Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

Purge server cache

June 18[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Lauritz Bergendahl, as somebody else may make the same spelling error. up+land 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauritz Bergendhal[edit]

This was to a spelling error I made when I created this article yesterday. I have since transferred all of the relevant information from the article that was incorrectly spelled to the one that was correctly spelled.

I have no objections to this article being deleted at all. Chris 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabon (street)[edit]

This road is not notable, unlike the roads located at Category:Roads in the Philippines. It is not historical, perhaps except to the people at the town. Prod was removed by an anonymous user. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and cleanup). This needs attention, ideally by someone familiar with the region, but simple copyediting would help too. For example, it is clear from a closer reading that the subject is not just a road but a district with a number of sub-districts. (In a number of countries, districts, sometimes even towns, are named for their principal roads.) I think that even though the article is probably mis-titled, the subject is geographically notable at least to the extent that such things are included in other areas, and I think countering systemic bias would be served with a keep. --MCB 06:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I read it, it was a road with its sidestreets. --Howard the Duck 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I believe that the article is not notable. All the roads in Category:Roads in the Philippines are major "national roads" in the country. Gabon is not a major national road. (I could change my mind if proven otherwise) :) --Noypi380 08:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. --Xyrael T 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - closer reading reveals it something like a district in Abucay,_Bataan. It might not be notable for you, however, it might be notable for someone else. ackoz 13:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. With notability, it's always necessary to also ask "for whom?" There are many Wiki entries whose likely notability exists only for a locality or people connected with that locality. Abucay has 32,000 people; Ottumwa, Iowa has 25,000. In the latter,there's room to mention a railroad and the two stops that passenger trains make each day. Using that as a measure, I think Gabon round has comparable (local) notability and should be kept. Interlingua talk 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps we can delete Gabon (street) and incorporate the info in Abucay? --Howard the Duck 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interlingua. —D-Rock 23:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, just non-notable, wikipedia not a road atlas. Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do we really need to make every streets and every barangay in the Philippines an article? If we will do these, we should make an article for Kalye Pitong Gatang first. I think this is just a waste of time, and to be practical, no one will research such information, they couldn't care less. --Glenncando 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content to the appropriate municipality article if necessary. Polaron | Talk 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I came across this article before and I was tempted to AFD it. Not notable enough to be verifiable. Coffee 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. We are not familar with Philippines. I think we should invite users from that region to judge on its notability. There is no harm of letting the article live for couple more days. If Philippine users find this to be non-notable then one can always re-nominate it in AfD later. --WinHunter (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, as per below, fails multiple CSD criteria. —Cuiviénen 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amayami[edit]

Entire content simply says that this doesn't exist. Need I say more? Grutness...wha? 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable character created by fans that doesn't actually appear in the series, only 352 Google results--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it doesn't exist I'm sure it won't mind us eradicating all presence of its non-existence. Jammo (SM247) 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A1/3/7. Danny Lilithborne 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fancruft. At best. Ted (Talk) 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleteas per (humorous) nom.
  • Speedy delete, fails CSD:A1, CSD:A3, and CSD:A7. Also fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat 05:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two sentence anti-article.--Nydas 08:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as no content. --Xyrael T 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as no content and n-n. Inner Earth 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little or no meaningful content. "Does not exists", "invented in fanfics". Two reasons for deletion from the article itself. - Motor (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the content you are all discussing here was changed by someone else than the original author to say "doesn't exist", so you shouldn't be using it as an argument, so please check the history, maybe a and merge with something would be better. Ask the author first, and tell him that he should not be making zillions of small articles, but rather one large. ackoz 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the original version of this page would have had a "db-nocontext" speedy tag from me. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether the article says they don't exist or not, fanfiction characters don't belong on Wikipedia, period. See WP:NFT. --Coredesat 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Nintendo_DS_Games_using_the_DS_Initials[edit]

Essentially listcruft. Vic Vipr TC 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think it fits better in Nintendo DS#Trivia. Merge (if it's not already). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay tantra[edit]

Not-notable neologism, also a commercial (it is a registered trade mark of some obscure company) abakharev 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO and possibly WP:SPAM, only 969 Google results [1]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that if you take the above google results out their end, you'll see they actually have 385 unique results.--Fuhghettaboutit
  • Delete as advertising non-notable neologism. Ted (Talk) 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's not-notable. TJ Spyke 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tantra is notable. Gay is notable. But their union isn't. And this is advert. Interlingua talk 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave/Do NOT Delete. As a legitimate synthesis of Kulacara Tantra with Western psychology and the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna in union with Gay Identity as a coherent set of spiritual teaching IS notable, as a) it is not merely “ritualized sex” (one litmus test for New Age neotantra), b) there is at least one other book not by Schindler in print on the topic, and c) the depth of spiritual and personal discipline involved is not another titillating world-tour of sexual ritual practices à la Nik Douglas & Penny Slinger. The article as originally written could be misconstrued as an advert, but I believe that was due more to the Wikipedia inexperience of the original author than merely shilling for a business. --ogam 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may exist, but as it stands now, this article fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 05:52Z
  • Delete Non-notable neologism largely written as an advertisement.--Auger Martel 06:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave/Do NOT Delete. Traditional Tantra (as opposed to the sexually focused neo-Tantra most commonly encountered in the West) has always been an esoteric tradition and therefore relatively unknown except to initiates. Gay Tantra is the first attempt to expound and synthesize the essential principles and practices of the esoteric Hindu tradition with western psychotherapy and cutting-edge gay-identity theory. As such it represents a highly significant development if still relatively unknown. Gay persons have been targeted by mainstream religious institutions for condemnation and persecution for centuries on the grounds that homosexual feelings and behaviors are supposedly antithetical to spirituality, and it is not surprising that this article might encounter resistance due to its radical proposition that a well-integrated gay identity is potentially more spiritual than more polarized identities. Because the sources for information about Gay Tantra are limited, the primary way for those interested to get more information is through the resources cited. Note that Ashram West never charges for its services, so this article should not be seen as an advertisement for the ashram but rather as an information resource consistent with the purpose of any encyclopedia.—Br. William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browilliam (talk • contribs)
Comment - All the contribs by the above user are so far limited to the article and this afd discussion. --Gurubrahma 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And invite Br. William to contribute to the section 'Tantra in the Modern World' in the Tantra article Zero sharp 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was almost sold on it but the ® just grates too much. Also, entry created by User:Browilliam, hence WP:AUTO. If it's notable, someone without connection to the ® part will recreate the entry. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly. I find tantra an interesting part of Hinduism, and think the intersection with gay/queer studies is also interesting. BUT the proprietary, territorial ® and the POV tone of this article mean it fails to meet Wiki standards. Interlingua talk 13:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the sound of an article being deleted? (I know that's Zen, but close enough.) JChap 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sheer nonsense. ImpuMozhi 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not completely unverified. And I deleted the trademark section. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bharatveer 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lithuanian household gods[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic. Most of these gods have their own articles and these are already contained in the category 'Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology'. BlueValour 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep gods are always a notable topic because, well, because they're gods. :) Anyway, this does what a category can't by beginning to explain what the gods do. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OTOH if anyone really wants to know what these gods do they just need to look at the relevant article. BTW my wife said to me today 'Oh, my God' - does that make me notable? BlueValour 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ermmmmm that was what we call here in the UK 'a joke'. (Click on the word 'joke' for more information) :-) BlueValour 03:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a notable topic for a list and potentially useful for people looking up Lithuanian gods who don't know each Gods name. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know that the state of Lithuanian mythology articles is very much miserable. Therefore I ordered a book on that subject. It should arrive in a month and I hope to clean up that mess then. Renata 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to serve the same purpose as any other annotated list in Wikipedia. I would actually kinda like a list like this for other mythologies. Right now you'd kinda need this if you forgot a name. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being of Lithuanian descent, I've always been curious about such things. Honestly, I'd never seen a list this complete before; textbooks usually mention a small handful (the garden snake, the oak, thunder) and that's it. Besides, nominator may not understand the nature of Lithuanian mythology: the Lithuanian were the last pagans in Europe, being "officially" christianized only in the 14th century, with pagan practices persisting far longer. This is an important part of the Lithuanian culture, something that the culture is proud of, and is typically (if shallowly) taught starting in grade school. BTW Lithuania has the worlds largest museum devoted to this (Velnelio muzejius ?? not sure of english title, I pressume there's a WP article on it.) p.s. There's a joke that the Lithuanians will be the last catholics in Europe.... linas 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more than just a list; it shows considerable thought and organization. There is also the Category page, but I think this page adds something important. Interlingua talk 04:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought some voters here would want to know that, having suddenly noticed the redundant Category: Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology mentioned in the nomination, I listed it at WP:CFD for merging into Category:Lithuanian deities. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep serves a purpose, and not in any way "non- encyclopedic" Joeyramoney 04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly useful for getting to the right article. --JJay 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and not an endless list. Jammo (SM247) 04:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, also useful to access information on particular Lithuanian gods. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, informative list on Lithuanian household gods--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly useful list. --Coredesat 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, informative list on a topic of interest and importance.--Auger Martel 06:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be original research, with no sources or documentation. Otherwise, I have a list of Californian household gods that a bunch of us made up at school one day.  :-) Tychocat 09:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it'd be nice if they all linked somewhere, even just to stubs. --Xyrael T 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would be nice if it was referenced, hope Renata's book is useful in this regard. Inner Earth 10:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the lack of sources is unfortunate. Turns out my library has a couple of books on Lithuanian mythology, so if they're any good I'll try to supplement Renata's info. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it was NY household gods, it would be more notable? ackoz 13:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Lithuania must be crawling with gods. References may be desirable in the gods' individual articles, but probably unnecessary on this list. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However the article could usefully be expanded, as perhaps could some of the articles to which it leads. Peterkingiron 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this interesting list. If I remember this from my Latin class correctly, "household gods" have a special purpose, which would justify this list separate from the Mythology of Lithuania article. JChap 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Richardcavell 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Unencyclopedic" is another way of saying "it should be deleted", but doesn't really say why. Nothing wrong with having both a category and a list. Also, I feel that deleting this would be systemic bias. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, though the article was expanded during the AfD and a relisting at this point would seem to have a good chance of resulting in a consensus to keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Toothless Beauties[edit]

Non-notable rock album - only 4 other google hits. BlueValour 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no context. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Shizane 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable album that is only sold at live shows of the marignally notable musician, Hawksley Workman. Not every album of a notable musician is notable. Ted (Talk) 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. AdamBiswanger1 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepalbums from notable artists. Typical standard is that the entire discography of an artist is included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge as per above. Joeyramoney 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand. If not, redirect to Hawksley Workman--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for no context. The article is one sentence and a tracklist. That's not even worthy of being a stub. --Coredesat 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's exactly what a stub would look like, and the context is there. I know nothing about the guy, so perhaps fans can chime in with more info. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barely notable.--Auger Martel 06:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's perfectly worthy of being a stub - some of them have even less information than what this one has. fuzzy510 07:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredsat, and I don't hold Ghits as the final arbiter of notability. I am also unimpressed with the resume/advert for Hawksley Workman, full of hyperbole like "garnered critical acclaim" without citing sources. Tychocat 09:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 10:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Tychocat. The Hawksley Workman needs some serious bias work, and reliable sources to establish some of the claims made. - Motor (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete musician promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. JChap 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He probably sucks, but is on a major label and is notable, all of his albums should have lame stubs like this. The Hawksley Workman article needs work but not deletion (and what does that have to do with this anyway?). Recury 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The artist meets WP:MUSIC for notability easily, for touring, charting, and awards. However, to have an article for an album that seems to be little more than a promotional item, that is not available to the general public (couldn't find it on Amazon.com), and that is not released by an actual record label, is very questionable. If a review from a respectable magazine or website could be found, I would change my vote. --Joelmills 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Updated this page with much content. This album is critical in understanding the development of this artist. --Superdifficult 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Album from notable artist, content has been updated. Rx StrangeLove 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the revised version. The original version was merely a track listing, now it's a real and valid album article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the revised version as a legitimate album article. Grandmasterka 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This should have been deleted as a clear hoax (see the username of the article creator, Leary40). It does Wikipedia's reputation no good having garbage like this lying around. --kingboyk 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Leary[edit]

Delete. Sourceless hoax; not that having romances with celebrities is a sign of notability anyways. Unfortunately it tries to assert notability so speedy seems out of the question (dunno), and the author has contested the prod. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity/hoax/stupid/you name it. Danny Lilithborne 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certain hoax. Anyone in a relationship with Paris Hilton would be all over the tabloids. Aplomado talk 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There are 6 Google News results none related to this guy. [2]

The front page of Google comes up with various people called Paul O'Leary but none associated with Paris Hilton, Mandy Moore et. al. [3]. Severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathguru[edit]

Adcruft. Scant Google hits. Aplomado talk 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. —Cuiviénen 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenofungus[edit]

Delete. Well, I tried to prod it but was contested. Here's the reasoning from that prod: This is beyond fancruft. Beyond. No sources are cited, most of it is nonsensical, some of it reads like an inside joke, and none of it is notable -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzukara and Chiisume[edit]

Strong Delete. I hate to put these to AfD, but I can't stretch the criteria for speedy deletion to fit it (can anyone else?). Articles are poorly written, nonverifiable, fancrufty, and generally useless. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. "uzukara is a pokémon which some believe is going to be in pokémon diamond/pearl version" That pretty much says it all, someone thinks it might be in a future pokémon. Ted (Talk) 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a pokemon created by "some unknown person"? Please see WP:NFT. --Hetar 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fake Pokemon created by somebody who was bored, and didn't even try to create a decent article to go with it. TJ Spyke 03:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom i roffled. Joeyramoney 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete note the URL to the photo, which prominently contains the word 'fakes'. Jammo (SM247) 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:NFT, and WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; these would have been good candidates for WP:PROD. --MCB 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too speculative, but I agree: prod might have been a good idea. --Xyrael T 10:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did prod the one of them I knew of at first, but the author of the article contested it. AfD was my last resort. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Consensus is overwhelming and there is massive verifiability failure, waaah. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konfisakhar space[edit]

Non-notable original research, that is furthermore improperly represented. Google shows zero hits for the idea. Igor Konfisakhar is not a profesor, but an undergrad, a 3rd-place winner in this years Putnam competitions: Photo of Undergrad Team B; respectable but inappropriate. Also he is contrary to this edit he is not rumoured to be a Fields prize recipient. linas 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. linas 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The reference work listed is searchable online at Amazon (see [4]). I find no reference to "fractal" or "Konfisakhar". I think this is probably a hoax, and should probably be speedy deleted. Paul August ☎ 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being a hoax is not a reason for speedy deletion. Spacepotato 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has to be either a hoax or original research - or both. Madmath789 07:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a rather far out claim, and I'd need to see a reference. The given reference apparently doesn't contain the material, and some of the other edits by the creator have given me reason to doubt. -lethe talk + 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Xyrael T 10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Hoax or not, the actual subject is non-notable. Just because someone misrepresents themselves they're less deserving than someone who simply states they're an undergrad? Seems like it's rewarding dishonesty. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, possible hoax. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I think this is obviously vandalism (CSD G3). Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says that hoaxes can be speedily deleted unless they are remotely plausible, and this one is riddled with incorrect statements. I'm reluctantly refraining from deleting it myself given Spacepotato's comment, but I did put a warning on the article; I think that's the least we owe to the reader. By the way, I had a look at the book by Schaeffer in the library and I could not find anything of the sort. --Jitse Niesen 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus reference, nothing in the literature on the celebrated Igor Konfisakhar and K2-fractals, etc. This is a hoax, part of a series of dubious edits by User:Mathisreallycool. Spacepotato 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there any reason to further delay ridding Wikipedia of a schoolboy prank? I think not. --KSmrqT 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally I think the article has *not* been discredited, and the few mentioned google searches go to show that no one has really looked hard enough. I clearly remember this being a topic in one of my advanced analysis courses, and while I may have cited the wrong text, no one has shown that the body of the article does not stand. --Mathisreallycool 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this comment is by the creator of the article. If the original author cannot provide a citation for this suspicious material, nor can any of the experienced mathematicians here, this gets deleted under WP:NOR. --KSmrqT 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. "I can't find it on Google, waaaah" is not a good enough reason to try to throw away articles --MishaMisha 04:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two voters have said "I can't find it in the reference cited", which is a good reason for deletion. Also, web searches are routinely used as one criterion for notability, and in this case the results not only give no positive support for a "keep", they give evidence that this is a hoax. Please base your vote on your own knowledge of a subject, which I take it here is none. --KSmrqT 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no precise mathematical definition of what a "Konfisakhar space" is, although there is a vague attempt. In addition, there is no (valid) reference, and the term does not show up in any articles referenced in MathSciNet, which is peculiar indeed for a topic in an analysis class. --C S (Talk) 09:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Can be merged without coming to AfD. DarthVader 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FidoBBS[edit]

Should be merged with FidoNet. Pugs Malone 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside A Whale's Cock Vol 1[edit]

non-notable album; 12 unique Google hits. BlueValour 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and revert nomination was the result of vandalism. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roth[edit]

Non-notable, possible vanity pageRopcat 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination withdrawn. Yanksox (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism[edit]

This article is just a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- Where 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom the article has been expanded to the point where it is no longer simply a dictionary definition. -- Where 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article serves to distinguish the layman's version of narcissism from the clinical version. For that reason I vote to keep - I don't think it serves Wikipedia to simply merge. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The more legitimate, fuller Narcissism (psychology) used to be under this title; move it back here. This is unencyclopedic point form. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Narcissism (psychology). --Danielrocks123 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge the narcissism psychology article back to here. BoojiBoy 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per CanadianCaesar and Danielrocks123. --Coredesat 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As above, Stevee2 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move N(psy) back to N. No merge necessary. ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn after reviewing User:Zeraeph's edit history, and changed to Strong Keep given recent edits. ~ trialsanderrors 10:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move N (psy) to N. --Eivindt@c 07:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keep nice rewrite, problem solved. --Eivindt@c 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the Narcissm (psychology) to the article space. It is what readers would expect when they searched for narcissism. Keep given changes to the article. There are some concerns about the section of the Japanese public figure but those can be better addressed on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move per above. —Khoikhoi 08:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give it a chance, someone (not me) suggested it was wrong to devote an article entitled "Narcissism" entirely to the clinical condition, and I find I agree, BUT if you try to incorporate the general useage into the clincial condition it becomes grossly inaccurate and misleading. All that is here, as yet, are a few lines I copied from someone else's radical attempt to generalise the clinical article, by no means intended to represent the full article. The fact is that when people use the word "Narcissism" they do not always, or even mostly, mean the clinical condition and that warrants recognition.--Zeraeph 08:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say I am SO THRILLED by all this support for the article.--Zeraeph 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into Narcissism (psychology) and move the combined article back to Narcissism. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and move per Kjkolb. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Xyrael T 12:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is potential for a great article here based upon the Greek origins and its modern meaning (at least that's what the article told me). ScottW 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The editor is trying to create an article here, it doesn't mean that if it is short, it will not be longer. By deleting this, you, who do not edit the article, thus are incompetent, only discourage the editor in his efforts. I have saved the wiki source code for this article, and if deleted, I will restore it per WP:IAR. ackoz 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moreover, this is no place to discuss merging the article. Only the editors that work on both articles should decide about what to merge and what not, of course you can, but you know nothing about the topic, so if the majority of votes is merge or move, this is not binding for the editors. ackoz 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to chill a little on the incompetence accusations. But I also urge the editors to consider User:Zeraeph's contributions. This looks like a fly-by-night at first glance, but clearly Zeraeph has written extensively on the subject before. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I should have written uninformed. ackoz 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly noteworthy subject. Current content is helpful. Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more than dictionary and helpful content. --WinHunter (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Noteworthy and until yesterday in need of a complete rethink. No merge due to the immense amount of irrelevant Freudian theory in the psychology article - this content and the actual definition of narcissism as a character trait MUST at all costs be kept separate. Upon commencing work on the narcissism article the sheer mismash of fluffily written, trumped up text and jumbled theorem was astounding; the article was in clear need of extensive work. Thus, the mainstay article and the (psychology) subsidiary article should be separate; our combined energies must be vested in improving and perhaps thinning down the (psychology) area as it is in dire need of attention. A detailed critique made on the day of editing can be found on the talk page - it could be used as a guide of sorts for future editors. -- D-Katana) 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to note that, while bearing in mind Freud pretty much created Narcissism as a psychological construct (can't help wondering if the word was in common useage before that?) the critique is absolutely superb and I have personally found it invaluable --Zeraeph 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Narcissism (psychology). Keep, quite interesting, and I'm working on it too. -- Jared Hunt 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edit in progress. ABenis 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting, well-sourced and useful article; the concepts discussed here are different than in the Narcissism (psychology) article. JChap 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the nomination was withdrawn. --Coredesat 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like s decent article now. Rockpocket 06:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. --Zoz (t) 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Mathmo 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we need to have as much information on the flaws of mankind made as succintly and understandable as possible. Why delete it, when you can help the editor to make it relevant and understandable. This is a very negative part of our society (imho), but since Wikipedia is neutral, I think the article needs to present it as impartially as possible so people can make their own decision. Deleting it feels like someone wants to sweep this under the rug, but as long as it is educating people, I think an article deserves to be kept. -Ig 3:00, 20 June 2006. (UTC)
  • Keep after the good job done especially two days ago, this vote is an open-and-shut case now. Sciurinæ 12:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I love myself and I think I'll keep me too. --Psients 04:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other Narcissism article is sufficient, changed my past vote 203.122.194.178 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cbreak[edit]

Freeware with no claim to notability Rklawton 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its claim to notability is that it is a "free commercial remover for AVI files", which to me seems both notable and useful. TruthbringerToronto 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not much claim of notability. --Danielrocks123 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google test[5] brings up some notability. Article can be revamped, though. Yanksox (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, "cbreak" is some sort a programming term in addition to this thing. I searched for (cbreak avi) and found 152 unique hits including something about "cbreak dance music". Go firgure. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep + wikify Joeyramoney 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, but in definite need of a cleanup. --Arnzy (whats up?) 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete absolutely no assertion of compliance with WP:SOFTWARE or evidence of widespread use. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I refined the google search and Crz, is right. It was already apparent that the article was a mess, but after reviewing WP:SOFTWARE, I see no reason to keep. Notability is next to non-existant. Yanksox (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Articles on minor free software projects seem innocuous, and I would hold them to a lower standard than commercial software that is likely to be unavailable if not sold actively. LotLE×talk 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 09:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 12:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE per CrazyRussian Kevin 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with CrazyRussian. It fails WP:SOFTWARE, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia... WP:NOT a web directory of site/software. This is GNU/GPL Free software (and good luck with it), and is better off being listed on freshmeat.net where it belongs. - Motor (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability even on the software's homepage. Someone could easily code another commercial remover for DVR recordings; that's rather easy to do with the right programming knowledge. There could be any number of such programs now. Assertion of notability would be something like "this is the world's first such program" and/or "it was reviewed extensively by newspapers X and Y" - and sadly the article is lacking this critical assertion. Kimchi.sg 16:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrazyRussian. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Eluchil404 01:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DVD R W. Yanksox (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake dead[edit]

Article is a hoax Ted Talk 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete How is this not patent nonsense? Danny Lilithborne 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Um. I meant to say, this looks like it qualifies under "attack," too. Rklawton 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed it for speedy delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, WP:IFD is two doors down to the right. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edwardloweflag.jpg[edit]

the user has marked the image as being from CIA world factbook, which is blatantly false, there is no indication as to real copyright status. Cptbuck 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koroake[edit]

I don't know much about InuYasha, but this smells like a hoax as none of the related character page mention this character. Previously prod'ded, removed by anon user.

Also listed:

–Danny Lilithborne 04:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Only 70 Google results [6]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hyoga, as that is an actual Inuyasha character and not one made up in a fanfic. --Coredesat 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tychocat 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 12:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear HOAX, probably can even be deleted through speedy too --WinHunter (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But keep Hyoga, I was able to verify at least some of the material in that article. Why are these two being listed together? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, I don't know much about InuYasha, but the editor was suspect, creating other articles of a hoax-like nature. You don't have to delete them both. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing Hyoga, as it's been proven he's a real character, but someone should really expand or merge that article. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star 74[edit]

Notability in question (What once began as a solo-project by Cappello, is now a rising group that will soon break into the mainstream) NMChico24 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric I. Spoutz[edit]

Article about an art dealer, created by User:slaenterprises--same name as the subject's published e-mail address [8]. The claims of notability made in the article are uncited, and I cannot find anything verifiable to back them up. Most Google hits are of the type where you submit your own press release/information. I'm open to changing my mind on this if someone can prove me wrong, but for now, I say delete this article as there is nothing verifiable to show that the subject is notable. ScottW 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I love this claim: "Mr. Spoutz is the youngest individual to achieve large success as an Art Dealer and Collector in the begining of the 21st cetury." Def. needs sourcing to remain. Also, this sheet has been tagged for sources and cleanups for quite awhile now. (off and on) Lsjzl 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • cut down and clean up Joeyramoney 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have also tagged the editor's other contribution, Ian Hornak, for needing footnotes and citations. Tychocat 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and cleaned up. --Xyrael T 12:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.- Motor (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been modified and sources have been cited.
  • Weak Delete after reviewing the cited sources, I think that the gallery may be marginally notable but Mr. Spoutz is not apart from it. If the article was rewritten and renamed to focus on the gallery I would probably change to a weak keep. Eluchil404 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Area Team Sports[edit]

With the deletion (via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Flag Football League of the IFFL, there are a lot of red links. No evidence of notability of this organisation is on offer in the article. Google results are meagre, 60 some hits and a lot of those are mirrors of WP. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Canada and New Zealand[edit]

Extreme unsourced original research. Was previously AfD'd in April 2005, and hasn't gained one decent source to verify its claims, nor does it establish why such comparisons are important. I'd support Canada-New Zealand Relations, but this isn't it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but i do want something to be made of it. Joeyramoney 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the very concept implies original research and it is made express on reading it. I believe there may be a similar Aus/Can page somewhere. It isn't likely to be of much use either, certainly not as much use as content about Aus v NZ or Can v US. This stuff, if verified, could be part of a more useful relations page per the nom. Jammo (SM247) 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An interesting comparison for an idle moment, but not a topic for an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for extreme silliness. Are we to have every pairwise combination of countries, each of which have some similarities and differences? LotLE×talk 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's uncalled for. These two countries have a lot more in common than most pairs of countries, and it is an intelligent article on a perfectly reasonable issue. But not an encylopedia style article unfortunately. Honbicot 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and WP:POV problems. Agent 86 08:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. But I did like In both nations, the national sport (...) is a contact sport marked by legal aggression and incidents of illegal violence. Inner Earth 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's pretty interesting and would be a shame to lose, but I can't vote to keep something that smacks of OR. BoojiBoy 13:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone has written a book or research paper on this, putting it all together is OR at best. Kevin 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non encycopdeic and original research. --MichaelMaggs 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no original research. The article also fails to establish the relevance of these similarities. Extraordinary Machine 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have just added a couple of external links that I think are useful sources, especially the immigration/multiculturalism paper. -- Avenue 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Homey 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per Avenue, and it is not entirely original research. Split/move article.Brian | (Talk) 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll just quote from the first nomination: "This is interesting, useful, quite well-written, and original research. JRM · Talk 00:36, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)". That's over a year ago and it hasn't gotten any less original. There is some stuff that can be salvaged from the article and incorporated into other articles, but that does not mean this article shouldn't be deleted. JRM · Talk 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To "salvage" parts of it, don't we have to keep a record of who contributed which bits to abide by the GFDL? It's much easier to do this if the article is moved rather than deleted. I'd be happy to give it a temporary home in my user space while we figure out what can be salvaged. -- Avenue 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      By "salvage" I mean extracting whatever sourceable and relevant facts are in there (which are not all that many) and add them to whatever article is most appropriate for them. That doesn't mean the wording has to be preserved. If it did, this would be a more general problem, since we can't really maintain articles that should be deleted because someone copied a sentence from it to put in another article. In short, I propose that we salvage facts (such as there are), not the words. JRM · Talk 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/split/move - as per Avenue. This isn't entirely original research, it's a more than occasional subject of news articles in NZ. The fact that new Zealand is more frequently compared with Canada that with Australia in itself says something about the strength of the similarities - I doubt it would lead to a rah of other "comparison" articles. The fact that it has been here over a year with remarkably few of these other articles appearing is also indicative of this. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not need pages comparing random pairs of X and Y. Indrian 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Indrian, Coredesat and nom. We can't have such pages otherwise we'll get things like Similarities between George Bush and Tony Blair or something like that. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is about counties, not people. New Zealand is frequently compared with Canada, the article can be improved, and it is silly to delete it. There are also Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared and Canadian and American economies compared if this article is deleted so should those. Brian | (Talk) 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There's been a whole year since the last nomination to improve the article. Not much seems to be happening. If it's so easy to remove all the original research, stick in references, and obtain a respectable article, why hasn't it been done?
    2. "If this article is deleted so should X, Y and Z be" has never been a valid argument for preserving an article (or for deleting one, for that matter). It's rather more instructive to see why the articles you mention are not in danger of deletion while this one is. The issue is not that we can't have articles which compare things-of course we can. We just have to report on comparisons as made by others, with proper references. "Similarities between Canada and New Zealand" is way too general a topic, and the original research runs rampant. Comparisons between politics, health care systems and economies of countries that can be meaningfully compared are much more concrete topics, and if you'll care to look, the articles you mention are much better referenced. "Similarities between X and Y" is a non-topic. If there were lots of scholarly works specifically comparing George W. Bush and Tony Blair, then that would make it a valid topic, and we could have a "George W. Bush and Tony Blair compared" article. But it's not very likely that there are credible sources doing that, and that's why it's not an article. JRM · Talk 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Narrators[edit]

It's just a list of people who have done narration with no comments. If it's useful at all, it should be a category, which is what I suggested in the prot but it was removed with an edit summary comment of "(Please do not delete!!! Narrator is a category already. Some of these people act and narrate, so I feel the list is useful here!))"- there is no category Narrator or Narrators. I think the article editor (User:AtlBo) means well but is just a bit confused - he's not very experienced. Jamoche 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONGLY Do NOT Delete Jomoche is correct, I do not have much experience, sorry. However, to me it doesn't matter, really, whether this listing is a category or a listing. My problem is that I am having a hard time moving from one narrator to another without the list. I feel that the list will get lost in the article "Narrators." At any rate, I really feel, although I am not experienced, that the list is very helpful. Thanks! (AtlBo 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)=AtlBo)[reply]
    • I don't think you quite understand. The alternative to deleting this is not to put these people into the article Narrator, but into a category. The difference between an article containing a list and a category is that an article gets added to a category by putting a category tag at the bottom, and then the list is maintained automatically, whereas if there's an article with a list, the editor has to edit two different places. That's why people say lists can be unmaintainable. Look at Category:Actors; articles get on that list when someone puts [[Category:Actors]] on the page. --Jamoche 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davidson (masseur, author)[edit]

Delete not quite CSD material, but close.- CrazyRussian talk/email 04:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO guidelines. --Arnzy (whats up?) 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete he is a published author, but that alone is not enough. Jammo (SM247) 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources indicating notability per WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. His book seems just barely notable, especially if the article itself was improved. LotLE×talk 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added a link to a magazine article that he wrote. TruthbringerToronto 06:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His book is not available on Amazon, so he most likely doesn't pass the author test in WP:BIO Kevin 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - he wrote one book and co-authored another, and wrote a story for a magazine (thanks Truthbringertoronto), so that seems to me a weak degree of notability. Note that if kept, this should be moved to Alan Davidson (author), a single word disambiguation is sufficient at the moment. Kimchi.sg 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal promo. Getting a book published is no big deal. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Not enough info; fails WP:BIO (with just one book mentioned). --Slgrandson 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney animated features' titles in various languages[edit]

I'll just shamefully copy and alter the reasons from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages (2nd nomination) (credit goes to Mangojuice), as I'm in a hurry.

  1. First of all, most Disney films have articles in many other wikis, so the titles of the books in other languages can be obtained there.
  2. Second, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of having articles like this -- WP isn't babelfish.com and it isn't a dictionary either; I think this is unencyclopedic... I know Disney is popular, but if we keep this it's a slippery slope.
  3. Third, and perhaps most importantly, if the article were properly sourced, it would look suspiciously like original research, I think: unless someone ELSE has ever written an article or book about the translation of Disney films, we're going to be using entirely primary sources.

For all these reasons, delete. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Re point 3, there is nothing in WP:OR preventing the use of primary sources. Spacepotato 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the nominator meant that Wikipedia would be the primary source (since it wouldn't have been printed elsewhere). --FuriousFreddy 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is excessively long, and isn't really necessary. --Coredesat 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like original research. I gotta say, I wish occasionally there were a WP:Unnecessary... Tychocat 10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reeks of OR. I said this on other one of these Disney/language/list AFDs, but this sort of cross-language article poses real maintence and verifiability problems and it adds nothing all that useful. - Motor (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and remove them all from the individual Disney feature articles as well. --FuriousFreddy 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,
    • 1. The presence of information in other wikis is not a criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. Quite the opposite - "no original research" demands that info in Wikipedia has to appear somewhere else, so the nominator's first argument is actually evidence that the article is not original research.
    • 2. Invoking the slippery slope fallacy does not support the deletion of any article. All articles on AfD should be evaluated against the criteria for deletion and not against any other standards.
    • 3. Evidence against original research was presented in point 1.

If the article is voted for deletion, at least move it to another wiki that supports film-trivia, such as Film-Flam. Other voters comments about necessity and usefulness are well taken, but are not currently criteria for deletion (maybe they should be, but they're not.) dryguy 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-noteworthy information. --InShaneee 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a useful list, contain other languages which English editors is not likely to understand. If someone is looking for the titles in foreign language, they should probably goto their desired title's interwiki links. --WinHunter (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful. Use interwiki links if you really want to know. BryanG(talk) 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proffitt's House[edit]

Non-notable. There are zero relevant google hits for Justin Proffitt's House. There is a John Proffitt in Kentucky who apparently was charged with murder, but nothing relevant to this article. Ted Talk 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as possible hoax. --Arnzy (whats up?) 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 06:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 06:59Z
  • Delete nn, hoax. Tychocat 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WinHunter (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with extreme prejudice completely verifiable. Come to proffitt's house and see the glory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phouse (talk • contribs)
    • Only contributions to the article, this AfD, and the talk page of one of the "voters" commenters above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete if at all possible. WP:HOAX, created by a "user" who has done nothing else but edit this, and has a relevant name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this please it looks too much like hoax Yuckfoo 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems verifiable, get off the guy's back Raisingkain8
  • Keep IS verifiable, why cant it be a real place, does everything in the world have to be on google, losers Willowkp
  • Delete per nom. I'm curious to see how many other new users show up to support this. Kickaha Ota
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bafingus is a real thing[edit]

Firstly, if the title's assertion is true then it should be at Bafingus, not at this title. Beethoven was a real person, but I don't believe we have an article "Beethoven was a real guy". Secondly, the title's assertion is clearly not true, since almost all real things from the last twenty years will get at least one ghit, whereas this gets none [9]. It's a hoax which is unverfiable and without sources. Delete. Mak (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Lebanon Percussion[edit]

Nominated (by someone else) for speedy deletion as non-notable high school band, but contested. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 05:21Z

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 (bio), no need to discuss I think. Jammo (SM247) 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral After recent comments, I am led to believe this may have merit, it is still however a school band, whether it is a successful band. I no longer have any particular opinion. Jammo (SM247) 04:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After recent comments and messages on talk after a quick research, I'm convinced that this may have some merit, but there is still a lack of sources or little to no indication of meeting WP:BAND. --Arnzy (whats up?) 08:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author asserted notability; did you guys read the assertions? —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 05:50Z
  • Delete, but not speedily. Notability is asserted ("has been recognized as one of the premier percussion groups in the nation"), but there's a complete lack of sources or other indications of meeting WP:BAND. Sandstein 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm tempted to say that with over 200 students involved, and having been going for 20 years, it's notable. - Richardcavell 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of the most award-winning school music groups in American history. The sources confirm that it has won all of the awards. --M@rēino 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BAND is a guideline, and this group is closer to meeting the guidelines than not. The blue ribbon award they won is probably significant for their field. The arrangement with Malletech is suggestive of notability, especially in percussion circles. Finally, depending on which KDKA components broadcast the telethon, they may have played to a national radio audience. The article could use more independent sources, yes. However, it's a well-written article, it's on a group worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and Wikipedia is certainly not hurt by leaving this article in. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little research confirms that KDKA radio broadcasts the telethon, and at 7 p.m. in the winter, that's playing to a national audience. —03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Does seem just about notable enough for me. It appears a very successful and well established band per the sources. It still is only school band though. Rockpocket 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm still not convinced that the group is notable enough to warrant inclusion. To begin, I don't think WP:BAND is the proper guideline to use as we're talking about a school group. I'm sure there are hundreds of school bands across the nation who could make similar claims (ie appearing on a telethon, performing at education conferences, winning competitions, etc.). Think about it this way; probably a band a year is chosen to perform at education conferences. Say there's one per state and at least one national conference. That's 51 high school groups per year. Over the course of 20 years, there have been over a thousand groups that have done the same thing as this one. - The relationship with Malletech is somewhat intriguing, but again, I'm sure that hundreds of bands across the nation have similar relationships with instrument manufacturers. Again, not necessarily notable enough for this single group. Finally, see WP:NOT which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I just don't think this group is that notable... ClarkBHM 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist[edit]

We already have articles on physics, astrophysicist, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. In addition we have a list of physicists, Nobel Prize in Physics, etc. I can't see any reason for the existence of this additional article. Alison Chaiken 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect this information is redundant given the other pages (e.g. physics, list of physicists) and so on. Reidrect to either of the two I just mentioned, or a more appropriate one if somebody can think of one. Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Physics, as the article discusses the various strands that make up physics research more than what it means to be a physicist.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is kept it definitely needs to be cleaned up in order to discuss the role of the physicist rather than the disciplines in which physicists operate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we keep the article, editors should turn it into more of a discussion of the role of physicists in science and in larger society, not just a laundry list of types of research that physicists do. Alison Chaiken 16:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have lots of articles on lots of different professions. I don't see why we shouldn't also have one on physicists, which is after all a rather exciting profession, of some interest to the general public. -lethe talk + 09:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let it develop. Engineer does not redirect to engineering, architect to architecture or physician to medicine. (damn edit conflicts!) -- Kjkolb 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We generally have articles like Pharmacist, Engineer and Physician. These articles talk about the practical side of the career, not just about the subject. Definitely a fair enough nomination though. DarthVader 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. I think the article should both discuss the role of the physicist and the professional contexts in which they operate, just like Chemist and Mathematician. --LambiamTalk 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. BoojiBoy 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. This is an important subject in itself (so speaks someone who calls himself that!), and the page could easily be developed into a more detailed discussion of the types of physicist and what they do. Why should we have Engineer, Chemist and Mathematician, but not Physicist?--MichaelMaggs 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope some one will expand it - there should probably be several more subheadings. Peterkingiron 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to physics. Basically what this page is saying is that physicists study physics. --Danielrocks123 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly not redundant, very different from Physics --WinHunter (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per aeropagitica and Danielrocks123. I would also support the same being done to Chemist. Tevildo 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it does just say that "physicists study physics", then it should not. It should describe more about how physicists are organised, their professional organisations etc. They are already linked in part. --Bduke 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Physics is to do with the nature of the universe — it is important. Cedars 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's already an article on Astrophysicist, it could be merged into Physicist, along with other X-physicist, if there's some strong reason, but there's no problem having separate articles, as far as I can see. A physicist is a person, and physics is a science. They're not the same, and they deserve separate articles, so it's natural that Wikipedia would have them in separate articles. The article on the person can discuss education, career, noteworthy individuals etc. The article on the science can concentrate on science. Fg2 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite along the lines of other professions' articles. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. With Physics. Aint 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it's an article in need of improvement, but the idea that an article on a not insubstantial subject, lacking now in quality and coverage, should be deleted or merged away is the wrong way of handling it. It needs more text not less text ( to the point of no text... :) ). DAG 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The profession is of interest as well as the subject of physics. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep there is clealy room for a seperate article here even it it still needs work. I would recomend a merge with List of physicists except for length. Eluchil404 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the proffession is notable in its own right. Jumbo Snails 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed. 72.144.68.113 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but severely trim: No need of discussions of branches of physics themselves. (started doing it) `'mikka (t) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Moriori —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 06:08Z

A.S.A.P. (FL & TX)[edit]

Blatant POV propaganda for an organisation about which I cannot find any verifiable information. No sources cited and not encyclopaedic, just self-aggrandizing silliness. Jammo (SM247) 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Jeffreys[edit]

Not Notable, Vanity, Fails every test in WP:BIO, Fails WP:PROF no awards, no significant academic contribution, not the originator of a new area in her field. Being a radical feminist does not in itself make one encyclopedic Kershner 05:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of this article. I disagree, because as you say, "being a radical feminist does not in itself make one encyclopedic", but she is a notable radical feminist. I would suggest you read say [10]. I hope that article (which is among others), would convince you that she is a notable radical feminist. I might suggest that if you do not think she is a notable radical feminist, is that maybe because you do not know that much about radical feminism? She is certainly notable within her field. --SarahEmma 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is the author of several published books, and is well respected within the academic community. The article has been expanded to show details about her books. See also http://www.politics.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/jeffreys.html , which is cited in the article. TruthbringerToronto 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bibliography, Guardian interview, etc. --MCB 06:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I wouldn't say she's "well respected", but she's certainly "well known" (I find her analyses a bit silly, as much as I agree with other radical feminists; still I know these analyses because they're notable). She has a whole bunch of books from good publishers. LotLE×talk 06:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LotLe. ~ trialsanderrors 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable as above. And Wikipedia already says she is a key thinker and prominent academic. --HJMG 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:HEY, should this article be expanded and properly cited to look like a professor or author's article and not so clearly POV, I would happily withdraw my nomination and change to Keep. Kershner 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although multiple book publication or major newspaper interview is NOT evidence of notability in themselves. Cumulatively, possibly. Bwithh 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of above. David L Rattigan 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto. Beaner1 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Needs substantial additional sourcing and cleanup. Kickaha Ota 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpff[edit]

Dicdef, and probable hoax. The real word is "bumf" which is a shortenning of "bum fodder". http://www.answers.com/bumf —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 05:45Z

  • Delete. I found one relevant link on Google, and this really isn't enough. --Coredesat 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. MCB 06:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above.--Andeh 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inner Earth 10:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —Khoikhoi 03:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Radio Chicago[edit]

Advertising --Phaelon 05:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable enough from a brief Googling, but needs to be reworked dramatically as, per the nom, it is presently just an ad. Jammo (SM247) 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The statistics quoted in the article as a sufficient assertion of notability. The article has been cleaned up, but may require further work. TruthbringerToronto 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The article as it stands is little more than an ad. Needs serious cleanup or I say delete. Beaner1 06:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outcast bandicoot[edit]

Fan fiction, doesn't seem to meet WP:V. lowercase 06:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 06:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, not encylopedic, not a speedy delete, though. Yanksox (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - less than 500 Google hits, many of which are discussion boards on DeviantArt, no indication of notable media coverage... sorry, it doesn't look to meet the requirements. Tony Fox (speak) 06:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not fanfiction, and if you believe it should be deleted for that reson see the Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi. And this is in no way vanity, that just makes no sense. But I believe you may be right about the popularity of this. Maybe when it gets more popular.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabyr (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 June 2006

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. -- Kevin 07:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macoris clothing[edit]

Advertisement - can't find anything about them elsewhere, seem to be non-notable. Written by User:MACORIS, whose page is a copy of this one. Goldom (t) (Review) 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Lsjzl 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article asserts it's own lack of notability - ... is destined to become... etc Kevin 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy: Endless Nova[edit]

Not notable fangame made with RPG Maker. Probably fails WP:VANITY. Was Prod'd but some random anon removed it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 07:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - has a few hundred Ghits, but a lot of them are probably the work of the game's author, judging by the gushing reviews. For example:
"I find it truly remarkable that a single man can create a game that lives up to the high standards set by the Final Fantasy games. Not only does Endless Nova live up to the name, it ranks up there with FF VI! Like any other FF game with respect for itself, Final Fantasy - Endless Nova is set in a completely unique and detailed universe. Delita Hyral X has looked up at the sky and invented a whole civilisation amongst the stars, and by doing that he has moved the series to a new level - just as it should be."[12]--Nydas 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you can quote a not well-known review site. Still doesn't assert notability. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nydas was trying to assert notability, especially has they voted DELETE.--DennyCrane Talk 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doy. Very sorry about that, Nydas. I misread your delete vote as mine (I just looked at the bold, and since it was the first vote, assumed it was mine). Much, much apologies. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Delegation to the 2004 Democratic National Convention[edit]

Political list cruft. Calwatch 07:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Delegation to the 2004 Democratic National Convention nominated for the same reasons. Calwatch 07:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The Ohio delegation is a much better version, but I would say these lists are notable because of the people that are on it are notable. Notability exists for them, so therefore they make the list notable. Yanksox (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, many of the people on the Missouri list are not notable. The Ohio list is apparently incomplete (Ohio is a more populous state than Missouri, so its delegation was probably larger, not smaller, than Missouri's); if it were complete, it would include more non-notable people than it currently does. --Metropolitan90 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It's a group of mostly non-notable people, with little information other than that they were there (and probably not much more meaningful content that could be added.) Grandmasterka 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eiland[edit]

Several users claim this city doesn't excist, but is a hoax. Listing to help new user No vote from me. eivindt@c 07:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Hoax as Nl:Eiland = Dutch for island, not a city. Fwiw the biggest city in Oost-Vlaanderen is Ghent (pop. 230,000). ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Ellywa 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It does not exist --Walter 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (And if I where admin here I would block that user and check of he is not a sockpuppet, what seems likely)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a sockpuppet. Gotem is another account of mine, but I've never not made no attempt to hide this. syphonbyte 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was the kind of accusation that would have made you claw your eyes in despair, had you not been a sockpuppet not long enough to un-ignore it. --The Raven 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. - Tangotango 09:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete sheer nonsense Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, part of a larger group of hoaxes and nonsense articles by same people (see e.g. Polfbroekstraat). Fram 12:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedily (doesn't qualify under the patent nonsense criteria). Unlike the Gotem article, I cannot find substantial evidence that this is a real town/city. ScottW 13:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no city called Eiland in Belgium: this is a hoax. --Tuvic 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This does not meet Speedy Deletion criteria as we've determined before, so just consider the Speedy Delete votes as Delete votes. syphonbyte 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax. I happen to live nearby. Eiland is a street which starts in the centre (!) of Sint-Lievens-Houtem, then turns circularly right to keep the Eilandmolen (Island Mill - a water mill from 1480 which still exists, just google) on its left and then turns sharply left again into development NE of the same water mill. Despite this new development I doubt whether there are more than 100 houses in this street. There is an online Belgian street finder: www.mappy.be. Checking "Eiland 26" and "Eiland 27" in Sint-Lievens-Houtem (unfortunalety, the site does not like completely quoted urls) should give you a good idea of what we are talking about in reality. As Fram said, I would advise everyone here to have a look at Polfbroekstraat and Kottem where the same people are active. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V WP:HOAX. For ref Google Maps (50° 52' 60N, 4° 0' 0E). blue520 03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Syphonbot delivered proof of the article being a hoax, just this night: look at my remark about the references at Talk:Eiland. --Tuvic 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Proof? The only proof there is that I found a source online.
  • Comment And this site is even more a hoax than the article itself, therefore supporting the claim that the article is a hoax. --Tuvic 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is a simple hoax. gidonb 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ushi No Tane[edit]

Still no proof of notability, currently shows no way of pleasing Wikipedia's guidelines for Website Notability article bordering on fancruft J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, however this website is simply not notable. DarthVader 10:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Ushi No Tane is a notable website noted in every major game-advice website from gamefaqs to game spot. Sorry if it seems like advertising, but the site is already tremendously popular and there is no need for advertising with 3000 active members growing every day. We just wanted a place to explain things about the site since people are always asking or confused about subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.227.5.183 (talk • contribs) .
You still haven't told us how it meets wikipedia's rules for websites. Look at the top of this page for the link on thewords "webiste notability". J.J.Sagnella 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. -- Steel 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. If Wikipedia carries articles about minor things, such as Urine Drinking and Anal Leakage, I think we can make an exception. Considering Ushi No Tane is a very large community with many members and is linked to on almost every site mentioning Harvest Moon, including Wikipedia, I think that it is well enough to stay. TripleJump
  • Don't Delete. Ushi no Tane is a helpful website, not to mention fun. I agree with TriplejUmp, Wikipedia carries even the most random things, so why shouldn't it stay?
  • Delete per nom Aeon 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a web directory. Argument from Triple Jump can be applied to any AfD. - Wickning1 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so unless someone can say soon how it fits into the rules for websites, the article will not stay. J.J.Sagnella 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbadbabynames[edit]

I don't believe that this satisfies the relevant guideline. Namely, google does show much for the site itself with and without spaces and there are total of roughly 5,000 members in about 800,000 posts. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Forum has Members: 5,202, may be notable, may not be.--Andeh 09:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough. Forums aren't generally notable. DarthVader 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn. Tychocat 11:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Haha, made you look. No consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hollow School[edit]

Originally listed as {{prod}}, but tag deleted without reason. The only "improvement" was to add categories, stub tag. It is with a bit of a sigh that I nominate this, knowing the division out there about schools, but I do so only because the prod was removed without any reason or improving the article in any way. Schools are not inherently notable, and elementary schools even less so. Until there is an agreed policy on schools, each article ought to be considered on its own merits and in this case there appears to be none. No basis for notability, importance, or encyclopedic value are evident in this article. Agent 86 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This primary school is not notable. DarthVader 10:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Schools are never deleted, they are always notable. SomeStranger(t|c) 11:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, heavy sigh per nom. Schools are not inherently notable, nor does article even try to show notability. Tychocat 11:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether or not schools are notable - this article does nothing to assert notability. The school may be a 40 student, created last year one. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to be a notable school, and contrary to the assertions of a certain organised group on Wikipedia... schools are not inherently notable, and there is no precendent for automatic 'keep' votes. Each case should be judged on its own merits. - Motor (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a primary school for which unlike high schools no precedent has been established as of yet so judging this individual school on it's merits I would say it is NN. Ydam 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. --InShaneee 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As you were reluctant to nominate, you could have saved time by not doing so. Honbicot 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usable stubs are cheap. Joeyramoney 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How the heck is a secondary school different from a primary school? The people that were last years primary scholars are this years secondary ones, so they serve the same people... Jcuk 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this year's presidents were once four years old, but that does not imply that everyone who is four years old deserves a Wikipedia biography. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And let it be said that those of us who were accused of using a strawman argument when we said a couple of years ago that if we allowed middle schools we soon would be allowing articles on elementary schools... were accused unjustly. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Speedy delete per my personal application of CSD A7 to all articles, no claim of notability. Morgan Wick 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for complete lack of asserted notability (I kinda like Wick's speedy deletion vote). Schools can be notable, but they are not inherently notable. This one, in particular, does not seem notable. -- Kicking222 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just a stub at this point but these types of articles tend to develop over time. Alternatively, could be merged to Wayland, Massachusetts. I also disagree with the nom regarding the improvement of the article. Adding a cat + stub + link = improvement. Without the cat, the article would be difficult to find. In the future, the nom may want to consider adding stub + cats to articles along with prod/AfD templates. --JJay 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Alex S 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well established precedent, found at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and well established precedent not to delete school-related articles. Silensor 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such policy and no such precedent. I've asked repeatedly to be pointed to the policy page that says this and nobody has done so. School AfDs are case by case. By all means present arguments for keeping individual schools, but do not cite nonexisting blanket decisions for all schools, because no such decisions have ever been made. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the policy page that says we keep all municipalties, regardless of size (note: there are pages that mention it, but not as policy per se)? Precedent comes from a collection of individual decisions, and doesn't have to be written in one spot. Following precedent allows us to attempt to be consistant. An article should not be deleted arbitrarily, when almost all similiar articles are kept, merely because of the "lottery" of who shows up at AFDs. Participants in each AFD should look at the general past practice. Deletion should be based on policy, guidelines, and precedent. This allows contributors to know, in advance, what they should, and should not create; thus avoiding wasted effort. --Rob 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Thus bringing us back to the beginning. An article ought not be kept arbitrarily because of "precedent". A list of what succeeded and failed in the past is no indication of the merits of this individual article. Until there is a policy in place, school articles need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, asking ourselves the question is it encyclopedic? Or are we simply building a directory? Agent 86 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's encyclopedic and yes it should be kept, obviously. We are building an encyclopedia. --JJay 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please for the millionth time these are encyclopedic and should be kept Yuckfoo 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assert of notability. --WinHunter (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn school --Jaranda wat's sup 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable to people from Wayland, Massachusetts. bbx 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Given that many editors supported deletion, then later arguments for keeping were presented, there is a question here - which I believe Drat is calling attention to below - over whether those arguments have been adequately addressed. I believe they have been. Most of Basscomm's arguments were well responded to by Drat. There are several awards won which are cited in the article, other than that linked to here, but they were already in the article when it was nominated and do not appear to have persuaded editors, which seems a reasonable conclusion to me. A lot, and I mean a lot of people make short films, very few are widely seen, but whenever a sufficient number of people do stuff, they will start giving each other prizes for it. An award has to be notable itself to confer notability.

Given that and the self-promotional nature of this article (Korandder and Basscomm, the only two arguing for keep, have edited very little apart from this article and its AfD), I believe this discussion shows a consensus among editors that this group does not merit coverage in an encyclopaedia (AfD is not a vote, in case it wasn't clear already). Although not all editors have responded to the arguments presented directly, I believe it is more likely that they agreed with Drat's counter-arguments and did not feel the need to dogpile, rather than that they have simply been ignoring this discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoadingReadyRun[edit]

Nonnotable website. Alexa rank 2,643,824[13]. Differently named article on site was twice speedied. This version was sufficiently different that it was decided to give them a week or so to show notability. It's been a week and a half, and there's been no activity on the page for three days. Drat (Talk) 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Please consider all arguments put forth, even for users with only a few edits. Please also consider relisting this to gain clearer consensus.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Well of course it is well known within the community of its own official forums. Also, if you filter out hits from the official site, you only get 3750 hits. Note also that all of Basscomm's 8 current edits concern the article and this nomination.--Drat (Talk) 09:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I registered an account so my edits would have some accountability. I normally just fix typos. Their forums show that there is a reasonable amount of people concurrently interested in the topic per the Importance Guidelines. Basscomm 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Forums are generally disregarded in terms of notability. The site only has 491 users anyway. If that's notable, we may as well have articles on every website with more than a few hundred users in their forums, because "Hey! They're well known within their own forums!" Besides, a simple persusal of the memberlist shows fully 220 of those users have never posted [17], and another 100 or so have less than 5 posts[18].--Drat (Talk) 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I've stated my case and have have attempted to follow established guidelines to state importance. I have no interest in arguing about it. Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rank criteria is flimsy. Mr. Lawrence has an Alexa rank of 5,462,316 [19]. -- Basscomm 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that article doesn't show any reason why that person is notable. The same goes for the other blogger articles created by the author, Mr. Babylon and Ms. Frizzle (American blogger). All three seem prod-worthy as unremarkable.--Drat (Talk) 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Websites do not require much traffic to have influence or be notable. In fact, if one were to accept the film industry as a metaphor, many people saw "Wedding Crashers" a year ago, but that movie is non-notable in comparison to something like "The Battleship Potemkin" which has been watched by relatively few people. Now LoadingReadyRun is no Sergei Eisenstein directed enterprise, but insofar as it has (or could be argued to have) a cult following, has won numerous awards, and has repeatedly caught the interests of several larger sites, it is notable. [20]Basscomm 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment regarding some of the comments on your forum. It would've been nice for some of you to have gotten back to me, asking for more clarification or other ideas, etc., after I posted on your talk pages. But I wasn't going to screw around and give you a whole wiki-tutorial. I have limits on my patience. Please also note that other editors have agreed that this merits deletion.--Drat (Talk) 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Do what you will. It has become clear that I can not provide information to the satisfaction of the editors. I can not speak for the other members of the forum, but I apologize if I have misinterpreted guidelines or tested anyone's patience. That was certainly not my intention. Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. No need to apologize regarding testing patience. On reflection, when I said what I did above, I should have made "I have limits on my patience" a parenthetical statement within the previous sentence.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete On the edge though --Korandder 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. To quote Stifle from another afd some months ago, "Isn't it funny how 'Do not delete' and 'Don't delete' only show up on this kind of article?".--Drat (Talk)
      • comment Is there another phrase that would be preferable to use to voice my opinion to not delete an article? Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment. It's Keep.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don’t get me wrong, I said delete, but any of you who think that it doesn’t meet the notability standards probably are just not familiar with LoadingReadyRun. That’s understandable, as many of you probably would reject an article on Robert Van Winkle for the same reason. No offense to LoadingReadyRun, but my point with the Robert Van Winkle analogy is that probably the only thing that makes them noteworthy (via Wikipedia’s standards) is a single video hosted all over the net, that appears to be by “64K” and not LoadingReadyRun, who are lucky if they even get a link on the page. Of course, a Google search for 1337, which should probably be the basis for this article’s notability, and not LoadingReadyRun itself, obviously yields confounded results that include way more than the video in question. I don’t know if I can do this, but I move for deletions based solely on the website’s nonnotability to be stricken from the record. The video was linked to by some big sites (e.g. BBSpot) and can be found on tons of video hosting sites (e.g. Google Video, YouTube, etc.) if people want to go down this road, I say they should be forced to at least change their reasoning to the fact that the popularity is so difficult to verify. Either way, I still can’t say that this article should stay. It’s apparent that Wikipedia’s focus is shifting. Whatever Wikibastards are running it now clearly want to increase its reliability at the expense of its usefulness. Perhaps you can tell by the non-neutral POV that I liked it better when Wikipedia was actually good for something, but since I alone can’t change Wikipedia’s direction, it is obvious that due to these new standards, the LoadingReadyRun article cannot stay. I’m not good with the Wikispeak, but I guess this mouthful comes down to that there are few facts or other things that the said Wikibastards consider verifiable. Again, I’m not sure how to say that in a Wikipedia way, but I figured I’d at least attempt to supply an actual reason to delete this article. Even if I don’t like the rules, I still think that the AFDs should play by them. Delete. RedNitrogen 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment 64k is LoadingReadyRun. Having a page about just them and not the other work LoadingReadyRun has done is a bit of a waste. I agree with the idea that it should be in wikipedia but I can also see how it does not agree with the letter of wikipedia's "law". I have to say wikipedia has come across a tad bit autocratic to me.--Korandder 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no assertion of notability (CSD A7) Gwernol 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Fernando Valley Youth Chorus[edit]

Seems to be an article promoted someone's club Skinnyweed 09:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Tychocat 11:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged {{db-group}}. The whole page is a slightly edited text dump from all the pages of their website. Kimchi.sg 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dholbajja[edit]

Google search yeilds zero results[21], has been tagged unreferenced for months, and it seems could well be an attack page [22] as well as the significant protests since its creation. In short, Delete - Glen Stollery 09:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote. Delete per Srikeit. I'm not entirely sure here. Looking at this, it would appear the town really does exist in the Kawardha district (you need to scroll down to the dho's). Likewise a simple search for "Dholbajja" returns 57 hits. I don't know, possible nn-hoax and as Stollery said, possible attack, but I'm no expert on the matter. If this is an inflammatory Indian phrase, I hope that some Wikipedian must speak Indian the local language and be able to translate it. That may change my opinion. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment though Daniel, if you remove WP and its clones (answers.com etc) from that 57 you're effectively left with a school and gibberish? Why risk it IMO, the author can always come back at WP:V his work after all. - Glen Stollery 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I dropped a note on User:Srikeit's talk page, and I'll likely trust whatever his opinion is. For some reason, I'm not particularly pursuaded by the protest that's been raised as I get the impression this is all one user, though I'm not making any allegations at all. You're right on the WP:V argument though, if there are only a handful of questionable sites that can even confirm its existence, then perhaps this is an article we really don't need around. Anyway, awaiting the response of Srikeit (or another established contributor with knowledge and insight into the country). AmiDaniel (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll first of all start off with a translation of the word. "Dhol" means a drum (the musical instrument) (also called Dholak) & "bajja" means player. So "Dholbajja" roughly translates to "drum player". Now there seem to be two separate versions created about the word in the article, one about a village (which is the article's current version) & a caste. Now the village most probably does exist (although I couldn't locate it on Google Earth or the Encarta Atlas) but seems to be thoroughly non-notable as there are no less than a million such quite insignificant villages in India & the state of Madhya Pradesh itself having several thousands. As for the caste, although I have never heard of it, may exist. Although it may be a colloquial slur to certain people living in the particular area. But there are no credible ways of verifying that. So this article can be deleted on the basis of being unverifiable, non-notable & being a possible attack page. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Srikeit. --Gurubrahma 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, listen, gentlemen. I am the one who applied for its deletion and let me explain why. Dholbajja literally means drum-player but it's a profession taken up by one of the lowest castes of India, Chamar. The Chamars are shoemakers but the word Chamar has become an ethnic slur and it's very common to abuse someone by calling him/her a 'Chamar'.
Now, the main point is that this article Dholbajja was created to attack an influential upper caste, Bhumihar. This article first claimed that the Bhumihars are Dholbajja but I found it fale and derogatory so I edited it to its current version (geographical locations) only to save it from getting reverted back to the false version.
Remember, there is no subcaste of Bhumihars called Dholbajja so I think this article must be deleted as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.41.178 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006.
  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax/non-notable, possible attack page assuming 59.94.41.178 is correct (in which case it's speedily deletable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-20 07:41Z
  • Why it has not been deleted yet? Is everyone sleeping? I think enough has been explained here. Don't you see that this page is not at all expanding and will never ever expand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.43.188 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Please calm down. There's no need to get too zealous about this--let the AfD run its course. Currently there is no precedent for speedily deleting hoaxes. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent argument raised by Srikeit. -- Samir धर्म 09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely non-notable, although I don't think it is an attack page. Nearly Headless Nick 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan farewell address[edit]

Nothing but an exact quote of his farewell address. If it weren't for the fact that this probably counts as a work of the US government then it would be a speedy copyvio but I brought it here since at the time Ronald Reagan was (technically) a government employee Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikisource MyNameIsNotBob 09:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Yanksox (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. What's the difference between Wikisource and Wikiquote in these situations? Morgan Wick 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speech is already located at Wikisource under "Reagan's Farewell Address", so Delete AdamBiswanger1 03:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per new information. Yanksox (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per new info. --Arnzy (whats up?) 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's already on Wikisource so no need for it here. Jumbo Snails 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't belong at Wikipedia. --Musicpvm 05:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speech probably shouldn't be quoted in full but we may well want to have an article on the subject, like we have on (the admittedly more notable) George Washington's Farewell Address. Haukur 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (and cleanup)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Magazine[edit]

The article does not have the tone of an encyclopedia nor neutral point of view

  • Delete advertising, or possible attack page. also no claim of notability. Tychocat 11:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tone and WP:NPOV are not reasons for deletion, they are reasons for cleanup. Ydam 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, UK telegraph national daily newspaper, quote: "Sugar, the best-selling magazine for teenage girls, with a circulation of almost 300,000" -- however the copy is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and needs redoing. - Motor (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup per Ydam Joeyramoney 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup. The pre-pubescent Just 17. What, not article for Just 17 magazine? -- GWO
  • keep and cleanup - Robertsteadman 19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of above. David L Rattigan 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but leaning delete no claim of notability. Morgan Wick 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also did some basic tinkering with the article, wikified it a little and attempted to inject some NPOV. It's still crap, but at least it's (hopefully) no longer biased crap. It does need work from someone who actually knows the publication. -- Captain Disdain 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite It's notable, I've seen it advertised on national TV. Needs a cleanup though. Matt 23:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight4kids, Inc.[edit]

NN organization. Dismas|(talk) 10:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 28 google hits with no significant outside references to them Ydam 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The group seems to mostly be a web site, but perhaps it's a notable resource for single parents in Georgia. TruthbringerToronto 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisment. --FuriousFreddy 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup Joeyramoney 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very noble cause, but practically unknown. Wikipedia is not the place to try to publicize it. Fan1967 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Vanity. Article creator is organization's founder, C Emerton. David L Rattigan 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David. —Khoikhoi 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Potentially notable, article needs serious clean up though.Beaner1 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FSC-1[edit]

Basically an advertisement for a vaporware product, complete with price tag. 42 Google hits, some of which are Wikimirrors. FCYTravis 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually a fine looking article if you remove the advertisment sounding prose. My main concern is that the images on the article (The ones that make it even passable) are probably incorrectly marked for copyright info. SomeStranger(t|c) 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement, possible hoax since the product is not available (still working with the FAA on those pesky clearances?). Lack of citations look like vanity article, particularly since contributor MLabiche has an oddly similar name to the company (LaBiche) and has only contributed to this article. Tychocat 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article definetly reads like an advertisement, and I doubt the car even exists. You have to admit though, the car does look somewhat humorous... =D --ApolloBoy 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a self promo... shouldn't this be under speedy deletion, ie vandalism. please emove all links to this article (which were created by the vendor, LaBiche, additionally would someone ban LaBiche? Thanks, =D --chorattil 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but the product itself, if it is ever built, might be notable. - Richardcavell 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly would be. But unlike Duke Nukem Forever, this nonexistent product is not in and of itself worthy of an article at this point. FCYTravis 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete The FSC-1 vehicle is real and as close to a Flying Car as you will ever see today. If fact, Popular Science and 60 Minutes are doing articles on this vehicle. The company, LaBiche Aerospace is showing vehicle models at Oshkosh in July 2006. MLaBiche did not put the price tag in the Wiki article, it was someone named Anders. The Wiki article as entered by LaBiche is true and accurate. The vehicle exist and if you remove this article, it would be a dis-service to the wiki community. Check out the News section at www.labicheaerospace.com for the actual latest info. Not these "Nay-saying" people who haven't got a clue. If you remove this article, you have to remove Moller, Terrefugia, Volutee and others. None of these people have a real flying car, just an airplane, teathered pilot-less vehicles, etc. --Mlabiche 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Showing a model is not the same as having an actual product. I respect your efforts but until there is some verifiable external coverage of your company, or you have an actual product to sell, Wikipedia is not in the business of being a crystal ball. FCYTravis 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And Moller's vehicle is a Flying Car because he has a BIG MODEL and calls it a SkyCar? I can go sit in my garage and say I'm a car all day long, but that doesn't make me a car.--Mlabiche 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have the fun IP tools that some have, but it seems to me the top anonymous argument comes from Houston, Texas, wherefore is LaBiche Aerospace. Interestingly, their website lists a telephone number which Google says actually belongs to an Eagle Engineering, whose business coincidentally enough is computer simulations. My vote would remain delete, and you can repost the story when the FSC-1 becomes notable, e.g., real. Tychocat 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, Eagle Engineers is one of my companies that specializes in Oil & Gas Industry. For a list of other companies see www.labiche.ws. I have to say that it is sad that we live in a dark time when skepticism and sarcasm is more valued than honesty, integrity, and optimism.--Mlabiche 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, full disclosure, for sock-puppeting purposes. I fully admit that I am affiliated with the FSC-1 vehicle. I have worked for several years on the vehicle with the vehicle’s creator, and know of its existence in Houston, TX first-hand. In fact, I’m the one that encouraged MLabiche to create the article in question here in the first place.

    That being said, I have several comments to bring to the table. Firstly, self-promotion is not the motivation for the article’s creation. This article actually stemmed from our discussion of the pre-existing Flying Car article. Before MLabiche or I made any modifications to the Flying Car article, it incorrectly discussed Personal Air Vehicles (PAVs) and Roadable Aircraft (RAs) in the same breath. When, in actuality, RAs are an entirely separate group of vehicle from PAVs, with their own set of design goals and challenges not necessarily met by all other PAVs. So we set about differentiating Flying Cars/ RAs and their increased number of capabilities from that of PAVs in said article.

    We also took notice that the Moller “Skycar” [sic] was predominantly over-represented in the Flying Car article. A disturbing fact, since the Moller vehicle is neither a flying car, nor is it a PAV. It is a Powered Lift VTOL aircraft that has the same road-going and door-to-door capabilities of a Cessna 172. It has zero merit as a Roadable Vehicle. So MLabiche and myself decided to rewrite the Flying Car article under more clearly defined terms, in hopes of eradicating this confusion of the two types of vehicle (PAV vs. RA).

    We felt this change would also necessitate the creation of an article about our own vehicle, in order to show the general public that there are other options beyond the “Skycar” [sic] coming to market that meet the actual definition of a RA. We will be at Oshkosh in a month, and we will be generating the kind of “verifiable” ink Wikipedia finds so factual quite soon. And just because we haven’t been working on an aircraft for over 40 years, and sunk over $200 million of our own and many other people’s dollars into it, and generated sensational press over an SEC fraud scandal, doesn’t mean we’re making this up. Also, per the comment about “those pesky FAA clearances”, our vehicle faces only standard regulatory hurdles passed by hundreds of small aircraft manufacturers when compared to that of the poor “Skycar” [sic]. Can you imagine what your neighbor taking off in an 8 engine VTOL jet aircraft would sound like at 7 in the morning as he heads to work? It would sound a lot like an 8 engine jet aircraft taking off in your bedroom. i.e. LOUD This is not something the FAA is about to clear for any populated areas any time soon. Therefore, the misleading idea that you will be seeing these vehicles parked in garages any day now is quite silly, and detrimental to the general public’s concept of “Flying Cars”.

    Anyhow, I understand that even photos of our vehicle will be unconvincing, so we will respect your decision. We will wait a month or so, and once enough press has been generated, we’ll revive the article. Until then, thank you for your time and consideration.Danny 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have a very good grasp of the issue, Danny. Once there are some verifiable external sources available that discuss the FSC-1, such as an article in the Experimental Aircraft Association magazine, as might be gotten at Oshkosh, I think clearly this can be revisited and a neutral, dispassionate article written on the aircraft. The problem is that right now, all we have is speculation and your company's claims - which, while undoubtedly made in good faith, cannot be taken at face value by a dispassionate encyclopedia. FCYTravis 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo qoo[edit]

This is self-promotional but there isn't enough here to call it an advertisement. In any event, fails WP:WEB. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted per WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. FCYTravis 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hardin[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. FCYTravis 11:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, overwhelming consensus to delete.Homey 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Terrorism against the United States[edit]

No such thing, actually.

There are two incidents in this short article that don't justify having a whole entry for them.

The first one (the bombing of the USS Liberty) was not a terror attack. It was an army operation, either made by mistake (as I believe) or deliberately. In any case, it does not qualify as an act of terrorism.

The second, an amateur operation in Egypt with no casualties and negligible damage, was a terror attack, but not against the United States as the title suggests. It was a controversial operation with most Israeli population being against it, and surely was not "state terrorism" or on the same scale as other acts of terrorism. In any case, it has its own article.

--Gabi S. 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Teorrorism tends to be stronlgy POV except for those groups who openly use the word to describe their own actions. I still think the article is notable, and it makes sense to have a short article that 1) mentions the Liberty and the Lavon events, and 2) which could include other similar events that people want to write about. As for the Lavon operation, Gabi calls it amateur but that term's quite ambiguous. Amatuerish perhaps, but it was directed (according to the article) by a colonel in the army who was head of military intelligence: that sounds quite professional to me. Also an attack on USIA libraries was probably an attack against property in US diplomatic compounds and, hence, an attack on what was technically US territory. Gabi rightly points out that this is hardly the same scale of many other acts of terrorism, but it does seem to be an example of state-supported terrorism (on a small scale) against the US. As a title, how about Israeli Attacks on the United States? Interlingua talk 13:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Although I would point out that the second incident is, from the details of the article, 1) not an amateur operation, but directed by state intelligence services 2) indeed a state-sponsored terrorist attack targetting US government targets. There may have been no casualties, but that's beside the point - the essential goal of terrorism is to promote an atmosphere of terror, not necessarily to inflict casualties (for instance the 1996 Provisional IRA] bombing of London's Canary Wharf financial centre was not intended to inflict casualties but to cause maximum economic damage and uncertainty, and to symbolize the end of a ceasefire[23]; but it's still considered a major terrorist attack). Unless the article is factually wrong, I'm not sure where Gabi S. is getting his impression of the attack from Bwithh 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefor non-NPOV. The two incidents, while very interesting historical events, have their own detailed articles so grouping them under this headline can only be to make some kind of political or moral (or other) point. That said, while I do believe this should be deleted, the noms arguments are themselves non-NPOV (and yes, my saying that is also non-NPOV...). Disagreeing with the premise of an article does not mean it gets deleted. It's kept or deleted based on the value (or lack thereof) of the article itself. -Markeer 17:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Mwalcoff 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, redundant and an unlikely search query anyway. Jammo (SM247) 23:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, yet another attempt at an anti-Israel POV title. 6SJ7 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: Both incidents have their own articles; the one for the Liberty incident is a rather long article, and the other is still a substantial article. Both are linked in this article, which therefore serves as sort of an "index" to only two other articles. It is not needed. 6SJ7 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I await with bated breath Israeli terrorism against Wales, Israeli terrorism against Mars, and no doubt soon, Israeli terrorism against Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the commonality between these two operations is too far fetched to be encyclopedic. gidonb 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, SlimVirgin and gidonb. Both incidents have their own articles, and both are included in Category:United States-Israeli relations. This article has, therefore, not a single redeeming merit. Tomertalk 02:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case another voice is needed, delete per SV. The most important consideration, in my view, is that there is no thesis of Israeli terrorism against the US in reputable sources. Grace Note 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even close. Is there a policy this doesn't violate? --Calton | Talk 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After thorough review, I don't think it violates WP:NPA. It violates everything else. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--maayan 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. A pathetic and delusional conspiracy theory writ large. IZAK 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Alex S 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and original research. Pecher Talk 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the two events are not similar enough or independently notable enough to require such an article, which only seems to indicate POV. jnothman talk 08:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary listing for the sake of making Israel look bad. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article contrived merely to create something that doesn't exist. --Leifern 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Swatjester used to say, Ready Aim Fire! - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these two events have already been documented independently and there is no need to extrapolate these unrelated incidents further by highlighting them as supposed "terrorism". Extreme left and right wing POV's, sometimes borderng on rascist, xenophobic and highly unpalatable views that are just plain wrong, have no place on an encyclopedia. Nesher 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article that serves no constructive purpose other than to try to create controversy. Alansohn 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete racist drivel and conspiracy theory Kuratowski's Ghost 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ayinyud 12:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Deborahjay 14:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Israel-United States relations and Category:United States-Israeli relations covers this already. Jon513 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These two events do not seem to be connected by a larger theme of "Israeli terrorism." The relevant information about these topics already appears in their respective articles. --Eliyak 15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yid613 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Each incident has its own article, and the former is certainly not terrorism. Their grouping seems to be for more insidious purposes. Avi 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Olve 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Shlomke 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per pretty much everyone--Kalsermar 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A more honest title from the anon. who created the article would have been "My anti-semetic POV masquerading as an article". Shykee 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]
  • Delete Per Slim's sense of homur. Zeq 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Academy Magnet[edit]

I have no clue why this was tagged, I'm just finishing it off for the user who had tagged it with AfD and about 9 other tags. Metros232 12:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Sea Reflects Stars[edit]

Non notable, have only made some demo's yet Fram 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - misses WP:BAND with no charting and no significant media coverage - Peripitus (Talk) 13:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no specific evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Note that this thing has been speedily deleted four times before, and is only barely above a speedy now. Perhaps it should be protected. Grandmasterka 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by number of 100 biggest world companies[edit]

List of no apparent value based on OR. Amterdam and Den Haag merged for no reason. Nuttah68 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' --FuriousFreddy 13:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename & Keep I think the list has considerable value, as much as those that show per capita income in $PPP, for example. It also has notability: globalization, concentration, networking are all very notable. I made a few changes to it to try to increase its chances of surviving. I'm not the author but just stumbled on this article while reviewing the AfD discussion. Yes, it is based on OR (original research) but then again, all articles here are going to be based, directly or indirectly, on such OR. As I understand it, they cannot BE original research but should ideally be verifiable, most often in terms of a chain of citations that lead back to OR. I added the references (but not citations) to two of Saskia Sassen's two books, each of which establishes the importance of measures/ranks like those in the article. But I think the article needs to be renamed. I chose concentration of major corporatate headquarters for my intro, which I think is a compromise between reasonable fidelity to the original title and sufficient generality for future contributions. Interlingua talk 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list isn't actually there and it would be a copyvio if it was. There is more than one way to define company size (and "city" for that matter) so it will be misleading at best. Honbicot 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete topic is imprecise as we do not know what a city is or what "biggest" means. Further, the difficulty in monitoring the market for corporate control makes it impractical even for governments to define who owns or has relevant interests in what company accurately most of the time. Jammo (SM247) 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jammo. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many big companies in developing countries like in Russia does not presented on market and does not even publish their financial information. Elk Salmon 10:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Interlingua. -- Avenue 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of male singers[edit]

Horribly incomplete, and horribly unmaintainable (although, what's here and what isn't puts several of Wikipedia's systemic biases on front street. FuriousFreddy 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - listcruft - list that will go on and on and on - Peripitus (Talk) 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm an inclusionist and also list-friendly, but this lacks thought behind it and will combine extreme incompleteness with extreme length. I admire the hours of work that have gone into this, but it's not Wiki-worthy. Is there any way for the author(s) to save this? Would breaking it into separate articles, each limited chronologically and categorically, help? I'm thinking of separate articles along the lines of "Male Carnatic Singers 1920-1947" "Male Canratic Singers 1947-2000" "Female Country Singers -1945" etc. Or am I trying to save something hopelessly listcrufty? Interlingua talk 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too broad of a list and also asking for vandalism. Yanksox (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable listcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awful - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First up, yes I'm partisan. Ok, so both the female list and the male need attention, which is what they've been getting. They were badly thought out when they were started, long before I came to them, but they're being shaken down albeit slowly. "Horribly incomplete" is not, I contend, a justification deleting the thing, it's a reason for fulfilling its potential. And "unmaintainable" is surely a judgement call for whoever's prepared to undergo the maintenance. It takes time, and that's also what it's been getting. I both have a useful aide memoire and cross-reference (otherwise clearly wouldn't have waste time on them). I would have thought that this is exactly the organic process that WP thrives on. I do have an issue with the inclusion of selected portraits which have recently appeared (along similar policy lines of not embellishing disambiguation pages). Cain Mosni 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't be serious. Perhaps I should elaborate:
      "Horribly incomplete" means "this article only lists a minor fraction of the male singers who already have Wikipedia articles. Not to mention the fact that there are scores upon scores of male singers who don't yet have Wikipedia articles, but should because of notability. Therefore, the list is grossly incomplete."
      "Highly unmaintainable" means "it goes against the logic of common sense to suppose that theis list will ever be anything approaching complete; it wouldn't even be able to keep up with the rate at which new articles are added ot the Wikipedia. Therefore, it is very much unmaintainable." --FuriousFreddy 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what Categories are for. —Cuiviénen 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What next, list of male persons?--MichaelMaggs 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Charlesknight 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad even for a category. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Why people create articles they know will never be complete is beyond me. Danny Lilithborne 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might as well start up a List of American men. That'd be about as user-friendly, too. -- Captain Disdain 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete use categories instead - this can go on indefinitely into the past and future. Jammo (SM247) 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of female singers[edit]

Same reason as List of male singers above. Highly unmaintainable and incomplete. Categories are much better suited to something like this. FuriousFreddy 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - listcruft - list that will go on and on and on - Peripitus (Talk) 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a list that can expand isn't a bad thing, but this is far too broad. Yanksox (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable listcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First up, yes I'm partisan. Ok, so both the female list and the male need attention, which is what they've been getting. They were badly thought out when they were started, long before I came to them, but they're being shaken down albeit slowly. "Horribly incomplete" is not, I contend, a justification deleting the thing, it's a reason for fulfilling its potential. And "unmaintainable" is surely a judgement call for whoever's prepared to undergo the maintenance. It takes time, and that's also what it's been getting. I both have a useful aide memoire and cross-reference (otherwise clearly wouldn't have waste time on them). Categories do not prvide the simple two-dimensional cross-reference that a list does. I would have thought that this is exactly the organic process that WP thrives on. I do have an issue with the inclusion of selected portraits which have recently appeared (along similar policy lines of not embellishing disambiguation pages). Cain Mosni 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is what Categories are for. —Cuiviénen 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories don't provide the second dimension of cross-reference. Cain Mosni 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. Click on teh Category link and you have a "list" of all pages in the category. —Cuiviénen 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. Often a singer is only mentioned in the article on a band, and doesn't have an individual bio. If you just know the singer's name, you won't find them in a category, but may find them on this page. Wikipedia's categories are somewhat limiting (with a restricted number of entries appearing on a page at a time). Essentially, you must know the first letter(s) of the article title to be able to find the article. That's tough when you have singers working under both full names and short names. With a category, I must know if a singer "Jane Dough", with a stage name of just "Jane" is sorted in a category under "Jane" or "Dough, Jane". With a large list, I just search ("in page" with my browser) for "Jane" and find it. We can even include a person twice on a list, if its really necessary. Theoretically, of course, manually maintained lists are terrible, but categories, as currently implemented, have their own problems. --Rob 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This be a non-argument - if the person has no article yet and is only part of a band article, you will likely find them there with a search (more than likely with a Google of Wikipedia at most). When a page is created for them, they can be added to the category. Even if we accept the above argument, the page is still too long. Jammo (SM247) 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What next, list of female persons?--MichaelMaggs 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft --Charlesknight 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad even for a category. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Why people create articles they know will never be complete is beyond me. Danny Lilithborne 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously, if the list of singing guys goes, this one does as well. -- Captain Disdain 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete use categories instead - this can go on indefinitely into the past and future. Jammo (SM247) 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious listcruft. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Aussie Guys[edit]

Non-notable blog, in existence for less than 3 months. There are 10 unique Google hits, all of which are other blogs or forums. Fails WP:WEB. Ted Talk 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with numbers in the title[edit]

Previously kept as "mostly harmless" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title.

Not the work of Nintendude, for a change, but still a list of songs selected by arbitrary and inconsistent criteria (you're the one is not the same as one man went to mow, but no comparable widespread usage exists for other numbers). The major problem here is that the concept - songs with numbers in the title - is not probvably significant; if it were a list of ballads, there would be an encyclopaedic topic to back it up, the ballad; in this case there is no evident encyclopaedic significance for the concept of a song with a number in the title. Previous Keep votes were on the grounds of "interesting" or "good", deletes were on a firmer basis, in my view (indiscriminate, unmaintainable). Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and I think the nom brings up a very interesting way of identifing listcruft. If the concept that defines the list isint significant then it is usually listcruft IMO. I'm definatly going to remember that in future. Thanks JzG Ydam 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current state of contributions to the page (inconsistent criteria or not) isn't really reason to delete the whole thing. How does this nomination differ from the previous rejected one? How is absence of a topic to backup the existence of a number in a song title a 'major problem' with the concept's significance? Certainly you don't need a page to tell you a song you already know has a number in its title, but if you need to find songs you don't know (or have forgotten) with a certain number in the title, this is a handy page and it would be annoying to find it removed. Towelie 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's 8th edit. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi InShanee, thanks for contributing. In future could you confine your comments to the merits of the article and points for/against, and leave commentary on other users to the Talk pages? Thanks. Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will note that the current state of the page had little or no part in my nomination. The problem is that it is a list whose premise appears to be of no verifiable significance - a list of arbitraray type of entertainment matching arbitrary (and inconsistently applied) criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the sort of thing that can actually be quite interesting and useful to people, and hard to find out anywhere else. Wikipedia really comes into its own with subjects like this. --Bonalaw 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that it's the sort of subject that benefits from having lots of people working on it. That's where Wikipedia's strength lies. --Bonalaw 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No possible utility to a list such as this. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless trivia. --FuriousFreddy 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, hmmm... interesting keep comments above <slams head on desk>. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Motor (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as listcruft. "Mostly Harmless" is still harmful. I am also slamming my head on desk (repeatedly until I pass out). Bwithh 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly pointless. Don't make meaningless lists just because you can. Honbicot 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And how. -- GWO
  • Keep The community already spoke on this one why are you wasting our time trying to delete something the community already said should not be deleted? Jcuk 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to a point, Lord Copper. Even if we had a double jeopardy rule, which we don't, no consensus does not mean the community has said it should not be deleted, it means that the community (or rather the ten members who showed up at the debate) did not make up its mind one way or another. I think this article violates policy, and I can't find a policy which says that an previous no-consensus AfD requires an article be kept in perpetuity. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the distinction between a song with a number in the name and a song without a number in the name is simply unimportant. To those who sugust this is list is usefull.... in what context? Who will ever find this usefull? (interesting and usefull are diffrent) ---J.S (t|c) 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I'll bite: someone who will find this useful, to take just one example, is a person responsible for compiling an audio clip that includes sung numbers. One could go on. Failure of imagination re the utility of a page to anyone but oneself is a lousy excuse to go around removing the work of other Wikipedians. Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. The community speaks again. Danny Lilithborne 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and as original research, and as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) A concise way to state JzG's point is: "An article entitled 'List of X' should not be created unless there is an article on X." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiosyncracies make Wikipedia what it is, for better or or worse; in this case, very much for the worse. Far too crufty, and I can't see this as being anything other than OR Jammo (SM247) 23:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally pointless list. WarpstarRider 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I can safely attest to the fact that nobody will wake up in the morning and state "I think I'll look up a list of songs with numbers in the title!" ' (Feeling chatty? )(Edits!) 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You certainly can not 'safely attest' to nobody needing something just because you failed to imagine it. (see above) Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Apostrophe - LOL! —Khoikhoi 04:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 05:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; arbitrary and indiscriminate cruftylistness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, CSD A6, attack page. AfD in progress and overwhelming consensus to delete, Snowball clause --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broncomania[edit]

This is an article about the message board for the Denver Broncos' fan website, and it's a kind of a mess. I don't think the website itself is particularly notable; it's obviously pretty popular, and it gets over 100 000 Google hits, the vast, vast majority of them are simply hits for the site itself, not references in other media or the like. Size does matter, but I don't think this one really meets WP:WEB. I almost was bold and just did a redirect Denver Broncos, but first of all, I kind of anticipated a lot of argument about that so I decided to skip that and go straight for the AfD, and secondly, it seems a little untidy to redirect something that has to do with a website to an article that is not at all about the website. Anyway, in addition to all this, the article has serious POV problems, it includes weird lists and usage instructions, has a thoroughly unencyclopedic tone of voice, and is generally pretty much a mess. I'm sure it could be salvaged if the topic was noteworthy enough, but I don't think it is. Perhaps an article on the Broncos' website would be more appropriate, and the discussion boards could certainly be dealt with there, but apparently one doesn't exist at the moment. -- Captain Disdain 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and just as an FYI, User:Snk16, the most frequent contributor to the article, just now removed the AfD template. I restored it and asked the editor to not do so again. In the meantime, the article is devolving into some sort of a slapfest between people who got banned from the forum and people who think that's great or something, I don't know. I'm sure a good time is being had by all. -- Captain Disdain 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...

i am the creator of this page and by the concensis of active members in my forum is to delete it... regards anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton g-love (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 June 2006

  • sorry about deleting the AfD template thing. That was my fault, won't happen again. These trolls who were banned are going on about it and editing some bad stuff, and no it's not fun, so please delete it.
  • obvious delete Per WP:SNOW. Even the creator wants it deleted, aside from its questionable notability. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTE says....Keep this page. it's a great opportunity to speak the truth about the tyrannical rule of Steve Harbula. The oppressed registered users of Broncomania do not have a forum to express their displeasure with the site. Wikpedia provides that vehicle. Let's keep the motor running and keep this site open. The truth must be told!!

Sincerely,

-WTE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.40.16 (talk • contribs)

Um...that's not a proper reason to keep an article. See What wikipedia is not a soapbox.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it doesn't conform to a neutral point of view.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I fail to see how this forum is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. But regardless, it is clearly being used as a means of attacking others, which is against Wiki guidelines. IrishGuy talk 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this as a early close under SNOW, and we need to evaluate input from everyone, not just the creator of the article, even if they're saying delete, but I'm also not seeing notability here so I think Delete is the correct action. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree, I think you all should delete the page because it's a soapbox now...
  • Please note for anyone wanting to vote CSD G7, that only applies to a single creator, not when people have been working on it for a while. However, this page has been becoming little more than a target for vandals and POV-pushers out to make a WP:POINT (the lone user who has contributed constructively to the article and hasn't voted delete is an IP), so delete, and warn (and possibly block) User:WTE for pushing his POV. Morgan Wick 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say delete it, it's dead now anyway...-Signed Snk16
  • I was the dude who made constructive edits to this. I figured I should try to save this, but it's become even more of a drama fest than anything else. WTE and PatsR seem to be the type of people that could really benefit from the reinstatement of corporal punishment in elementary schools. - dontfeedthenerd
  • Delete - Only 20 unique Google hits. A massive 120k non-unique hits though, geez... Wickethewok 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margeret Grubb[edit]

The page title is misspelled, but more than that, Margaret Louise Grubb isn't notable herself; she's only notable for being L. Ron Hubbard's first wife and the mother of Ronald DeWolf. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Keep per ChrisO. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is a reason why she is more notable. The article doesn't exactly assert much. There is nothing here that can't be said in L. Ron Hubbard's article. Ydam 15:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and rename. I respectfully disagree. I think there's a good deal of interesting material here that's worth including - I've expanded the article accordingly. As for notability, the fact that she was married to Hubbard in the first place makes her notable - if we have articles on Joseph Smith Jr's wives (see Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy) I think that provides ample precedent for an equivalent account of Hubbard's wives' lives. -- ChrisO 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno. Beyond the general theme of "Hubbard was a jerk to her" ... I'm not sure what light it sheds on anything notable. I mean, Sara Northrup Hubbard doesn't have an article, and she was much more intricately involved with the whole Dianetics/Scientology story, being one of the three world's first Clears (as opposed to one of the world's first three Clears...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sara Northrup Hubbard should have an article (and I intend to do one on her next); an article on Margaret Grubb would round off the "trilogy". Her notability is, I think, really on two grounds: she was married to a notable person during a notable period in his life, and the breakdown of the marriage gives an important insight into Hubbard's character. You might also want to consider why you consider her a minor figure. Until Russell Miller wrote Bare-Faced Messiah, for which he interviewed several people who had known Grubb, virtually nothing had been published about her. She's a major figure in terms of the book (significantly more references than most of his children) and by his account she played a significant part in his life - they were married for 14 years after all. But she has been systematically omitted by Hubbard and the CoS in their respective biographical accounts. That's the real reason for her relative obscurity - they've systematically avoided talking about her. Most Scientologists probably don't know she even existed. The expanded version of this article brings together the various published sources into one article. As far as I know, that's not been done before, so I think this article also serves a useful purpose as a possibly unique biographical reference. -- ChrisO 07:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like to have articles on the whole Hubbard family, also all children.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner records message boards[edit]

This is a contested PROD, so I'm bringing it to AfD so we can gain some community consensus. This set of message boards does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:WEB. While I don't see a problem with mentioning at Roadrunner Records that the boards exist, the detailed history and character of each of the major posters is not really encyclopedic. Joyous! | Talk 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Message boards are not notable in themselves. Neither do they inheirt notability by association. This also looks like a lot of vanity. Ydam 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --InShaneee 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, or as a second choice redirect to Roadrunner Records. --Metropolitan90 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although it might just be a small corner of the internet where few will dare tread you might take a sentence to look at what wikipedia currently is. It's a vast hole of information on just about anything imaginable. A veritable archive of articles, subjects, and topics. Although it may not matter to you, wikipedia is an encyclopedia by the people, for the people. It's one thing to delete an article on one person for being false, unsupported, or incoherent but it's quite another to delete an account of something. If this is allowed it would open up the door to many deletions as one saw fit due to opinion or other such stances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsapo (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I think the user above me was spot on. It appears a number of people are dismissing this article based on its superficial nature, without actually taking a look at the content. I am a regular poster at the RR message board, and with confidence I can say that many others will agree that it is one of the most unique (and controversial) forums on the internet. But that is irrelevant.

The real issue here is the sense of community. This isn't an advertisement promoting an individual, organisation or business in vain. The wiki has only existed for a couple of days, and it that time there have been large amounts of edits, contributions and expansions by a wide range of users. A good number of people are getting a significant amount of entertainment from this article, and if you actually bothered to browse it yourself, you'll more than likely find that it makes for a pretty interesting read. A lot of work has gone into producing it, and will do into the future. There is no need to delete this page just because you feel as though it isn't overly "encylopaedic". The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is very progressive, and thanks to the hard efforts of the people it is moving away from traditional textbook monotony towards the spectrum of social issues. Not only do I think this should be kept, I think Wikipedia needs more articles like this in general. Keep it. Harkonnen665 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are wiki's for several other message boards (eg, Slashdot and some others that I cant remember the name of right now), so what makes the RR article any less worthy than those? Surely if you think the 'community' thing should stay at the message board, then the articles for Slashdot etc should be deleted as well? It sounds to me like it's one rule for us, another for them.

And in the first post here it was mentioned that each user has a detailed history, if you read the article this is clearly not the case. The majority of the members on RR are featured in the memberlist in the article, while only a handful have had a paragraph or two devoted to them. If each member decided to write their own mini-bio, then yes I would agree that this is overstepping the mark, but they haven't, and won't, so it's hardly clogging up the article. If anything, it adds to it.

Having said that, I would be in favour of editing the article to conform to the standards deemed acceptable, but a complete and total deletion of it is, in my opinion, unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onikage93 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep: I don't see why such a fuss is being created over a relatively small article on a site booming with free data-space. As for the article not being encyclopaedic, I completely disagree. It may be a trivial article to some of you but that doesn't dispute the fact that the information provided is true on a relevant material which one may want to read about (and already many have). Some parts may include a bias, but every wikipedia page created shows bias (and history in general) as they are written by people.
You may feel that it is unimportant and it may be to you but as previously mentioned there are plenty of users who enjoy this article. It is not merely an extension of the board as discussions are not occurring on the page. And before you dismiss it as a tirade of vanity, I'd like to point out that at least two of you against keeping this page have wikipedia pages based entirely on yourselves.
Throughout history we have faced censorship from administrational authorities who furthermore decide what is relevant and what isn't. As everything is filtered, our scope of knowledge becomes tubular and we remained confined to anything that doesn't deviate from a pre-decided norm. It's silly that I even should be writing something like this for the sake of a wiki article on a message board. My point is, please try to have an open mind regarding articles such as these as otherwise the material your website allows will remained confined to the opinions of a few in a boring state of static. Cheers. AvulComa 12:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep In relation to other message boards, the RR Message board, has a rich sense of culture, history, and ethos. It is not 'just another message board'. There could be some changes, for instance the 'RR Board Party' section appears too trival. The board to my knowledge has had led to some significant events, such as the incident with renowned metal band 'Nile'. - VikingBerserk
  • Keep The Verifiability and notability standards. This can easily be overcome, threads supporting eventualities provide direct evidence to claims. It merely needs a little work, it just needs to be done. The accessibility of primary sources suggests this article should not be deleted, it just needs a little effort. It is a direct encyclopedic, primary source historical analysis. - VikingBerserk
  • Delete, message boards are almost never notable. Recury 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: comment (Joyous!) You can go ahead and quote the "constitution", meticulously pointing out all detailed "breeches of terms" and whatnot, and to this, quite frankly, I agree. Due to the haste with which large amounts of information were thrown on the drawing board initially, the execution of formatting and literary perspective was haphazard at times, but measures are being taken to rectify this. The only thing I firmly disagree with on your little list is the "vanity" notion (but more on this later). Today I spent a good half-hour going over the entire article with a fine-toothed comb; correcting inaccuracies, paraphrasing to convert the colloquialisms into more formal tones, and changing a few things around to ensure a strict neutral point-of-view. I believe it's pretty much within all the Wikipedia guidelines now, although once again this really is digressing from the matter at hand (as there are a lot of Wikis around that are far worse in this respect).

I'd like to expand on a point I touched on earlier (as did a few others), concerning the notability and level of prominence of the RR board. To make an abrupt assumption that it's "just another message board" is asinine. The board is very notorious and unique. As mentioned by VikingBeserk, members from a few well-known metal bands have visited the board and got themselves involved in the flame-wars and general controversy (Nile and 36 Crazyfists being a couple of examples), making for some memorable incidents. The other big issue is that the RR Board has absolutely no censorship, no rules or regulations, and no administration whatsoever. It's one of the only affiliated/endorsed forums on the internet to be like this (others may have limited control of content, but not zero). As a result, it's extremely controversial. The internet in general is pretty authoritarian, but RR has contained any and every racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted post you could imagine. This makes it noteworthy. Some arrive on the board and find it incredibly offensive, but the view held by most of the regulars is that the concept of absolute freedom of expression is preferable. It is a hallmark of libertarianism, a protest to the "powers that be", and a very prominant example of internet anarchy. A few people have suggested that this particular article contains too much trivial information, and that's a fair argument. But, in providing a detailed description of this board as a point of reference on the wider issue, people can read into its underlying connotations and that's great for public opinion (and at the same time, it isn't biased and is not attempting to force any particular viewpoints down their throats). There are also a lot of philosophical undertones that can be referenced from examples on the Roadrunner board. However, this article is still very much unfinished, and a lot of the authors a still throwing ideas around on what information to include, where to put it and how to word it, so as to make it most appropriate for the context of Wikipedia.

I must once again state that there is no vanity involved here. I am not promoting myself, nor are any of the other writers. Neither are we promoting ourselves as a group in general. No one has any business or commercial interents here. The point of this article is, a) to provide information on the board's history and major events, and b) to reflect on the social themes as a whole, and tie it all in to the themes of the bigger picture, so casual readers can get more out of it than just a giggle at the amusing anecdotes. Harkonnen665 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete (I didn't actually "vote" above) The fact remains, though, that it does not meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beleive the board is important to a number of people, even people not members of the board will often read it in order to gain an unbiased or different opinion on one matter or the other, I beleive it is more than a message board and is more than deserving of 1 page on this sites' immense space. At the end of the day it's not doing any harm and the day you run out of space feel free to put this article up for deletion again as I think that should really be your only reason for wanting to delete something that is bringing much entertainment to many.

Thanks KeRosiNe 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It must also be noted, that the article has been steadily adapting to the conditions of Wikipedia criteria, if one analyzes the history of the article the observation would be made that it's become significantly less impartial. The effort is transpiring and I'm confident given a somewhat lengthier lifeline, the page will meet Wikipedia standards. On account of impartiality, and on notability and veritability as previously discussed - VikingBerserk
  • Keep Even if not a member of the board, this article can be of interest for some researches on different investigations.

Encyclopedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Brockhaus Konversations-Lexikon, 1902An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also (rarely) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge

That is taken from this page. Since the article we're talking about is about a board's history, since it's history we're talking about (maybe internet history, but history still), it still counts as knowledge. And the message board is one of the most important message boards in the internet. Internet is a very important thing these days, so it's history is very important. And the best thing about wikipedia is that you can find anything, so, it's important to keep all info, and since the article has been modified to fit the criteria, there is really no good reason to delete it12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Backstreetboysfan

  • Keep I am very impressed with the effort that has been put into the page, there is now an endnote system, defying all doubts regarding notability, verifiability, it even puts the notion of 'vanity' into context. This progressive attitude, building on even the changes made prior, indicates that the effort is being made to adapt to the desired criteria of the website. The attitude reflects that it will done, and I can argue with tremendous certainty that the page should be kept. - VikingBerserk
    • Comment. The above vote was cast by User:202.72.148.102, who already voted above. If this was User:VikingBerserk posting without being logged in, then he already voted three times above, twice while logged in and once previously under this IP address. --Metropolitan90 04:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Roadrunner Records. In doing so, make it a major section, preserve all the information. If the Roadrunner Records article grows too long, we can always spin this off again. Jumbo Snails 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropolitan90, it is clearly indicated at the top of the article that this is not a vote, I am merely stating further points in regards to why the article should be kept. But, if it is a bother, I'll cease doing so. Buddy. - VikingBerserk
    • Comment. Fair enough, it's true that this is not a vote. If you (VikingBerserk) have any further things to state in favor of the article, you should still post them but you should probably start them with the word "Comment" instead. However, it seems to me that this article is mostly a record of personal attacks made by pseudonymous people against other pseudonymous people. There is nothing in the article about the involvement of the bands Nile or 36 Crazyfists with the message board. Also, given the wide variety of content on the Internet, I am doubtful that this message board is noteworthy merely because it has included "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted" content. I am actually surprised that more editors have not joined in to express opinions in favor of deletion. --Metropolitan90 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: Metropolitan90 The Nile incident is a complex one to explain, so it would require its own paragraph in order to give a suitably comprehensive account. Hence, why I stated "this article is still very much unfinished". As for the one involving 36 Crazyfists - it is already mentioned in the article, and had been three and a half hours before you posted your comment.
"Also, given the wide variety of content on the Internet, I am doubtful that this message board is noteworthy merely because it has included "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted" content" - This is a blatant assumption. I based my statement on knowledge gained from four years on the Roadrunner board, and in turn, drawing on comparisons with many other message boards. The only other website which comes close to the level of liberalism in regard to offensive/controversial material would have to be anus.com/"free speech project" (see its website and mention at RR). And guess what? Anus.com has its own Wikipedia article. As Onikage93 put, "it's one rule for us, another for them". Harkonnen665 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And if by some miracle or stupendous failure of our collective judgement this one remains on Wikipedia, or gets merged to Roadrunner Records, at least clean it the hell up. The assertion that H8terman's exclamations about where someone accepts cocks or explanations of what yet another bunch of people on the internet mean when they type "teh ghey" are somehow encyclopedic material is utterly ridiculous. -- Captain Disdain 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment"explanations of what yet another bunch of people on the internet mean when they type "teh ghey" are somehow encyclopedic material is utterly ridiculous." - Incorrect, that is ignorant, friend. While the several phrases may have gutteral connotations, there is no reason why it is not encyclopedic material - VikingBerserk.
  • Keep This page has yet to show its full potential. It is being edited frequently to adjust itself to your complaints. it is unfinished and deserves more time to be edited to fit the standard required. it is history and that history deserves to be recorded down on wikipedia. This board will continue to make new history which will be added in time. The page is a healthy and thriving page which is here to stay. 222.153.139.172 Theycallmejesus


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Gaiden[edit]

Fan made "hack" of a video game; no evidence or assertion of notability. --InShaneee 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete even though this is probably the most notable hack of Sonic, I don't know if it deserves an article.--Andeh 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit). While perhaps not notable on its own, it deserves a mention on the main Sonic page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what reason? --InShaneee 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's the only known hack of that game. The article itself indicates that hacks of the second game are much more common. I think one or two sentences mentioning the hack would be good in the main article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't explain why the hack is notable at all. --InShaneee 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's perhaps- perhaps- notable as a hack, but that doesn't make it notable. That's like saying, "My band is notable among bands from my town, which has a population of 800." In making this decision, I said to myself, "Well, there's not a great deal of asserted notability, but it probably Googles through the roof." I was wrong- "Sonic Gaiden" gets 85 unique and 337 total G-hits, and since "Sonic Gaiden" isn't a 14th-century monk, it fails the Google test. -- Kicking222 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps notable?! Only perhaps?! This is the only hack to have two (even if they are only distinct sprite-wise) playable characters in Sonic 1. ----Blah2 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comments like this, and your user page, indicate that you're not stepping far enough away from the subject at hand (Sonic hacks) and considering how Wikipedia works as a whole. While something may be very, very important to you, if it isn't notable enough to have been reported in the media or at least earn itself a massive Google index, it's just not encyclopedia worthy. This is where niche Wikis come in handy - why not find or start a Wiki devoted to video game hacking? Information like this would be much more at home there, where verifiable media sources aren't an issue. They are here, and it's only a matter of time before content like this gets purged. You should concentrate your efforts somewhere where they aren't violating guidelines and constantly in danger of deletion. --relaxathon 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-vote; Question: How much of the information in the article is verifiable? What would be left when the non-verifiable information was removed? Would the resulting article be worth keeping?–RHolton≡– 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (and Anti-Merge): At most, it would belong - briefly - in an article about video game hacking, which itself would be a contentious Wikipedia entry. I know, if you care about Sonic the Hedghog hacking, it's quite notable. However, think of how many people care about video game emulation...now reduce that to the people concerned with Genesis emulation specifically...now the people concerned with Genesis game hacking...and so on. It's a cold way of approaching things, but you kind of have to when theres not a single verifiable media source behind it all. This doesn't even belong in the Sonic article. --relaxathon 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit) article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Wondering about prospects of merging (which I vote against) - there is discussion of this on the Sonic the Hedgehog Talk page, with people tallying their support or opposition. But seeing as this 'Article for Deletion' page is likely to result in quicker action, should that conversation be moved over here? --relaxathon 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Some of the biggest ballot-stuffing I've ever seen, but the numerous keep votes from very new users stand opposite very few editors supporting deletion and no overwhelming arguments to do so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Robo Blast 2[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Fan made freeware game. No assertion or evidence of notability aside from the fact it looks nice. --InShaneee 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article in question is updated rather frequently and contains a lot of information; a quick glance at the edit history will confirm this. If you like, I could start a section mentioning where SRB2 has appeared in various magazines if you need notability. BlazeHedgehog 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other fan-made games into a new article such as Sonic the Hedgehog fan-made games. . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would probably just turn into a spamming ground for makers of games such as this one. --InShaneee 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no real reason to delete this article. The game itself has a large fanbase. --Anonymous. 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sonic Robo Blast 2 is one of the biggest and most notable fangames on the internet. It sustains a huge fanbase, and has been popular for years now. I'm one of the major people in the community, and I've met two people randomly in real life who know me from my work on SRB2. If that isn't a notable fangame, I don't know what is. -MysticEsper 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of this user's edits have been on Sonic fangames; is involved with the game. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most definetly keep it. This project has scaled to monstrous porportions, and this page helps to keep that alive. We also have the right to brag that we get more google bots than ANY other sonic fangame, which shows popularity right there. =P -Spazzo
    • Two of this user's three edits are this AfD and the article. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting games, i.e. "keep that alive". It reports on notability, not creates it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. The only thing it's that, maybe, a good cleaning up would help, but to delete the whole article is unnecessary. --Neigel von Teighen 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SRB2 has netplay. Not even SEGA has done Sonic with netplay so that fact alone means SRB2 is pretty significant. -- TheDarkArchon 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SRB2 not only is one of the best, most bug-free and fun Sonic fan-games of them all, it's also a notable DOOM mod. The article is also updated often with good information by a large active community, so there are really no reasons for deletion. Also, do note that this game is still in production, has a fanbase which increases every day, and is a rather solid project, arguably more solid than the current status of the series it is based on, probably unlike most projects of the same kind. However, were another project to meet these circumstances, I'd see that keeping an article on it would be reasonable as well. However, I do not believe you may run across projects of this magnitude too often. -Neo Chaotikal
  • Keep. I think everyone else covered it pretty well. -SRB2-Playah
  • Keep SRB2 in itself is a massive 3D fangame. Few other fangames can boast the community and fan-base that SRB2 has. A good hunk of the community was forwarded here BY this article. The only problem with the article is lack of content, as to what the game has. On top of that, this game boasts the ability to be easily edited to make it an entirely different game. Might I recommend that you play the game before deciding it's just a random freeware fangame? -- Dark Warrior
  • Keep. The constant turnover of user-created levels demonstrates SRB2's status as an autonomous entity of notable following. --Oogaland 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are too many fans who would want to know about this game, this wikipedia article gives...*some* good info about it. The game is really great too, the other good thing about it, is that you can make modifications AND play netgames. The community is pretty huge as well...and I can't think of any other reasons, you guys stole the rest! :( --KingofFlames
  • Delete: Fan games are inherintly non notable, also I'd ask the mods to notice at how many "Keep" votes are players of the games.Deathawk 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And your point about the players? That is a weak argument and is just saying "You're are player of this thus your opinion doesn't count" which strikes me as a Jack Thompson-esque argument. I would also like to see a reason why they are "inherintly non notable"? -- TheDarkArchon 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's be civil, here. Comparing anyone with that man isn't very polite. --Shadow Hog 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SSNTails and TheDarkArchon made some very good points. -- Anonymous
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic: Time Attacked 2. Fangames are not inheritently non-notable since a lot more effort goes into their creation than other fan products, such as fan-fiction. In effect, they're fully-fledged (if unofficial) games themselves, and last I checked Wikipedia was perfectly open to that, given enough information about it (of which this article has plenty), or notability (do a Google test; around 300,000 results, and 893 group results, which, for a fangame, is pretty good). While it's true that vanity shouldn't be tolerated, this isn't mere vanity here. --Shadow Hog 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Game is a rather large project and has been around for as long as I remember. Has been noted in quite a few mediums, has acquired a large fan base, and the article covers the game quite well. --Guess Who 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh boy, a whole lot of meatpuppets here. I've left notes for the closing admin and the AfdAnons template. I have no opinion. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, most of them were brought by Blaze posting this topic on the message board: http://sepwich.com/ssntails/mb/viewtopic.php?t=3672 - Obviously if that kind of thing happens, you're going to get a bunch of meatpuppets. Shouldn't shock anyone. However, at least a few of those meatpuppets are making valid points, which is the entire objective of one of these discussions, so don't ignore them simply because they're obviously biased. Everyone on Earth is bias at some level. -MysticEsper 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "So, hey. If you give a crap about the Wikipedia entry (and you should, there's quite a lot of information on it)". Not really the best thing to say, as that implies that they can't keep their information elsewhere, and thus are using Wikipedia as a storage for that information; this would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. I don't care about this article, but I'm not comfortable with people just coming in here and dicating policy out of simple interest in the article's subject. Those people solely care about the article, not about Wikipedia. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have our own Wiki for tutorials, specific information, and fancruft, so it's not like we use Wikipedia as a free host. I completely agree with Wikipedia's ideals and policies, and use the site as a reference on a regular basis. Honestly, I think the article on SRB2 kinda sucks, and needs to be reworked quite a bit, as it's accumulated a fair amount of useless garbage over time. I just don't think it should be outright deleted, as this is not a vanity article, and there is interest in the game beyond the overly vocal core fanbase. -MysticEsper 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, thanks for clarifying the info webhost thing. I've accordingly striked out my concerns. I wouldn't worry too much about the article with what we have now; only two people voted to delete. Even discounting the meatpuppets, that's not enough consensus to delete. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 07:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do hope that the closing admin will take into account the off-site vote mongering mentioned above. I'd support a complete re-vote should consensus be unclear. --InShaneee 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not all meatpuppets, you know. --Shadow Hog 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: SRB2 is the best fangame around. It's Wikipedia should not be deleted. I make a level pack for SRB2, and I'm proud to. Sure, this needs updating, but it's quite an information place for people just starting to play SRB2. -GCFreak123 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shadow Hog. - Wickning1 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: <100 edits. Has essentially only edited AfDs. --InShaneee 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I posted a short vote since Shadow Hog said it all, but note that I'd never heard of this game before. I'm newly registered and have been contributing to lots of the Japan-Related Deletions. Wickning1 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - As Google results are often brought into VfD's, the term "Sonic Robo Blast 2" (including quote marks) turns up 39,200 results -- TheDarkArchon 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's slightly noticeable and while the article is outdated, it contains a lot of infomation. Ðra 09:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have articles about websites, webcomics, and other such internet things. Why not this? It's obviously popular enough and complex enough to be considered a major internet entity, and therefore likely deserves its own article. Just my two cents. I.M.Fearless 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anything with over 300 thousend Google results is rather noteworthy compared to how many results the vast majority of Wikipedia articles get. If you don't believe me, go to Wikipedia's home page, click on "Random article," and google the article's title. --MarkGyver 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding TheDarkArchon's post, "Sonic Robo Blast 2" is often misspelled on websites as "Sonic Robo Blaster 2", "Sonic Robot Blast 2", and similar variations. It is also often referred to by its four-digit acronym, "SRB2". A better method might be to search "SRB2" OR "Sonic Robo Blast 2", which returns 84,900 results. As the co-creator and head of this game, I could honestly care less if this Wikipedia article stayed or not - the game does not need a wiki article to be notable or popular. This article was even created without our permission by a fan of the game - we did not post this ourselves. It's fine if it stays, but we really won't care if it's gone. Ssntails 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to see those magazine mentions and such. Kotepho 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB: User's 2347th edit, at least according to the lagging toolserver. Kotepho 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sheer scale of this thing makes it notable, in comparison to other fan made games which have been kept. Jumbo Snails 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This game is one of the most in-depth modifications of the DOOM engine, the only massively multiplayer and 3D Sonic fangame, and (as far as MysticEsper is concerned) has press coverage. The article itself needs to be reworked since WP:ISNOT a web guide. But out of all the fangame articles at Wikipedia, this one deserves to stay. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presuming that fangames are non-notable at the outset is a fallacy of definition. Regardless, the article should stay; it's too big of a game. From a prorammer's point of view, I've looked at the source code and it looks interesting enough to warrant some mention. This is much more noteworthy than Sonic Gaiden, which is so small it is about to be merged/deleted. --DavidHOzAu 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a non-notable bio and likely hoax, possibly vanity. —Cuiviénen 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mac Street[edit]

Was prodded as hoax and nonsense but was removed. Seems to fail WP:BIO as the only claim to "fame" is that "John Mac Street has many descendents, and many live in Buchanan County, Virginia. At least Three forths (3/4) of the population there are related to John Mac Street." And a question that arises from this...if this is actually real and not a hoax, does writing about one's ancestors qualify as vanity? Metros232 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so if I have many Sources for it that point out to a John Mac Street of the Second Virginia Charter of London? Also, here is a web site that points out to him, http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/vchart2.shtml. This is no hoax, after all, its just good o'l history. And also, many people have articles that have ancestors that point to far back royalty like for say, William the Conqueror but does that make it vanity? No. Also, type in a google search (with quotations) "John Streate" or "Second Virginia Charter"+"John Streate". There might not be enough searches but its the same as not having enough seaches for "1st monarch of Ireland". I don't mean to start a fight but I'm just showing you the truth.

No mention is made of a "John Mac Street" (or of a Mac or a Street) in the link provided. —Cuiviénen 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a non-notable band. —Cuiviénen 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Young Poets[edit]

nn disbanded band, 1 album, no industry music awards; originally prodded and merged into Barbie's Cradle -- User:Robocoder (talk | contribs) 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 close. This AfD is almost unreadable (and, having read it, I now have a headache. Whoopee!), caked up as it is with personal attacks and hysterical-sounding shouting and bold text. This is also worrisome, although not for the reasons Robert complains: attempts to "vote-stack" miss the whole point here, which is that AfD is not a vote, so it cannot be stacked — and thus degrade the level of conversation intensely, as one side floods the page with "votes", and the other gets ever more angry about it, with neither taking the time to really explain themselves. So, we'll wipe the slate clean. If y'all really want a reasoned discussion on this subject, you can try again from scratch, without the messiness we see below. Thanks, and good luck, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Bay Northern Hawks[edit]

Not notable- if every Junior B league team was included on WP it becomes a directory not an encyclopedia. top teams, yes. Even middle ranking teams at times - but not Junior B sides. Robertsteadman 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE THIS: [24] - put out to try to avoid a speedy deletion which is what these stubs deserve. Robertsteadman 16:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Every WikiProject keeps track of which of their articles is up for deletion. I'm not sure how this is relevant. BoojiBoy 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that you have a limited knowledge of Ice Hockey.... DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -not at all - as explained when you put the same personl attack on my user talk page - the point is these are non-notable and should not be in WP. Look at the policies for inclusion. These are minor teams so far down the system and have achived very little if anything EVER! They have no place here. Robertsteadman 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ummm... I've never written on your user talk page and on that note I have yet to write a personal attack. You seem to be all heated up for some reason, and there really is no reason for it. You know what, you are wasting my time. I've voted already, and I'm sick of defending my case to you ever half hour. You and I are done talking. Have a good day sir. DMighton 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rob, you need to understand... you are trying to disrupt dozens of hours of research... most of which was scheduled to be posted in about 2 weeks. As well, you are trying to set a precedent in a WikiProject that you are not a current member of... I really think the AfD should be dropped. I openly invite you to come talk hockey with us if you wish, but this isn't the way to garner respect -- especially by mocking stubs that haven't been built up yet. DMighton 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case provide the evidence of notability..... Robertsteadman 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not know I was on YOUR punch clock, when I'm done with what I'm doing, I'll write up the articles. The reason that they are stubs is so they can sit there and wait for me or anyone else who wishes to to write them. Stop your rampage. DMighton 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from the arguments others have proffered, I'm very unimpressed by the premise that listing junior B teams means we're going to be compelled to add kindergarten teams; it's a disingenuous argument at best, and I'm sure we can do without the scaremongering. Junior B leagues are the principal feeders into junior A and college hockey programs, no less important than rookie and amateur league teams in baseball ... each and every one of which has an article. RGTraynor 05:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE THIS (II): [25] - This user has been trolling, edit warring, and abusing the "assumption of good faith" all day. He was even blocked at one point today. I do not understand his problem with the development of hockey articles or stubs for that matter and he seems quite eager to avoid the concept of due process -- whether it be the due process of developing a good article or the due process of a simple AfD. DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - his is unforgiveable - a clear example of misrepresentation - I have NOT been trolling - I was temporarily blocked by an "admin" who has a history of having a go at me and a report will soon be filed about this. Please retract your above statement and removbe it.My problem is, as stated above, these teams are not notable - we do not need something about every team only the notable ones. This, and many others should be removed. And speedily. I still do not understand why SOMEONE was allowed to remove my speedy delete tag which was totally appropriate. Robertsteadman 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No retraction. And this is not your first time. You have been on the warpath for no apparent reason and it is truly annoying. And your speedy deletion tag? It was an obsolete tag, are you shocked? If you don't believe it is an obsolete tag... look it up, it says right on the tag. The reason you didn't want a discussion was simple, you wanted another uncontested deleted page for your user page. DMighton 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY delete as above Robertsteadman 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're nominating the article, it's obvious you want it deleted. You don't need to say so. (And this isn't eligible for a speedy). BoojiBoy 16:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I think pointless space filling, potentially self promoting, non-notable things should be got rid of as quickly as possible. This is not notable and is a waste of WP space. Robertsteadman 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Self promoting? I live 16 hours away from there... not a chance. I see that you have a very negative view on things though, maybe you should focus on subject you have a strong grip on. Has this become a personal battle for you? DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WP:HOCKEY is working on cataloguing every notable ice hockey team and any team competing for the Keystone Cup qualifies. BoojiBoy 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - their honours? The level at which they play? WP should NOT be tryng to catalogue every team of every sort that ever existed - this is what the inclusion of such mionor and non-notable teams opens the door for. Is WP a list of an encyclopeida? Robertsteadman 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe you are superimposing your opinion. DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not. A. Notable. Sports. Team. Not even a household name in their own households. -- GWO
  • Comment So you are telling us you are from Thunder Bay? Please, if you know they are not notable in their own households, you must therefore have intimate knowledge of the team... this is something I doubt. DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a f**king Junior B league. Get over yourself. -- GWO
  • Delete not notable. Jammo (SM247) 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (But also, delete per GWO.) -- Kicking222 23:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Less than two lines of text! Matt 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ummm... it's a stub. DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Junior "B" teams ARE notable teams. Also this is a stub, meaning it will be expanded -- I have put forth countless hours of research towards stats and history. Also, hockey is very new to the wikipedia, and more and more members are joining the Wikiproject on a daily basis... the chances of interest and further development are great. I believe that to delete this article before it has fully been written (as it is a stub) is a travesty. Let the Wikiproject do its work. DMighton 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Canadian towns with a Junior B team pay a lot of attention to their teams. In the Canadian context, this is a notable team. TruthbringerToronto 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep DMighton has obviously been doing a lot of research on these teams, and I believe that he deserves the chance to flesh out the article into something that is worthwhile for inclusion. While my personal preference is not to create an article unless I can expand it into something of meaningful length, the use of stubs is a long accepted practice on Wikipedia. I vote that we let the wikiproject finish its work here, then decide if there is enough to retain an individual page, or if the team articles should be merged into the league page. Resolute 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is just there so that we know to expand it later, but it gives us enough information so that we know that we're researching the right team. Briememory 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Resolute said it best just above me. ccwaters 01:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, for above reasons mentioned. Croat Canuck Go Croatia Go 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above mentioned reasons Masterhatch 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete. -- JamesTeterenko 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Resolute, let's see what more they can do with it first. BryanG(talk) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As an encyclopedia, we should strive for completeness whenever possible. Some of the information is difficult to find; this does not relegate it to unnecessary. This entire discussion validates just how necessary it is to include these types of pages in Wikipedia. If users have found these stubs, it goes to show that interest has been generated in them. Furthermore, if a user has put the amount of time into this as DMighton has, then it obviously has some value. Finally, what does it hurt to put up more information than less? If the information is accurate (which I assume it is), then what is happening is that a user has spent a great deal of time locating information across many disparate sources, and this only helps the Wikipedia community. (All this from someone who doesn't have much interest personally in junior hockey, but I am aware of many others who do.) --Kermitmorningstar 03:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly per Resolute but also kermitmorningstar. I think that the articles should be reevaluated AFTER they have been completed by DMighton and if then, there seems to be a lack of information a possible merge with the league page would be in order. MBob 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment -perhaps "stubs" of non-notable teams should be usefied instead then? I cannot believe that so many want to retain sopmething about a non-notable team - but then when he has be calling on others to help out (as above) abd trying to sway the decision. The argument that WP should strive for completeness if untrue - it should strive to represent notability. This is non-notable and needs to be removed. It SHOULD have been speedy deleted but that tag was removed for no good reason. Robertsteadman 05:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, sorting before writing is appropriate, not a speedy whatsoever -- Samir धर्म 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RGTraynor, BoojiBoy, andKermitmorningstar. The fact this is a {{stub}} article is certainly no reason to delete. Agent 86 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES, FIT WITH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. ALSO SOME HAVE SAID THEY ARE NOTABLE - PLEASE SHOW HOW. Robertsteadman 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information - google retrurns just 40 results for "Thunder Bay Northern Hawks" - this includes some mirrors and several simply results pages. So... that notability? Robertsteadman 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To anyone interested, the official name of the team is the "Northern Hawks". I have chosen to STUB them as the "Thunder Bay Northern Hawks" in an attempt to dissuade confusion with college teams or any type of animal... and so on. This is a common practice in sports. Often though, you'll see the team being called: "Team Name" of "Team City"; but I was not expecting someone to AfD a simple stub. If, let's say, a user here was to search for the "Thunder Bay Northern Hawks", you would get about a tenth of the official documentation about the team that is on the net as you would if you searched the "Northern Hawks". I am looking at those search results right now. They are plentiful. I hope this clears up any confusion that may occur. Any guess on who will win tomorrow night??? DMighton 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And in all thoise extra pages still no sign of notability.... Hey, there are several kinergarten teams and summer clubs round here... perhaps they can all have a page? Robertsteadman 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note to Closing Admin The subject in question is a weighty one. The use of Stubs for wikiprojects and the importance of someone on the outside who does not know much on the subject at hand. Although we do not believe a person outside of the WP's reach is irrelevant... we do believe that if it will effect the long term health of the WP, that it is important. I was attempting to encourage open debate from people that this will actually matter too... nothing else. I now have the administrator with the above notice raining fire and brimstone upon me while he stands by and allows the person who raised this question to taunt me. This is perfectly ok, I can handle this. But this alleged "SPAM" was only a means to include the community inwhich this decision matters. Thank you for your time. DMighton 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, if this is a notable sports team could you provide the evidence - just a sentence would do, as to why Junior B teams deserve a place on WP. It could put this all to rest. Robertsteadman 10:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not an admin. And I am not "raining fire and brimstone", I am making sure you know the WP:ATTACK and WP:SPAM policies and I am asking you please to observe them (yes, they apply to you too, despite your continued efforts to claim otherwise). Please also see WP:AGF. Thanks! Weregerbil 10:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reason was already given, but you don't seem to accept it. It's notable if you are interested in it. I might as well nominate "Ununhexium" for deletion because I'm not interested in chemistry and don't find obscure synthetic elements notable. --Legalizeit 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not at all - it has nothing to do with whether I am interested or not - and I am interested in ice hockey - it has to do with notability. Please explain how it is genuinely notable and deserves a place in WP - I suggest that all Junior teams A, B and C are probably not notable and should be deleted merged with their league articles, if they have notability. Robertsteadman 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops, my mistake... I thought you were just talking tough because you were assume a position of authority... oops... Like I've said before... Robert lost his assumption of good faith a while ago... and you Gerbil, I now trust you as far as I can sling a piano. You have both shown extreme cowardice... teaming up on me on my userpage. I fear keyboard toughguys... really... get a life... DMighton 11:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Every professional sports team is notable, no matter the level: see Kingsport Mets, or even the mighty Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers. I strongly suggest Robert settle down a bit. I agree that DMighton shouldn't have left messages on all of our talk pages, but a simple notice on WP:HOCKEY would've sufficed. That said, though he did spam, he didn't say "come and vote keep." Verbatim, from my Talk page: "Hello, a user has decided that he does not want us placing hockey stubs on Wikipedia to expand later into teams. In particular he doesn't like Junior teams... I was wondering if you could please voice your opinion." What's more, this professional hockey team is no less notable than many of the high schools we have on Wikipedia, and every one of those are kept.  RasputinAXP  c 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are they full time professionals - if they feed into the Junior A, then College ice hockey.... Robertsteadman 11:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Well, if you knew anything about sports, you would know that anything below major pro: NHL, MLB, or NFL; is not fulltime professional. On the other hand, most Junior teams have legal base salaries -- at all levels. Junior teams also sign players to contract, just like pro.


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to twinkie defense. —Cuiviénen 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me syndrome[edit]

Essay. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Renegades[edit]

  • Delete subject lacks notability and no other NEMHL teams have own pages. RexRex84 23:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject in fact has ntability from the league they're in. The league appears to be notable enough, so there's no problem with the NEHML teams having them, even if no one's made the articles yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems fine and notable. No problem if other teams start having articles about them. Madd4Max 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. BoojiBoy 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per RexRex84. Matt 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the wording of this article, the Renegades are merely a "candidate" for the league, not a "member" of the league. The link to the "official website" leads to an offer to sell the domain name. Agent 86 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an amateur children's team. User:Angr 08:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angr. This is the second not-proper-hockeycruft nom'd article I have seen lately which lacks context: Junior B, Midgets - WTF ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicto[edit]

advertising for business not claiming notability; author removed speedy tag without explanation NawlinWiki 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One relevant hit in the first page of google [49]. Hard to tell beyond that. Not in top 100,000 [50]. I see no notability here. --Crossmr 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it may well be reasonable to delete this, surely our only (or even primary) measure of notability is not internet hits, through alexa or otherwise? Falcon 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this day and age if a business is remotely notable, especially one that has business that involves the internet, it should be showing up with some prescence on google. With low traffic and no google prescence it doesn't spell notability. --Crossmr 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I am new in this “wikipedian world”. I am the author of the Nicto page and I didn’t knew exactly how it works when I wrote the description. I apologize and I understand your concern with the deletion of this page. By doing some research on a few of our competitor, I discovered they were presenting there company on Wikipedia. So I decided to post a small description of the company I am working for. A few hours after, I noticed the “Speedy tag” on the Nicto page and I decided to start over from the beginning with a shorter description without doing any advertisement … just explaining what we do and what is the major point of differentiation between Nicto and the other companies from the Wikipedia Commercial product list. The traffic on the official Nicto web site is low because it is a new service and the web site have only been running since a few months. Can you tell me what I should do to keep the Nicto page running on Wikipedia ? Write a better presentation of the company from a more neutral position ? Increase the presence of Nicto on Google ? Any other suggestion ? Thanks
    For your company to justify an article it would require notability in some form. A popular website, lots of google traffic, major notable clients, etc. Good summary, history etc make a nice article, but wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of trivia on the planet. --Crossmr 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of 51 finalists at a Quebec tech conference seems less than overwhelming. I don't find much on Google (most results for "nicto" also contain the words "klaatu berada"). Fan1967 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palle Sörensen[edit]

Non-notable. Totally unsourced. BlueValour 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. SomeStranger(t) 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very notable - he killed four police officers. According to the article on the Danish Wikipedia, his case was discussed in the Danish parliament (in the context of a debate on life sentences), and according to the talkpage (quoting a document at the Danish Ministry of Justice website), this incident caused the Danish police to start carrying firearms. up+land 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The incident may be notable, in which case supply sources and put it under 'Notable Danish Crimes' or similar but the guy himself is non-notable. BlueValour 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uppland makes a very compelling argument- so much so that I'm going to vote keep, but only if the above (or other) sources are placed on the page. -- Kicking222 23:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --JJay 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sourced and expanded -- Eivindt@c 08:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep people are notable of they have achieved noteriety for their involvement in newsworthy envents see WP:BIO. Eluchil404 01:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zibbiti-Krelmflain[edit]

Non-notable portion of a single episode of a television series. Zero Google hits [51] [52] (unless it's mispelled). --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile Magazine 100 Coolest Cars[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic, no external source, possible copyvio BlueValour 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft or strongly edit down. I have no problem with there being a link to this list on wikipedia, but it should be just that...an external link to the source article on Automobile Magazine's website. The only encyclopedic 'value' to this is for someone to be able to one-click link to descriptions of those cars, which they can do just as well from the Category: Automobiles [[53]] or from the Portal:Cars -Markeer 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vast numbers of lists of best cars are published and soon forgotten. If people want to find a recent one, that's what google is for. Honbicot 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another seasonal spacefiller list. Obviously the print media have the same problem with rampant listcruft that we do... Just zis Guy you know? 19:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete waste of time, go to the proper source for a direct copy list like this. Jammo (SM247) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An interesting list, definitely worth keeping here. Not too different from Car and Driver Ten Best, which can probably be found via google as well. --JJay 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly all external lists. They are just publicity stunts. Golfcam 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A worthwhile list. Who is it hurting? --SFoskett 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for a starter, a straight lift like this looks a clear copyvio. BlueValour 20:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable listcruft --Musicpvm 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-erik lane[edit]

Vanity article in that it was created by the person in question - but maybe it should stay because of notability in that it asserts a certain amount in the volume of work published. Benjaminstewart05 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Plainly notable; numerous Google hits. Article needs a lot of work tho', sourcing etc. BlueValour 17:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup if you yourslef admit it is worth having, why did you nominate it? Joeyramoney 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not say that it was worth having, I said that although it was a vanity article (delete?) it did contain some material which could be considered notable (keep?) - so I put it here to see what other users thought, delete or keep - simple. Benjaminstewart05 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lane appears to have published a whole bunch of books. The Swedish national library catalogue LIBRIS gives 145 hits for his name (both books and articles). And you can withdraw the nomination if you wish. WP:AUTO is not in itself a deletion reason, just a reason to be wary. up+land 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Jan-erik Lane. It needs a cleanup but he seems notable enough for mine. Perhaps we should also advise the author of the relevant guidelines. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The H.A.M.B. (Hokey Assed Message Board)[edit]

This message board does not seem to meet the criteria set forth at WP:WEB. Joyous! | Talk 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting an invalid vote. Deathphoenix ʕ 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crackfiller[edit]

Is this notable - methinks not.... Benjaminstewart05 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

me thinks your pronoun usuage needs a little work. This is rather notable considering the band recently recieved a record deal and have a single coming out shortly. Boomboombanana 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually methinks you will find it is a real word, check the dictionary. Benjaminstewart05 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Normally I'd say clean-up but as the band and song title seems to recieve only two hits and both of those are their myspace account - well..... --Charlesknight 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND I think Homestarmy 18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joeyramoney 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When/if their record is released, and when/if people actually buy it, it may be suitable. Not yet. Fan1967 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Marginally meets WP:BAND. ref: "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list. Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. " Possibly because I'm a member of their locality.Article needs work, however. ClarkyMacFarly 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's only edits are to their userpage and this AfD.

*Delete- Be that as it may, the article is devestatingly incomplete, there's no proof evident for your claims.ElliottSmithlove 04:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep-Just read through WP:BAND in complete, if someone can come up with more elaboration centering around the Rap-Rock genre and their local contribution then this could simply be a clean-up. ElliottSmithlove 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's only edits are to their userpage and this AfD.

-am i allowed to defend myself for that claim? I came upon this and felt up for a good free speech skirmish. never used wiki. before and figured this would be a great place to start.ElliottSmithlove 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If they are notable because of their influence on the local scene - what can you offer in the way of sources? I still can find Zippo, nil, nothing. --Charlesknight 11:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Cleanup Verifiable sources need to be cited, but I will second the statements of ClarkyMacFarly and .ElliottSmithlove. Parsssseltongue 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are those verifiable sources likely to come from? The ONLY mention of them on the website is two myspace pages - both of which belong to the band. One seem to a flyer for their big gig - which seems to be in their house..... --Charlesknight 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Publications devoted to a notable sub-culture and multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media that may not have an online presence or just haven't been cited yet. I am not familiar with this group, but that doesn't mean there isn't press coverage about them. Parsssseltongue 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No verifiable sources have been cited, or even mentioned. Wikipedia policy is not satisfied by the possibility that there might be articles about them that aren't on line. Burden of proof is on the proponent of the article to provide verification. Fan1967 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe the nomination was not made in good faith, considering the article was submitted for deletion a mere two minutes after its creation. I am not saying articles do not need notable subjects or verifiable data, merely that not every editor new to Wikipedia has their articles completed before they post it. This article should have been tagged with a notability notice, and more time should have been given. Yes, the editor has had time now to pull together resources, but I wonder if they were scared off having been bitten so quickly. Parsssseltongue 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • None of which is relevant to the fact that there is absolutely nothing to support any notability for this group. You don't get a free pass to keep a page on your unknown band just because someone nominated it too quickly. Fan1967 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not my band, not neccessarily the band of the editor who originated the article, either. And again, I stress that there may be a wealth of material to support notability for this band, and YES, the editor needs to provide it. But I want to add my voice to the record, and that voice is saying, TWO MINUTES?! Parsssseltongue 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And there's still three more days to find any "wealth of material" that may exist. If you really think there is reason to keep it, I suggest you start looking for it. Based on what I can find on this group, and what I can't find, it looks like the editor who tagged it in two minutes was right. Fan1967 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No need to be snippy, and I have other articles I am working on, so NO, I'm not going to research on Crackfiller. I am merely pointing out my viewpoints on my vote. Parsssseltongue 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I hate to say it but sometimes, with articles like this, two minutes is enough. That's long enough to try a google search, find nothing but myspace.com, and draw some conclusions. Fan1967 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article asserts absolutely no notability, and it has no references. Even if somebody tried to assert significance, I think they'd fail to be able to do so. -- Kicking222 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominating editor gave the originator of the article a mere two minutes to even try. (Check the history times marked of the creation of the article, and then the subsequent nomination for deletion). Parsssseltongue 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When their first album comes out they can be assessed if it is a hit; but as of now non-notable. BlueValour 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Emig[edit]

As with Andrew J. Armstrong, Abram Emanuel Schell, James H. Smith, and R.W. Smith, although interesting, this is an ancient obituary about a non-notable person. Medtopic 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Aren't these supposed to be closed after 5 days? whats the hold up?--Crossmr 17:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are only closed if enough editors have discussed the article to produce a fair concensus. Where, as here, there is insufficient discussion the AfD is relisted. BlueValour 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JESNA[edit]

advertisement V. Joe 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't think this article should be deleted. It gives information about a significant "ethnic" national non-profit organization. It has internal and external links of value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.177.65 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Having "links of value" is highly subjective and not a valid argument in an afd debate. WP:Notability is usually the focus of these debates. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably notable; 20k plus Ghits from a variety of sites. It does need a WP:NPOV cleanup, though. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I like the criteria for reasonable notability (google hits).--Shaylot 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limonese Authentic Party[edit]

Non-notable. I can't find many google hits under either English or Spanish name. Most of the goolges hits are for wikipedia and its mirrors. Can't find evidence that it has had a candidate win an election. Minimal data to even support its existance. RJFJR 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I added some documentation to my Talk page under your request for info. Paltry info on a very small party that was in existence for maybe 4 elections. Interlingua talk 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nice little stub for a less than huge subject. seems to work fine. Joeyramoney 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep NOt famous, but notable: the party had importance at least in the 1970s in Costa Rica. In a Wikipedia of 1,000,000+ articles, I think an article of this length for a party of that (small) importance is about right. Interlingua talk 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Real political party, which several references. Relevance of political parties cannot be seen only in the context of election results. --Soman 08:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The now dead link at the bottom of the page came from the Superior Electoral Tribunal. Definatively certifies existance of the party. --Soman 08:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good working stub on a real party. Wikipedia can be too quick to delete articles on minor parties. This one is sound. Keresaspa 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wipipedia[edit]

There is no indication of this website meeting any of the notability criteria of WP:WEB, namely, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", "has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" or "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". The Google results appear all to come from forums, blogs and the like. Sandstein 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well written article, fairly notable community, not doing any harm Joeyramoney 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well written article. Wholly non-notable community, not doing any good. -- GWO
  • Delete Fine as an external link in relevant articles or even maybe as a highlighted wikibox link. Not notable enough for its own article. The "not doing any harm" argument is starting to make me want to go out and exercise my Second Amendment right to brandishing automatic weapons Bwithh 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice anough article but no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 240k, for example, and there is no evidence of external mainstream coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a Wipipedian myself, I can tell you that it is a very good soruce of information to the fetish and BDSM world, with a team of dedicated members. We want to tell people about such things, and it should not be something swept under the carpet. ISD 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant comment - WP:WEB is NOT policy. The opening words on that article are "This page gives some rough guidelines". Articles in Wikipedia do not have to conform to WP:WEB, though I appreciate it is a guideline. Interesdom 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (vote transfered to more recent comment) it is referenced in 60+ articles on the Wikipedia. The LFS site (which is non-commercial) as a whole attracts 25K page views a date with the wipipedia making up 6K of those. Alexa.com is OK for ranking the major sites but not relaible for medium sized sites as it has a limited reach with it’s toolbar so a small change in site visitors can represent a huge change in Alexa rating. Alternate sexuality has a large presence on the Wikipedia, supports this and provides a useful complementary service. It also published its own orginal articles and does not only republish Wikipedia stuff. BalzacLFS 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above votes by ISD and BalzacLFS do not properly address the notability problem we face here. Neither page views (which are also not independently verifiable) nor mentions in / links from Wikipedia confer notability, as per WP:WEB. Only mentions by reliable sources can do this. No such mentions have been cited here or in the article. The originality, nature or quality (or lack thereof) of Wipipedia's content is not relevant to this discussion. Sandstein 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a novel argume nt, though - by linkspamming to masses of Wikipedia articles we get inclusion by default. Hopefully our POV warriors will not take this to heart. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point but the content is mirrored in its entirity by Informed Consent (ranked 14880 by Alexa) and republished as the encyclopervia. while that does not fully comply with the criteria I think it does gives some independent evidence of its notability. BalzacLFS 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. No coverage by reliable sources in the top 50 Google results. (Unless one of the non-English language hits is a reliable source, but to my eye having non-English hits in the top 50 is a sign that there isn't much about it in English.) GRBerry 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB.Golfcam 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have evidence that Wipipedia meets the third criteria, which says that an article is notable if, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The website InformedConsent.co.uk, the largest BDSM in the UK (It is practically the first entry if you type BDSM in google) has a "Encyclopervia" which says that, "The articles are derived from the free-content London Fetish Scene Wipipedia and the Wikipedia." ISD 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (Double vote crossed out, Sandstein 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)) I have swapped stikeouts since more recent keep is supported by relavent information BalzacLFS 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Hmm. I'd contest that assertion - there's no real indication that this "Informed Consent" site qualifies as a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster. I understand what is meant by that is more in the way of traditional mainstream media outlets. Sandstein 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Within the BDSM community Informed Consent is a highly regarded and popular website dealing with serious issues about the lifestyle. Also, this is alternative sexuality we are talking about. I would think it highly unlikely that the New York Times would ever run a major feature on bondage safety and then cite the Wipipedia as a source :-) You have to look for notability with the the community who will make use of the the knowledge. BalzacLFS 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could create the article Informed Consent (website), then - with proof of notability, as required per WP:WEB. As it is, we have only assertions regarding the notability of either site - but what we need are reliable sources. And, no, we do not look for notability in an arbitrarily defined "community" - everything would be notable, then, depending on the definition of the community. We look for encyclopedic knowledge notable to the world at large, as measured by, again, WP:WEB.
Forgive me if I am making an unwarrented assumption but I assume you have very little personal experience of the BDSM lifestyle or its resources. Surely it should be for editors with knowledge in this area to pass judgement on if a site is notable. The fact that Informed Consent is in the top 15,000 sites on the web should at the very least make it a serious canditate. You seem to be rejecting it without giving it a fair consideration. BalzacLFS 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Final Thought: I can understand the basis for wanting to delete this article. As has been stated, the Wikipedia is not a repository for every scrap of informtion however obscure, there needs to be a standard by which articles can be considered of sufficient merit for inclusion. If not then the Wikipedia risks drowning in a sea of trivia. The advantage of specialist Wikis like the Wipipedia is that they provide a repository for articles which, while being relevent to the community to which they apply, would not otherwise be considered notible enough for inclusion in the main Wikipedia. If they are to fulfill this function then people should be aware of their existance and links should be fostered between the Wikipedia and the specialist wikis. BalzacLFS 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, too, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to foster the growth or success of external content providers, regardless of whether or not they are also wikis, and regardless of their content. WP:NOT for advertisement. However, a mention of Wipipedia in an article on specialist wikis might be quite appropriate, and we could even redirect the "Wipipedia" link there. Sandstein 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key issue is is the wikipedia making a valid contributon to the BDSM store of knowledge. If the wider audience feels that it is then commonsense might suggest that background article about the Wipipedia would be a legitimate entry on the Wikipeda. I think your point about being part of a wider article on specialist wikis is a valid one but would it be as much help to those readers wanting to exploring the BDSM subject matter? I think the rules need to be applied with a degree of flexibility. BalzacLFS 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not whether Wikipedia is contributing (or ought to contribute) to BDSM knowledge. The issue is only whether Wipipedia is notable per WP:WEB, as attested by reliable sources. BDSM knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, is not furthered by Wikipedia becoming an accumulation of non-notable trivia. Please understand, we do have to look at it that narrowly - otherwise any random accumulation of bytes is worth keeping as being somehow interesting or useful to someone. We, however, are a general encyclopedia, and no more. Sandstein 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would not ask a non mathamatician if a mathamatical site was notable, the 'community' of mathamaticians would have to make that call. Within the sphere of BDSM you would be hard pressed to find a more non trivial site than Informed Consent with comparable reach. I accept that it does not have the same gravitas as Nature or the Times, but again this is AltSex we are talking about, if you applied the same rigour to the body of work on the topic as you are applying to this article you would loose 90% of the content and Wikipedia (in my opinion) would be the poorer for it. BalzacLFS 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is eloquent in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ISD and BalzacLFS. Alexa ranks aren't everything. --Brownlee 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started the Wipipedia article. I was going to explain why it should be kept, but BalzacLFS has articulated what I was thinking better than I could have. --WhyBeNormal
  • Keep Wipipedia is very notable in some circles; it would be against the spirit of the notability rules to dismiss it as non-notable.--Taxwoman 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like BDSM! Skinnyweed 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your "Keep" votes are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator if you do not base your reasoning on policy. Liking something or invoking the spirit of some unspecified rule doesn't change that "Wipipedia" is not notable per WP:WEB. Sandstein 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I consider we have made a strong case to say that the Wipipedia is a notable site. BalzacLFS 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of a rule is as important as its letter; under the spirit of WP:WEB, this article should be kept. Also, it should be kept under WP:IAR because deleting it will not benefit Wikipedia; on the contrary.--Brownlee 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WEB is not a rule, regardless of Sandstein's attempts to put down anyone else's ideas in relation to it. Wipipedia is a notable site in it's sphere and whether it is notable to the general public is not important. The article is not advertising but is informative and fairly unbalanced (if it were not, it should be edited but still kept), discussing an encyclopedia which has several references within Wikipedia (which has original information sourced from it). Interesdom 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not voting either way, but I think we should consider other "specialty wikis" like Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia and ask at what point they became notable to get their own articles. (I don't know, I haven't been involved in WP for ages). Moulder 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I totally agree with Interesdom and others that have made their vote: the WP:WEB clearly states it is only a rough outline, and by no means a set of rules. Jjatria 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Da Ali G Show. TigerShark 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corky Bucek[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability This Character is too obscure and undeveloped to warrant its own page.

You do not know Corky Bucek? He is most famous performer in Kazakhstan! High Five! Honestly, Bucek deserves his own page. He has been mentioned countless times by Borat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.129.179 (talk • contribs)

He is very famous for this a-song "Bing Bang." "Bing bang, bang bang bang be be bo bo, bang bang bang bang bang (click) (click) (click) bing bang bing bang be ba be ba be."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.176.234 (talk • contribs)

  • This nomination was incomplete; listing now. - Liberatore(T) 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. THE MORE INFO THE BETTER. I WAS INTERESTER IN FINDING MORE INFO ABOUT Corky Bucek. --84.47.108.78 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment suggest a relist on AfD to garner some opinions from seasoned Wikipedia contributors.--Isotope23 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • we can merge things, people Joeyramoney 19:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Joey Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as AliGcruft Bwithh 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Isotope23 and Joeyramoney. Tevildo 20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge Corky Bucek should absolutely be mentioned on WP, but he should absolutely not have his own article. -- Kicking222 23:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I didn't know this was a fictional character until I looked it up, cruft maybe but something people will look up --BHC 08:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Exodus[edit]

Original research Nv8200p talk 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary estrogen feminist conspiracy[edit]

Complete OR & biased article. Utterly unecyclopedic. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete conspiracy theory presented as factual Tom Harrison Talk 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:SOAP, WP:NOR and that sort of thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Oh, and WP:OR, fails WP:NPOV, fails WP:V, has no WP:RS, violates WP:NOT (a soapbox). But mainly, complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total nonsense. Actually, a serious article could be written about the effects of environmental estrogen exposure -- but this sure isn't it. BuckRose 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trying to see if JzG left anything out, but I think he pretty well covered it. This is just dreadful. Fan1967 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is complete and utter fertilizer. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete bollocks and the like (though not for much longer if we take these claims seriously...) Jammo (SM247) 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An account of recent scientific studies into the effects of estrogen on males would be okay at the Estrogen page, but calling it a conspiracy when it is such an open topic in scientific circles is past what wikipedia is about. Disagree that the pileon of tags at the page was needed. Seems silly to have that many tags on a page, why not use {{ActiveDiscuss}} in place of them all. Ansell 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated. but I did enjoy reading it :-) BalzacLFS 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total original research conspiracy theory/hoax. (I tend to think the opposite has happened to men lately.) Grandmasterka 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to BJAODN, I think enough people found it funny. Grandmasterka 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, personal essay. POV could possibly be fixed, but that wouldn't change that it's OR. --Icarus 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KILL IT WITH FIRE. Perhaps BJAODN. Jumbo Snails 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Do not let the feminists sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. POE. JRM · Talk 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incredible nonsense. Parts could, possibly, be included into metrosexual. // Habj 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete This is a very easy deletion candidate. Philosophus T 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hakritkastamon[edit]

Hoax & vanity article. No google hits whatsoever. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giytover[edit]

Hoax myth. No google hits at all. Even if it is not a hoax it's completely unverifiable. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 08:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance (MIT)[edit]

Delete. Poor assertion of significance for this musical ensemble - one song included on one compilation album of unknown popularity. An MIT student group, one of several a cappella groups on campus, which was reviewed in the campus newspaper three times... We must apply WP:MUSIC equally here. (This started with ((db-band)), which is not undeserved here, despite the fact that the article looks good.) (OMG I forgot to sign!) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email

There's no need for that big bolded "delete" there. It makes you look like you think you're voting; and nobody wants that, right? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are decidedly different schools of thought about that. It's been litigated to death before. It's not a vote, it's a recommendation. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. There's two schools of thought about making a bolded recommendation in your nomination. One is that it's silly, encourages poor nominations, makes the nominator look a bit of a twit, and most importantly, earns the Official Fuddlemark Stamp of Disapproval. The other school says "well, I saw a newbie do it the other day, why shouldn't I?". I know the latter argument is a powerful one; it's the primary reason behind the celebrated Chinese Whispers Method of Policy Creation. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as college a cappella groups go, Resonance is fairly notable. The group has made the lineup for 2006 Best of College A Cappella, an album released annually by the Contemporary A Cappella Society, the coordinators of the International Championship of College A Cappella. Isopropyl 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a band had one song included on one published compilation album it would fail WP:MUSIC. This is no different. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Resonance won a couple CASA awards, and they've gone on tours [54]. Other than that, there aren't a whole lot of college a cappella groups who release albums on major labels. Not passing WP:MUSIC is not an automatic deletion. Isopropyl 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CrazyRussian. -- Kjkolb 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete. I'm going to suggest, per Isopropyl, that WP:MUSIC should be ignored here. The article is well written with a neutral and encyclopedic tone — unlike most band articles that hit AfD, this isn't a blatant attempt at self-promotion, nor is it particularly crufty. Not everything that may be deleted according to policy must be deleted. In my opinion, losing this article would be a net loss for the encyclopedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what exactly you think the net loss would be if this article was deleted? Bwithh
  • Delete per Crzrussian. No matter how high the quality of the article, that doesn't merit a Wikipedia article or create instant notability. I did outside research and couldn't find anything, it appears to be non-notable and undeserving of an article. Yanksox (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can say, now that I am promoted, is that, had someone else tagged it for {{db-band}} and I was reviewing it off of CAT:CSD, I would certainly have honored it. And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, for the sake of the useful articles that you will delete through ignorance or ineptitude, I request that you do not speedy delete anything in the forseeable future. We have a good record for speedying trash and keeping non-trash, and I for one do not want to see you piss that down the drain with such actions. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to second this - Crazyrussian, your suggested policy here is completely at odds with settled Wikipedia policy. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high quality article, notable group, not doing any harm. Joeyramoney 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As a MIT alum, I believe this is a very much a non-notable group. The article harms Wikipedia's reputation/image as an encyclopedia as opposed webhosting service. Quality of the article is entirely irrelevant for afd discussions. Although, how people consider an article with a strained "earwax for dinner" anecdote to be "high quality", I don't know. Bwithh 19:35, 18 June 2006 to a free (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how much buffing and polishing you give to the article, it's still about a unnotable music group -- no storied history, no big record deals, no huge critical acclaim, etc. --Calton | Talk 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. College society. -- GWO
  • I agree with Isopropyl (talk · contribs), these guys are quite notable as such groups go, and the article's doing no harm. It's also never in a million years speediable, and I'm baffled as to why a) you tagged it as such, and b) you then complained that the tag was removed in your nomination. What on Earth? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. No assertion of compliance with the relevant standard - WP:MUSIC in this case. Not that farfetched. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC is not the relevant standard for deciding on whether or not to speedy an article about a musical group. You're an admin. You should know these things. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stills[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. MyNameIsNotBob 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC. I'll note, for instance, 142 unfiltered Google News hits alone for reviews of their albums and shows, they meet the touring requirement without question, having toured the United States and being from Canada [55] [56]. I really, really wish people would take an extra second to research before AfDing, because this is an extremely poor nomination. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, per WP:MUSIC....

- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources. (Yes, this is easily verifiable.) - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (Vice has released music, for example, by Bloc Party, The Streets, and Death from Above 1979.) So, how is this supposed to be non-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.19.237 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep Notable. Not quite bad faith nomination because the article is poorly sourced (read: unsourced), but still pretty lazy. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per T&E. BoojiBoy 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the above unsigned comment, and because I've heard of them. But really because they're just plain notable. Side note: I love Death From Above 1979. Come here baby, I love your company... -- Kicking222 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above criteria. Just to add one more, they have charted on Billboard. [57] --Joelmills 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they ain't the Rolling Stones, but even I have heard of them. --Eivindt@c 08:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Parsssseltongue 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a keeper, will some of you Stills fans go and fix the article? -Nv8200p talk 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly needs fixing? Stubbiness is not a criteria for deletion, and the article meets NPOV and verifiability guidelines. BoojiBoy 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mashhur.com[edit]

An ad-heavy Pakistani website. External links to the site were added to non-Pakistan related articles like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Knight Rider, which made me wonder if this article was created for promotional purposes. Wmahan. 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. Riadlem 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rank of 358,389; doesn't meet WP:WEB, due to its lack of WP:V & WP:RS claims of notability ("only website available containing material on Pakistani popular culture" is a dubious claim). -- Scientizzle 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manu de la Playa[edit]

Tagged for AfD by anon IP 86.138.234.160 (talk · contribs) with the note "a joke and a hoax". Completing nomination. Fan1967 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


MESSAGE TO FAN-1967, IMPLICATING HIS VIOLATIONS OF SEVERAL RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. Even before it can be proved that these guys do not exist, which is an abberation, you have started removing them from other pages and links, commenting "pointless reference to high school player", an unfounded remark that will be reported to WikiAdmins. You have cheated us, now we solemenly ask you to apologize and let these guys' pages.

  • DO NOT DELETE dont delete these guys, i've seen them on TV, half-time report of one of france game for the world cup! they seem awesome! why would you delete them? has ronaldinho been deleted yet?
  • Delete Based on total failure of google search. Only hit is his name in the Wikipedia article on Reynald Pedros, a legitimate footballer. Considering that both articles have the same author, someone who knows FIFA really ought to take a good look at the Pedros
  • Note See related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William de Coburn, about a classmate of his who's also supposedly a rising soccer star, yet also fails google search. Fan1967 00:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax/unverifiable. Grandmasterka 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I know these guys wow that's crazy, I nenver knew they would make it to the top.... Call the french school these guys are real! Wow - T.Fillebeen— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.203.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete just like the other article. Clearly a hoax page. DrunkenSmurf 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)article. Fan1967 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep them I am the one you should have emailed. I created these pages. I used to go to school with these guys and that's why I forwarded the pages to all my friend. They are real check for yourself on the school website. Damn sometimes people can be so stubborn and jealous too. I'm proud to be their friends and see that they've succeeded. Abdel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelkweli (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 June 2006)
  • Comment. If they are real students at the high school, I'm sure that's very nice. It doesn't mean they deserve an article. Are they notable soccer players, reported in the papers, signed by major professional teams? No. Even high school players get written up in the newspapers sometimes, or at least the best ones do. Seems these two haven't. Fan1967 23:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No need to be jealous Fan-1967. As i cann see on your profile, the onyl thing you do is delete and speedy-delete. Instead of deleting try to create something. you are not creating anything, you won't be remembered. You're wikipedia' saddam.
  • Speedy Delete, non-notable and fails google test. (Only Wikipedia result is returned) Likely a self promotion, qualify for CSD A7. --WinHunter (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fails the google test? damn you're not a good tester then. Try Coburn or Manu they're everywhere.
  • USEFUL, hey my name is Patrick Mixter. I know these guys. We played them last year because I'm a Dwight School and man they were the shit. There even were photographers and the rumor had it going that red bull ny were watching. And i guess it payed off. They kicked our ass. Don't delete or you'll regret it, that I'm sure...
  • Delete vanihoax; the only footy player I can find on www.equipe.fr called Manu, or anything like that, is the Málaga CF player. The guy in the picture certainly wasn't born in 1985. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Klute[edit]

Can't find evidence of notability Nv8200p talk 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page Bwithh 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't calling it a vanity page a heavy accusation? You're implying that the editor who originated the article is the article subject himself. Parsssseltongue 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep Needs expansion, verifiable sources cited, etc. (give me some time, I can do it myself!), but this individual is notable. Parsssseltongue 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not criteria for a "speedy keep" vote. If you can add info, then by all means, please do so. However, there's no provision in WP:SK which is met by this article. -- Kicking222 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Misunderstood phrase "speedy keep." Sorry, still new. And Kicking, are you following me? :) Parsssseltongue 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, no. And for the record, I have no vote on this article, so I'm not even going to cancel out your keep vote. ;) -- Kicking222 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Runcorn 11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TeaDrinker 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find evidence of any awards or real success. BlueValour 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Streate[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. The only source offered is the second Virginia charter of which the subject of the article is one of what appears to be several hundred names. There's little to no notability or verifiability addressed. Metros232 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: Anthony Streate which also appears to be non-notable and non-verifiable.

John Streate was a famous captain of some time but he isn't that well recognised, like Anthony Streate. Its like being Sir William Brockman, there is not that much searches for him and he was involved with a King granting him land, just like John Streate who had land granted to him by James I. At least it puts together pieces of a mostly figured out historical puzzle. kylests —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.74.77 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What if I were to create an article about the Second Virginia Charter and all its people? Let us make a formal speech about this article and I will explain things as you continue to speech........ Go on.--Kylests 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kylests[reply]

  • Delete NN. "it puts together pieces of a mostly figured out historical puzzle"; is that original research? --Runcorn 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, opinions are like assholes, we all have one.--Kylests 20:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Kyle Mackenzie Street[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 fair-use galleries. Period. Go ye forth and find others to vanquish. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of the Walt Disney Company[edit]

In a word, logocruft. FuriousFreddy 20:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Cory Doctorow school of logocruft Bwithh 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AFD discussion sort of reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC idents for some reason... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serious copyright infringement, and Disney is well-known for the zeal with which they file copyright lawsuites. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only of interest to TV logo devotees. —tregoweth (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say this passes notability as WDS has an extremely high iconic status in the United States. Besides Coca-Cola or the Marlboro Man it's hard to think of any company imagery that resonates as well. I'd ordinarily say delete a company logo history, but I'd say this is a special case. However, I agree the copywright issues should be looked into. Markeer 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've glanced at the images, all of them offer fair use tags so I don't see the previous voters argument of 'serious copyright infringement' here. Just an FYI Markeer 14:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use does not apply in an image gallery such as this. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's entirely possible I don't understand, but when looking at the tag for [[58]] (for example) I note fair use disclaimers for both a movie screenshot and a low-res company logo. Markeer 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fair use tag applies to the article about Buena Vista Film Distribution, but that's the limit of fair use. Having it in this article is a copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my understanding of the fair use tag as written is the use of the image on Wikipedia, not for one specific Wikipedia article. In fact that's the language used in the tag. I freely admit I don't know all details of fair use rules, but you'd have to convince me with evidence friend, not simply assertion (heh, tempting to put a citation tag on Zoe's comments...) Markeer 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FGS, Keep the page on the Wikipedia! It gives us an interesting history of the company's logo evolution! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do understand copyright violations, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any logocruft on this page. --Ryanasaurus0077 20:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did I say logocruft? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Zoe: I am guessing that Ryanasaurus0077's comment was a reply to the original nomination. Ryanasaurus0077: "logocruft" is referring to the entire article, not any single part of it. —tregoweth (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article on a vital aspect of the branding of one of the world's best loved corporations. In my view, there is also no copyright violation in using reduced versions of the logos in the context of a discussion of their history. Of course, the issue is never crystal clear, as Disney well knows, having been sued repeatedly themselves for various copyright issues [59], [60], [61], etc.--JJay 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no doubt about its notability. The content of the article qualifies for a seperate article. --WinHunter (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A decent historical overview of an iconic logo. No copyright issues (see numerous above). --Satori Son 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The primary problem I see here is the use of image galleries. There should be far more text, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preposterous article.--Runcorn 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless it can be proved these images aren't fairuse, then I don't see any reason for the article to be deleted. Alexj2002 14:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified keep - this is an interesting article and definitely encyclopaedic but it is essential that the Admin checks the copyright position before closing. BlueValour 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If this article was actually what its title says it is -- logos of the Walt Disney Company -- I would vote a strong keep (especially if it was as comprehensively annotated as National Broadcasting Company logos). But all this article has is a bunch of Walt Disney Pictures logos. They're not even close to sufficiently different to deserve an article. The actual Company logos would be a much better topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtPowers (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep - Screen Gems, Viacom, DiC and Columbia TriStar TV both get logo pages, so Walt Disney should, too! Gabrielkat 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 05:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned moves in WWE[edit]

Very speculative info, and it's hard to say if the moves are outright banned, or just discouraged or what. So citations are hard to come by. This article could also be merged into the WWE mainpage. Burgwerworldz 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing but rumours. McPhail 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but rumours.Golfcam 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be interested to know where this list comes from, otherwise it is just speculation. And even if it proves correct I fail to see how it is really useful. DrunkenSmurf 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is simply daft. Robertsteadman 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Feature Presentation opening sequence[edit]

Originally nominated when it was at HBO Feature Presentation. Unencyclopedic fancruft and wholly original research as well. FuriousFreddy 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Disney logocruft above and now HBO openingsequencecruft. Bizarre. Who are these people ? Bwithh 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only of interest to TV logo devotees. —tregoweth (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any policies or guidelines about these types of articles? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some people who enjoy logocruft. Your stuff may be cruft to us but you wouldn't want it to be deleted. I wiki-linked logocruft so I can find out what it is. Besides, what is there to argue about? This stuff is a considerable part of American culture to people like myself and others. 71.111.232.40 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, What is there to argue about? Why are we arguing? I simply do not get the point. If you're saying that the article is biased, I disagree. If you say that people should not know about this, I disagree. Just please tell me what is going on. I'll make it even more unbiased. 71.111.232.40 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't say anything worthwhile.--Runcorn 10:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeWithJava[edit]

Currently reads like an advert, but this could be changed... Is it really notable? Benjaminstewart05 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't look like it! Probably an ad, too. Recury 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just an advert as currently written. No evidence of notability. DrunkenSmurf 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert. Does nominator mean "Currently doesn't read like an article"? --Runcorn 10:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Zscout370 —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 06:11Z

Eastham cocaine mill[edit]

Probable hoax. Joyous! | Talk 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Delete. Obvious hoax, cocaine wasn't isolated until 1855. Tevildo 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax, garbage. Jammo (SM247) 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged, obvious nonsense NawlinWiki 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Grove Kids[edit]

Non-notable by themselves other then Dani Filth was a member Nv8200p talk 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can't find any relevant google hits. Recury 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this is all the info available on them. If more is found, just merge it to Dani Filth, per WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pass no notability tests.--Runcorn 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Omega[edit]

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I don't see how this group is any different from any of the other gaming clans that are routinely deleted as non-notable. Joyous! | Talk 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I like Yu-Gi-Oh! but this seems like just an advertisment for a non-notable gaming clan(not there's that many notable gaming clans either). TJ Spyke 21:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable -Markeer 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A gaming clan of a few months with 30 members is in no way notable. DrunkenSmurf 17:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Runcorn 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – [ælfəks] 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homework cremation ceremony[edit]

Seems to be a non notable unofficial event at a single school in Florida. I'm not thinking this deserves an article. - Bootstoots 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - quite amusing, but almost certainly non-notable. Bob 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this event is being extended into further schools and a DVD is being produced this year to help gain recognition of the event. However, the school does not endorse this activty yet for obvious reasons. *Note* the DVD this year is being produced on a larger scale (50+ copies) and word of mouth will help it gain in significance. Also, have some levity with this; if the page is kept, it will become a common meeting place for kids interested by the idea. Also, contrary to popular belief, we do not burn important documents - only busy work. Robbie 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete After the 100 days holiday we have this - every USA school seems to want to create a holiday via WP. BlueValour 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - I don't think this event is exclusive to the Spanish River High School in Florida, since I've heard of other schools doing it in my area (Puerto Rico). Hell, I used to do it with some friends back in my school days. That aside, I doubt a subject like this deserves an article, and a single event in one school doesn't meet the notability standards. I mean, what next? Should I create an article of how a few schools in my area celebrate their last school day? And I'm not even mentioning that this article doesn't have any references or sources... ;-) If this information is deemed keepable, then consider merging it with Spanish River Community High School -Mtmelendez 22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid argument. ackoz 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, made-up holiday. Also, imho, the students should be forced to attend school during the summer to totally rewrite (NEATLY and CAREFULLY) all the homeworks they burned and if they won't do that, or if the redone homeworks earn a lower grade than first time round, they get held back a year. Perhaps then they will understand the importance of respecting homework - yes, that's right, even so-called "busywork". just my two cents. actually, why don't I write a strongly-worded letter to the Spanish River High School board of governors right now. Bwithh 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid argument. ackoz 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, apart from the first sentence, I was just kidding around (although how will the school produce even more reality tv gameshow alumni in the future without homework?). But since ackoz is being so serious in his misguided way... Acoz, please read WP:NOT and not how wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia - in fact, surprising though it may be, this is its primary, overriding purpose, and not a showcase to popularize ideas made up one day in school Bwithh 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, please all of you pay attention, the editor who started the article is still trying to expand it. Articles like this should not be deleted per notability. Mtmelendez the article doesn't have references or sources, because it was started today and is still being written. It is a blatant ignorance not to check the history page and vote per your IMHO that the students should rewrite their homework. This user is a newbie (check his contributions), dont bite by deleting the article he started. I saved the wiki source for the article, should you decide to delete it, I will restore it per WP:IAR. ackoz 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment upon which the article will be deleted for being a recreation when consensus favoured deletion. Jammo (SM247) 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are not biting because the creator is a newbie - we are biting because this is a nonsense. WP is an encyclopaedia for important, verifiable facts not as a proving ground for students to create new holidays. BlueValour 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blatant ignorance? Right, OK. In fact, the more I read the article, specially after some expansions made by the creator, the more I stand by my argument. I strongly agree with Jammo (SM247) (see below) that this is a classic textbook example of WP is not for things made up in school one day. Maybe instead of keeping this article just to make a "newbie" happy we should just talk to the new user about the WP guidlines for creating articles and coach him/her into making better ones. I think THAT's the best way to improve wikipedia. But I don't know, I guess I'm just a blatant ignorant. Mtmelendez 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or merge - Non-notable, original research, vanity page. I know things like this are common, but this single event by itself is not notable or encyclopedic at the moment. In addition, wikipedia is not the place for original research or publication. Perhaps if it were referenced from a verifiable source then there might be something here. Otherwise, if there is an existing article on similar event trends, it could be merged. Also, Ackoz- do not cross out other people votes, they are votes and you should not retract them because you think their points are not valid. Falls End (T, C) 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear that these arguments are not valid, stating that in your humble whatever the students should spend the holiday writing is not an argument about the article. I crossed out the votes because the editor of the article is new, instead of welcoming him to wikipedia and educating him on the rules about notability, these fellow editors just bite and add stupid comments about students to their arguments, presuming that the editor is a student himself. I concluded, that it will better serve wikipedia, if I cross out those votes and welcome Robbie on WP than anything else.I acted according to WP:IAR. ackoz 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, another brilliant person waving WP:IAR around as if its an all-powerful excuse for anarchy which justifies whatever the person wants to do regardless of the wikipedia community. Ackoz, please re-read WP:IAR carefully and note especially the part about improving and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia (i.e. as an encyclopedia, since that is wikipedia's crucial purpose) - this of course includes the correct functioning of the afd nomination process. So by crossing out votes, Ackoz is not acting according even to WP:IAR, but he's crossing over into vandalism Bwithh 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant? Sarcasm? WP:NPA you sticka-to-z-rools :) My actions met the WP:IAR criteria because one of the most crucial issue for WP are the editors, and if you bite any newbie who tries to create any nonsense article here because you feel superior for being an "xperienced editor", it's wrong. Instead of your "messing around apart from the first sentence", you should have put the efforts on that user's talkpage. Be kind. ackoz 06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite ackoz's insistent dissent, there is no notability asserted, and the facts asserted are not verified or sources provided. How can a 50+ only production run of DVDs raise the profile of this event sufficiently for it to deserve its own page? If and when this does happen, it can be recreated. As at the moment, this is a localised and non-notable school ritual that does not belong here. More people got on my train this morning than have attended this event in its existence by the admission of the editors, but I don't create the page Travelling from Nerang to Robina Station on QR CityTrain service UG06 every morning, do I? For it is as equally a non-notable event. I earnestly wish you every success in promoting your event, but come back when you have succeeded. Read this in the meantime. Jammo (SM247) 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per almost everyone above who also voted delete, specifically Mtmelendez and Jammo. Among other rules and notability guidelines, WP:NFT certainly applies here. -- Kicking222 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFT, and everyone else has summed it up pretty well. --DennyCrane Talk 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cremate, I mean Delete. No notability asserted, not a "holiday" even if the article were otherwise correct. One of the best examples of WP:NFT that I've seen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Radio propagation —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 06:08Z

Propagation mode[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic; at the moment just a dicdef; no sourcing. BlueValour 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wackbag.com[edit]

Opie and Anthony are certainly notable. A message board about them probably doesn't pass WP:WEB. Joyous! | Talk 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Certainly notable! Ranked 30,182nd site on Alexa here. Matt 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Message boards are almost never notable and I don't see how this one is any different. BoojiBoy 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable about it. Getting mentioned on the show isn't enough, I would say. Recury 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable message board. Beaner1 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vault Network is an example of a notable message board. Wackbag.com is not. ju66l3r 06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable message boards are rare!--Runcorn 10:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Longenecker[edit]

nn businessman, Google search turns up 1400 results, half are message board postings and Wikipedia derived articles. Ckessler 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemophiliac (band)[edit]

Non-notable; WP is for bands that have made it not experimental groups. BlueValour 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Senegalese writers[edit]

non-encyclopaedic, category more suitable, no thought behind this list. BlueValour 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I agree, bad choice of words, sorry. BlueValour 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have several similar lists, like List of Canadian writers, List of Japanese writers and List of Scottish writers. Carioca 00:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As always, this is way better than a category, because it can be annotated. There also would seem to be some thought behind the list since it covers Senegalese writers with links to author databases and our bio pages. --JJay 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly valid list. I cannot comment on "no thought behind this list" without using incivil language. --Ezeu 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understant this hostility against lists, many names don't yet have a cat.--Aldux 09:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Cars[edit]

This is a blatant advertisment for a company, also for SEO spamming Zandarx talk 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim of verifiability. Original contributor had been posting links to a chain of SEO pages across several articles (of which this article is a part). lowercase 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Spam. BlueValour 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Spam - 'This article is not an advert merely information about a notable large company.' - just asking for it, I think. Jammo (SM247) 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is advertising spam. There is a bit of useful information on the difference between private hire and hailed taxis in the UK which could be usefully kept in a general taxi article, if there is one. -- Arwel (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Added to Taxicab. BlueValour 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and redirect the page to Ambassador automobile which is a disambiguation page for several car models called ambassador. --Ezeu 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Athenaeum 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable company, not even a large example of this type of business. Nuttah68 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert--Runcorn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCDM (musician)[edit]

Seemingly NN musician that nobody's ever heard of, and fails WP:MUSIC. --Bill (who is cool!) 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of inspirational authors[edit]

It's not even a list. Vanity article for non-notable author. I've prodded his vanity page in the hope it will just go away but maybe I should bundle it here?

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nom Bwithh 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete copied from another article, utterly misleading. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity and misleading. Jammo (SM247) 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Mirasmus 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list with one entry is absurd and is clearly cover for a vanity article.--Runcorn 10:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – [ælfəks] 09:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Will Carradine[edit]

She has two minor acting roles to her credit, aside from that, her only claim to fame is being "the attractive former spouse of Keith Carradine." Ckessler 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually it's Keith Carradine. She also has more claims to fame than that, even though all are minor individually.
  1. 6 more movies as Sandra Will
  2. Main FBI informant in trial of Anthony Pellicano, whom we have a reasonable sized article for. This makes for most of her non-negligible number of Google hits:"Sandra Carradine": 764, "Sandra Will Carradine": 535
  3. Finally, she founded the "Sheridan Arts Foundation" to restore an historic opera house in Telluride, Colorado [62] [63]
All told, I think that calls for a Weak Keep (and lots of improvement of the article, of course). AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Island View Drive[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. One album, on Acutest Records, which seems non-notable from their website [64]. Touring seems restricted to Michigan and surrounding states, per their Myspace profile [65], and their own website seems to be not functioning. 158 unique google hits for "Island View Drive" + band [66], so that's not too bad. Seems to be gaining in popularity. More than willing to change my vote if there is something I have missed. --Joelmills 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Runcorn 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete if you feel the need. I don't want Joel to lose anymore sleep over it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, non-notable band with no assertion of notability. —Cuiviénen 18:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Prey[edit]

Vanity page, search turns up 112 results, most are the band's myspace page Ckessler 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VerbalAdvantage[edit]

advertisement ackoz 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I concur, spam. Jammo (SM247) 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam is not a cause for speedy deletion (but it should be). - Richardcavell 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - presumably advert, and if not is highly POV.--Runcorn 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Toews[edit]

Fails every test in WP:BIO. Being a collegiate hockey player with the potential to get drafted does not make one encyclopedic. Kershner 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I just denied speedy deletion of the article. The guy played in the national team for the 2006 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships and seems to be highly ranked by the scouts for the 2006 NHL Entry Draft. I don't know much about ice hockey, so I just guess he will be drafted and will be notable six days from now, which will make deleting this article five days from now a bit pointless. Kusma (討論) 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think he's notable already, but if not, he is guaranteed to be in exactly six days. And did you miss the section in WP:BIO that says "highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States"? BoojiBoy 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally, i would say delete to an ice hockey player who has never played a single NHL game, but i feel differently about amateur players who are extremely high ranked with an extremely high possiblity of playing professionaly. It would be different, though, if he was a player with little to no chance of making the big leagues. Masterhatch 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, Toews is the highest Canadian prospect for the NHL draft. He is most definitely worthy of an article. -- JamesTeterenko 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Strong Keep, I find it ironic that if this gets deleted for Toews not being notable enough, then a day or two after it is deleted he then becomes notable because of the draft. It'd save everyone a hassle if this is kept, just because it'll be re-created anyways on Saturday or Sunday by someone. Teterenko! You just edit conflicted me! Croat Canuck Go Croatia Go 02:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seriously? Are the Deletionists on a big rally today? I'm sorry man it's been a bad day, but Kershner, this guy does deserves to have his own article. It's worth it. DMighton 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No offense taken. What I like about the AfD process, is that it is a relatively reliable way of finding out the notability and importance of a person. If I suspect vanity, I often aggressively pursue deletion. As in this case, articles where the subject has legitimate merit have more than the original creator to defend them. Such articles get kept, while the trash is deleted. The system works.  :) Also, WP:HEY. Kershner 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hey-oh. Thanks, no offence was meant of course. And I agree the system works. We just have a guy right now trying to delete hockey team stubs and it is really annoying because he really just seems to be doing it for the pleasure of doing it. I respect the system and peoples opinions, I'm just annoyed by some peoples political agendas. DMighton 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." (emphasis mine) Ranked third on the Central Scouting rankings doesn't denote the "potential" to get drafted; it denotes a certainty that he's not going to fall below the top ten in the first round. This kid tied for fifteenth in the nation in goals as a freshman and is a first-line starter for one of the top programs in the NCAA. He's scarcely a scrub. RGTraynor 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Golfcam 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toews is not a possible draft pick, he is a definite first round draft pick. He has played at the highest level of his age group, at the highest level of college athletics, and is projected to be a guaranteed NHLer. Resolute 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This guy doesn NOT meet the requirements of notability and should not be here. Maybe if actually achieves something this might change but WP should not be filled up with people with potential. Robertsteadman 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then possibly you should work to overturn the part of WP:BIO clearly stating the notability of American college athletes. RGTraynor 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. Toews is an highly ranked draftee, the exception to WP:BIO is worthy, much like Adam Morrison or any other listed here: 2006_NHL_Entry_Draft, here: 2006 NBA Draft#Projected draftees, or any of draftees here 2006_NFL_Draft whose articles were created long before the actual event took place. (See my comments about this very subject a few months ago here) ccwaters 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is pretty close to a consensus to close (one dissenting vote notwithstanding), but I can guarantee this article will see gigantic traffic come Saturday. Hopefully the AFD can be closed by then so there isn't a major influx of traffic on the AFD that might be disruptive. BoojiBoy 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. -- Usgnus 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the article creator snagged his copy from here. I suggest someone replace the text very quickly. Keeping in line with my previous comment: Toews deserves an article, preferably one without CV. ccwaters 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CV removed. Thanks. ccwaters 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toews is drawing interest from the public because of his draft ranking, he has played for Team Canada, and this stub will develop into a complete article once he is drafted this weekend. Pmorrow136 17:41 ET, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is lots of stuff on wikipedia that needs deleting, but this isn;t one of them. Keep. - Dyslexic agnostic 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the guy is protected to be a top five draft pick in Saturday's draft. Kinda silly that it is nominated for deletion. --FrankCostanza 01:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 06:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy[edit]

Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. No actual references or sources. No verifiability. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 22:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research. Recury 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the following reasons: 1) I don't believe it strictly qualifies under WP:NOR, given the episode citations. 2) There is a precedent for splitting off "cultural references" sections into separate articles to avoid cluttering up the main article page. 3) Does not fail WP:V in most cases, again given episode citations; they may not be easily verifiable via web-based material, but WP:V makes no requirement that verifiability be web-based. 4) It isn't an indiscriminate collection of information; wiki-links are prevalent and the contributors to the list have made a real effort to connect the references to information in Wikipedia. 5) To answer some of the objections, I did some research and came up with a source for several of the claims, now posted in "External Links." Given this, I really don't think it's appropriate to delete the article at this time.Captainktainer * Talk 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As a disclaimer, my one and only edit to the article was to add the reference. I don't really have an emotional investment in the article itself. Captainktainer * Talk 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not comply with WP:NOR and WP:V because it assumes many things to be to be "cultural references". While it may seem obvious, we don't know for sure what the writers intended. There needs to be a source that says "this was intended as a reference to..." or some such.
As said in the WP:NOR page:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and trim and delete into Grim Adventures article. -- GWO
  • Keep: per Captainktainer; if this would be merged into the main article, which was the previous case, the main article would be too big, and the main article isn't a list, so this article is needed; It's notable, per WP:NOTABILITY, so "Not notable" isn't an argument; Every statement gives many links and the article ensures that people can see the reference; And links to tv.com and tvrage entries, which contain lists of allusions, can verify that these aren't previously unpublished statements. -- Henk65 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge. If the main article is too long, consider splitting it out again, but I don't think it would be, even without trimming. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't currently big, but it would be if this is merged. And the main article should not contain lists -- Henk65 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is plainly OR - the 'cultural references' have been identified by the editor(s) not by external sources. It would remain OR even if trimmed and included in the main article. BlueValour 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RO4588161[edit]

Non-notable and fails WP:V (Google returns four hits). I would prod this except the fact that it gets any Google hits at all makes me think it may not be a complete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Seems to be legitimate, but I can't be sure. Matt 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs a cleanup. For a start, the chemical name is written in German. - Richardcavell 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Phase I drugs should not be on Wikipedia. Fair chance it will never be marketed. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this entry is premature - once it is marketed is the time for a WP article. BlueValour 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V --Ragib 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990s[edit]

Only claim to notability is having a member who was in a band with someone else who is in a much more notable band. Please refer to WP:MUSIC when considering. I am voting redirect to 1990s but so far as I know the only reason why that is listed on Wikipedia:Speedy keep is because the preferred course of action is to be bold and do it, and as I suspect there will be people trying to defend this article's notability, I want it to run through discussion here first. Morgan Wick 22:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right on the border of notability I think - "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Rough Trade is probably THE most noteworthy British indie label. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", this holds true as well. I vote weak keep, although it's also worth moving the article to The 1990s (band) and changing the redir to the article about the decade. BoojiBoy 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only assertion of notability is the guy who was in the other band, but that band was only notable because of another guy. I don't really see this as meeting the criteria BoojiBoy mentioned above (a criteria which I don't really agree with in and of itself, anyway). -- Kicking222 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not trying to stir any pots here, but it doesn't matter if you agree with the criteria or not; it's Wikipedia policy. The debate is whether the band meets it. BoojiBoy 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I'm about to resort to the favorite of those people who try to defend blatantly non-notable stuff: Notability guidelines are not policy. In any case, Kicking has the right to make, at the very least, brief asides on his opinion on them. Morgan Wick 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think they meet the criteria with one member having been with The Yummy Fur. The Yummy Fur are notable besides having members of Franz Ferdinand, one reason being their being featured by magazines such as Melody Maker and NME [67] (see reviews section). However, as far as I can tell, The 1990s only released a single with Rough Trade Records [68] (see the discography), so that criteria does not apply. Difficult to google this band. --Joelmills 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these guys are deemed not to be notable enough to warrant an article, this should possibly be a redirect to the decade. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Kicking. I don't really buy into the transitive property of notability. Wickethewok 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Don't Delete: What a load of guff, 1990s are a brilliant band and for you dumb people who obviously haven't bothered to do any research but just want to complain 1. They are recent, 21st century, 1990s is the band name not the decade they came from

2. So what if there new, the way you deleters are going on you would think that there carer would have to be over before they could gain an entry 3. Have you bothered to listen to the music? 4. Just because they are not your cup of tea doesn't mean they shouldn't have an entry, I don't like bananas but you don't see me trying to get rid of there entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.103.184 (talk • contribs)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including WP:BAND. Also, please don't vandalize pages such as you did to this one. You can/will be blocked if you continue to do so. Note that the editors of Wikipedia don't have anything personal against this band. Wickethewok 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IPs should not vote in AfD debates. The first point makes no sense - we simply believe that "The 1990s" is a likely search term for the decade and we wouldn't want people searching for that to come up with some Scottish band they've probably never heard of, especially if they don't care for rock music. Whether their music is good does not matter (and is POV), and it doesn't matter whether ot not we like them. Morgan Wick 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one limited edition single and a few local supports isn't sufficient. Come back in 6 months if the hype has turned into anything more interesting. Ac@osr 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfills notability requirements. Parsssseltongue 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: They will be big and if you delete it it will have to be posted all over again, when they do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.103.184 (talk • contribs)
    • Not only should IPs not vote, they shouldn't vote TWICE. Parsssseltongue 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets the criteria. If anything, make it 1990s (band) or make a disambiguation page. Archibald99 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are all being lazy here! :) I made an entry for the band myself, and made a disambiguation page (with the aid of Thegraham). Can we close this AfD? Parsssseltongue 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullis Charter School[edit]

Lack of information, lack of notability. Matt 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Los Altos, California; the article fails to establish the notability of this school. A possible alternative would be to create an article along the lines of Education in Los Altos, California or something. Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would, of course, be voting keep here, but this seems to be a copyvio from the school website. It may need to be tagged and listed on the copyvio page. --JJay 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version doesn't look like a copyvio. Golfcam 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a small copy of this. Being so short, it's probably easily fixeable, which is why I haven't tagged it yet. --Rob 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Copyvio is fixed. --Rob 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the usual reasons, there's probably more material than usual, since this is a charter, which generally attracts extra attention and controversy. Merging is bad, because it would remove the school from the Category:Charter schools category, where people expect to find such schools. There isn't a clear target for a merge. The school has signficance to both Los Altos, California (as the community it servers) and Los Altos School District (even though indepedent, the district was involved in its creation, and certain financial oversight). As a stand-alone article, it can be linked to from any relevant articles, and included in all relevant categories. --Rob 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the long established precedent to retain school articles now that the copyvio problem has been resolved. Silensor 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not a strong supporter of articles about any but the most notable schools, but no reason to single out this one.--Runcorn 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netmass[edit]

This article is an advertisement, and if the advertising component were removed there would be nothing salvageable left behind. Do you think the company is notable? Richardcavell 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral >10k G-hits. I don't feel like going through and verifying each one's relevancy. Morgan Wick 23:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3 Google News hits, one a press release and only mentioned briefly in the other two. Recury 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a more notable, long-term presence in this emerging space than others that are mentioned far more frequently in Wikipedia. Richard, not sure how you see this as an adverisement when it is factual. What is your opinion of the many Streamload *articles* on Wikipedia for example? Current Google hits include mentions from ecommercetimes.com, LinuxInsider, Processor.com, World Oil and others. mreagan 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly an advert.--Runcorn 10:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced POV. Fails WP:CORP. BlueValour 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism[edit]

An arbitrary lumping together of whatever negative anyone has said about >1 Jew in the history of mankind. Fully and obviously fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and should be deleted. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am aware that there are "Criticism of [Religion]" articles. The present article confuses Jews and Israelis, etc. Needs a fresh start. The waffle about circumcision is laughable. If that is a criticism of Judaism, where do we stop? I will minimally support a merge with Anti-Judaism (which covers the same subject matter), possibly backwards (because "anti-" seems to be a POV term nowadays. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues even with the other Criticism of ... articles. They all need to be recast, imho. This is because such criticism takes so many different forms, have different agendas, are directed at different things, and in the end bear no resemblance to each other. My guess is that every imaginable critique is contained within other articles - it's hard to see what we'd accomplish by trying to lump it all together. --Leifern 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to fix it then.--Greasysteve13 09:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV OR.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per norm Evolver of Borg 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only relevant parts: mention of deicide should already be present in an article on Anti-Judaism. But Judaising, as the article notes, is not a Jewish phenomenon, but a Christian phenomenon. The Muslim comments are unsubstantiated and the belittling of Mohammed is not really a criticism of Judaism, but a criticism of some within Judaism, and could be levelled against anyone who does not believe in Mohammed's divinity. Etc. jnothman talk 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, not worthy of wiki. Kempler video Talk 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Unless refs ar provided and it becomes a bit less POV. GizzaChat © 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Confusing hodge-podge - not even clear what it's about and mostly OR. --Leifern 10:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK and nom Nesher
  • Delete Jew baiting Kuratowski's Ghost 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Ayinyud 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Shlomke 13:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is any real content on this subject the article can be recreated. Jon513 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irredeemably OR. Batmanand | Talk 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite, as much of the material here is not actual criticism of Judaism, but various anti-Jewish opinions held by assorted groups. I believe that material is properly covered by Persecution of Jews and its related articles. An article organized along the lines of Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam would be more appropriate. --Eliyak 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, re-write as necessary as described by Eliyak. Atlant 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,Abstain Delete unless the article can be rewritten so that it is a scholarly piece on theological debates and biblical criticism rather than a grab bag of anti-Semitic canards - an article called Theologicial criticisms of Judaism that actually cites Aquinas or Augustine could be useful but this article is just a grab-bag of unsourced and unfocussed OR.Homey 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is deleted we must also delete:

....or it will give the impression that Judaism the one "ism" which is above critisism on Wikipedia. (Some) content could be merged from Anti-Judaism and the Critical historical view section in the Judaism article. What represents anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic opinion in the article should be removed. Hshhh, I´m not really here 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: taking a look at:

Generally it looks as if the "Anti-.." articles deals with bias against a religion. (Cartoons depicting stereotypes would be appropriate in such an article, IMO, as would any expression of irrational, emotional feelings.)

The "Criticism of.." articles (should!) examine the more scholarly criticism of a religion through the ages. What other (religious) scholars write about Judaism would be very relevant and appropriate in this article. Hshhh, I´m not really here 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Generic mullahs ranting against the 'Jews' or Falwell ranting against the Muslims would be addressed in the 'anti' articles. Scholarly criticism of particular religions should go in the 'criticism' articles. Since religions make such broad (and frequently exclusive) claims on the human experience, it is all the more important that good-faith criticism of them not be stifled. - Merzbow 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have looked at some of those articles and I think each one has its own approach, so that none of them really are "precedent" for the existence of an article on "Criticism of..." anything else. For example, a few people on the talk page for "Criticism of atheism" say the article is too positive toward atheism. 6SJ7 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yid613 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is almost pure WP:OR, and if the other "Criticism" articles are like this one, they should be deleted as well. Avi 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Criticism of Islam/Christianity/Mormonism etc. -- Olve 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete per Homey Zeq 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said Keep. Homey 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A poorly written and scarcely researched facade without even the decency to state it's unwritten premise. The annoying charade of neutrality only adds to it's shoddiness. Shykee 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal essay, original research as evinced by the lack of any source citations whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite per khoikhoi. --Aminz 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite per khoikhoi. Article is of a worthy subject, it's just just unreadable in its current form so a rewrite would be appropriate. Canderra 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. --Batamtig 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. Understand article falls in category created by criticisms of various other religions. However, current article content doesn't offer or source serious theological criticism. Need a more scholarly approach for this sort of topic. --Shirahadasha 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Criticism of for any major religion is a lame concept. Any religion that's been around for a thousand years has its theological ducks in a row. All the criticism boils down to hateful nonsense, misunderstanding, or a different set of pre-logical choices. Parcel out the content to the appropriate articles, redirect the title to wherever; maybe to Christianity, or maybe we should just have one page, Criticism of other people's beliefs. And yes, I do support this approach for all the other Criticism of... pages. Except Criticism of Family Guy; we should keep that one. Tom Harrison Talk 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, why criticism, by nature, is a bad thing? Some criticisms can be quite helpful (but not all of them of course). All our progress is because of criticisms. But aside this, the articles like "criticism of ..." save many people's time who are trying to find such unbiased religous dialog. And also, it is a reality after all. Tom , I believe our understanding of a religon will not become complete unless we see how people have criticized it. There is a lot of hateful nonsense, misunderstanding there. True! But there is a positive side to the matter as well. Some people criticize another religon to satify their own hateful feelings. But there are some who are willing to hear the criticisms just to make life happier for themselves and others. As long as a page supports conversation among people from different religons, I will strongly support it. All this world needs is a place in which people talk to each other and share their view points with each other. --Aminz 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Writing such an article could be a great exercise for the writers. The replies to the criticisms would be the best part. It might also be an effective format for the presentation of basic facts about each religion. Although they all have answers, I guess rational criticisms do exist; and different people will be persuaded by different answers to those criticisms. I guess I can imagine how high-quality articles like what you describe could add a lot to our coverage of religion. I have doubts about our ability to do that here, but I think your approach, deleting most of it and starting over, is a legitimate way to go. If not that, maybe it could start as a section, Replies to common criticisms. It could lead to good results. Tom Harrison Talk 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, Agree with you about Criticism of Family Guy. Perhaps it could be expanded into an article titled Criticism of Television or perhaps Criticism of American Culture. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I concur that this article fails the test of neutral point of view, and I concur with those who propose strict scrutiny of similar criticism pages on other religions. Dauster 01:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgive me for sounding Anti-Semetic here but... shouldn't we garner some opinions of some more non-Jews?--Greasysteve13 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is a Jew? On another note tho, I wouldn't say "anti-semitic" is what you sound. Tomertalk 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a plus--Greasysteve13 07:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you feel better to take it that way... Tomertalk 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What way? What are talking about?--Greasysteve13 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you feel better to think that my saying your remark doesn't make you sound "not anti-semitic" was a compliment, good for you. What your remark actually makes you sound is completely ignorant of WP:AGF and hmmm... desirous to delegitimize every Jewish comment in the discussion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not categorize you as a pontificatory ignoramus, but your comment was wholly useless, and potentially indicative of a very disturbing worldview, one which seems to indicate that Jewish opinions on Jewish topics are only welcome as long as they're outvoted by non-Jews. Take it how you like it; like I said, it doesn't make you sound anti-semitic, to clarify tho, it makes you sound quite assinine. Tomertalk 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually assume good faith… its just I’ve had nothing but experiences regarding Macedonian and Greek biases… so forgive me for wanting some outside input. Besides you haven’t exactly assumed good faith towards the original creator of the article who created this article as a stub, Richard… and why he created it… as seen above.
    I fail to see how I've assumed bad faith regarding the creator of the article or the reasons why he created it. (You can see from the article's talkpage that I think the rationale was fundamentally flawed, but that's a very different thing from a failure to assume good faith.) As far as your desire for "outside input", I'm not exactly certain to what you might be referring. "As seen above"? Please provide a relevant diff that supports your point. Regarding your apparently completely unrelated "point", what does this have to do with Macedonian or Greek biases? The assertion that Jews are inherently biased against an article entitled "Criticism of Judaism" is perhaps understandable, but without actual evidence, saying Jews are biased is at least a violation of WP:AGF, if not bordering on a violation of WP:NPA. Tomertalk 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize the article looks sh!t right now…. And needs to be fixed – but isn’t deleting this article… ignoring the fact that Criticism of Judaism exists. As long as the article is actually about Criticism of Judaism without POVingly critiquing Judaism, its okay. I mean the racist article isn’t actually racist. And the repetition article doesn’t repeat itself. And the nothing article doesn’t have nothing in it. I’m sorry for sounding like an idiot and I hope you are sorry for sounding sensitive.--Greasysteve13 04:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't said anything anywhere about deleting this article, nor about ignoring the fact that Criticism of Judaism [i.e., independing of antisemitism], might exist. I'm not sure of the relevance of the rest of your rambling dissertation... As for my needing to "feel…sorry for sounding sensitive", I'm not sure what you're referring to. I sound "sensitive" for regarding your remarks as wholly inappropriate? If this were an AfD for Nigger, and you came along and said "can't we get some opinions from some non-Blacks", can you imagine the sh!tstorm that would raise? Your statement was just as inappropriate. It has nothing to do with sensitivity, and everything to do with decency. Tomertalk 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops I confused you for someone else. Yes the "can't we get some opinions from some non-Blacks" crack would piss people off... but we I wasn't talking about race here... A better example would be saying "can't we get some opinions from some non-Christians" if the Criticism of Christianity got AfD. Yes I know Jew is also a racial term... so maybe I should have said Adherents of Judaism... but I didn't and sorry. P.S. I see nothing wrong with saying "can't we get some opinions from some non-Christians".--Greasysteve13 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, why not delete all the religion and philosophy articles? It's all unfounded, right? Oh wait, I remember, because reasoned discourse is important, even if it is of a delicate subject. So long as the subject is addressed openly, with due respect, and well--I say have at. MerricMaker 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (consistent with parallel pages for other religions) with rigorous editing for NPOV and scholarship rather than opinions. Possibly appropriate redirects (or ??) from articles with related content (e.g. Anti-Judaism; I'm new and don't yet grasp the relationships between articles). Deborahjay 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:Greasysteve13, user:Khoikhoi, and user:Hshhh, I´m not really here. --Inahet 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete only if all the articles on the criticism of other religions are deleted as well. --Musicpvm 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV title. --Sunholm(talk) 09:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User Hshhh, I´m not really here and Musicpvm. Delete only if other religions criticism articles also deleted. --- Faisal 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. While the article as it is is quite laughable, other major religions have a criticism article and this one should probably have to. Also, so it doesn't appear extra negative, a response section should be in order too. PHF 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Arguments that such articles shouldn't exist because they are inherently POV are pure politically correct nonsense. There is nothing special about any religion per se that makes it immune to notable criticism, and once there is enough notable criticism of a subject, it deserves at first a Wikipedia section in the main subject article, and eventually perhaps a separate article. Me and Aminz have been busting our asses lately making Criticism of Islam informative and NPOV, for example. - Merzbow 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a completely non-encyclopedic article, and I have a hard time imagining how an expansion would improve it. It's a hodge-podge of random negative thoughts, most of them having nothing to do with Judaism, and consisting almost entirely of original research. If the other "Criticism of <religionx>" articles are like this, then they should be deleted too. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic -ßottesiηi (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why can't these be accomodated in articles like Islam and Judaism, Judaism and Christianity, or even Jewish Ethics or Judaism and Modernity?. Also, I don't see why those commenting here have to be held responsible for Criticism of Christianity etc. It's pretty uninformative to include these in the debate - they might be good and worthwhile, or they might not. One can't say without doing detailed analysis and requesting comments on all of them. --Batamtig 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid argument to make. One may argue that there is not yet enough criticism to warrant a separate article, or that perhaps the criticisms should better be incorporated as pieces into other articles. What I'm objecting to is the argument that 'criticism' articles are wrong on principle. An article 'Criticism of X' is no more pushing a POV than is the 'X' main article pushing the POV of X. The only thing that an article named 'Criticism of X' is advocating is the fact that there is enough notable criticism of X to warrant a discussion of it. That's all. In this particular case I find it extremely hard to believe that over almost 4000 years of history there has not yet been generated enough notable criticism of Judaism to warrant an article on it, which is why I think that despite the article currently being mostly a stub it deserves a chance to live. (And yes, I am talking about good-faith criticism, not anti-semitic garbage). - Merzbow 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any, or is this just wishful thinking? You have yet to convince that the article will ever become something like that, and that it will not just be a magnet for people who will say e.g. "Jews didn't accept the divinity of Jesus". --Batamtig 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The most "notable" criticisms of Judaism have occurred in the last 250-300 years, and this has nothing to do with the length of time for which it's been around. They are in fact, criticisms and disputes by groups within Judaism, see haskala, Reform Judaism. --Batamtig 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment criticises Islam fantastically surely the article doesn't "do" anything? Arniep 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Homey. CJCurrie 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ==-==רח"ק | Talk 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Satori Son 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The poor Jews suffered the holocaust, do they really deserve this? =/ SuperDT 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you want the Holocaust article deleted too then?--Greasysteve13 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least let the anti-semites understand one another. Greasy, I'll explain it to you. SuperDT was being sarcastic.205.201.150.62 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he still said Delete... so I didn't take that chance.--Greasysteve13 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. Maybe if some prominent sources actually have something to criticise about Judaism rather than about individual Jews or Israel, then an article under this title could exist. This isn't it. Clinkophonist 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a complete ragbag of bits and pieces. At best, wipe contents and start again.--Runcorn 10:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is a Criticism of Christianity article, why not a Criticism of Judaism article? Or do you delete-happy-biggots feel Judaism is not a real religion and thus not deserving of a criticism article? --The Mad Bomber (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that there are other 'Criticism of' articles is pivotal. For balance we need all or none. This article needs fixing up but does now quote most of it sources, BlueValour 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that while there are some citations, as of right now the article says almost nothing. In an apparent effort to whittle it down to statements that approach "scholarly criticism, it has been reduced to eight sentences, and they aren't very long sentences. Even some of those probably don't make the grade of "scholarly criticism." Also, I have a strong suspicion that all of this information is already in other articles. This article just doesn't serve any purpose. 6SJ7 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Responding to 6SJ7 - but that's what wikipedia is for. Someone starts an article and someone else runs with it. And someone else edits. And in a while, we've got a mature article. It's the village raising a child theory. :) If we have all the other criticism articles per Hshhh, I´m not really here, we should have this article... else, we come across as biased in the other direction. Janet13 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The question of whether an article should exist is a separate issue from whether or not it needs work. I would guess 90% of Wikipedia articles begin life essentially sucking. - Merzbow 06:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William de Coburn[edit]

  • DELETE : Seems to me that this entry is a self promoting article about the said person— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageo020 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Seems to be a hoax, along with Manu de la Playa (AfD here) about French schoolkids in New York who are supposed to be up and coming soccer stars, yet appear nowhere outside Wikipedia. Fan1967 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to support notability anywhere that I can find. Appears to be a hoax page. DrunkenSmurf 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the lfny and i know these kids. I mean i've heard of manu but because I'm younger I know william, trust me he's the school's best, we went far in the academic league thanks to him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.203.3 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. The above comment is unsigned. The article seems to be a hoax. No relevant search came on google. Also in the article Converts to Islam his name has been added first in the list instead of in D--Ageo020 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOR REAL Fan-1967 why would you delete it? are you crazy? i know him perfectl we went to schoold together but then he repeated a year... poor guy lol now hes getting million.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.203.3 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP I know these guys wow that's crazy, I never knew they would make it to the top.... Call the french school these guys are real! Wow - T.Fillebeen— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.203.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment If he had signed a contract with any major professional team, it would have been in the news. Hasn't happened. When he actually plays professionally, feel free to come back and create the article. Fan1967 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable sources can be provided with a quickness. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for deletion I know these guys too, well I've heard of them from my brother who goes to the LFNY. I have great doubts about these articles being hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.0.203 (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE. I am Patrick Mixter, I know these guys they're fabulous soccer players and I heard they got drafted. That's pretty cool!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.31.80 (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE dont delete these guys, i've seen them on TV, half-time report of one of france game for the world cup! they seem awesome! why would you delete them? has ronaldinho been deleted yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.230 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete when they actually made it to the big boys someone can come back and write a proper article. BTW. you guys would be taken more seriously, if you signed your comments and actually had a wikipedia account. Now it just looks like a HOAX. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DUH do you need a wikipedia account to defend yourself? Duh... You think you're so cool because you have a wikipedia account. We don't all have time to waste to create a wikipedia account. Plus many of us are from the Lycee, we know these people... And you think Google is gonna tell you all this shit.. You're out of your mind bro and too much in the wikitrip....PapiChulo (talk • contribs • WikiProject French-American)
  • Delete looks like a hoax because it is a hoax. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)MESSAGE TO FAN-1967, IMPLICATING HIS VIOLATIONS OF SEVERAL RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. Even before it can be proved that these guys do not exist, which is an abberation, you have started removing them from other pages and links, commenting "pointless reference to high school player", an unfounded remark that will be reported to WikiAdmins. You have cheated us, now we solemenly ask you to apologize and let these guys' pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.203.3 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Response You have not yet provided one single verifiable reference that either of these two are anything but players at a small high school most people have never heard of. If either had been featured in L'Equipe or Sports Illustrated, it would show up in a web search. If either had been drafted by any professional team it would show up. Fan1967 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just took a look at the article; it mentions People magazine and Sports Illustrated. If People and Sports Illustrated really have written about him, then I think that establishes notability enough to keep the article. However, the references to People and Sports Illustrated are not proper citations; making it impossible (or at least difficult) to verify. They could be made up just to give the article a venieer of truthfulness; but someone ought to verify before deleting. ONUnicorn 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they had been featured in the listed publications they would show up in a web search. Fan1967 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete for failing to meet WP:MUSIC. Kusma (討論) 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiss Could Be Deadly[edit]

Couldn't establish notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 2 EPs so far, West Coast tour, points listed under "trivia". TruthbringerToronto 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely none of those things help meet WP:MUSIC. Not even a bit. The 2 EPs were released by non-notable labels; WP:MUSIC mentions "national" tours, not coastal tours; and trivia points mean less than nothing. I could create an article on a band and then create a trivia section that says, "They enjoy eating grilled cheese sandwiches." Would that establish notability? -- Kicking222 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Self released albums, shows only in California and Arizona (according to myspace), and according to WP:MUSIC, radio play needs to be on a major radio network. --Joelmills 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Little assertion of notability, and what is asserted still is not notable. They fail WP:MUSIC on every count. They don't have any well-known members, and they're on a record label that, by WP standards, is insignificant. The article is also completely unsourced, so any claims of notability fail WP:V. Hell, the band uses MySpace as its official web site. -- Kicking222 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs more verifiable sources cited, needs cleanup, but does (in my opinion, contrary to Kicking222's opinion) make good claims for notability. Parsssseltongue 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • National tour, a record release, radioplay, coverage on several notable websites (examples: Alternative Tentacles, Warped Tour)... how does it fail? Parsssseltongue 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I still can't find evidence of a national tour according to their website, they don't have a record label, and radioplay is not on a national level. The mention on Alternative Tentacles is a passing reference to their appearance at a show with one of AT's bands. The mention on Warped tour's website is in the forums, listed as a favorite band of someone posting on the forum. However, Punknews.org (see Punknews Records) has a nice profile on them [69]. I still don't think this lets them pass WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 04:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redemption Records. And the things you pointed out, I feel, ARE enough to make them notable. If I were a more experienced Wiki user, I'd propose a policy on revamping the music criteria since there's been so much dispute. Maybe some day... :) Parsssseltongue 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jaranda. Non-notable. Ral315 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band. --Musicpvm 05:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation World[edit]

Notability of the chain not asserted. -- Koffieyahoo 23:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tea-LV[edit]

Article on a recently created, local interest libation. Cocktail recipes are not suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles in general. A recently made up cocktail that is a favorite of students at one dormitory at one university is very not notable. Though I stated in the prod that this is a better subject for Wikibooks, I think the recent invention and lack of widespread use bars transwiki treatment as well.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Cocktail recipes are known to a limited extent (List of cocktails), but for notables ones like a martini and really more in respect of the fame of the drink than a simple how-to. Jammo (SM247) 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (if AfD was a vote this would be no consensus, but the nominator's complaint - that notability is not asserted - seems to have been adequately addressed). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial Undermind[edit]

Notability of the band not asserted -- Koffieyahoo 23:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete about 15,200 Ghits for Primordial Undermind--Jusjih 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of tours and festival appearances. Lots of records. TruthbringerToronto 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed on AMG, 4 albums, good reviews, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Chicago Reader, August 8, 2003: "Primordial Undermind is one of North America's best psychedelic bands." --Earnar46 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Stranger, Seattle, April 7, 2005: "Dead Meadow have gently gathered together a following, becoming somewhat a part of, but more apart from, the nationwide space/psych scene that includes Bardo Pond, Boston's Primordial Undermind, and S.F.'s SubArachnoid Space" --Earnar46 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Chinese_painters[edit]

The majority of the symbols are chineese, and unreadable on English computers without additional language packs, so placing this on en.wikipedia is pointless. Not to mention the majority of the links no longer work. Matt 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, they're transliterated too, though. At most just get rid of the Chinese characters. Recury 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually the Chinese is in only 2 of the 5 columns, and a good number of cells in these two columns are empty. I'd guess that no more than 25-30% of the words on this page are in Chinese characters. In each case, there are two differnt transcriptions of the Chinese characters. I'm not sure if it's the case that many links no longer work or if they don't yet work. I know that Wiki policy discourages the creation of red (empty) links but they can serve a purpose of guiding editors to write articles for these as yet uncovered topics. The page needs work, but rather than delete it, I'd favor letting people continue to work on, and through, it. Interlingua talk 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have the problem described by the nominator. As my computer is not made in England (it is assembled in Sweden from parts made in Japan and Taiwan), it is capable of accepting additional language packs. (Comment to Interlingua: As far as I know, Wiki policy does not discourage the creation of red (empty) links when they lead to notable topics that should be covered.) up+land 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's standard practice to write names written in non-Roman scripts in both their romanized and native forms. The list is readable without them, but they should absolutely not be removed if the article is kept. I'm not a big list fan, but it's a notable subject. If there were a reason to delete this article, it'd be that there are probably millions of Chinese painters. — AKADriver ☎ 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful reference. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference, right? This list makes it easy to find articles on painters. If you're looking for a Ming Dynasty painter and you can't spell the name, you can search this list and browse for the right one. It makes the encyclopedia easy to use. Readers who care about the Chinese characters will have them installed, and readers who don't care can ignore them and click the link to get to the article (when one is created). Please note that Wikipedia does not require all links to be blue (although to reach featured status, as on article in a thousand does, it might be necessary). Fg2 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice-of-All 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristan[edit]

This seems to be complete nonsense Delete Aeon 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense and now blanked -- getcrunk ? 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first article and nothing seems to be wrong with it. If anything is wrong I will gladly change it :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil v2 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MONGO --W.marsh 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Residual oil remover[edit]

Advertisement Recury 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - adspam. - Richardcavell 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I probably should have done this instead of trying to clean it up --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT, advert/promotion. But Dan's going to lose an edit or two. :P Yanksox (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable commercial product (WP:CORP). —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 06:19Z
  • Comment, creator User:Evil v2 said on the article's talk page (which has been deleted) that this was his first article, yet judging from this and the discussions on his talk page, that doesn't seem to be the case. Someone should probably check this out; we don't need any more spammers on Wikipedia. Recury 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_18&oldid=1081096189"