; as for artists' eligibility dates assuming that they are fixed it is not crystalballism any more than 2008 Summer Olympics is, gonna AfD that one? thought not. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 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 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Moseley[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO and written by a interested party. Three unaccredited degrees and two books, possibly self-published. A google search for "Ron Moseley" brings less than 700 hits and not all refer to the same person. Also delete the redirect John Moseley and Image: Yeshua.png Arbusto 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom DrIdiot 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete diplomamillcruft. Cyde Weys 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gastrichcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here we go again!. Clearly notable with his very influencial book (illustrated), particularly in the evangelical end of the church and on Messianic Judaism issues. Very quick search brings up multiple sites recommending this main title. Admitedly largely within the Messianic community but that means is is significant to them, surely that makes it notable as a text for understanding the movement. These edit wars over matters that some seem not to know anything about is beginning to get me down. Or do you all really know a lot on this particular subject area. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear whether this author is a notable academic. How many other books have been written in this area? How many citations for his book in a citation index? Google brings up some hits since this writer is marketing his wares. Writing a book is not necessarily notable, if it were every theologian in the world would be in wikipedia. Of course inclusionists would say this is a good thing but that is not the guidelines that have been layed out by WP:BIO. David D. (Talk) 10:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author and speaker. Logophile 13:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David D. The article is a resume/CV. Has no claim to fame (virtually all graduate students in any discipline do research with leading academicians). Cdcon 19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from a well-padded resume there is virtually no encyclopaedic content here, and no evidence presented that anybody who did not already agree with him has ever rated his opinion. It's not just that "Dr. Ron Mosley" has no doctorates form accredited universities, his books are also not for sale on Amazon, and appear to be published by a company which doesn't even have a website (not that I could find anyway). Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bought mine on Amazon - what do you mean. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Amazon search for Ron Mosley, Ronald Mosley and other variants yesterday found none of his books. That might have been a glithch, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just use the ISBNs and the show up. Like this. --Calton | Talk 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! So you can buy his 64 page booklet via Amazon. But it's still from a publisher which I can't trace, other than its statement that it features his books, and it's still not apparently significant. Thanks for the info and all, but I still don't see this as a notable author. Every vanity press worth iots salt adds its books to Amazon these days, just as everybody tries to get on Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JzG --kingboyk 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOLE, and Gastrichcruft. I feel that we're following the spirit of WP:CSB by countering the systemic bias created by adding all this stuff in the first place. Also, this edit amuses me. Stifle 22:44, 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 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Unlock Hidden Characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete Fightindaman 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Super Smash Bros. Melee. Royboy crashfan 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Super Smash Bros. Melee DrIdiot 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above. Postdlf 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Super Smash Bros. Melee. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. -- Saberwyn 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not merge. Well intentioned, but not encyclopedic. NickelShoe 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Super Smash Bros. Melee.TheOneCalledA1 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge; the main SSBM page is enough of a mess as it is, there's no need to encourage it. Nifboy 03:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let gamers find their own faqs elsewhere.-Giant89 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This content is already found in the right spot within Wikibooks. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not for the encyclopedia. KramarDanIkabu 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, this is not encyclopedic. Save it for GameFAQS. Cyde Weys 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they can link to a nice faq somewhere, per Saberwyn. Kuru ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopædic article in scope or content. More suited to a games site FAQ. (aeropagitica) 07:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Super Smash Bros. Melee. - TRDriver 09:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do NOT merge. "How to"s are not encyclopaedic, and Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Note there's also a link to this on Wikibooks. Proto||type 12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. No merge warranted. --Optichan 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or at least place a clear external link to the GameFAQ it was stolen from ;-) Bobak 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --kingboyk 00:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn & Bobdoe. Pepsidrinka 00:47, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bridie[edit]

I just speedied a text dump copyvio under this title and discovered that there was an earlier version deleted as nonsense that wasn't nonsense, but which may have been vanity. I restored it and I'm posting here for wider consideration. No vote. Postdlf 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This musican has released albums through EMI, therefore should meet WP:MUSIC http://www.davidbridie.com.au/hotel_radio/discography_albums.html. Needs to be expanded however. Mike _{(T C)} 02:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. Royboy crashfan 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs cleanup, but Not Drowning, Waving is very notable, so any member of that band also qualifies according to WP:MUSIC. Not voting keep because I haven't verified that Bridie is a member of that band, and I wouldn't vote to keep it without cleaning it up too. Tuf-Kat 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks improved enough now to officially vote keep. Tuf-Kat 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep now looks better with the ongoing clean up/expand/cite etc. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable Australian musician in both Not Drowning Waving and My Friend the Chocolate Cake. Also done some solo soundtrack work on "The Man Who Sued God". 234 listings on Australian and newspaper index. Needs to be wikified and expanded but facts in article are correct. Bridie has an extensive Allmusic.com entry [34] which shows compliance with our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a cleanup of this article and it now establishes his notability. It still needs more work which I hope to do over the weekend. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable Australian musician. Cnwb 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. notable musician from both NDW and My Friend The Chocolate Cake. BTW, the MFTCC article reads like a copyvio and needs serious attention... Grutness...wha? 06:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- worthy of inclusion. - Longhair 07:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a no-brainer. - TRDriver 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable. Nigelthefish 14:00, 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 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (drinking game)[edit]

n-notbale, original research, WP:NFT Mike _{(T C)} 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unencyclopedic subject, WP:NFT, WP:VSCA, and WP:NOR. Royboy crashfan 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fightindaman 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things thrown up in school one day. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL best reason for deletion ever!! Mike _{(T C)}

03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Lar's impeccable logic. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this is far and away the most involved drinking game I've ever seen. I applaud these people. Too bad it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Re-create if it becomes a national fad. Grandmasterka 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not rise to the notability level of Dartmouth pong. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't notable either!!! LOL I am thinking about a new wiki, DrunkWiki?? Mike _{(T C)}

08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mike...college drinking games are universally non-notable. Raggaga 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. - TRDriver 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Raggaga 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you didn't seeing as it took me ages to learn how to do the code! There's lots of games from various universities that cannot be described as "notable", and furthermore if these other games can be considered encyclopedic, how is this unencyclopedic? Perhaps I understated the scale of this phenomenon by mentioning that only 16 people finished the last one. Anyway, you guys seem far more involved in the site than me and know more about acceptability so if you do decide to get rid, fair enough, but personally I can't see the harm in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.42.105 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 February 2006
- Perhaps a transwiki is in order? Or a userify? Raggaga: I do not agree that college drinking games are universally non notable, there are SOME that are externally referenced and well known, etc... just not this one. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is there anything I can do to make it acceptable? whats a transwiki? Sorry, the above defence was me, I forgot to log in.Dunderscoredawson 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking! (what follows is just me talking but I think it represents widely held views) First, a transwiki just means to move it to another wiki. Uncyclopedia perhaps, or Wikibooks might be places for it (check their guidelines first, of course). Review notability and verifiability guidelines and if this game truly meets the notability test, provide the cites from outside sources that reference the existance of the game. Interviews in national papers of the players, cites in scholarly journals of the cultural significance of this particular variant, or similar things would establish notability quickly. But if the game is truly just something you and your mates dremt up one day, it's probably not suitable for Wikipedia main article space(no offense!) Move it (or ask that it be moved) to your userspace instead. See WP:NOT. We'd LOVE contributions from you if they're on notable topics... the University of Nottingham itself, or the city of Nottingham certainly have lots of topics you could expand and about. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Lars comment above. Slightly amusing but non-encyclopædic in tone and content. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sophisticated, but non-notable, too specific to a limited cultural context. Maybe merge with drinking game, but it needs a catchy name - you can't call something 'The Game' and expect the whole planet to call it that. Peter Grey 04:37, 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 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnNinx[edit]

Possibly Vanity. I cannot even find the website Joelito 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kind of sad really. I'm going to post Wikipedia:Your first article on the author's talk page. Isopropyl 03:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost feel guilty for voting delete, good idea Isopropyl. it certainly does look like some kids first article. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, non-notable, unencyclopedic, you name it. Royboy crashfan 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My heart breaks to vote this way, but rules are rules no matter the age. Mike _{(T C)} 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there seem to be a host of Canadian AfD's today, and I'm feeling like Benedict Arnold. Nice kid, I'm sure she was trying. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaams Belang (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete. Nonsensical disambiguation Intangible 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak to whether or not it is nonsense (it doesn't seem to be on the surface), but if this is deleted, then the origin of it needs to be deleted as well: ASBL vlaams belang VZW. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are unnecessary when there's only one article called Vlaams Belang. Since this one has been up since August, it has apparently not been created with a view to creating the other page, so delete. ::Supergolden:: 12:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not nonsense in the wikipedia sense of that word but it is highly unnecessary to have this dab page. The other link that is currently red appears to be deserving of a mention on the Vlaams Belang page at most as it is a reference to this political party. MLA 12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is well established precedent that dab pages can legitimately have red-link content. The article should be deleted for reasons other than "it only has one live-link and one red-link", otherwise there are quite a few other pages that should be deleted on exactly the same grounds. I personally don't like this precedent, but it exists nonetheless. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment redlink content on a dab seems fine, it's surely not so fine when a dab exists for just one redlink item alongside one live link as that suggests there is no need at all for the dab page. Separately, I've just noticed that the only page that links here is also up for AfD. Typing Vlaams Belang does not get to this dab page. MLA 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only got aware of a possible disambiguation after user Ceyockey added it to the Vlaams Belang article earlier today (I reverted that change). The Vlaams Belang article has never had a disambiguation put to it before. Intangible 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "ASBL vlaams belang VZW" article had a disambiguation tag on it previously, which is why I picked up on it; I believe it hadn't been edited in something like 70 weeks; if you look back at an Aug 2005 version of Vlaams Belang (disambiguation), the notion of disambiguating this term is not new. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is what it is about [35]. My French is not what it was so I'm struggling to make any sense of it. Looks pretty non-notable, although I could be wrong. Unless an article appears soon I vote delete the disambiguation page. Keresaspa 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article seeks to disambiguate between the original Vlaams Belang, and an "asbl" that apparently opposes them. I'd first like to know what an asbl is, and we don't even have that article, it seems; it seems to be some kind of legal term of art in Europe. Smerdis of Tlön 17:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ASBL is a opposition group against the right-wing Vlaams Belang; I've no idea about their notability, but this is not a disambiguation issue. Any links to this ASBL's article should be in Vlaams Belang itself. Sandstein 18:53, 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 delete. DS 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron clifford[edit]

Delete Poorly written stub on a non notable person Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 03:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax. Royboy crashfan 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has no reason for existing, anyway. Funnybunny 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rest in Peace. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as nn-bio. Being 'killed by god' is not an assertion of notability. I've tagged it for speedy delete. Proto||type 12:27, 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 by someone else. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Pandemic[edit]

Yet another non-notable Gamefaqs spin-off forum. Cyde Weys 03:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A)We're LUE2 B)We're LUE2

Seems pretty notable.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicre[edit]

Non-notable/hoax/neologism/dictdef? I dont' know. It doesn't belong here. Cyde Weys 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax vs. neologism. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, per nom. --light darkness^(talk) 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT/nonsense, variety non-patent. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ģ

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

libpr0n[edit]

Delete - Non-notable - not known except by mozilla coders. Fails the "google test". In addition, the article heavily cites the unofficial "libpr0n.com" unofficial website, rather than including information from the Mozilla Foundation. While libpr0n is widely used, very few people know they are using it. It is solely (afaik) used in Gecko, and thus is non-notable in the field of programming things other than Mozilla. We don't even have an article on Necko, which is arguably more notable than libimg2. We shouldn't necessarily have an article for every component of every major computer program, unless said component is notable in of itself. Since this is arguably non-notable and since there is little to no useful content, I am nominating this for deletion. Zzxcnet 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because we all love porn. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non encyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is truely used as much without knowledge as the nom says then keep it. Mike _{(T C)} 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment libimg2 is the image library for Mozilla. (Firefox) Thus, it has as many users as Firefox has. However, it is not a separate package and is only useful within gecko. It incorporates things such as libpng, which are notable - but gecko's internal code for image rendering is not notable. Just because a part of an application is given a name doesn't necessarily mean it is notable in itself. Zzxcnet 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too minor and too technical to be of any use, or to make for a significant article. --InShaneee 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Technical detail that may change. Also no mention of notability or novelty except the funny name. Pavel Vozenilek 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wikipedia's really not the first place people come to learn about joke names for obscure software components, is it? After all, there's no article libimg2, and I'd say that's because the topic's of no interest to encyclopedia readers. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interest limited to local community. Zero global importance. Possiblly mention this in Mozilla article. Cdcon 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ikkyu2 --Colonel Cow 21:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a Gecko (layout engine) article that it could be merged into, but I'm undecided as to whether that would be suitable. -- Mithent 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure, nonnotable software component. Nigelthefish 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a related article. If its used by lots of people, we talk about it someplace. JeffBurdges 16:36, 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 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At What Cost?, Cornell[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but article claims some slight notability. Abstain for now. brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think I should vote since I created the page, but I created this stub after seeing the recently created graduate student unionization page. That page links to the At What Cost? website, and it struck me that it would be better for it to link to an internal encyclopedic wikipedia page about the group. It is quite rare for a grad student union to be voted down in the USA; this vote at Cornell may have been the first time officially (or perhaps there was one other time). Plus, the "no" vote was incredibly strong. Moreover, turnouts for these sort of unionization votes are typically around 50%, but with this vote, it approached 90% (depending on what exact numbers you think you should use). I of course won't use this strong a language in the article, but it would be impossible to legitimately deny that the group had a substantial influence on both the turnout and the vote, for anyone who is aware of the events surrounding the election. I think the page will be of interest to both: People interested in things related to Cornell University. And, people generally interested in grad student unionization, for understanding an indepedent group that was able to (successfully) oppose a grad student unionization effort. It's hard for me to see how the page would not fit Wikipedia's loose standards of notability. At least give the page a little time to develop, so you can better judge whether a page about the group should necessarily not be included in wikipedia. The time that I had yesterday was only enough to barely start the page... HalfDome 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedicly notable. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, they MAY have had some influence on a union election for graduate students. This is not notable at all, but it is better safe than sorry and open it to discussion. Mike _{(T C)} 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely non-notable. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand why no one is addressing the points that I raised. HalfDome 01:20, 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 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viper Hyper Animation series[edit]

Page has severely depreciated, and its function can now be better served by a category. Delete. --InShaneee 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What junk. Royboy crashfan 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete get rid. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons aptly summarised by the previous contributors. :-) Sandstein 21:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
change to a category - --Phil 22:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT it is a notable product, whatever you think of it. 132.205.45.148 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
finish the split before deletion 132.205.45.148 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to split. The article is just a link to the individual game articles. --InShaneee 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I see the information on Viper GTB is sufficient for a stub, and does not have an article. Although the previous splitting removed alot of context. 132.205.46.157 02:32, 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 Speedy. android 79 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parkdale Tenants Association[edit]

Delete. A small organization based around a neighbourhood in Toronto. Is this really notable? Kirjtc2 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smells of vanitising. Royboy crashfan 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per A7 - There's no CLAIM of notability (also no citation, etc.) -Jcbarr 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly is not notable. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, they put up an interesting campaign in Toronto titled "Lord of the Slums" that was covered well by local media and the national news in Canada: [36], [37], [38], [39], to promote their stance on rental standards in their neighbourhood. That being said, I unfortunately think they are nn. Delete. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:49, 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 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamsbox[edit]

Non-notable site; article author created three articles with identical content (others The dreamsbox Project, Dreamsbox.com) and removed the {{prod}} tag. I agree with the proposed deletion; the project is only a month and a half old and though a high Alexa rank is claimed I don't see any signs of real notability. We're basically being asked to crystal ball the article's claims that "the project will also grow to include informative articles on general dreaming, lucid dreaming techniques, and dream definitions." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. enochlau (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Nigelthefish 14:14, 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 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar "E$" Volfson[edit]

This article was recently proposed for deletion but another editor removed the notice. So I'm moving it here. I have no real opinion. Though I do note that it provides very few verifiable details. And I haven't checked to see if it meets WP:Music. So if the original author is willing to rewrite to provide sources and verifiable details then I say Keep else Delete as possible hoax, or non notable. TheRingess 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Roy. Feels like a hoax. Kuru ^talk 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. mikka (t) 23:36, 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 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osbolewski[edit]

This was prodded as an unverifiable neologism but deprodded without comment or improvement. I think this is a hoax. The term seems unlikely, the explanation seems silly, and the term gets two Google hits, which are completely unrelated. Delete NickelShoe 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly Speedy delete for A1. Mike _{(T C)} 04:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as probable personal attack at worst, neologism at best. Kuru ^talk 04:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as an attack. Grandmasterka 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang or otherwise. CrypticBacon 07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As attack page, per Grandmasterka --light darkness^(talk) 11:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Kuru. Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 16:37, 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'll transwiki it, and they can take it from there. -Splash^talk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See lai[edit]

Delete - See lai is not an English word, but only a slang word in Cantonese Chinese. One may argue that it is a loan word in English, but it is very seldom to be used in English texts. However, Wikipedia is not a foreign-language dictionary. Alanmak 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism.--み使い Mitsukai 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has its place in a local culture. May possibly be renamed and expanded. — Insta ntnood 08:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficiently sourced, localized neologism. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not a neologism. — Insta ntnood 16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia. If sources as more than a neologism, transwiki to Wiktionary (which does accept foreign words whether or not they are loaned into English). Rossami (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's potential to expand and/or rewrite the article to make it more encyclopædic. In any case, if the decision is to delete, it should be transwikied. — Insta ntnood 16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a foreign slang dictionary. Does not appear to have significant currency in English-speaking territories. Stifle 22:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Language should not be a barrier, for Wikipedia is supposed to be an indiscriminating bank of human knowledge. — Insta ntnood 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:This seems to be a translation of an article from the Chinese wikipedia--Yuje 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than a dicdef, it conveys that the word has social implications. This is the cantonese equivalent of soccer mom and can be similarly expanded. That it's not an english word or used in english communities isn't that important. Wikipedia will document anything, not just things that have a friendly english translation. SchmuckyTheCat 15:43, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Champy[edit]

No assertion of notablility outside his involvement with Business process reengineering, in which case, just add his name into that article. See also Michael Hammer. CrypticBacon 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to significant improvement in article. --CrypticBacon 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. - He and Hammer are also notable in other areas such as ERP and e-networks and click and brick models. I'll get to its expansion in the next couple of days. --Gurubrahma 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Businessprocessreengineeringcruft. (and WP:BIO, for those interested in official policy type things) Stifle 22:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Abstain. The article has improved to some extent, not enough for me to make a keep vote but no need to delete it now. Stifle 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO on the book sales alone, though it would be nice if the article had a bit more "meat" to it. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:03, 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 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Club[edit]

Non-notable technology club at an Indian high school that does not itself have an article. As seems to be the case far too often, the only other editor removed my speedy tag. Maybe I need to crack down on that more... Maxamegalon2000 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Maxamegalon2000 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, not notable. --CrypticBacon 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as utterly unnotable. Cyde Weys 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, wiki is not your hosting provider. Kuru ^talk 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article on Mount St Mary's School in Delhi. If we did, this could form a small part of that article. As we don't, my position is delete. Capitalistroadster
Speedy Delete - As nn-club --light darkness^(talk) 14:41, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hammer[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable outside his involvment with Business process reengineering, in which case, just add his name to that article. See also James A. Champy. --CrypticBacon 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to significant improvement in article. --CrypticBacon 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article, but subject seems to be reasonably notable within this field. Lots of Google hits. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom. Please check these Google hits more closely. The vast majority of them are either mirrors of Business process reengineering or are articles where he is inextricably tied to that subject. Regarding your point that he is "reasonably notable within his field", that was my reason for the nomination. He is the creator of this "field", but is not notable outside of it. This is why I suggested that this article be deleted since his name is already included at 'Business process reengineering'. CrypticBacon 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response While I too am skeptical of small "fields" created by individuals like this, this particular one did receive a lot of attention in the press; I seem to recall it being mentioned in an Information Systems class I took in the late 90s as well. Meets WP:BIO criteria based on books sales, if nothing else. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. - He and Champy are also notable in other areas such as ERP and e-networks and click and brick models. I'll get to its expansion in the next couple of days. --Gurubrahma 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because it's mostly external links instead of content. He's already mentioned in Business process reengineering, whatever the hell that is. Stifle 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Abstain due to improvements. I'm not sure he's generally notable, but I suspect it can be further improved. Stifle 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have expanded it as I indicated some time back. He is notable and the facts are verifiable. Definitely deserves an article on his own. --Gurubrahma 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- known in the field, notable among his peers --Nemonoman 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CONCLUSION

KEEP - no comments... If Nomination withdrawn I'm removing the mark {delete} from the article. --AndriuZ 20:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puk Guy[edit]

Delete - Does Wikipedia need an article for every curse word in different languages? This "term" is not even used in English, except by Chinese speakers who think that one can just form a new English phrase by writing a Chinese phrase in Latin alphabets. Anyway, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for making such kind of jokes. - Alanmak 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. --CrypticBacon 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has its place in a local culture. May possibly be renamed and expanded. — Insta ntnood 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite he may scold loudly at van Nistelrooy (the TV image) "Say Puk Guy Ruud van Nistelrooy!", which is awesome. If this was an English term, it would have all the irrelevant stuff expunged, and what would left would subsequently be dumped as a dictionary definition. That shouldn't change just because it's not in English. I see no article on 'Piss off', 'Screw you' or 'Go to hell', which would be the English language equivalents. Compare with Diu (Cantonese) (equivalent of fuck), which is encyclopaedic. Proto||type 12:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a deletionist, but this article is pseudo-encyclopedic, Cantonese-centered and simply, i dun't want to say that, stupid.--K.C. Tang 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's potential to expand and rewrite the article to make it more encyclopædic. In any case, if the decision is to delete it, it should be transwikied. — Insta ntnood 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insta. Deletions like this really take us in the wrong direction. There is no reason to further worsen our coverage of other cultures. -- JJay 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an overblown dictionary entry and doesn't have reliable sources. Friday (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having no reliable source included does not mean the subject matter is fake and unverifiable. — Insta ntnood 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not keep it? SchmuckyTheCat 00:33, 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 delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krettch[edit]

Delete This is definitly a hoax. If you check the Wookiepeedia they have nothing on this character. Also a Google search ends up no relevant results. If you read the article you will realize that it is completely made up. Jedi6 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazy Moon Zen Center[edit]

Not a notable institution, possibly advertisement or vanity. Creator has 3 edits to his or her name. --CrypticBacon 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Eagle^a^mⁿ 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient content to merit consideration. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Taizan Maezumi, Roshi is one of the most famous and venerated Zen masters of the modern era, and his students have many famous establishments all over the world, including Zen Mountain Monastery. I see nothing here that is vanity or advertisement. Not the most notable, but I've seen much less-notable things be kept. I see no grounds whatsoever here for deletion. As for the 3-edit editor, add my 19,000+ edits to that if need be. --DanielCD 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep In order to be complete, Wikipedia’s collection of knowledge must contain religious institutions. Until better inclusion criteria is established for religious institutions, I vote keep for them all if they are verifiable and non-promotional. FloNight 17:09, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jau Gwei[edit]

Delete - This term is almost never used in English contexts. I would suggest either deleting the article or merging it to some related-article. - Alanmak 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Compared with other Japanese items like bishonen. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sounds like a fad or a short phase, but if it can be proven as something more, then certainly keep.--み使い Mitsukai 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has its place in a local culture. May possibly be renamed and expanded. — Insta ntnood 08:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the extraneous stuff removed, it's a dict def. Just because it's not an English dict def doesn't mean it should be kept. Proto||type 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Language should not be a barrier. There should not be any discrimination of human knowledge because of language. — Insta ntnood 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with Insta. This is a good and interesting article on Hong kong culture. -- JJay 20:23, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gweilo[edit]

Delete - First, I doubt if this term is widely accepted as a word in English. Wikipedia is not foreign-language dictionary. Second, this is a racist term. Should it still be kept in Wikipedia? - Alanmak 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - First, some papers like HK Magazine and South China Morning Post use the term. Second, it's insensical to say no racist term is allowed. Tell me more about nigger. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you meant "Keep". Shawnc 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search brings up 357,000 hits, with many direct references to this in the first page. The article needs to be referenced, but that seems easy to do. A notable and common (and to me, interesting) term. Grandmasterka 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An alternative spelling is gwailo. — Insta ntnood 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I didn't know it was a racist term? Very commonly used in Toronto. I always get told not to order gweilo dishes at the Chinese restaurants. I was always wondering what that meant.-- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable. Being a racist slur is not a criteria for deletion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A term definitely heard of in English. enochlau (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term, which Wikipedia can include from any language. Objectionable content is not grounds for deletion. See Category:Pejorative terms for people. Shawnc 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedic article about a phrase fairly commonly used in English. I get 42 hits for the word in a search of an Australia New Zealand database. Capitalistroadster 08:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term is very common in Hong Kong and among Cantonese-speakers, and while it might have been coined as a racist insult, it is now also used by gweilos themselves without these overtones. Article is encyclopedic and informative; the AfD nomination itself suggests that it is useful, as there are people unfamiliar with the term and its connotations. ProhibitOnions 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable perjorative term for whitey. Proto||type 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. It's a word. It's a concept. It's important.Vizjim 15:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've no objection on content... but where is the evidence this is notable loanword that is commonly used?--Isotope23 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I first heard this word in suburban america decades ago. SchmuckyTheCat 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well understood word/phrase by many, and frankly the fact that it is not an "English word" does not disqualify it. The fact that it is racist also does not disqualify it (there are entries for almost every racist word out there). In fact, as the article points out, it is no longer really racist anyway. Bssc81 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia. As several people said above, "it's a word". This is a mere dictionary definition. Furthermore, it's a definition which already exists at Wiktionary. There is nothing here other than a definition, pronunciation and usage guide. We've requested expansion several times and it remains a mere dicdef. Replace with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I think the moment that an article discusss the history of the word or its social context is the moment that it transcends a dicdef. enochlau (talk) 12:50, 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 delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald P. Brevik[edit]

I put it up for prod, tag was removed. nn actor, possible vanity/hoax, no IMDb, 4 unique google hits. Half the external links are jokes/hoax. TheMidnighters 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1.--み使い Mitsukai 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Check out the external links, he links to the NSA as a "Private firm" and the CIA as his "Cleaning Service". Tagged as CSD A7 --light darkness^(talk) 11:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of water[edit]

Reads like a children's book. I'm sure this information is already available at Water, no need for this page. --CrypticBacon 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note presence of Importance of water as well cmh 05:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been useful if this were Kiddiepedia. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing new that isn't in Water. WU03 05:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No need to waste time on this. Pavel Vozenilek 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Delete Neither scientific nor educational in scope or content. Vote changed as repeated Google searches can't prove copyvio. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless this turns out to be a copyright violation, the article clearly does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Vslashg (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopaedic. Smells of copyvio also. Proto||type 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo reason to have this article. Nigelthefish 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, provides basic information available elsewhere in an unencyclopaedic manner. -- Mithent 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto. Peter Grey 04:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water. Partly because of WP:BITE, partly because I don't think this is an unreasonable search term (and, perhaps, would eventually warrant a (better) stand-alone article). --Karnesky 07:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom. I agree with the redirect per Karnesky since "properties of water" is a valid search term. --CrypticBacon 03:47, 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 and redirect. kingboyk 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neotraditionalism[edit]

Delete, Google yields almost no results for "neotraditionalism" in the article's context Joshuapaquin 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if verifiable. Otherwise, merge or delete as appropriate. I think I've heard this term before, in a valid context. Might want to check the blogosphere on that one.--み使い Mitsukai 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some self-identifying neotraditionalist probably created this. Article has POV problems but not worth fixing because it appears to have no google hits in this context. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neodelete, neologism neocruft. NeoProto||type 12:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Urbanism. This term is an alternative term for New Urbanism. See A Critique of Neotraditionalism, "Dubbed "neotraditionalism," this new approach features...", and so forth --maclean25 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems appropriate. I agree. -Joshuapaquin 19:59, 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 Speedily deleted as re-created content per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jones. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Edward Jones[edit]

nn writer, vanity page, fails WP:BIO. Search on Google nets 649 mentions, most either mirrors of the WP page, PR releases on PRweb, or pages selling his book, European Confession, which is an article also up for AFD. み使い Mitsukai 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4. Apparent re-creation of an article titled "Tim Jones". C.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jones — RJH 22:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --MacRusgail 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD:G4. Stifle 22:40, 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. With only two choices of article, and one of them a vintage Oscar nominated film, a dab page clearly isn't needed. I will attend to the disambiguation and page naming (since both are now blue) forthwith. kingboyk 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crowd (disambiguation)[edit]

Prodded as a unnecessary disambig. Debate began on the Talk Page. I figured the best thing to do would be bring it here. Please read the Talk page for debate to date. My vote is, of course, delete. Jaxal1 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It serves no purpose at all. You only get here from The Crowd, and the only other place to go to is a redlink. NickelShoe 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to confuse users with unnecessary disambiguation pages. — TKD (Talk) 11:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article hasn't been written yet. As I said on its discussion page - have patience. --Mal 13:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I said on the talk page, there's still no point, because it makes two clicks to get to The Crowd (music). NickelShoe 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I replied to you on the discussion page, when I type "The Crowd" into the search box, it takes me straight to the article about the film. --Mal 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm the last post on the talk page, so no, you did not reply to me. And read what I said. How many clicks to get to The Crowd (music)? NickelShoe
- I replied to the concerns you had brought up, on that discussion page.. to which you have since replied. --Mal 22:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're wrong about previously responding to my concerns, because my concerns were in my last post. That was some other person. Second, you have not answered my question. How many clicks to get to The Crowd (music)? NickelShoe 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did respond to your concerns, thanks. And by the way - it will always take two clicks to get to the article 'The Crowd (music)'. --Mal 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Three. Click "The Crowd". Click DAB. Click "The Crowd (music)" NickelShoe 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No needed, at least with this name. If we need a dab, then it should be at The Crowd since neither use is in my opinion well know. Simply move The Crowd to The Crowd (film) for the better dab location. Vegaswikian 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Vegaswikian's proposal above (although the disaster that occured at a football match which prompted The Crowd to form and produce a Number One charity single is quite well known in the UK). --Mal 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is more cases where there's an article can also be refered to as "The Crowd". Red links or not, just having two entries in a disambig page isn't helpful at all in my opinion, and we can do without it. I do suggest starting an article with the title along the lines of Valley Parade stadium fire and then placing the content about the group of performers into the article. Strangely, I can't find any reference to The Crowd through Google. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Andy when I created the disambig article, I was following wiki guidelines which state that a disambig article should be created when there are two or more articles with the same name. Now I am reading that some people consider it counter-productive when "there are only two". I suggest that either somebody sorts the guidelines out, or we follow the guidelines. On Google, there is a link to another band called The Crowd: "The Crowd is a twelve piece rhythm and blues band based in Ottawa." This is obviously a potential extra disambig, if anyone ever writes an article about that group. Incidentally, I had trouble finding anything about about the 'supergroup' on Google too. I did eventually find this though: http://www.rockandpopshop.com/classic-hits.htm .. so I intend to write an article about The Crowd based on that information as a start. I do think that the disaster should have an article of its own though: it was notable as being the worst disaster in British football up until that date. --Mal 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MOSDAB: "usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." We've shown you the good reasons, right? NickelShoe 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've shown me that the guidelines need clarifying. --Mal 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sometimes it is useful when there are only two. Like if there's two guys with the same name, but neither is more famous than the other and both have articles. But that's only in cases where the disambig page is the page that pops up for searches. It is never helpful to disambiguate two things at a page that says disambig in the title. NickelShoe 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes that's true, but I only follow it when there's say, two albums with the exact same title. Now that warrants a disambig page. But now you only have two entries (actually only one, since the other hasn't been written yet), I suppose we can work this around by placing the more notable article within The Crowd article itself, and then just insert a link to the second article at the top of the first article, and therefore bypassing the need of an additional disambig page. Like a sixth finger on a hand, it might look interesting but it serves no additional purpose (not that I'd want to remove a hypothetical extra finger in the first place). :P Anyways, if the group is that notable, I do recommend starting an article on it pronto so that there'll be a better chance this disambig might be kept. If you don't start it rightaway, I might do it! :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I see that you've already started the article! Great! :D Btw, hope you don't mind me changing the title a bit there. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope Andy - go right ahead. Help whatever way you can. The 'Genre' in the infobox also needs changing, but I'm not aware of all the categories available. I think we can talk about all that on the article's discussion page though. :) --Mal 21:25, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikt: and DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wopila[edit]

No List of words in Lakota language exists, minimal notability, Wikipedia is not an dictionary or an Xlanguage-to-English translator み使い Mitsukai 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, foreign dictionary definition per nom. Possible transwiki to appropriate Wiktionary but I'm pretty sure there isn't one (admittedly, I'm too lazy to check right now). Lord Bob 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary accepts words in all languages. Wiktionary is the "english language Wiktionary" only in the sense that the definitions must be in english. This would seem to qualify. Rossami (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Then they can have it (I don't hang around there, I don't know anything). Transwiki away. Lord Bob 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, foreign dictionary definition per nom. - TRDriver 09:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. --Karnesky 07:32, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheBrain Technologies Corporation[edit]

Tagged as speedy "attack" but may have an actual article in it. Abstain. brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regardless of whether it's an attack or not, has anyone checked the company to see if it passes WP:CORP? If it does, clean up. If not, A6 it.--み使い Mitsukai 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending the failure of an(y) editor able to show that "the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself", per WP:CORP. Article includes several malicious, non-notable, and unverified statements such as "One employee was fired after he was found passed out in the office from a Cocaine overdose". Latter half of the article seems to be more or less an WP:ATTACK. CrypticBacon 08:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Possible attack page. Stifle 22:40, 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 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of water[edit]

To quote CrypticBacon:"Reads like a children's book. I'm sure this information is already available at Water, no need for this page." Similar article Properties of water also up for AFD. み使い Mitsukai 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Delete as per comments on Properties of Water above. Vote changed as repeated Google searches can't prove copyvio at this time. (aeropagitica) 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regular Delete. Does not seem to meet any speedy deletion criterion. Vslashg (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a Children's Wikipedia? JPD (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as that would be a good idea, unfortunately there isn't one currently.--み使い Mitsukai 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have [40], however. CrypticBacon 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to ChildWiki per JPD...err...Delete per nom --Colonel Cow 21:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as before, lather, rinse, repeat. -- Mithent 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Maybe WikiBooks could use this (assuming not copyvio)? Peter Grey 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like a copyvio, but I can't find it elsewhere online after a couple minutes of hunting. Perhaps it is a grade-school book. Grandmasterka 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I charitably voted redirect on the other page, this is just too much. --Karnesky 07:35, 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 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Dushku[edit]

Vanity. This 17-year-old claims notability in very improbable ways. The page was de-prodded without a comment and without fixing anything by User:BriandavidII. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per nn and load of crap. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those incredibly rare instances where the number of "unique" google hits means something. "Results 21 - 23 of about 40,900 for "Jimmy Dushku"" is not good, when 1-23 are all webforum posts and such. This is the exception rather than the rule ;> . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page about a prankster whose pranks don't come off? Being related to a notable actress isn't enough to make the subject notable themselves. zap2.js's comments above confirm this for me. (aeropagitica) 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Very nice layout and formatting, however. --CrypticBacon 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page (a6).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Sorry. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of his pranks appear to have worked and no verifiable evidence of notability. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity biography. I don't think it's an attack page but I won't mind if someone else speedies it under A7 or snowball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-28 08:55Z
Speedy Delete - CSD A7, article states he did these outragious things and won't "Admit to them", sounds like someone playing them self up to be something their not. --light darkness^(talk) 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, no redirect. kingboyk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analrapist[edit]

Author removed {{prod}}, so listing on AfD. This wordplay on "anal rapist" appeared in Arrested Development episode "Forget Me Now". Funny, but this subject is not encyclopedic. If anything, this belongs as content in Arrested Development, or at the very most an episode article. Delete. Vslashg (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non encyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nn neologism. --CrypticBacon 07:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with Arrested Development. The joke's been done before Arrested Development. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arrested Development. - TRDriver 09:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as passing reference on television show. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn neologism. --Mmeinhart 12:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard when this episode aired, but this is a passing gag on a TV show, no external importance... Now if you'll excuse me I have to go back to planning the public flogging of FOX executives for letting AD go off the air.--Isotope23 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arrested Development ... I don't think anything else is associated with this portmanteau. Cyde Weys 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too minor of a joke even to merge with the show. Funny though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism Mr Frosty 17:03, 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 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Hardware[edit]

Delete Spamtastic advertisment. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. CrypticBacon 08:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete advertisement, no assertion of notability.Mike _{(T C)} 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i'd hesitate to call it spam, but it does fail to establish any notability. Kuru ^talk 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in the same category as Ace Hardware, True Value, and Do It Best, which are similar hardware chains. I'm not sure how many Hardware Hank stores are still around, though. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CrypticBacon. Stifle 22:40, 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 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Dance Troupe[edit]

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

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

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

A bunch of high school age kids who dance. Lots of words on the page, but that that one sentence sums the whole thing up. WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are close to being relevant by analogy and this doesn't come even close. SchmuckyTheCat 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a non notable group. Vegaswikian 07:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CrypticBacon 07:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this article cites sources, a Google search for "Sam's Dance Troupe" comes up with nothing outside Wikipedia. [41].Capitalistroadster 08:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity biography, unverifiable. Note that a couple articles now refer to this one (use Whatlinkshere). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-28 09:00Z
Delete, per Cap & Quarl. Not a speedy. PJM 12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a valid article that I have investigated. --Bobjoe107 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This page has been vandalized several times due to its homosexual themes, which may fuel the notion that this is a vanity page. However, the page's claims are verifiable and cited, and the group seems to be a significant and legitimate organization, at least in its respective community. -- Facepaint 11:36, February 29 2006 (UTC)
- Edits to this AfD are the only edits this IP editor has given. SchmuckyTheCat 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note the following guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Leroy Jenkins
  - SchumckyTheCat's comment was perfectly fine. It is normal and useful to note which users are new in an AFD, since comments like these are likely to be from meat puppets or sock puppets. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-02 06:24Z
Keep, I may not have "Wikipedia street credibility", but I can personally testify to the legitimacy of this page. SDT has had a huge influence in our community as a source of cultural empowerment. It would be a crime to the gay community to remove this wealth of information. Edit it, abridge it, and criticize it, just don't delete it. Leroy Jenkins 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leroy Jenkins (talk · contribs) has only contributed to this AFD —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-02 06:24Z
Oh, come on people. Speedy delete as attack page. Try actually reading the article. Actually, on second thought, don't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh for the love of god this CLEARLY fits Speedy Deletion guidelines. and fails both bio and music standards. Since none of the members of the group are notable enough to get an article... the group itself cannot be notable enough. nuke it all ready and get on with editing an ENCYCLOPEDIA. ALKIVAR™ 01:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-club}}. See also what Starblind wrote. Stifle 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep, There was an aticle about the founder Sam Ross but is was deleted. It meets WP:MUSIC standards. --SanjayRajputs 00:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This users only contribution to Wikipedia is this AfD. SchmuckyTheCat 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-credible. Mhking 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Bump and grind it into oblivion. Ronabop 03:32, 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 deletion of crap. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of Crap[edit]

Apparently non-notable blog. I tagged this with {{prod}} initially, but it was removed by the article creator without comment. Site has an Alexa ranking near 4 million. — TKD (Talk) 07:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertisement, no assertion of notability. CrypticBacon 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Cryptic. Perhaps merge to pile of crap?? (IM SORRY I COULDN'T RESIST!!!! wipping can be directed to my talk page) Mike _{(T C)} 08:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-28 08:42Z
Delete. While there are no grounds for speedying this, there are no good reasons to keep it either as it makes no case under WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The only way I could see someone squeezing this as a Speedy is for A7 when the article talks about the webmaster. Regardless, strong delete as nn-blog --light darkness^(talk) 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blogcruft. Alexa ranking of 3,972,482 is indicative of non-notability. WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply to blogs. Check out that groupthink we have going here, btw. Nice going. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:48, 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 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadification[edit]

Neologism, dicdef, word made up by some computing students to describe their professor's bad coding practices --Aim Here 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, WP:NFT -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Samir_grover. Note six Google hits, five listed on the page, three in French, one Wikipedia mirror, none relevant. Lord Bob 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a neologism to describe obfuscated code and general bad coding practices. — TKD (Talk) 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism/WP:NFT --light darkness^(talk) 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism; WP is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 15:55, 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 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stick[edit]

Delete Non-notable stage name of an actor with only one film credit and one TV credit. And apparantly no one knows anything else about him. Cúchullain t / c 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Student Bodies if the part that the actor played was sufficiently notable in the cult film. Perhaps he has a more extensive CV which could be found if an editor knew his real name? This might be enough to save the page from deletion. (aeropagitica) 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As much as I liked the movie Student Bodies, being a cast member in it was not the way to become famous; six of the ten top-billed actors have literally zero other IMDb credits besides this film, including the lead actress. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 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 withdrawn by nominator, CrypticBacon. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asset recovery[edit]

Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-ref dicdef. See also my vote in the previous AFD. Stifle 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago. I fail to see any compelling reason to renom at this point. A simple google search shows that this is a business term that can be expanded. If the nom does not see any content then why not use some of those google hits, or even go right to google scholar, for material that can be added to the article. -- JJay 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we could have some explanation for why the nom has previously speedy tagged this article, then left uncivil edit summaries with Kill This in all caps [42], nominated once for Afd, then placed a Prod tag [43] following survival on AfD in violation of Prod rules, and has now renominated for AfD. That is a lot of activity for two weeks for an article on a valid topic that can be improved. -- JJay 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Because "This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy.", as stated in the nomination. --CrypticBacon 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above where I talk about expansion. That, or perhaps use of merge tags, would have been a reasonable approach as opposed to edit warring with the editors involved in the article. Furthermore, if you feel the information belongs somewhere else, why have you tried four times to have it removed? Why was no comment ever left on the article talk page?-- JJay 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Sorry for violating protocol, I wasn't completely familiar with the the new prod rules. I have my doubts as to how good or thourough of an article this can become, but who knows, maybe it will turn into something more than a dicdef. Otherwise, if in several weeks it isn't expanded, we might just consider merging it into the aformentioned articles? What are your thoughts? --CrypticBacon 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fine. Why not leave a message like that on article talk page? -- JJay 10:41, 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 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Disneyland[edit]

This is a purely speculative article about how there may be a Disney theme park in Seoul sometime in the future. And it's not notable speculation: there are just 144 Google hits for "seoul disneyland". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT how many hits on Google for the Korean language version of that phrase? 132.205.45.148 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wording in quoted external links shows its a possibility, not fact. Seoul Grand Park is a bit shabby these days, but do go see the modern art gallery they have there. Deiz 23:47, 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 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanisk[edit]

Non-notable band that has produced a total of 32 albums (copies not releases). --Martyman-(talk) 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily (A7) if possible. Blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. -- Saberwyn 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But cheers for coming up with the most hideous logo ever. Raggaga 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG. [44]. PJM 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:21, 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 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schism Tracker[edit]

Apparently non-notable Impulse Tracker clone. No evidence of innovation, significance, widespread usage, external news coverage in reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 12:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmakermaniac: Ok, I'm a wiki noob (hence I don't know the official way to reply to this) but I don't see a reason why this article should be deleted. If it exsisted, and it had a user base, it should be kept here. Just because it is unpopular doesn't mean we need to froget it ever existed

This is the only real Impuslse Tracker clone with Windows builds available that I have seen, so that alone makes it notable.

Comment. Nobody's suggesting that we forget that it ever existed. It simply doesn't seem to meet the guidelines for inclusion at WP:SOFTWARE. If it becomes more notable later, you can start a new article about it. ergot 00:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JzG. Stifle 22:28, 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 MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splash^talk 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatio Mobius[edit]

Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series (and is) -- Run! 10:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to a "Command & Conquer characters" page, along with the host of characters in the Category:Command & Conquer characters. — RJH 22:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per RJH. Stifle 22:28, 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. W.marsh 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-5 Galaxy[edit]

Fictional galaxy 'based on' (copied) from the galaxy used in the Star Wars fictional universe. Before I continue, this galaxy has absolutely no connection to the Star Wars fictional universe in any way other than being a ripoff. Google has 79 uniques from 171 results, the vast majority of which are [number x 5^measurement item for sale]. I can find no evidence of this fictional galaxy being associated with any form of mainstream fictional media (books, movies/television, games, etc) and believe that it is the personal creation of the initial (and primary) contributor, for his/her personal use or for the use of a small group of people directly associated with the initial contributor. I have contacted this user, informing them of the deletion here and asking them to provide sources. -- Saberwyn 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this article is deleted, the resulting redlink on the X5 disambiguation page (this article's only inbound wikilink) should also be removed. -- Saberwyn 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn cruft --Mmx1 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sheeeeeeesh. bikeable (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic fancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. -LtNOWIS 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly deletable cruft --DV8 2XL 02:11, 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 MERGE to the thing they said. -Splash^talk 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Stalker[edit]

Fancruft. Nothing needs to be said about this video game unit at all. -- Run! 10:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Command & Conquer characters. — TKD (Talk) 12:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per TKD. Stifle 22:27, 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 COPYVIO, but I'll nuke it early since CP is so overloaded and there's been no response to either the copyvio tag or the afd. -Splash^talk 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tavant Technologies[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP — ciphergoth 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio from http://www.tavant.com/aboutus.html, plus does not meet WP:CORP. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyvio. Sent to WP:CP. Stifle 22:25, 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 MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Boudreau[edit]

Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Command & Conquer characters or Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. — TKD (Talk) 12:15, 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 Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divination (C&C)[edit]

Non-notable video game concept. Any relevant information about this concept can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series or Command & Conquer: Renegade -- Run! 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tiberium. — TKD (Talk) 12:17, 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 Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umagon[edit]

Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in the storyline description at Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Command & Conquer characters or Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. — TKD (Talk) 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, but not into a list. A page on Minor Characters of Command and Conquer would be a good place to put this information. Ironfrost 14:38, 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 MERGE to ...oh this is tedious. Just work it out. -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tratos[edit]

Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in the storyline description at Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Command & Conquer characters or Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. — TKD (Talk) 12:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per TKD. Stifle 22:25, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Maris (artist)[edit]

Vanity and self-promotion. Only contributors (aside from dead cat removers) are an anon (presumably up until the point he found he couldn't upload pictures) and User:Mgrest, whose sole contributions belong to that page. No links to page. His one assertion of notability is that he did some work for the EuroDisney theme park, which puts him in a class of about a million other non-noteworthy artists. NB: The billions of Google results for "Roger Maris" are for the legendary baseball player of the same name. StarryEyes 10:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. When your official site is a geocities/.tk/myspace/whatever free page, you're not notable. Raggaga 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - googling "Roger Maris" + artist - baseball - "Home run" gave 450 hits - and most of them were about the baseballer, too. By way of comparison, googling my own name (which is an unusual one) + artist gave nearly 700 hits (most of them about my art). I don't have a page, and don't think I should have one. Grutness...wha? 11:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting but non-notable biography. Delete as per StarryEyes and Grutness' comments. (aeropagitica) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this page and would like to point out that Roger Maris is a well known (relatively) artist in the UK. I feel this article is being put up for deletion primarily as he happens to have the same name as a famous Baseball star! This could not be avoided, sadly. Maris (the artist) is one of the few skilled craftsmen remaining in the UK who are experts in the now almost extinct art of clock-face restoration and his work at EuroDisney was and remains an attraction for many of Europe's skilled craftsmen. This article is not about self-promotion, as I doubt Maris is even aware of its existence. Sorry to go on about this, but I feel that the deletion of this article is not warranted. Mgrest 19:10, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's target has been deleted, so it's useless anyway. -Splash^talk 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASBL vlaams belang VZW[edit]

Delete. The organisation exists, but mentioning it is not wikipedia worthy Intangible 10:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and (whether notable or not) its just a redirect to a DAB page with a redlink. Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the dab page that it redirects to is up (and heading) for deletion as well MLA 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the (future) content of the article is relevant to wikipedia but it won't cover a full article, so maybe this should be inserted in the Vlaams Belang article in a separate heading. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if only a little bit. While related to the Vlaams Belang this is a separate subject, and I think a short article would be warranted. People may want to link to this ASBL specifically and not to the article on the (much more important indeed) Vlaams Belang party, where the contents about this specific ASBL may be lost (unless of course we link to a heading rather than to the whole article). --FvdP 20:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's currently a redirect and should really be at WP:RFD. Stifle 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article it redirects to is also put up to be deleted. If that one goes, this redirect should become a candidate for speedy deletion anyway. But you are right, that technically I should have used a RfD. Intangible 17:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOlphin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote mews[edit]

Delete as an utterly non notable housing estate, probably one of a couple of dozen across the UK called 'Heathcote Mews', with similar characteristics. Also note misspelled article title and orphan/dead end status. ::Supergolden:: 11:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "I live here"-vanity. Proto||type 12:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn housing estate. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; with the information given, it's about as notable as most of the other millions of housing estates/subdivisions/projects in this world. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 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 this debate was Redirect. psch e mp | talk 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TLC[edit]

This page was created by a user unfamiliar with the TLC channel to begin with, and contains programs which do not even air on the network (or don't even exist), incorrect airdates, many mispellings, nonsense and isn't even linked to the main TLC Network page in any way. Since this was created by one AOL IP user three months ago and unedited at all since then, I feel it warrants either a wholescale deletion or a review by someone familiar with TLC and the network's programs and their airdates. Nate 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLC (TV channel). PJM 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC (TV channel). --Ter e nc e Ong 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: We have a List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel. But who broadcasts a program is incidental to the prgramme content - something like "programs produced by TLC" would be more interesting (might make a good category). Peter Grey 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created redirect to TLC (TV channel) - Nate 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic, then optionally recreate as a redirect. Stifle 22:20, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Williams (pastor)[edit]

Previously listed for afd under a hopelessly POV title. The discussion there disintegrated into a fanatical trollfest, so I'm re-listing in the interest of a dignified consensus, no vote. — Feb. 28, '06 [12:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Delete. nn-bio, POV. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. He has plenty of mention in media outlets per the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Plenty" is an overstatement, to say the least. Archived Afd is here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as oen is plenty enough for WP:BIO, arguably three-plus is "plenty" in my book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable as seen in media, significant web sites, etc. Kestenbaum 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kestenbaum and Badlydrawnjeff. JoshuaZ 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual churches are not per se notable and neither are their pastors no matter how outré their beliefs may be. Carlossuarez46 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Standard "15 minutes" is not enough to be notable, certainly not with the media outlets given. He didn't exactly make the cover of Time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KillerChihuahua. Stifle 22:20, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I realise this decision swims against the tide but Firsfron offers a (unsubstantiated) claim that would probably mean this was kept if it had been made about 3 or 4 days earlier, references problems notwithstanding. I fully appreciate the importance of WP:V, but the photos do at least attest that they are not some corner shop somewhere. A new AfD would be needed to cause deletion, I think. -Splash^talk 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bashas'[edit]

Non-notable grocery store which clearly fails our guidelines for inclusion of companies. First version was clearly an advert, and attempts to de-POV it were initially met with vandalism (see the AN). Some of the more blatant advertising language has since been taken out, but most of it is still unverifiable (the only source is the company's own website etc), and this is still not a good encyclopaedia article, just a bad advert. Delete. --Malthusian (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail guidelines. Elf-friend 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone may also want to look at the vandal's other contributions through User:Pjh1810, User:Frys104, User:Ryanlong. I think I've gone through and cleaned up or tagged most advertising language, including that found in this article, but I may have missed some others, given rampant page duplication, moves, and redirects. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Keep if it can somehow be cleaned up, now that it appears the vandalism and endless reverts from one user have ended. Bashas' are a big chain in this state, and I think a grocery chain with over a hundred locations is notable. --Firsfron 07:11, 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. W.marsh 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Smith (La Cigale, Paris)[edit]

Non-notable show as per WP:MUSIC. Proposed Deletion tag removed by original writer of article Hynca-Hooley 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the precedent I was looking for (it's not in WP:MUSIC, it's here, in AfD Precedents). "Shows and tours of bands should be listed in the band article, not in a separate article". Hynca-Hooley 12:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete put this on your Elliott Smith fansite ::Supergolden:: 12:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn show. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:23, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of autological words[edit]

Was tagged as {{prod|listcruft}}, but not really a prod candidate. Instead I suggest normal AFD process. And vote keep. - Sikon 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list of an interesting set of words. Logophile 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the guy who tagged it prod couldn't even be bothered to vote in the AFD himself Night Gyr 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really fair. It was only deprodded a few hours ago. ×Meegs 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No rationale for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, agreed no reason for deletion. Kestenbaum 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is fine. -- Mithent 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this content is much more lexical than encyclopedic. Wiktionary:Appendices are ideal for this kind of list. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sikon, you didn't need to bring this here – that's best left to one of the article's detractors. ×Meegs 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought a formal AFD keep notice would repel those willing to prod this in the future. - Sikon 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. It just seems to me that an afd is only fair when it begins with a someone laying-out the case for deletion. In this case, though, the keep sentiment is so strong that I can't imagine it would have mattered. ×Meegs 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting list. I would definitely look for this here, not in Wiktionary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic only the strong anti-listers could get exercised at this one. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -ReiVaX 20:37, 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 KEEP, but with some other name that is not clear from the debate. -Splash^talk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerball[edit]

Google only returns 81 unique results for this alleged candy, many of which are people referring to basketball. Is this apparent nickname of a candy deserving of an entire article? At any rate it needs a "niggerball" expert. Labia Ears 13:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I have heard of this confectionary and of another from Sweden with the same name, only this was more of a cookie/cake. The Swedes I knew while studying in England would always stop themselves just short of saying the name to Anglophonic students and call them chocolate balls instead. But yes, this article could use some expansion and verification. youngamerican (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also should be renamed niggerballs if kept. youngamerican (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the precedent of the other 199 confectionery stubs. Oh, these candies exist all right, but more commonly in the plural: niggerballs returns 1400 results on Google. It's apparently also a name for a Swedish chocolate pastry, but in South African culture is universally known from the popular song Ballad of the Southern Suburbs, by Jeremy Taylor (the Oxford Dictionary of South African English says that when the lyrics were reprinted for publication in the UK, the word acid-drops was substituted). Humansdorpie 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 14:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The official name that the candy is marketed under (which doesn't seem to be mentioned) should be the article title. Colloquial names can be given in the article as trivia. Peter Grey 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They appear to be also known as "Bull's-eyes," this search actually returns some product results. Perhaps the article could be moved to this much less offensive term? Labia Ears 05:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened across this article before and it didn't occur to be that anything should be done to it. I thought that the offensive name of the past would have been all that made this thing notable, but perhaps not. Either keep as is or rename as Bull's Eye, a redirect to something totally different right now. Grandmasterka 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be to keep the article about this candy, perhaps I should simply move its contents to Bull's Eye and redirect Niggerball and Niggerballs there? And possibly make a disambiguation for the star and the candy? Labia Ears 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that would be terribly helpful - bull's eyes are usually striped peppermint flavoured hard candy: niggerballs are much bigger, licorice or aniseed flavoured sweets. With the greatest respect, I don't agree that a foodstuff's offensive commercial name is enough of a reason to rename an article, particularly when - as in this case - renaming obscures the history, meaning and cultural significance of the subject. The examples of Coon cheese and Kaffir lime provide precedents. And surely nobody is suggesting that Cracker Jack should redirect to popcorn...? Humansdorpie 11:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice clean up of the page. The subject matter is far less ambiguous now! I'm satisfied. Labia Ears 20:18, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta (climbing)[edit]

Oddly enough this is being nominated for the same reason that it was de-prodded. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. James084 13:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep, but given that nothing links here, Weak Delete. ::Supergolden:: 15:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I would like to see it expanded and cited. Cyde Weys 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widly used term in climbing. Indoor climbing gyms use Beta Boards to descibe the route on the wall, defently not slang. Mike _{(T C)} 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the same hopes as Cyde. Widely-used terminology. ×Meegs 12:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep. I am a writer. This word in this usage probably falls under jargon? Wikipedia is my first source for current (unfamiliar, to me) usages, including this word. The distinctions made on this and other pages between slang, cliché, jargon, and dialect have helped me get my work done. Isn't that a good thing? I know a good climber; will ask him to expand if that helps the issue.

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

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

The result of this debate was Keep. psch e mp | talk 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catbird seat[edit]

This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Wiktionary:Transwiki:catbird seat) James084 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a dicdef; name of a Thurber short story, for one. I had occasion to look this up not too long ago.-ikkyu2 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the article can be rewritten as an article about the Thurber short story mentioned above? James084 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - What guideline is it violating the way it is? It provides more context than a dicdef, so that's not it. Is there some particular reason this useful article needs to be removed from Wikipedia? -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide but maybe that does not apply any longer. Perhaps this discussion is misplaced and we should be discussing removing that line from Wikipedia's guidelines. James084 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree that you've cited consensus policy, which I would not desire to overturn; I'm not convinced that it applies to this article. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I haven't figured out for what type of articles that the policy applies to and which it doesn't. I mean if the policy were consistently enforced then it would be easy to figure out when the policy describes an article and when it doesn't. But since there is a complete lack of consistency regarding policy here I just can't figure out when this policy applies to an article and when it doesn't. I guess I could stop figuring it out and stop bringing articles that I think may violate this policy here; however, it has almost become "academic curiosity" to see what the community does with an article. But I am beginning to think that it would be easier if Wikipedia policy were modifed to eliminate this particular policy. James084 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that the entire Wiktionary exists simply because a lot of early Wikipedia users felt so strongly that dicdefs didn't belong here that they built an entire project (the Wiktionary project) just to keep dicdefs out of Wikipedia. No one felt it was important to create a free dictionary that anyone could edit. WRT this article, "Catbird seat" might be in a dictionary, but it seems to me that the current article is more than a dicdef, and can in the future be expanded to cover the Thurber story in more detail. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Great article. I had no idea where this came from, but this does an excellent job of explaining the term. -- JJay 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add some more detailed ref to the Thurber story. KWH 10:58, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legislating morality[edit]

Delete.The topic is inherently POV--people in favor of "legislating morality" would never describe it that way. (For what it's worth, I more agree with the article's POV than not.) Nareek 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, noting the legislating against crimes with a victim is jsut as much to do with morality. JPD (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sandstein 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The link might be helpful, but information would be more appropriately found under "victimless crime(s)." -- ZincOrbie 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strongly agreed that implied definition is faulty and POV. Legislation in a democracy is inescapably about morality, whether or not an identifiable victim is involved. Kestenbaum 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherent POV.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to duplicate victimless crime, but the problem is that "victimless" is subjective. There could a great article, however, on the fact that legislation and morality don't mix as well as we would like. Peter Grey 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its no more inherently POV than Pro-life, etc. It just doesn't have a good article at present. Redirection might be a good temporary measure if no one is writing the article, nor fixing the current one. JeffBurdges 17:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its POV is inherent in what qualifies as "morality" not that someone claims that legislating it (whatever it is) is right/wrong. One could (arguably add or delete) gun control, euthanasia, sodomy, Sarbanes-Oxley, fraud, consumer protection, welfare, conscription, contraception, abortion, free speech, libel, Communications Decency Act, state religion, etc. to/from the list -- and some of these are just US-specific. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not an objection to having an article on the subject of laws based upon morality, just to this particular stub article as it is written. A good article should list many of the subjects of such laws, in various cultures, and should also point out that almost all cultures have had at least some "legislated morality". JeffBurdges 18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The term "legislating morality" is neither slang nor uncommon. Its legitimacy for reference should based on that. Albeit NPOV in usage, it is close enough to victimless crime for a redirect to that article. So although I see the value of it as reference, I don't see how it justifies its own article. ZincOrbie 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd buy that, its up to the articles authors to write an article which can stand on its own, if that is posssible. Redirection is fine, solong as the victimless crime article mentions "legislating morality" as a term. JeffBurdges 17:21, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashantiomkar[edit]

Delete as this seems to be a vanity page. Google hits all seem to be due to bylines of articles created by subject herself. Elf-friend 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia

The reason I put this page 'Ashanti Omkar' in was because many people contact the peopel I write for to find out who I am or what I do and this made it easy to tell them, as I may nto be a celebrity but in the community of readers, my name is often queried! hope this makes sense. Please contact me on [email protected] to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashantiomkar (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete -- Longhair 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the best solution would be to userfy this as Ashanti Omkar's user page. Capitalistroadster 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no userfy. Wikipedia is not a webhost or free advertising, and user pages should fall under that umbrella as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 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. -Splash^talk 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Economic Justice[edit]

Page in first person, very few of the 600 google hits refer to this group. Looks like economic justice deserves an article though. JPD (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information belongs on the group's own website. Stifle 22:19, 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 MERGE to ChaosGallantmon. -Splash^talk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChaosGallantmon Crimson Mode[edit]

As stated this is the second nomination for this article. The previous discussion yielded no consensus; however, there was not a lot of discussion. I am hoping that we get a little bit more to determine what to do with this article. The article itself states that this is a toy and is apparently not endorsed as a real Digimon. There is nothing here that makes me believe that this is a "notable" toy. And this stub has remained un-edited for a very long time leading me to believe that there just may not be much more than this to add about this toy. James084 14:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is some of the "fat" that needs to be cut out. we have to draw a line for things that should be on wikipedia in regards to Digimon, and where ever that line is, I think this is outside of that line. It's not notable at all, this is information that serves no one.-- Ned Scott 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ChaosGallantmon. Circeus 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRUFT. "It is not classified as a real Digimon." Stifle 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ChaosGallantmon. He's not a "real" Digimon in the normal sense that purists -- including myself -- go by, as he doesn't exist in Japan, but he is most certainly a "real" Digimon in America, and there's no reason why the toy/Digimon shouldn't be mentioned, but I agree it doesn't merit an entry of its own. Shining Celebi 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Shining Celebi. Shiroi Hane 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little there is here to ChaosGallantmon. It doesn't matter if this is a canon Digimon, but if it's just a toy (and thus little can be said about it other than the fact that it exists), it should be merged into an appropriate article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 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 Keep. psch e mp | talk 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IsraPundit[edit]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsraPundit

Delete. non-notable blog (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as accredited news source as per Google News. [45]

Survived AfD vote last time. Capitalistroadster 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster, previous AfD. Samaritan 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom because of its inclusion on Google's News page. Google News is not an accreditation agency, and notability is not established just because some unknown Google employee decided toss this blog onto their arbitrary "acceptable" list. In fact, its inclusion as a Google News source inherently renders the standard AfD Google search engine test invalid, and means that we must find an alternate, unbiased way of showing notability. And since the article doesn't assert any notability itself, except saying "Hey look, Little Green Footballs linked to us!", I vote delete by default. I'm willing to change my vote, however, if any alternate evidence of notability is shown. --Aaron 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron and per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 21:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable blog. Google News sources don't get more Google hits than anyone else. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Adrian. Stifle 22:17, 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 USERFY and DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abundo[edit]

Vanity article, created by User:Mikeabundo. Barely asserts notability. Coffee 10:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify. Google has about 14,000 hits on the term mike+abundo but most of the relevant entries are from Abundo's own websites and from one text that has been reposted in many blogs. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Userify. As per Noelle. --Noypi380 05:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. --Jojit fb 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep or userify. Actually, the fourth, seventh, and sixteenth results of a Google search on my name are from a Philippine lawyer's blog and two Philippine tech blogs, none of which are my property and none of which feature the reposted text Noelle De Guzman speaks of. I won't even bore you with the relevant mentions on succeeding SERPS. -Mike Abundo 04:10:27, March 2, 2006 (UTC).

Comment not enough to assert notability. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even if does assert notability; it is not a proper conduct here in Wikipedia to write anything about your own biography. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. --Jojit fb 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Mike Abrundo's own request. (Then delete this as Vanispamcruft.) --Karnesky 07:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this matter is already resolved since Mike Abundo agrees to userify it. So please admins, delete and userify. --Jojit fb 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -To Mike, pls read WP:VANITY--Jondel 05:53, 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 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Allison[edit]

Looks like a vanity page to me. -- Calion | Talk 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must we have a vanity bio for every self-published and vanity-press published author in the world? WP:NOT a press agent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the in-article e-commerece link points to self-promotion. I see no evidence that anyone has actually purchased these books. --djrobgordon 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising from a non-notable author with a non-notable biography. The most important part of the biography is the last sentence. Even if re-written, it would still be non-notable. (aeropagitica) 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 90% resume and a slight blurb about his online published books. Without more detail on other works, this is just an ad. Kuru ^talk 04:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn advert. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:38, 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 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Laureano[edit]

Another none notable E-Wrestler (a fantasy character created for a fantasy wrestling federation) Englishrose 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, no assertion of notability. Proto||type 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Grocer 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Proto. Stifle 22:17, 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 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney starter[edit]

This page was de-prodded as a device that really exists. Nobody is questioning the existence of this tool, simply if it is notable or not. This article makes absolutely no claims to notability and I am not entirely sure that this tool can make a claim to notability. Furthermore, this article really is little more than a "how to" on the device. James084 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a how-to on obscure tools, real or imaginary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 79,000 Google hits makes it notable and not at all obscure. WP, like any good encyclopedia, most certainly is a how-to of tools, Category:Tools is chock full of them. Quick, what's a filter funnel, or a ball mill? GRuban 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I based my statement above on WP:NOT which states Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. If this is no longer applicable then perhaps we need to have a discussion on removing that particular line? James084 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well cited. You're probably right that the actual "how to" section of the article should be shortened. I stand by my Keep however, there's plenty of precedent on having articles about tools, and how they work. GRuban 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "notability" shouldn't normally come into a discussion of a tool because it is too hard to define in that context. Some might think it is not notable because it is too common, others might argue that a tool is not notable because it is too obscure. I think verifiability is a better standard for tools. Crypticfirefly 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a better question is what makes this "tool" different from a Beurre mixer. The Beurre mixer debate just closed with the article being deleted. That article had no more information than this article. James084 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the Beurre mixer AfD, it wound up being transwikied to Wiktionary (Wiktionary:Beurre mixer). But it really was a definition, not an article. In case anyone is wondering, in the U.S. it is the kitchen tool that is normally called an electric hand blender. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definitely Keep. A well-established device. I'll take a picture of mine for the article, and see what else I can do to improve it. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have to wonder about the notability/article-worthiness of this. It's just a charcoal starter. -- Krash (Talk) 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable tool. Have added some info. Crypticfirefly 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but continue to cleanup. --Karnesky 07:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up and verified. Stifle 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, what in the article do you think needs to be verified? Crypticfirefly 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable (if somewhat dangerous) tool. Haikupoet 01:16, 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 08:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limnos Stingrays Football Club[edit]

Delete. Non-notable amateur football club in Adelaide. Also see [46]. Cursive 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. It is in div2 in amateur. In Adelaide there is also div1 amateur, and then State League and then Premier League, and then you have the national A-league. So it is four divisions below first-class football.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:08, 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.

I count:

Delete or redirect ::Supergolden::, Cúchullain
Redirect: Vizjim
Delete RJH, CanadianCaesar, Mithebt (redlink user, valid), Peter Grey, Pavel, Crumbsucker, Daniel
Delete and redirect: FloNight.

The 'deletes' have it. kingboyk 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation[edit]

Appears to have been created in respnse to AFD discussion on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. Topic is already covered in the The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln page. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's author. Would be happy to substitute a redirect to The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln article. Vizjim 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - oh the fun world of process now. Someone is sure to complain no matter what we do.

a) nominator could withdraw AFD and we could do the redirect.

b) we could do the redirect, removing the AFD tag with author but not nominator consent

c) We could let this AFD go on for a week, get a few more votes and still do the redirect.

I almost was WP:BOLD, but sure that would irritate the most. -Jcbarr 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. Assume good faith. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it, I've done it (WP:BOLD, and all that). Request nominator to withdraw nomination.Vizjim 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say Be Bold, but you beat me to it. ::Supergolden:: 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Don't redirect. — RJH 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the book. --Cúchullain t / c 22:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice for its recreation; while I've no doubt it would be an encyclopedic topic, like Shakespeare's sexuality was a Did you know? article, this version tells me very little. Would make an odd redirect, too. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's really any more to say on the subject. -- Mithent 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One book raising the question on such flimsy evidence isn't enough, not when Lincoln lived in an age when only the rich could afford personal rooms or furniture. Peter Grey 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion, surely? Nominator and original page creator have agreed on a redirect. We're not discussing the entry for The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln - that's a legitimate entry till someone nominates it for deletion. I don't know how to close the discussion, but surely an administrator or the original nominator can do so? See Jcbarr's comments above as well.Vizjim 09:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete snippet from a nn book does't make encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made to prove a point. Crumbsucker 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a title AND as a redirect. --DanielCD 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct question stand alone article on this content. FloNight 14:56, 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 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laiki Parea[edit]

Delete A non notable Australian Greek Wedding Band Cursive 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the article is about a member of the wedding band, and he has done nothing notable outside of the band.:

Jim the Greek

Delete: no tour, no album, probably not even notable in their own town. --djrobgordon 15:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, nn. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:36, 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. kingboyk 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llamacon[edit]

Delete: It's been importance tagged for almost a month and still hasn't been fixed. The discussion page says that the Simon's Rock Anime Club will write something (and, hopefully, explain the importance), however, that would be self-promotion. PaulIsNotDead 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 270 attendees? The article makes my argument for me. --djrobgordon 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, among the panelists this year were notable comic artists Randy Milholland of Something Positive, Richard Stevens of Diesel Sweeties, and Jeph Jacques of Questionable Content. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, and everything the original poster said. 64.209.121.194 16:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice due to lack of attendance. Stifle 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Llamacon was covered by the Berkshire Eagle, a publication with a circulation of over 30k. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Berkshire Eagle is in fact a community newspaper. It covers many many events. I don't recall seeing in Wikipedia's guidelines any rules about notability being determined by whether or not something has been in a newspaper. PaulIsNotDead 04:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is the closest guideline I can come up with for an event like this, which has allowances for "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Given that the typical threshold for people who write articles or books is 5000, the Berkshire Eagle more than meets that. Plus, you could call Llamacon, given the type of panelists it had this year, and event with a cult following. That's if you need to cling to some guideline to assert this event's notability, which I certainly don't. The people who attended make it notable enough for me, by far. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:13, 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 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gushka[edit]

Self-promotion of the author's business (in Spanish language). Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also non-english, and unlikely to find a translator. Delete. Sandstein 18:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ruziklan 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn promo. mikka (t) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FWIW, I speak Spanish, and the article topic appears non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:49, 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 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiking[edit]

Delete. This article is basically two alleged examples of "spiking", one of which is based on a false premise and the other which is really an example of something else. (See talk:Spiking. I would suggest a merge to Self-censorship, which is basically synonymous with "spiking", but there isn't really much here to merge. Nareek 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing really to redeem here for a merge. MLA 11:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 22:05, 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. David | Talk 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Newdow[edit]

Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Lee Wallace (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2006

Speedy Keep. He has appeared multiple times on multiple news networks, and his various legal cases always make headlines. When his Pledge of Allegiance case was ruled in his favor by the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Congress and President Bush immediately responded. Whether or not his claims are baseless is for the courts to decide; if he were the generic lawsuit-crazed person this nomination implies, he wouldn't be on his way to argue before the Supreme Court for the second time. --Maxamegalon2000 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, nom is Gastrich noming notable atheists again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't recognize the name, but certainly the case was notable and thus warrants an article. -Jcbarr 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per KillerChihuahua. Bad faith AfD nomination. Weregerbil 16:37, 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 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ahari[edit]

I suspect this 'group' is non-exixtent; certainly it's non-notable. The page is a nasty attack on some religious leader. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be an attack article. I've been trying to monitor it. Moved highly inflammatory text to talk and asked for sources. None were offered. FloNight 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attack page, group is almost certainly fictional (e.g., Google search & Google News search yield no hits). | Klaw ¡digame! 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious attack and NPOV: "The group rightfully contends that al-Ahari makes several false and unsubstantiated claims." Fan1967 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn attack group.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 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 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon:The New Generation![edit]

Delete. Reads like a press release, possibly a copyvio. Anything relevant can, I assume, be merged into Digimon or one of its numerous relatives ::Supergolden:: 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could be fanfic: [47]. Whatever it is, it does not seem notable. PJM 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like fanfic to me. -- Mithent 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert, unencyclopaedic. Probable copyvio, although I can't find a source. Stifle 22:05, 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 delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC) moved to WP:TFD —Cryptic (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil infobox[edit]

Delete because it was reformated to fit the Infobox country template that most other pages use MJCdetroit 16:30, 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 The result of this debate was Merge to Tony Blair and Redirect. psch e mp | talk 06:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bliar[edit]

Could be considered as an attack and not really notable enough in itself.Philip Stevens 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect. David | Talk 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Tony Blair article section on satirical attacks. (aeropagitica) 16:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per (aeropagitica) . Hera1187 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per (aeropagitica). Sliggy 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per (aeropagitica). vortex ^talk 13:44, 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 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drumpellier[edit]

Delete as non notable housing estate. ::Supergolden:: 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How... quaint. But non-notable, so delete. Sandstein 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per nom. Not a clue as to notability.Kuru ^talk 04:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. James084 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Stifle 22:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:20, 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 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gromlette[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Sandstein 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) It is asking to be deleted, and it is a mess. It's just somebody wanting to have fun. But here, is not the place. Yanksox 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Transwiki to Cookbook, which is a cookbook. Granted, this looks like a "recipe" for a Spanish tortilla using the "what you have hanging about in the fridge fried up in beaten egg" method; but it sounds very nice to be honest, and per comments by the author (now moved to the article's talk page) people have actually tried it and liked it. I don't know what the Cookbook's inclusion criteria are but maybe there's an outside chance that this would make it, if only to thier BJAODN. Tonywalton | Talk 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Im aloud to enter text here? I apologise if im not. Really Im not trying to be a smarty. I have this time around managed to folow the links for discussion and fully understand where you are coming from re the !humour and the prefered dry aspect of the wikipedia. By all means do what you like with the article I have since copied the page and placed the text on the cited page so the ingredients/method is not lost for those who are interested. Anyone who visits my pages can see that there is a mix of technical, philosophical and humor surrounding a number of aspects of camping etc.I can see now this does not fit the wikipedia format. I was not trying to bring my page more hits. Most of my pages are indeed simply reminders to myself of what transpired. However in the past I have often wished for some of this info to have been found on the web rather than me having to reinvent the wheel so to speak and so have placed it in a public area for others. I use wikipedia alot and again apologise for any upset.mds 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody's "upset"; you've misinterpreted what Wikipedia is and is not, is all. Specifically Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Manybe your recipe belongs on your camp stories page (which has an annoying tendency to ask for a password but let you in anyway if you hit 'cancel', by the way). It doesn't belong here, as I've explained on your talk page. Tonywalton | Talk 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks cookbook. Stifle 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speaking merely as an editor and not a vote closer, I don't think the Wikibooks cookbook is for new, non-notable recipes, but I could be wrong. --D e ath phoenix 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially original research. We shouldn't have a collection of everyone's made up recipes on Wikibooks Cookbook. Pepsidrinka 17:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't "everyone's made up recipies" appear in Wiki Cookbook? I assume that is what all the recipies there technically are.Crypticfirefly 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest it not be transwikied. The article was written on the same day the recipe was first improvised, and for all we know, it will never be prepared again. ×Meegs 12:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pepsidrinka. Stifle 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Also remove reference in the omelette article. Dr.frog 00:20, 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 COPYVIO, so why are we even discussing it? -Splash^talk 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_J._Brownlow[edit]

You'll have to check out the history on this one. Prod tag was added, removed. Original author has now blanked the page. Originally was a biography of a non-notable person, I believe. Xyzzyplugh 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I restored the article, he has a number of achievements, I can't see keeping a garage band but deleting a musical polymath such as Dr Brownlow --Ruby 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep garage band articles. Do you have any links demonstrating his notability? According to the article, he's a university music teacher, plays in a few non-notable orchestras, and has composed some music which also doesn't appear to me to be especially notable. --Xyzzyplugh 21:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a copyvio of his page as you will see if you follow the link. However, it was created by Robert Brownlow which causes great problems. Capitalistroadster 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Xzssyplugh. His compositions do not appear to have been performed anywhere significant. --Thunk 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to avoid copyvio. I'm no expert but given the extensiveness of his resume including stints at several notable universities and orchestras he seems worth including.--ThreeAnswers 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stints at notable universities? I certainly hope that being a university professor is never enough to qualify one for a wikipedia article. --Xyzzyplugh 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems fairly notable within the orchestra section of the country. Per his UCF page, "[h]is music is performed throughout the United States." [48]. He has been a part of several "professional orchestras." Notable enough for me. Pepsidrinka 17:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pretty clear WP:AUTO violation, which is not grounds for deletion... just bad form. I'd say based on several the claims in this article he would be notable, but they are not sourced from an independent source (i.e. one that is not a faculty page). If it gets sourced I'll change to keep.--Isotope23 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, esp. Ruby. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunt Basmajian[edit]

Vanity, nn. Delete Ardenn 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award ([49]), shuffle content to suit, add link from List of poetry awards. — Graibeard^(talk) 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Author of Quote unquote/poems (Oral history course / Plymouth State College), editor of Other channels Dlyons493 Talk 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Canadian Poetry Assoc is notable, but he doesn't seem to notable outside of it.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to have been an award named after him too. Seems notable enough. (See Cornelia Hoogland, the 2005 award winner). Pepsidrinka 17:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Pepsidrinka. Sandstein 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pepsidrinka & Dylans493. ×Meegs 11:53, 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 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammurapi code review tool[edit]

Article doesn't assert importance and notability. (see WP:CORP) --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite spammy. PJM 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable spamvertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:49, 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 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Grimskull[edit]

Reprodded in violation of prod guidelines. Moving here. User:Percy Snoodle suggests that this is fanmade. NickelShoe 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the article is for an unreleased game (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), and to quote the article, "Special authorization from the game's creator(and his company) to release minimum information about this game is allowed" - i.e. it's an advert. Sorry about reprodding. Percy Snoodle 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I first PROD'd the article, delete per snoodle. And don't worry about reprodding, prod is very very new, and it is expected that people won't get used to it right now. Mike _{(T C)} 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the first seven words of the article. Verifiability is impossible. Stifle 22:04, 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. -Splash^talk 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of management consulting service providers[edit]

Redundant with the list at Management consulting. The high ratio of anonymous edits warrants the suspicion that the page is used to a great extent for advertising purposes; as such, merging it to Management consulting would probably diminish that article's quality. On its own, this article is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Sandstein 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not the Yellow Pages. A list of management consultants without a discussion of their notability. (aeropagitica) 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per areopagitica. Definitely YellowPagesish. Fan1967 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per areopagitica. --kingboyk 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: bigger problem that this list are constant attempts to add every possible company into Management consulting article. Perhaps an annotated list with clear criteria would be better than having main article polluted for most of the time. Pavel Vozenilek 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and Clean-up per Pavel Vozenilek's comments above. --Gurubrahma 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assessment of Pavel Vozenilek and Gurubrahma: we will have attempted spamming irrespective of whether we have one article or two, and I think it's better to have to watch just one article. We can still list particularly notable consulting companies on the main article until that becomes too large. Sandstein 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's useful to have a list of the top companies in this important field. -- JJay 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or the Yellow Pages. Stifle 22:03, 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 REDIRECT to PHP. This is already mentioned there, predictably, and what is not duplicated here is indeed a how-(not)to. -Splash^talk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Php info()[edit]

A reference page about a programming language function call. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more about why that's bad/grounds for deletion? Thanks. · rodii · 03:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WWIN states that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Stifle 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to PHP. Pepsidrinka 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Phpinfo(), then slight merge to PHP. Stifle 22:00, 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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 06:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Chaat[edit]

Nothing there; not even sure what it is. Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1 Mike _{(T C)} 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1. Pepsidrinka 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Gokul Chaat is a non-notable food outlet in Hyderabad, India. Green Giant 23:14, 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 Keep. kingboyk 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec army[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted There has been more than enough time to have the author list sources and verify the info in this article and it has not been done. I have attempted to research and find anything to support the article and have been unable to do so. At this time there is no evidence that this article contains correct information. Nigelthefish 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I randomly searched two weapons. One was the atlatl, which is in fact what the article claims it is. The second weapon I searched, the one with a 'Q', google gave me one result (i.e. the article page). However, I'm not convinced that google is exhaustive when it comes to the army of the Aztec people. This article needs an expert and a wikify tag. Pepsidrinka 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not cohesive and coherent. School section is unrelated (and info is already at Aztec. Aztec Army section has a little information that is not covered at Aztec, but this is not sourced. Weaponry section is of some value if it were properly sourced. Ideally, what I would like to see done here is a Move to something like Aztec Military as a fork off of the main Aztec page with subsections for Military structure and Weaponry... all properly sourced of course. Aztec army could then be deleted or redirected. If consensus agrees with me I'd be willing to do the grunt work.--Isotope23 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Isotope23 - the weapon information is definitely worth keeping and moving to a Weaponry section in Aztec Military and for this I nominate Isotope23 for this grunt work :P.

Off the top of my tiny head, most of the information is accurate but it duplicates information on other pages like Eagle warrior and Jaguar warrior and definitely needs some references. Green Giant 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleanup and verify. The Aztecs had an army which makes it notable enough for mine and I'm sure that there are plenty iof verifiable sources. Given that they didn't have a navy or an air force, I don't see the need for a move but if it ensures consistency and Isotope 23 is prepared to do the work I can live with it. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point... No F-16's in their arsenal eh? Let me do a complete rewrite when I have a chance tomorrow, with links to the other articles rather than just rehashing existing info. A move can always be initiated at a future date if necessary. I'll concentrate on content first.--Isotope23 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In researching this, it appears this article is cobbled together from the main Aztec article with some copyvio sentences lifted from an about.com article.--Isotope23 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've been doing some research and started writing a draft, but other than the About.com article that half the text here is lifted from, I'm having a bit of trouble finding good, verifiable information. My rewrite ended up being a rehash of what is already at the Aztec article, so I didn't post it; at that point it's a useless fork. IMO, the weapon information is the only thing worth saving so a move of that info to a new Aztec Weaponry article is probably the best solution and a mention of said article could be inserted into Aztec with appropriate link.--Isotope23 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some cleanup and verification it will be a good article. I agree that it should fork off of Aztec. Cool3 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I don't see a serious reason to delete on content grounds anyway. I make no assertion, one way or the other, about copyright. Stifle 21:57, 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 userfy. kingboyk 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissaracino[edit]

This page was orginally tagged with a {{prod}} tag without comment. The article is possible vanity and does not meet WP:BIO. James084 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Chrissaracino and Delete the mainspace article. Pepsidrinka 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Chrissaracino. Stifle 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Conscious 08:36, 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 deletion as non-notable group. enochlau (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious Revolution (against food wastage)[edit]

NN University group (now with chapters at TWO universities, we are informed) to reduce food waste. A noble endeavor, but does not so far as I can see meet notability criteria. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (i.e. Unremarkable people or groups). Pepsidrinka 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a speedy - even though its assertion is...malnourished. ;) PJM 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is no assertion of notability other than they have two chapters. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced brilliant... students is verifiable, and it's just self-promotion. It does not establish notability, say with numbers on membership. Peter Grey 03:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. -- pm_shef 16:58, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth_pong[edit]

Non-notable drinking game Mike _{(T C)} 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Pepsidrinka 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that this article meets no criteria for speedy deletion. --AaronS 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Are you serious? This game has been around since at least the 1950s. Other popular games -- beruit, etc. -- sprang from it. It is by no means non-notable. --AaronS 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you've got to be kidding me Dartmouth pong is the most popular version of drinking pong ever made!!!! Wikipedia sucks.

If you can show its the most popular then it will probably stay, as much as we assume good faith, we need sources. Mike _{(T C)}

23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. It's not A7. Please read WP:CSD. Remember, votes not signed do not count. --SYCTHOS ^talk 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for labeling it A7 was because A7 reads "unremarkable people or groups." I don't know how literal the CSD is, but I read it, and I feel that an extension to "unremarkable games" would fit well. Regardless, I didn't place a speedy tag on it, and since AfD is a discussion, my grounds for deletion was because it seems "unremarkable." Pepsidrinka 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of verifiable sources regarding this drinking game's notability and significance. (Currently the only reference is to a student newspaper, not the most reliable source). Sliggy 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The game of beer pong now has sources; but I am not sure that Dartmouth pong is a significant variation on this. Also, the game appears to be called Beirut in the more reliable (read "non-student-newspaper") sources. That said, this is not the place to discuss articles' names etc.. No vote. Sliggy 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable source: America's oldest independent college newspaper, as well as the NYT. [50]: "An October 2005 article in The New York Times about the perils of drinking games labeled Dartmouth the founder of pong, "a game also known for some reason as Beirut." While some students were proud to see their school's name in The Times, others were dismayed by the factual error. The New York Times was not the first to attribute the genesis of pong to Dartmouth. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, also attributes pong to the College. It is unclear where the game was first played, some have suggested Dartmouth College in the 1950s, but there has been no definitive date or place," the encyclopedia claims under "beer pong. Unofficial College historian and history professor emeritus Jere Daniell '55 recalls playing pong in its most primitive form when he was a member of Alpha Theta fraternity between 1952 and 1955. I'm not even sure it had a name," Daniell said of playing the game over 50 years ago. He remembered that a point system accompanied the game but said there weren't even ground rules yet." --AaronS 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has two things in it I have a problem with, well three now that I think of it. First off the editors note is :"This is the first in a three-part series looking at the evolution of beer pong as a social and cultural phenomenon at Dartmouth.". Its about it on campus, therefore not notable. Secondly, it states "While some students were proud to see their school's name in The Times, others were dismayed by the factual error. " What was the factual error? Also your article uses wikipedia asa a reference, so basically your reference is the wiki itself? Mike _{(T C)}

01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you a nit-picky grumpy-wump! I can't explain the terrible editorial process at The Dartmouth, but it does have some clout as a student newspaper. And of course the article is about beer pong at Dartmouth -- where The New York Times claims it internationally stems from. --AaronS 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mike makes very valid points, that an article about something at Dartmouth can't really consider a Dartmouth newspaper to be a reliable, unbiased source. Yes, it's the oldest college newspaper, but it's still a newspaper that cannot naturally be expected to be unbiased about its own campus. And Wikipedia definitely cannot cite itself, even if it's citing something else that cites Wikipedia. I added a whole bunch of much more independent sources to the article, though. Mike, if you want to take a look at those, and see if they influence your vote? --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the main reason for the cite was its nod to the NYT. --AaronS 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the two NYT articles, and it dosen't mention the actual name Dartmouth Pong, but rather refers to it as Beruit. I'm on the fence, but the NYT is more reliable than the Dartmouth paper, so I have to side with it. Mike _{(T C)}

05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pong is known (inter?)nationally as Beruit or 'ruit. The kind of pong from which Beruit sprang comes from Dartmouth. It is simply called "pong" at Dartmouth. Outside of Dartmouth, it is called "Dartmouth pong." --AaronS 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the name of the article is being argued here - I don't think anyone's meant "Dartmouth pong" to be a proper name, but rather just a descriptive name for a specific drinking game. Articles can be renamed without an AfD if that's an issue, anyways. On-campus, students are picky about it being called "pong" and not "Beirut", but that's only on-campus. The notability of the article is that it's the first version of beer pong (see sources in the article), and remains a major part of the Dartmouth College culture. I believe the sources that I added qualify as 'verifiable sources'. There is still certainly an argument to be made as to the notability of the facts, and that's what this AfD should focus on. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "factual error" that The Dartmouth mentions is that the New York Times doesn't draw the tight distinction between Beirut and beer pong that many Dartmouth students are often extremely picky about. Dartmouth defines Beirut to be without paddles, and beer pong with. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge with beer pong as a section. I just added two New York Times sources that I knew about, including quotes from them attributing beer pong's 'legendary beginnings' to Dartmouth. A quick Google search reveals that "Dartmouth College" and "beer pong" seem to be mentioned in a very large number of other college's alcohol guidebooks/standards/etc... I'll see if I can find some more independent sources (also - I know those NYT stories have been re-run in other papers since their original publications). Dartmouth's version of beer pong is a quite unique variant, it deserves at least a section in beer pong. We have articles on other minor drinking games such as I Never, as well as seemingly most board and card games. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have a problem with the merger. Dartmouth pong is unique and has very different rules from Beruit. --AaronS 02:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice there's also a Beer pong (paddles) article - that could be a potential merge targe if the material is deemed unworthy of its own article. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added a whole bunch of external, independent sources --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - With added sources, this could be a great article. Don't kill it just because it needs room to grow. Letoofdune 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a valid argument. Any article could be a great article with added sources. It is the responsibility of an article's creator to ensure that its signficance is immediately apparent, and verified with reliable sources. Sliggy 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No problems with the article; it seems notable enough. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given sources. No reason to delete. Stifle 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps create a link within the Beirut article to the Dartmouth pong article for clarity, but the two are distinct and equally important. Nicolasdz 07:31, 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 userfied. Playstation Network is a red link and page creator added that: "Sorry, previous statement not absolutely correct." To avoid any upset to a new user, I have userfied it and deleted the redirect. If user no longer wants the page he can ask me to speedy delete it. kingboyk 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation World[edit]

(Writer now accepts? page was a mistake. Has created a new page called Playstation Network See Talk:PlayStation 3 sub section ==Playstation world== for detailsHappyVR 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) HappyVR 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) ) Sorry, previous statement not absolutely correct.[reply]

Delete HappyVR 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per sole editor's request. Pepsidrinka 20:42, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Ottewell[edit]

Seems to be an substub advertisement page for a fairly unimportant author. That is all. --maru (talk) contribs 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn ,ads.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, substub advert. Open to change if notability is established. This could possibly be speedied. Stifle 09:42, 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 and merge. The current page is a fork, and not a likely search term, so it is not appropiate to retain it even as a redirect. The material may have a place in the parent article. To avoid any GFDL issues, this will be moved to a subpage Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary). If and when the editors at Amin al-Husseini decide to incorporate this material, then decisions can be made regarding how to preserve the licence. If the consensus there is not to merge this material, the page can be deleted by leaving a note on my (or probably any other) adminstrator's talk.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism[edit]

Delete. This page is a content fork from Amin al-Husseini. The material (if determined to be NPOV in the ongoing moderation on the source page) belongs on the source page, and not on this fork. cmh 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

Hello. {s}Keep{/s}. This article has been introduced less than 2 hours ago (note I never met Cmh before). I tried to discuss with him but he doesn't agree to follow process of discussion and decided to ask for the deletion of this article. Here is why it has been created :

As explained on the talk page of the article about Haj Amin al-Husseini, this article about him is already well written and npov. Nevertheless there is one point that is not well sourced and that is debated. I chose to gather additionnal information about that in another article and only refers this clearly in the main article. I don't understand why Cmh didn't read this.
Please look at the article. You can see it is extremely well sourced and referenced [51]. It deals the topic with a "cold" neutral point of view. Only the title is discussed [52] and in less than 2 hours, it is hard to discuss even if I think the title is good. Alithien 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. If this wasn't VfD'd I would have speed-deleted it. Christophe, move this to your private name-space, it is not a proper article topic. --Zero 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The worst possibility would be to merge it with the current article, since almost none of it is appropriate. --Zero 22:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an inappropriate fork with a POV title. Whether or not the subject was anti-semitic should be discussed on the page about the subject. Green Giant 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the content's both size and quality grows into an article, rename into neutral Amin al-Husayni and anti-Semitism, otherwise merge either into Amin al-Husayni or Arabs and anti-Semitism or Islam and anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename and merge into Amin al-Husayni per Humus sapiens Zeq 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to treat this information an equivalent way as : List of Israeli military operation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war or List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is referred in the main article and the informatin is gathered another way not to put too much data in the main article. Would a solution be to rename this "Haj Amin al Husseini and antisetism" and to make reference to this list of quotes from the main article ? Alithien 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, preferably merge, as per Humus. -- Heptor _talk 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork; will no doubt inspire many others, e.g. references about George Bush's idiocy; references about Dick Cheney's warmongering; references about Bill Clinton's narcissism etc., etc. ad nauseam. --Ian Pitchford 15:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this comment. The parallelism is of course not appropriate. Anti-semitism of Haj Amin Al-Husseini is in the article accredited by several historians and professors while your comparaison concern ad hominem attack against a personnality (and me). Alithien 15:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Haj Amin al-Husseini.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just delete. Spilled from current war on the main article. Amin al-Husseini needs arbitration, not siblings created elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be deduced from the appearence but as explained I wrote this far before the dispute started, more than 6 weeks ago. I was not involved in the dispute until I published this article Alithien 19:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename or merge After thinking about this, I change my vote that way. Alithien 19:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the bio. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, POV forking is not an approved way to handle content disagreements. Stifle 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not POV forking. As explained above and in the talk page. Alithien 12:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sean Black. Pecher ^Talk 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move to Wikiquote. - FrancisTyers 10:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the bio. -- Karl Meier 11:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a proper article; spawned from an ongoing discussion. --Cybbe 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. This is not spawned from an ongoing discussion as you are perfectly aware. I started to gather all these quotes 15 january ie more than 1 month before your discussion. As it can be proven here [53] Alithien 22:24, 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 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRA Advisors LLC[edit]

Delete as WP:SPAM. Earlier edits of the article contained "Our current fund is DRA Growth and Income..." which leads me to believe that it was written by someone attached to the company, and is therefore likely to be written for the purposes of promotion. I can go along with a complete rewrite if the subject has any hope of being encyclopedic. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:CORP criteria.--Isotope23 21:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: If all the self-promotion were taken out, there might be a reasonable (and very small) article left. Peter Grey 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. I suspect the company is notable, but what's there needs to be rewritten. Stifle 09:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete: research the information before making a blind assesment.this information is factual. look it up.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workshare[edit]

Appears to be a spam article; much text copied from [54]; creator's page redirects to article. JonHarder 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:CORP criteria. Links provided are either to the company website, have a trivial passing mention of the company/trivial quote, or don't mention the company at all.--Isotope23 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing more than an advertisement. --Hetar 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not userfy. It's a copyvio, for one thing, and it was moved into place from User:Workshare so I have no doubt he/she will just move it straight back. Stifle 09:34, 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 redirect. Nominator said he would withdraw if Shabash Merops was rewritten; Shabash Merops is actually now a redirect. kingboyk 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shabash Merops[edit]

Delete as WP:SPAM. Author deleted {{prod}} tags with no explanation or further edits Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages as not meeting WP:CORP~~

~~Shabash~~ --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After re-write of Shabash, I am retracting the nom for deletion for that article. The original AfD nom for Shabash Merops stands unless the article is rewritten in such a way as to be encyclopedic. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't know what the {{prod}} tags were, and they appeared while I was editing the page. I will improve the article within the next couple of days. Joey-Cape

Merge Shabash Merops -> Shabash. The software does not seem to be notable independent of its company. Stifle 09:32, 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. kingboyk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boggle (dog)[edit]

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle. Just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name

In this case, various google searches involving boggle and various other dog articles show many thousands of hits, but these hits are related to the game or being confused about the dog - not about a dog breed itself. Doing a search on "boggle boston beagle" gives 13k hits, the first page is for sale ads for the dogs - the remaining pages seem to be simply word lists for attracting search engine hits or are otherwise unrelated. There is no registry for these dogs, it's less notable than the yorkipoo which we deleted earler.

Trysha ^(talk) 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if article is removed, shd be changed to redir to dog hybrids and crossbreeds. Elf | Talk 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't create a new article everytime Fido hops the fence and impregnates Mitzi next door. A lot of these crossbreeds become common enough to be notable (Labradoodle) but this one isn't. Fan1967 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967.--Isotope23 21:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 22:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, here's a turnabout for you. I wrote the original text (above) and in very short order what I've noticed is that, e.g., Puggle has been removed I don't know how many times and even turned into a redirect and listed in the hybrids page with no link and then, wham, someone comes along and recreates the article anyway. I think it's going to happen with any of these that show up with hundreds or thousands of occurrences on the web. I've been very active in the dog breeds project area for eons by WP standards (Jan '04) and I think we're going to end up being better off having the articles and just making sure that they make it clear that these are invented "breed" names, they're really just mutts and you don't know what you're going to get. It pains me but I think that's a better strategy. E.g., see my edits to the Boggle article. I might still be outvoted by my dog-project pals ;-) but this is how I'm starting to think about it. Elf | Talk 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a bad precident. Simply allowing any invented breed without any notability requirements - that's asking for trouble. In this case, there are not thousands of web site hits. Besides, this has happened 5 times in the past two years. It really isn't too much trouble to rfd them away. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. 150 years ago, some crazy German tried mixing mastiffs, bulldogs and Great Danes. I have a pair: they're called boxers now. Some hybrids will catch on, and become quite popular; many have already. Most of them will never even reach the status of passing fad, and are not worth recognizing. Fan1967 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom and the outcome of the previous AfD. -- Krash (Talk) 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't have added a dog that was just a boy dog meets girl dog on a lonely night either. Local pet stores are pushing these and Puggles in their stores for last 3 years. Some breeders of Boston Terriers have begun intentionally selling them and not because they were accidents. They may turn out to be a fad that passes and may not. Black arrow 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism. Stifle 09:31, 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 REDIRECT to WMBR seeing as it's already mentioned there. -Splash^talk 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Shock Punk Radio[edit]

Non-notable radio show. Prod tag was contested by User:BANDANAxTHRASH Cnwb 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, negligible Google presence as expected. A show on one radio station is rarely notable. -- Mithent 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to WMBR. Stifle 09:30, 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. I'm inclined to view this as an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. So it can be reversed at DRV (or my talk page) without any fuss. -Splash^talk 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Desktop Search Environment[edit]

Kat Desktop Search Environment gets about 300 Googles. The article has a nice lot of weblinks, plenty of application-specific document icons, but no data on user base, inclusion in mainstream distros, coverage in mainstream media or other factors which might help to establish significance. Kept in June last (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment) but it seems to me that beta promise has not turned into genuine notability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or present some other notability. Downloads show +/- 2700 for latest distro. Under 100 users regestered at site. nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:45, 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. kingboyk 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake: Source[edit]

As-yet unreleased game mod. This info should be placed on a personal web site rather than in Wikipedia.

Delete. Gazpacho 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should. Delete. -- Krash (Talk) 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self promotion of vaporware. Kuru ^talk 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteAuthor:Scotty515 21:31 March 1st

None of us at team Quake: Source have a peronal site as of yet. Can't it stay until we have one and then make a proper article when the final game is complete?

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a free host. Delete per Kuru. Stifle 09:28, 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 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyberNet Technology News[edit]

Delete as nn website. Alexa ranking of 678,824 [55]. Article was originally {{prod}}ed, but tag was removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. -- Krash (Talk) 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice, clean site; but it is still just a two month old blog. Having other blogs talk about you doesn't make it notable. nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random blog. Please see WP:WEB. Stifle 09:27, 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 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CivilSociety[edit]

Website of dubious notability. Article claims its subject to be a neologism from 2003. Hynca-Hooley 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable with a bad case of vanity I fear. -- Krash (Talk) 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CivilSociety as a noun: is that even supposed to make sense? Peter Grey 03:46, 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 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP-Archiv[edit]

A non notable program that's a stub. I don't see how this is important on Wikipedia Bladeswin 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no way this meets WP:SOFTWARE, especially if its only available in German. --Hetar 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of dozens similar file managers. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:SOFTWARE is not policy, but I don't really see how this program should be getting an encyclopaedia article. Stifle 18:35, 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 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Squigs[edit]

Musician; does not pass WP:MUSIC notability test. Hynca-Hooley 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no label, no tour, no notability. --djrobgordon 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't Google. It seems like an attempt to promote more than inform. I'd be open to some information on notability, but it doesn't seem likely. NickelShoe 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not that I'm making my decision solely on the Google thing, I mean that as an addition to other people's comments.) NickelShoe 02:30, 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.