Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 2[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 The result of the debate was redirect. Kevin 09:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sting (Wall Ball)[edit]

Just trying to merge this article into Wall Ball is simply being too nice. There really isn't much worth this article would have as a re-direct page to Wall Ball. --NicAgent 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --999 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wall Ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Kukini 05:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, basically just another name for the same thing.--Andeh 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom VegaDark 08:10, 2 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. RasputinAXP c 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krya Vrysi (Pella), Greece[edit]

Untranslated Greek, spent two weeks at the translation desk already. It appears to be some place, so keep if translated / new stub written, delete otherwise. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. I couldn't begin to tell you what it says (it's all Greek to me) but whatever it is, it's block copied from http://www.macedonia.com/kriavrissi/general1.html BigDT 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BigDT.--Andeh 06:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ^{May I? Please?} It's all Greek to me. Colon el Tom 10:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kria Vrissi, which, although Greek, is hopefully not all Greek to Colonel Tom. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I did what I can, but it is pretty much the same as Kria Vrissi. --Dakart 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Jll 23:50, 3 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 and redirect. — FireFox ^user_talk 20:55, 03 June '06

Erie Canal Locks[edit]

Is the canal lock in it self really notable enough to have an article? I think not, so delete as Wikipedia isn't, and should not be a source for all information! Also listed the following related articles:

Lock 2, Erie Canal, Lock 3, Erie Canal, Lock 4, Erie Canal, Lock 5, Erie Canal, Lock 6, Erie Canal, Lock 7, Erie Canal, Lock 8, Erie Canal, Lock 9, Erie Canal, Lock 10, Erie Canal, Lock 11, Erie Canal, Lock 12, Erie Canal, Lock 13, Erie Canal, Lock 14, Erie Canal, Lock 15, Erie Canal, Lock 16, Erie Canal, Lock 17, Erie Canal, Lock 18, Erie Canal, Lock 19, Erie Canal, Lock 20, Erie Canal, Lock 21, Erie Canal, Lock 22, Erie Canal, Lock 23, Erie Canal, Lock 24, Erie Canal, Lock 25, Erie Canal, Lock 26, Erie Canal, Lock 27, Erie Canal, Lock 28A, Erie Canal, Lock 28B, Erie Canal, Lock 29, Erie Canal, Lock 30, Erie Canal, Lock 32, Erie Canal, Lock 33, Erie Canal, Lock 34, Erie Canal, Lock 35, Erie Canal.

Bjelleklang - talk 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them all into List of locks on the Erie Canal, could become a nice list with good formatting and some of these pictures. Kusma (討諭) 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The canal is quite well known. The locks, first of all, should be discussed for deletion/merging together... OK, so it's done; I renamed the nomination to Erie Canal Locks to avoid confusion. I suggest a merge of these articles, as they will become useful this way. CP/M 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kusma. Merge them all into a list. Kala ni

^[talk] 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge em. -- cds^(talk) 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief ... Merge ... but ... wow ... a lot of work went into this. BigDT 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above WCX 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like the merge idea too! 05:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge as a matter of fact, I'm working on it with the creator of the newer articles right now. --Chaser (T) 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The other people make a good argument for the merge. 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nertz (talk • contribs)
Merge - Chaser and I are updating a table of the locks. Our open question is what to do with the pages where other content was added (e.g. Locks 2 - 11). I've requested speedy deletion for locks 12 - 35. I also suggest the templates Template:Erie Canal Lock and Template:Erie Canal Locks be eliminated. CPAScott
Keep all. I got an old mule and her name is Sal. The few I've looked at have been fairly nice, and illustrated: merging them all into one page may make it unwieldy. Call it a logical fallacy if you must, but we do have many separate articles on railway stations in Scotland, and locks on the Erie Canal are at least as notable as they. Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Besides, if we are keeping culturally insignificant buildings like elementary schools, I think we've set the bar low enough that a couple of doors holding back water deserve their own article.--Isotope23 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate articles. Some of the locks may have additional cultural or historical features. For example, the overspill from lock 32 has been turned into a whitewater kayacking practice course. Some of the locks are also State or local parks, with bike paths and other facilities. It is unreasonable to expect every article to be perfect in less than 24 hours. Thatcher131 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some of these have nothing but the template box, several of these articles are rather interesting. These are individually substantial structures which seem notable enough for me. I wouldn't be against getting rid of the ones that are basically empty until such time that good articles can be created. But so far as a nomination for all of them goes, I say they should be kept. ScottW 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Xyra e l ^T 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Having this many short articles makes things difficult for readers and editors alike. Combining them would create an article of the right length – perhaps slightly picture-heavy, but not unpleasantly so.
The arguments of Smerdis of Tlön and Isotope23, that our inability to keep other parts of the encyclopedia encyclopedic somehow means we must abandon any effort to do so and simply let the whole thing slump into one unreadable, unmaintainable mess, strikes me as very odd. Schools are a lost battle due to the sheer number of children who can't understand how a building they spend half their life in can be insignificant, but it simply does not follow that we should have several dozen poor articles on these locks rather than one brilliant article. — Haeleth Talk 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CPAScott and I are currently working on a new table at User:CPAScott/Erie locks, with relevant discussion at his talk page. I'd appreciate input at this AfD or elsewhere about whether we should merge textual info and photographs for locks 2-13 or just leave the subarticles. A deletion consensus doesn't seem to be forming. --Chaser (T) 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above. --Northmeister 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge points are already listed above Deleteme42 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE COMPLETED May I now again suggest that all lock pages I created be deleted in speedy order? CPAScott 04:01, 3 June 2006

Doesn't look merged to me? -- cds^(talk) 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(What page?) -- cds^(talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've misunderstood exactly what merged means. All of the data is now included at Erie Canal#Locks. If I've taken all the content from the pages under discussion and move them to this spot, that's a merge, yes? Sorry, still learning Wikipedia speak. Hey -- while I'm at it, how do you guys sign these so the date and time stamps automatically? Thanks ... CPAScott 16:45, 3 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 redirect. If you want to delete the redirect, please go to RfD. It doesn't receive much vandalism, so I did not protect it. -- Kjkolb 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo mama jokes[edit]

The yo mamma jokes are not encyclopedic and crude SirGrant 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo mamma is so unencyclopedic, she's getting BJAODNified and Speedy Deleteed BigDT 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to this redirect version and protect. Fan1967 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect and protect per Fan1967 --999 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect. Will people please stop AfDing vandalized redirects? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question is, how many people will possibly type in "yo mama jokes" that this will require a redirect? Furthermore, I doubt that anyone who types this in is looking for intelligent discourse, leading to my belief that a redirect is useless Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 02:17, 2 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.

Yo Mama So ugly when they are making monster cookies they smash her face into the dough. Yo mama so fat she broke your family tree. Ching Chang Chang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.32 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasThe result of the debate was merge, which I've done. Kevin 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Año Nuevo State Park[edit]

This article describes the same place as Año Nuevo State Reserve, and it's the other article that uses the correct name. Therefore I suggest we delete this page and put a re-direct in it's place. --Mecil 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is obvious solution. CP/M 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This needn't have been AfD'ed. -Will Beback 03:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. Kukini 04:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It makes the most sense or maybe try the redirect thing. Nertz 05:14, 2 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. Deizio talk 01:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GROU.PS[edit]

Pure advertisment Stev0 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely. I also enjoy that the article mentions the site's Alexa ranking, thus partially helping to prove its own non-notability. -- Kicking222 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An ad, nothing more. CP/M 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A knowledge, nothing more— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (talk • contribs)
Delete per Kicking222. Kala ni ^[talk] 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP is not for free ad space. --Disavian 05:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haakon 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails each criteria of WP:WEB. Kevin 10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSo you invent the Alexa 100.000 rule? Congrats..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (talk • contribs)
Striking out anon double vote. Kimchi.sg 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGo visit http://technorati.com/search/grou.ps and you'll see that GROU.PS has a seriously growing popularity. It has a semantic link with other services like Yahoo Groups, Google Groups and MSN Groups. You guys want to delete a piece of knowledge. This is not understandable. If you delete it, I'll lose my faith in Wikipedia's neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (talk • contribs)
- Comment It might be gaining popularity, but now there's nothing said about it. When it becomes popular, I think someone will create an article. At the moment it isn't notable enough, and there are too many websites. CP/M 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all "knowledge" deserves its own article: "There is a toilet in my house" is also knowledge, but my toilet doesn't deserve its own article. Kimchi.sg 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it does.. The existence of an article abot your toilet won't hurt anybody but may help someone! You guys don't have respect to information; if you want to protect your YahooGroups GoogleGroups pages, then make an understable reasoning for it.. Say that a company should have this much market valuation to be featured on Wikipedia.. Or if you find this page too much like an ad, then edit and normalize it.. I just tried to make a similar article with del.icio.us; otherwise I wouldn't mention about myself. Go delete it if you want so much; it is not so precious for me. But it's bad to see that there are so much folks who do not respect information. I believe that most of you try to "protect" rights of your companies (why link to GROU.PS on MSN Groups don't get deleted?) and the others just follow the crowd. Go delete it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (talk • contribs)
- Comment And this is clearly not your toilet but a growing 10.000 members web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (talk • contribs)
Delete 24-carat pure advertisement. Kimchi.sg 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, fails WP:WEB. Colon el Tom 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. -- Docether 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless further evidence is supplied showing how this meets the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and vanity piece from developer of site (see history). --Oscarthecat 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys don't have respect to information; if you want to protect your YahooGroups GoogleGroups pages, then make an understable reasoning for it.. Say that a company should have this much market valuation to be featured on Wikipedia.. Or if you find this page too much like an ad, then edit and normalize it.. I just tried to make a similar article with del.icio.us; otherwise I wouldn't mention about myself. Go delete it if you want so much; it is not so precious for me. But it's bad to see that there are so much folks who do not respect information. I believe that most of you try to "protect" rights of your companies (why link to GROU.PS on MSN Groups don't get deleted?) and the others just follow the crowd. Go delete it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.135.30 (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 no consensus (keep). Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Douglas (cameraman)[edit]

This article (along with James Brolan) violates WP:NOT a memorial, and also not current events. As the article was not started until after Douglas' death was reported, and only contains his obituary, he is apparently notable only for having been killed. MSJapan 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

James Brolan

Delete per nom. It's an incredible tragedy when anyone dies in the midst of war, but WP is not a memorial, and these people are otherwise non-notable. -- Kicking222 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-informative. A mention in some list would be enough. CP/M 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 03:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT Ydam 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they fail WP:BIO. Kevin 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, but I wonder if there might be a place to put together a list of some sort documenting journalists who have been killed in wartime, conflicts, etc. It's not a huge group, but it's a distinct group. Tony Fox 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-bio. Xyra e l ^T 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though a page should be made with all the journalists who have been killed during war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhelmerichs (talk • contribs) 20:08, June 2, 2006.
Keep I've removed the obituary text; what remains is biographical and encyclopedic. Fg2 00:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is to say the article is no longer a memorial and it is no longer about a current event. Fg2 00:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment That still doesn't address the non-notability issue, in that no one ever heard of him until he got killed. MSJapan 02:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I get 2.7 million hits for Paul Douglas CBS. That's a lot of hits for someone no one ever heard of until he got killed. For reference, Terri Schiavo gets 4.5 million hits. If you or I haven't heard of him, we've been listening in the wrong places. But if you can direct me to the notability criteria you're referring to, it might convince me to retract my vote. Fg2 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The vast majority of those hits are death and memorial-related reports (even in foreign languages) or Paul Douglas the weatherman, or unrelated people named Paul or Douglas (because of the way Google works). If you take out all the death-related words, limit to English, and add quotes to the name, you go down to 30,000 hits here, most of which are still death and injury reports, or totally unrelated items. For policies, see WP:BIO and WP:NN.MSJapan 05:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:BIO includes the line "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy." WP:NN begins with the line "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." Fg2 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Actually, WP:BIO says "this is a notability criteria guideline", and NN says "there are consensual guidelines for notability". Don't wikilawyer based on one line, especially since everybody else uses these exact same criteria for AFDs all the time. This isn't a unanimous vote requiring process either, so whether your vote stays or not doesn't concern me very much, but I did point you to the criteria you wanted. MSJapan 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for doing that. Fg2 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Tony Fox into an article on journalists killed in Iraq or otherwise in the line of duty. -- Mwalcoff 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Maybe y'all believe he is not notable on the internet, or as some Wikinerds say, "NN, D", but he might actually be notable in real life. Tell the Wikitruth. Bubby the Tour G 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but this person is exceptionally notable, with over 374,000 relevant Google hits. [1] Silensor 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As mentioned above, those aren't unique hits, nor are they, in the main, hits that do not say "was killed", "died" or the like. Try my search above, removing those words, and see what you get. MSJapan 10:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I understand the policy for deleting it this man has recieved enough media coverage where someone could research him and search information about him. In addition notable deaths, in my opinion, are notable. Sorry Guy 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable death, a massive amount of Google hits. bbx 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these people and death are notable any way you want to search for it Yuckfoo 16:26, 8 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. Royboy crashfan 04:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ insomnia[edit]

Vanity page (WP:VAIN), non notable (WP:BIO). It was listed for a speedy delete but contested Equendil Talk 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MSJapan 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kala ni ^[talk] 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article also fails to assert notability Ydam 08:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ydam Kevin 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nominator's original intent and reasoning. Colon el Tom 11:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy perhaps. Xyra e l ^T 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Xyrael --Guinnog 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though highly probable, there's no indication that the author of the article is also the subject, so userfying seems inappropriate. That would be an improvement on the current "Welcome bitches" message on the author's page however (User:Theeedragonseye}}. Equendil Talk 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please speedy delete this vanity, I see no assertion of notability. Grand master ka 03:39, 4 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, not an article, but a redirect (use WP:RFD to delete the redirect) to a project page (use WP:MFD to delete that). Kusma (討論) 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations[edit]

This page violates WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information. There is no rationale supplied as to why such a list is needed, and those particular combinations that are not red links are only linked because of totally unrelated reasons. MSJapan 02:43, 2 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 to Adelaide University Sports Association. User:Kevin1243 has already done so. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Lacrosse Club[edit]

This is a (amateur/social) university lacrosse club. No sporting notability is present. It appears to be old and was formed by a Nobel-prize winner in Physics, which may be interesting trivia, but is not related to Bragg's notability as a physicist but rather which sport he might have enjoyed when he wasn't doing physics. I prodded it, it was speedily redirected by User:Cyberjunkie, and restored to its orginal state by the author, who appears to be the club preseident.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic.--Peta 03:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tychocat 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SM247 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Adelaide University Sports Association. I can some verifiable material about this club given that the Australian Government claims that it is the second oldest in South Australia. [2] and the South Australian Government notes that it was founded in 1889. [3]. Its connection with Bragg is confirmed in his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry here see [4]. The information in the article cannot be expanded unless you add the fact that play a yearly match against Melbourne University's lacrosse team is worth a mention. There aren't many clubs that can claim to have been founded by a Nobel Prize winner. Alternatively, it should be merged with the article covering all sports clubs at Adelaide Uni. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- to Adelaide University Sports Association. - Longhair 08:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definately Merge to [[Adelaide University Sports Association. The sports association article is sparse but the association is very notable - Peripitus 09:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Ive merged this and Adelaide University Boat Club into Adelaide University Sports Association, but I haven't redirected the original articles yet. They can both be redirected once this debate has run it's course. Kevin 10:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above makes more sense than keep or delete. Colon el Tom 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The honest truth As a relative novice to things wikipedia I am disappointed by the autocratic nature of the original decision to delete the Adelaide Uni Lacrosse Club article. The original proponent of deleting the article seems to have not considered alternatives to deletion. I must admit this has left a bad taste in my mouth regarding wikipedia. Thank you to Capitalistroadster et al who seem to have more compassion. Ozdaren 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per Colon el Tom. Vizjim 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN -- cds^(talk) 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per all above Jcuk 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adelaide University Sports Association.--cj | talk 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' - as above. (JROBBO 07:49, 5 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. Sango 123 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRECA method[edit]

Delete on the following grounds: This article on an "alternative medicine" technique provides no independent sources to establish verifiability or notability, and seems like more of an advert than anything else. Google gives the linked-to website, and the Wikipedia article itself, and that's it. Not even a page's worth of results. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam.--Peta 03:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to use the WP jargon for what I'm saying, but I think this just needs to be made into a redirect into Alternative Medicine, where there is already an entry for IRECA. I don't believe it needs to be its own article. Tychocat 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there no longer seems to be anything in that article on IRECA. Nor should there be, this method has next to no notability or verifiability to speak of. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per advertising, suggest no redirect too for that reason Ydam 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DOn;t redirect, as even the title is just advertising. Kevin 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Kevin said. Colon el Tom 11:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Try to search IRECA on Google in SPANISH. There is a lot of info there. The article should be rewriten to explain better what IRECA is and how is different from Reiki. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for advertising but should still reflect reality and contemporary events as they are, not only from the point of view of english readers or people not interested in energy techniqes. There is significant interest in IRECA and this article should indeed be less biased and more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoser (talk • contribs)
- Comment There are 830 Google hits for IRECA, and less for IRECA method, many of which are pretty useless. There is an extreme lack of reputable nonprimary sources. It doesn't matter what langauge you search in, as Google automatically shows results from all languages unless you choose to specifically limit it to one language. I've not done that, so I'm seeing them all. Every result reads like an advert, and I'd hate to let another pass on the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of Google hits plus complete lack of references or sources shows this to be a non-notable fringe movement, and the article is an advert. MCB 02:03, 3 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. Sango 123 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raritan Computer[edit]

Vanity corporate page (see article discussion page). cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and Keep I've heard of them. And if you do a search, it's 3 million hits. Requires cleanup of ad-like claims, though. CP/M 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you can get rid of the ad content. I like how you can vote to keep pages here! Nertz 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn computer firm. All the Ghits are catalogs and portals, SOP business listings. I don't think WP is a Phone Book, and the material is not encyclopedic, with or without the advert language. Tychocat 05:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well known KVM switch manufacturer just unfortunately written as an ad. If the ad content goes then we have a stub of a notable company. - Peripitus 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muiltiple news coverage [5] easily passes WP:CORP. Needs rewriting per Peripitus. Kevin 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ad content, and put a stub tag on it. Kevin 10:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, if it "easily passes WP:CORP" then the article should be updated to reflect this. Right now what I see in the article falls completely short of WP:CORP.--Isotope23 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version. Colon el Tom 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the rewrite, I change my vote to Keep. Nice work, Kevin.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kevin fixed it up quite nicely. TruthbringerToronto 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much better after cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is fixed and meets our standards Yuckfoo 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable company - 10%/20% of the news clippings probably meet WP:CORP, seems to be a top 5 leader in KVM switch products. Article is much less painful after clean-up; thanks for taking the time, Kevin. Kuru ^talk 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be a worthwhile company that makes KVM switches. Needs clean up. I do not agree with Kevin1243's link to Raritan PR page, however, as press releases are not part of WP:CORP. Kevin_b_er 06:35, 6 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. Sango 123 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons (band)[edit]

This article is about a nn group. All Music Guide has no relevant entries, Google has only one hit besides this article (freemasons + band), and while they may have released singles, they never charted, and there don't seem to be any media articles on the group either. MSJapan 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band. Tychocat 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have charted [6] in the UK at #11, so qualify under WP:MUSIC Trebor 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The UK Top 40 placement should be enough to give them notability, although this brings up to mind the problem with making articles about dance music projects. With producers creating a variety of aliases for themselves and for collaborations, a lot of different articles about the same team can be created that can be merged. Freemasons could conceivably be merged to Phats & Small, although the absence of Jason Hayward from the Freemasons project should prevent that. The article is also badly named, since the Freemasons, like most house music collective names, are not a real band, but a dance music project/act made up of two producers and fronted by a guest singer. --Pc13 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trebor Kevin 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trebor. CP/M 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Xyra e l ^T 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting band under WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, scored at least one massive hit with their remix of Faith Evans' Mesmerized. --mrbartjens 23:22, 4 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. RasputinAXP c 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massmutualasia Junior Astronauts[edit]

I believe this article is simply for promotional purposes and contains no value to stay inside the encyclopedia. It is only a list of participants of the event. Without the list of participants, there is merely no contents. It is also not an important event in Hong Kong, as the entry barrier is extremely high that only school kids from elite schools are eligible for the entrance. -- Tomchiukc 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF and only IF there's some context added and references added. I agree it's just a list of participants right now, and that's neither interesting nor encyclopedic. There's no indication where these kids come from, who's sponsoring the program (if it's an official government program, that's one thing, but if it's because they pulled some names out of a milk carton, eh), and what the goals of the program are. The article makes no mention of Hong Kong, so I wonder where the nom is getting this from? Also, the article is disputed for neutrality, but there's no reason given on the talk page. Tychocat 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please go to [1] for details. Appears to be advertising (per nom) and is a poor none notable article.--Andeh 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 10:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See [7] for more info Jll 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6 kids who go to a space camp every year. While I'm sure that's fun, it's not really an encyclopedia article topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if expanded. Xyra e l ^T 19:25, 2 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 Eluchil404 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The One on the Right Is on the Left[edit]

This song is not individually notable, as far as I can tell. Note that lyrics are indeed a copyvio, and though it would be possible to assert fair use, this is a free encyclopedia. Rory096 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the assertion of fair use is justifiable, the reproduction of a sample of lyrics is not copyright violation. This is a free encyclopedia that covers copyrighted content. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. MSJapan 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Already mentioned in Johnny Cash's article. Tychocat 05:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP can't have pages for every song Trebor 06:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NN song Ydam 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 10:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this song is undoubtedly notable as one of Johnny Cash's greatest hits. Driller thriller 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The writer who posted this for deletion has targeted it for reasons best known to himself. Wahkeenah 23:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Wait a second, what? --Rory096 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The song itself is notable (big hit - #2 on Billboard Country, top 50 on Hot 100) but the current article does not contribute much info, so I will abstain from voting. GassyGuy 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should presumably go through the entire wikipedia and delete every "song stub". No, the writer has some problem with this specific song. Maybe it touches a nerve of some kind. Wahkeenah 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hurt to assume good faith. How do you know what the nominator is thinking? Grand master ka 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what he has had to say about it before you come to that conclusion. Wahkeenah 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second, you're saying that I'm nominating this for deletion because I removed copyvio lyrics that weren't described in the article at all (which I did after I nommed it)? Are you kidding? --Rory096 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wahkeenah's psychic, I presume I don't need to mention that, regardless of Rory's motives, I still think it's a delete...? Tychocat 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to say that. Wahkeenah 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though it appears to be against the majority. I don't know or much care about the sample lyrics being included, but the song itself is notable and there is room for expansion into a decent article. While I recognize that there is controversy over the inclusion of lyrics, it seems that some sort of compromise or understanding could be reached on that issue rather than just having the entire article scrapped. GassyGuy 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to The One on the Right Is on the Left and possibly merge to Everybody Loves a Nut (the album it originated from). "The One on the Right Is on the Left" is one of Johnny Cash's more well-known songs, and I agree with GassyGuy. This article isn't a complete copyvio (and I removed the lyrics); there's some useful material here. Extraordinary Machine 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clean-up by Extraordinary Machine. Also, reproduction of the lyrics in question falls well under WP:Fair use guidelines. (Hell, articles like Yesterday (song) even include an audio sample) ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the lyrics actually have to be described. --Rory096 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Described?" I put links on the pertinent words in the lyrics to explain the point. How much overkill do you need? And why are you targeting this one in particular? Yesterday has a 30 second sound clip. How is that less of a copyright violation than the mere 4 text lines in this one? Or is that different just because you think Yesterday is "notable" and this one isn't? Wahkeenah 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep, or merge as above -- GWO

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Note: I have not discounted the unsigned opinion, as it is from Mknight1971 (talk · contribs), who is fairly new to Wikipedia but has contributed over a broad range of articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Dominion[edit]

Non-notable. Biggest claim to fame is that a political aide to Peter Goldring had to resign after posting there but the aide is not significant enough to merit his own article. Homey 03:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. Haakon 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haakon. Note that the news coverage is about the person posting, not the web site, so it doesn't pass WP:WEB Kevin 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known among Internet users interested in Canadian politics. 158,000 Google hits for "Free Dominion." Far higher Alexa ranking than Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories. -- Mwalcoff 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site has made it into the media, and site is a player in Canadian politics with grassroots rallies.
Keep --James Bond 00:45, 10 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. Sango 123 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Illusions[edit]

NN website, fails WP:WEB, delete--Peta 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forum with 62 members, fails WP:WEB by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About a month old, barely even established. Fails WP:WEB by parsecs. Fan1967 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme predjudice. Haakon 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dead 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. - LeonWhite 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. redfox 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. --maru (talk) contribs 15:49, 3 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. Sango 123 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Young (rapper) and GP Tha Paperboy[edit]

A rapper that does not appear to fulfill WP:MUSIC (although I could be wrong.) Grand master ka 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't fulfil WP:BAND Trebor 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both of them). They don't meet any of those criteria that I can tell. GP Tha Paperboy was created by User:Paperboymusic, which also makes me consider them to be WP:VANITY pages as well. Kevin_b_er 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; CDs released on an NN label, sales not shown, notability not otherwise asserted. Colon el Tom 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:27, 2 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 almost all as WP:CSD#G5 (created by sockpuppet of banned user Science3456, all of whose socks create useless articles and even redirects are not that cheap) except for First floor and ground floor (first floor created by Science3456, and that redirected to Floor numbering). Kusma (討論) 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third floor[edit]

Completely obvious dictionary definition. WP:WINAD. Also nominating Fourth floor, Fifth floor, Sixth floor, Seventh floor, Eighth floor, Ninth floor, Tenth floor. All were PRODed and contested by the author. Erik the Rude 04:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity: the following articles are being considered in this AfD: First floor, Second floor, Third floor, Fourth floor, Fifth floor, Sixth floor, Seventh floor, Eighth floor, Ninth floor, Tenth floor, and the resulting redirect at Ground floor. If the article Eleventh floor comes about before the AfD concludes, I assume that all votes on the preceding articles are inclusive of it as well. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add to that Second floor. Stupid me went and created a separate AfD for it. Merging back in here. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Tautological dicdefs. Fan1967 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kukini 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redir all to Floor numbering. JDoorj a m Talk 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to floor numbering, there's not really anything worth merging. --bainer (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep sixth, eighth, and tenth; merge fourth, seventh, and ninth; delete second; transwiki third~~ A redirect of all, per Jdoor, is likely appropriate; each, I suppose, could reasonably be entered by someone searching for floor numbering. Joe 05:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. hateless 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Who ever thought of creating aticles like these? Ydam 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be User:Hoof38. --Rory096 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note User:Hoof38 has been blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. Couldn't these be speedied? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Though isn't there some significance to the third floor in that many buildings in Asia miss floors containing the number '3' because it's unlucky? - Mark 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect including Ground floor and First floor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to floor numbering. JIP | Talk 09:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL. Forget re-directs. MiracleMat 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to floor numbering, as they're more likely to be searched for than the main article. Tyrenius 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Joe, although I wouldn't lose sleep if they were simply deleted. Colon el Tom 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to floor numbering. Accurizer 12:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, I guess to floor numbering --Shultz IV 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Jdoor. There might be enough for thirteenth floor to justify a separate article on that floor alone, but the others will all be redundant one to another. Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki ground floor to Wiktionary, delete the rest. -Big Smooth 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. ~ PseudoSudo 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Floor numbering. — Larry V (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above --Guinnog 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Forget redirects. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:28, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GP Tha Paperboy

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

The result of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Versteeg Art Fabricators[edit]

NN corp ad. - Draeco 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix this? I'm posting my dad's company on Wiki since everything else on the face of the earth seems to be here. Most metal sculptors on the East Coast know who he is. Would he qualify for an entry? --Solar666 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it. The guidelines are at WP:CORP. Basically the intent is to document newsworthy and notable companies only. Fan1967 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If your dad's company is really notable, someone else will do an article on it. --JChap 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/nyregion/19cube.html?ei=5090&en=f1bfc19e885f168b&ex=1290056400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1149222868-mGZxFnReecyafZrxadc6Xw http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15013/ http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_newsroom/daily_plants/daily_plant_main.php?id=19732

I found some articles from the restoration of the cube at Astor place. They only mention the company briefly, but one has an interview of one of the employees. It's cool if the entry can't be posted; it's no big deal. I just thought he'd get a kick out of seeing it. --Solar666 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JChap, who gives a good rule of thumb for this kind of thing. My formulation : "if the thing you are involved with is indeed notable, someone else who is not involved with it will write the article." -- Docether 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:29, 2 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. RasputinAXP c 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hansen[edit]

Seems to be a vanity autobiography, listed 'achievements' do not appear to be terribly noteworthy, i.e exploits at school and childrens puppets.

Delete per nom. MSJapan 04:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like obviuos vanity Ydam 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This not an autobiography, as I wrote the original without any input from Terry Hansen. Terry is very well known on Australian TV, and has worked as a comedian for over 20 years.--Dmol 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, clearly not vanity; Australian input is required to establish notability or otherwise. — Haeleth Talk 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep→ Wombdpsw - @ ← 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of an Australian media database comes up with no stories on him. It seems that he has not yet become notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not appeared in any of the major Australian comedy festivals. Seems to be another of the many circuit speakers and commedians. The Umbilical Brothers are notable but Terry appears not - Peripitus 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very well known on Australian TV. Rebecca 09:28, 6 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. RasputinAXP c 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morphemon Duelists[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon, with 61 unique Google hits, the second highest being this article. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with no comment. Calton | Talk 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Comment: Removing prods without reasons seems to be a common issue that probably should be discussed on the policy page. I had one removed from an article after the time limit had elapsed, and the article stated unequivocally that it was sourced from personal musings. MSJapan 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failure to meet criteria for inclusion at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created the article, but after reading these comments, I really have no objections to its deletion anymore. CrazedNinja 13:16, 7 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. Sango 123 03:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Westendorf[edit]

Small-town businessman and philanthropist, otherwise unremarkable. Vanity page, with vanity photo (he's on his cell phone in front of a red sports car, in a photo taken by his PA!) Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with no comment. Calton | Talk 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: technically it's not within the remit of this page or discussion, but the user page User:Westendorf is a duplicate of this article, and should probably suffer the same fate. Given that almost all of User:Westendorf's very few mainspace edits are to this and related articles, it's clearly not being used as anything more than an end-run the vanity article. --Calton | Talk 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. He wants a resume, he should list with Monster. Tychocat 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. If I was more awake I would AfD the equally-insignificant Midland Hockey, the cornerstone of this fellow's soi-disant empire. RGTraynor 08:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as I'm awake and in agreement, you may look for Midland Hockey further down this page. Colon el Tom 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and/or vanity. -- Docether 14:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion laid out at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete asap apn ~ trialsanderrors 11:10, 3 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. RasputinAXP c 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Bridge Productions[edit]

So-called independent film production company, not ready for Sundance. Fails WP:CORP by a wide margin. 28 Googles, all told. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, "This article presents information sought after by a decent selection of readers. While not heavily established online, Third Bridge Productions maintains a firm local standing". Calton | Talk 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tychocat 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as NN; one wonders exactly whom those "decent selection of readers" might be. RGTraynor 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information about filmmaking companies, including independent ones, is actually interesting to many readers, and level of interest to a specific company can quickly rise. This isn't a two-word stub, but rather mostly appropriately written article, it just needs some link cleanup. Keeping such articles doesn't harm Wikipedia even if their subject is not widely known, while useful and somewhat interesting content deserves keeping. CP/M 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the article? This isn't a "filmmaking company", it's a bunch of high-school students with a high-end camcorder and delusions of Hollywood. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No kidding; is anyone seriously proposing that the bar for whether an article is notable or not is whether the creator's a skilled writer? If so, sign me up. I bet I can whip out ten articles a day with spiffy text and infoboxes on completely petty subjects. RGTraynor 19:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not the bar, just the article itself is almost OK, and might be useful for people looking for indies info. Its subject exists, and, according to the claims, has at least some local acknowledgement. After all, deletion was once supposed to only remove useless or disputable info, not turn inclusion into award to be earned. CP/M 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It "claims" to have local acknowledgement, but WP:V still exists ... and what manner of indies info can be had from a bunch of high school kids without any legitimate claim to notability? There is no issue of "earning" some award; simply that a subject ought to be notable in order to merit mention in an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't mean the claim it won esteem, but rather their prodlist. They seem to be at least hired for doing some ads, including one for The Heidi Chronicles (film). CP/M 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well except:
        The film of The Heidi Chronicles is from 1995, which if you are correct suggests these guys made an ad when they were around 7 or 8 years old.
        
        Nothing suggests they were "hired" to make whatever it was an ad for (my guess: high-school theater production of the PLAY The Heidi Chronicles -- that the movie version is the subject seems purely to be your supposition).
        
        There's not the slightest suggestion they were "hired" to do anything whatsoever -- they don't even make that claim, in fact.
        
        There's not the slightest bit of third-party verification of anything in the article -- "products", projects, people -- and no, IMDB, as a user-built database, doesn't count.
        
        Twenty-eight Google hits, in fact, tells me that there ISN'T going to be much, if any, third-party verification. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having watched a few of their movies and looked in their discussion forum, all on their website at [8], I haven't found anything that makes me think they are anything other than a group of enthusiastic teenagers with an absorbing hobby. Jll 00:34, 4 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. RasputinAXP c 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brumby Hall[edit]

A college dorm at the University of Georgia, yet another place to warehouse students. That's it. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, "Since this is one of the largest dorms on the UGA campus, I imagine it will be expanded as it plays an important role on campus." I prefer actual notability to imagined futures, myself. Calton | Talk 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nn, WP is not a crystal ball etc. Tychocat 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Tychocat. Sheesh. It's a farkin' dorm. Every college has them. They do nothing but house students. Ravenswing 08:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince George’s Park Residences (2nd nomination). Kimchi.sg 10:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Isn't it about time someone put together WP:DORM or WP:BUILDING criteria? Unless a dorm is the largest in the nation, oldest in the nation, the site of some nationally well known newsworthy/historical event, or of some sort of historical architectural interest, dorms really are not suitible for individual articles. I think in the last year or so I've only seen 1 dorm article be kept.--Isotope23 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with dorm articles. --JJay 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub without notability Deleteme42 02:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Studentcruft. -- GWO
Keep - as per my original comment - lots of folks want to delete dorms, but there are two categories for them (Category:University and college dormitories and Category:Residence halls) with lots of stubs and lots of dorms that do nothing but hold students.--Roswell native 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent. List of future AfD candidates! Thank you! Ravenswing 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the dorm haters are consistent, more power to 'em. Out of curiosity, why do dorms elicit such energetic/joyful deletion? For comparison, there are tons of articles about roads/hwys/etc. - same concept applies in my mind (i.e. just a piece of insignificant asphalt) but those seem to grow unabated.--Roswell native 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lots of stubs and lots of dorms that do nothing but hold students. Boy, talk about making your oppositional case.
"dorm haters", huh? Yep, you got us, the Cabal of Haters of Dorms, dedicated to wiping out the evil that are dorms from the face of Wikipedia, waking up each day and plotting new tactics in our War on Dorms. Myself, I've vowed eternal vengeance on dorms ever since that day that dorm shot my dog. Look at them! Laughing at us with their bad architecture, cramped living condidtions, and inedible food! They shall not win, they shall not triumph, not so long as any member of the Cabal of Haters of Dorms draws breath, this I vow!
short version: Lighten up, Francis. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Regardless of my vilification as a "dorm hater" and regardless of my actual emotional attachment (or lack thereof) to dorms, it still remains nn, WP is not crystal ball, etc. Tychocat 02:54, 8 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. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of quadratic formula[edit]

It has been merged with quadratic equation

This was brought here by User:Goldencako at 03:00 June 2, 2006 (UTC). --Bduke 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I have now added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 2 and added a header, as it appears the nominator did not not do that. --Bduke 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The merge was done without consultation, but since the merge tags were added, there really has not been any discussion on it. There was some debate when the derivation was removed. However, deletion is not appropriate. If the merge is to stay, this page should be a redirect to Quadratic equation. I support the merge, while feeling that User:Goldencako should have supported the merge on the talk page. --Bduke 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quadratic equation per above --Richard 17:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I commend the bold merger. -- GWO
Redirect until consensus is reached on Talk:Quadratic_equation. Personally I don't mind them being merged, but the merge was under discussion there and User:Goldencako should have joined the discussion instead of taking unilateral action. -- Avenue 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No delete, no rd - there was no discussion by the merger, although there was a section discussing it. I've reverted that merger, cause I don't think its proper. Fresheneesz 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge, although since the merger is already done, shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? -lethe ^{talk +} 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the edit war on Quadratic equation. lethe is surely correct that the derivation should be back in the article while this debate is going on. Otherwise the material may be lost completely. For now the derivation material should be in both places. Let's wait until an admin closes this debate. --Bduke 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to quadratic equation. I see no good reason why this derivation should not be part of that article. Paul August ☎ 23:37, 4 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 and delete. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 13:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elliott Yamin's performances on American Idol[edit]

A list of appearances (and reviews) of a third-place winner on American Idol. Reality-tv-cruft. Calton | Talk 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nomination for deletion makes sense. Nertz 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to bite the newbie, but it should be noted that this account was created today, and this is Nertz 7th edit. Coffee 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly as the nominator argues. Vizjim 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be proper use of Summary style, as it was branched off of the Elliott Yamin page to avoid that section from overwhelming the article. The same thing was done with winner Taylor Hicks (see List of Taylor Hicks' performances on American Idol). Coffee 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in. Xyra e l ^T 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not linked by any Wikipedia article, already merged back into Elliott Yamin Deleteme42 02:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coffee. --JJay 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing as it has already been merged back no reason to keep it. Sorry Guy 05:05, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transmodernism[edit]

Dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possible neologism Nertz 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. The term is old enough that I've seen it in a not very recent sociology textbook - Peripitus 09:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently a two paragraph essay, it is fleshed out beyond a dictionary definition. Unfortunately it also reads like advocacy, so lets clean it up a bit too. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for cleanup. Isn't there a specific place where literary terms can be flagged for clarification? Vizjim 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has potential for expansion. CP/M 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up This doesn't seem like a dictionary definition; I'm not even sure it seems NPOV. --OliverTraldi 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if cleaned up. Xyra e l ^T 19:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up per above. Sorry Guy 05:05, 8 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 author request. Royboy crashfan 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexterity Business Analysts (P) Ltd.[edit]

Is it an advertisement? I have no idea... The article's name is never mentioned in the article... Wickethewok 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator of the article notified Wickethewok that the article was created in error. [9] --Metropolitan90 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per author's remarks. Wickethewok 12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged with {{db-author}}. Kimchi.sg 15:16, 2 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 RasputinAXP c 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branded e-mail[edit]

This article is nothing more than an overly verbose dictionary definition, and there's nothing else that can really be said about this with any sort of certainty other than it's a form of HTML email. MSJapan 05:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created to promote a non-notable idea. --FOo 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverified dicdef. --Hetar 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fails WP:V and dicdef Ydam 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is someone actually trying to market the idea of putting a picture into HTML mail? JIP | Talk 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Letterhead or E-mail Computerjoe 's talk 19:46, 2 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. RasputinAXP c 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saleeby[edit]

Found while cleaning out CAT:CSD, and doesn't fit the criteria. No vote. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a physician; not notable as an author. Medtopic 06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person Ydam 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above plus it is vanity. Wickethewok 12:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:39, 2 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. sow plz? RasputinAXP c 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fires Of Heaven[edit]

Yet Another online gaming guild. More gamecruft for the bit bucket. Calton | Talk 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as NN. And not just Another Gaming Guild (add that to my proposal for new CSD categories below), but one that seems to be defunct. RGTraynor 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per practically evey other gaming guild that comes here Ydam 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete this is a well written entry that is factual and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.79.91.18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2006

Comment - Actually, no, it isn't. It's a poorly-written entry, riddled with spelling and grammar errors, beyond which it fails to make a case for notability. There are quite literally thousands of such groups across the whole spectrum of MMORPGs. RGTraynor 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Traynor, you're (Personal attack removed), who tries to act intelligent, but obviously knows little or nothing about the history or community surrounding MMORPGs. Try learning about something before you comment on it. SuperJoe 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]

Comment - Actually, I've been playing them for fifteen years now, probably a great deal longer than any meatpuppet who jumped on the WoW bandwagon a year or two ago. What part of "there are thousands of such groups" do you find inaccurate? RGTraynor 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fires of Heaven has consistently pioneered the end-game content and aided in development of the two largest MMO's to date: Everquest and World of Warcraft. They are legends among the MMO community because of their prowess, determination, and ability to consistently progress months ahead of everyone else. Just because a few of you think "It's just a video game thing", doesn't mean that they have not had an enormous impact on millions of gamers through their efforts. They are comparable to an MMO Louis & Clark. This is why they are not like "Thousands of other groups", and deserve a place on Wiki.SuperJoe 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Terrific; feel free to prove it. Go over the criteria on WP:WEB, let us know which of them your site fulfills, and source it for us. I'm sure some votes will change if you provide proof of the major awards your site has won or the independent media coverage it has had. RGTraynor 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you're missing the point. The article isn't about a website, it's about a guild that has had significant accomplishments and ties to the MMO industry. It happens to mention a website, but if every article that mentioned a website had to justify it's existence based on WP:WEB criteria then you'd have to delete a lot of wikipedia content. Be fair in your justification. If you honestly feel it should be removed (which is where I would disagree with you) then have it deleted for valid reasons, not for a vague demand to meet WP:WEB criteria. 63.166.226.89 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMORPG gaming guilds are not suitable material for individual articles.--Isotope23 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. -- Docether 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article contains valid information, but needs cleaned up a bit. SuperJoe 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
Do Not Delete - Those asking for a deletion have a separate agenda. This page is factual and relevant to the online gaming community. I am not biased due to the fact that I am not a member of Fires of Heaven. On top of that, I am also banned from their website. 68.211.57.28 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I do not have a seperate agenda. My reasoning is that the group is Non notable and that we should follow the precedent for such articles Ydam 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper Isotope23; fan/gamecruft. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Isotope23 and because such guilds are common and would be impossible to justify relative significance to each other. Deciding which guild in which game is 'worthy' of mention is a task for a private MMORG wiki, not Wikipedia. -Markeer 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - User:Metranon The guild webpage is not significant because of it's in-game accomplishments, those only helped to establish the reputation that has made their forums a popular destination for non-guild members, and, more importantly, "celebrity" level developers from within the Multiplayer gaming industry. Dismissing this website because it is just another MMORPG guild site would be much like dismissing the significance of Studio 54 because it was just another Disco club-- the community is important not because of the setting but because of who congregates there with regularity, including notables such as John Smedley and Brad McQuaid. MMORPG's are very much mainstream nowadays, with millions of gamers enjoying them in North America alone, and those millions may have an interest in reading an unbiased account of what happened regarding their hobby in the past. Anyone who conducts even the most basic study of that history will discover that the community at the Fires of Heaven forums has played a important role in determining its' course.207.81.74.251 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comparison. Studio 54 was frequented by quite literally dozens upon dozens of major internationally known celebrities. By contrast, the lead Google hit for John Smedley is for an eponymous line of clothing, and no doubt many thousands of players even of the games they created neither know nor care who these gentlemen are; I certainly know nothing beyond the names of the creators of the games I've played. In any event even the most famous of them have zero name recognition beyond hardcore MMORPG fandom. RGTraynor 06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isotope23. I play quite a few MMORPG's, and have been in a large number of guilds, my AC guild was over 1000 people and was one of the largest on our server, but would never consider thinking it was encyclopedia worthy.Wolfsbane Kane 11:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, comparing your 1000 person AC guild to FoH is pointless because As I've stated, the importance of this guild doesn't rest with its' number of members or with it's ingame accomplishments but with what it has accomplished outside the game, with ultimatums to gaming developers as well as the community of well known gaming industry figures and contributors it has engendered. Being big on your gaming server is no big deal but when your site is uploading a few terabytes of data a month in traffic to a diverse array of gamers, that is something worth noting.207.81.74.251 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)User:Metranon[reply]

Then you should have no problem proving it as per WP:WEB#Criteria for web content and then there will be no problems. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This article needs clean up/editing, not delete. The above commentators calling for delete would be correct, if this were merely about a gaming guild's website. However, fohguild.org's MMORPG discussion forum is of note and separate of an average MMORPG clan/guild's site. In fact the actual guild forums section is private and not visible to non guild members. Although one person may not know who John Smedley president of Sony Online Entertaiment is, wikipedia does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smedley_%28developer%29) as does the 2nd and 3rd entries of google, or of Brad McQuaid president of Sigil Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_McQuaid). Often game developers, producers and staff for various games come to fohguild.org to discuss their games, reputations and past decisions, for good or ill with the public. Another frequent poster of note is Gallenite (Scott Hartsman, senior producer of Everquest 2). Here are the links to their posts: John Smedley, Brad McQuaid, Scott Hartsman. As you can see by the number of posts and the interactive discussion, sometimes these posts are the sole place for this information and sometimes these developers/producers post here more frequently than their own official sites. If you are looking for external media sites citing fohguild.org, here is a CBS article linking to an FoH discussion with John Smedley. The majority of these dicussions are taking place with people who are not members of Fires of Heaven, nor have ever been members of the guild whether that was in Ultima Online, Everquest 1, World of Warcraft or Everquest II. They also are not seeking membership to the organization as many have their own blogs, fansites or are unnamed/anonymous developers of games. Fohguild.org is also linked to IRC discussion channels, uberguilds.org free guild tracking, voicechat services, and host to game servers for MUDs and other games. The amount of traffic the site receives alone due to this developer discussion would make it of note, since people go there to get insider information. Traffic information: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=r&q=&size=medium&range=&url=www.fohguild.org. --Anaxamandra 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't meet policy of WP:WEB. The CBS article doesn't even mention the website or the guild name, just a link to the conversation on the forum. One article is not enough, though, since there has to be mention in multiple non-trivial published works. Also your admission to the "fact the actual guild forums section is private and not visible to non guild members" makes this even more of a canidate for deletion, since majority of readers of this Wikipedia article can not then access all aspects of the forums without being a part of the guild. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion, the point about the private forums portion is that the real guild website is not available to the public, as such fohguild.org isn't really a guild website. My point was calling it a guild website isn't really accurate. The public section(s) which we are discussing is completely public. Maybe some other readers can pull up more published works. I just pulled up an example I knew of out of my reading, since you asked for it. --Anaxamandra 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Demanding the removal based on multiple non-trivial published works is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the article is really about. The article needs some work, but the kernel is there. Fires of Heaven has had a significant impact on millions of MMO gamers, which is something no other "guild" can claim. Just because it references a website doesn't mean it should fall into a category of content that needs to fulfill the multiple non-trivial published works criteria. Please start arguing based on the article's content not based on the fact that it contains a link to a website (otherwise you'd have to start deleting a LOT of wikipedia content). 63.166.226.89 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many outfits assert notability in one fashion or another with varying degree of extravagant claims. Several times we've asked for actual, verifiable sources to back them up. We've yet to see anything beyond unsourced allegations of "Millions of gamers!" or that game designers frequent the website. It's understandable if you're unfamiliar with the way things work here, but the burden of evidentiary proof is not on those who seek the deletion of an unsourced article, rather on those who wish to retain it. RGTraynor 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the contrary, all articles on Wikipedia are supposed to provide multiple non-trivial published works (see WP:V and WP:RS). Ziggurat 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there was ever a case to be made for including any guilds into Wikipedia, it would be for this guild. However, in the end, it is still just a guild for an MMO. Ted 21:42, 7 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 -- Samir धर्म 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Brahm[edit]

Seems not to meet notability standards. Nertz 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; do you have an informed suspicion that he doesn't, or are you just assuming he doesn't? The lead Google hit is a Time article on him [10], the second is a search listing on Amazon UK of the three China-related books he's authored. Among other hits are citations from MSNBC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and BusinessWeek. Ravenswing 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - three books in amazon ( 2 apparently in stock ), and a fair few newspaper hits not related to advertising. Seems a notable enough person by WP:BIO standards - Peripitus 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming that this Laurence Brahm is the author and business leader mentioned in Ravenswing's links, he meets WP:BIO. I've contacted the original author to request that sources and citations be added to this article to establish that it meets WP:BIO criteria. I'd do it myself if I had any knowledge of the subject (international business is so drearily boring...)--Isotope23 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He is; I went through several of the major links. Ravenswing 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Xyra e l ^T 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article, and he certainly is known for more than just one sentence worth of stuff - he is indeed the same person with the books above, he has a regular columnn in the largest English language newspaper of this region, and runs a famous restaurant/club in Beijing, China. Will add some of these things to the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better now!--Isotope23 14:09, 5 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, cheap and easy. Mailer Diablo 07:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half demon[edit]

This article should be deleted because any somewhat reliable information it may have is already in Hanyo. However, since the references to this term in the other article are all to fiction, specifically anime and manga, and the word in Japanese doesn't appear to be in any of the standard Japanese dictionaries, this could very well be fancruft rather than actual mythology. MSJapan 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hanyo. As for hanyo itself not appearing in any standard dictionaries, Japanese dictionaries are very reluctant to include popular culture references. Also, publishers are strongly antagonistic to including any terms that could be interpreted as racism, for example Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is "Harry Potter and the Mysterious Prince" in Japan. -- Revth 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Revth. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hanyo. Revth's comments are spot-on. Had this article addressed the concept of half-demons in a broad fictional context, for example as a trope in fantasy and horror literature or role-playing games, it might have been worth keeping, but as it stands, it is just duplicating information in the hanyo article - CNichols 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanyo... and this could have just been boldly done. Article could always be repopulated later (and moved to Half-demon) if someone wants to address the concept in the broader context of literature as outlined by CNichols... I know I've read at least a few books, comics, etc that have utilized this concept, and it appears in hindu mythology to some extent as well (Mahishasura for example... though including that would require a discussion of the translation of "asura" as demon... etc). Not to nitpick... but delete and redirect are mutually exclusive actions. You can't redirect from a namespace you've deleted.--Isotope23 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanyo. Spacepotato 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and No Redirect, the title is too inspecific for a redirect. -- Koffieyahoo 07:53, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race: The Reality of Human Difference (Book)[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is nothing more than a brief synopsis of a book, which really makes it a non-topic as per deletion rules. MSJapan 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Delete, unless someone shows it has had some exceptionally notable impact. Nothing links to this article, by the way. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book is from a non-vanity press, and has at least a tangential relationship to the PBS documentary. Authors are notable too, even if the second author has yet to recieve an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Published book from non-vanity press, from notable authors. Amazon sales rank so-so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep, not vanity, notable, potentially useful. Vizjim 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if expanded and cleaned up. Xyra e l ^T 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - note User:Angner has just created new article Race: The Reality of Human Differences with identical text but without wikilinks or category, and changed inward links to this new article defeating any delete. Odd. Rwendland 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Brawlers Association[edit]

A Non-notable wrestling organization that wasn't even shown on public television. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 06:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Frankly, I think there ought to be some generic categories that qualify an article for Speedy: bands with Myspace pages as the lead Google hits, any mediacruft (such as individual Gundam weapon systems or cameo characters) that can't claim more than ten seconds of screentime, elementary schools and backyard wrestling "federations." Before this article gets its richly-deserved deletion, though, go check out the BBA's website; it's a barrel of laughs. The 14-year-old wrestler with the stagename "Big Tub Of Fat" is worth the price of admission alone. Ravenswing 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraner. These guys don't have any claim to notability Ydam 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Athenaeum 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBA has a claim to notability in the Oceanside and Rockville Centre areas of New York. Being featured in the New York Daily News and the Wrestling Observer Newletter is notable enough to stay up on Wikipedia. XxTool7723xX 18:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being mentioned in a newspaper and newsletter is good enough for me. XxLyLJeNNixX 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If true, of course. Would either of you mind sourcing that claim for us? Ravenswing 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems highly suspicious that the creator of this article, whose user name is XxTool7723xX, is supported by a new user with a similar name ofXxLyLJeNNixX, and was created around the time of this Afd, and whose only contribution is that vote. It is a little bit suspicious, thats all. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daily News Wrestling Observer Independent Results from 2002 XxTool7723xX 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image of BBA Results posted in Newsletter. As you must know, online identities that have Xx_____xX are quite common. You can check the IP addresses. XxTool7723xX 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Err ... that online wrestling link has a single BBA "event" listed in over a hundred event cattle call from March 2002, which fails the general notability bar of "trivial" coverage. The Daily News link is blocked to non-subscribers, but the paragraph header makes it plain that BBA is not "featured;" this is a generic article on backyard groups. Ravenswing 09:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check again, the March 2002 Independent Results lists two BBA Results. For a page that only covers a month, two events are pretty good (This is not WWE, who has at least ten shows in a month). Craig 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Backyard Wrestling. It doesn't appear to be particularly notable at all, nor would there be a lot of significant information to put into such an article, but it is/was a legitimate entity nonetheless. While the information is not enough to warrant an actual article, I think there's nothing wrong with it being mentioned in there. Falcon 23:16, 7 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) 00:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyüp Sabri Kartal[edit]

The page was created by User:Eculum and is continuously updated by User:3210, both of whom are none other than the subject of the article, Eyüp Sabri Kartal. I believe that the page is essentially the vanity page of a non-notable figure. —Saposcat 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only 66 results on Google. Kala ni ^[talk] 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO says that "political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are notable. Look how many mayors of American cities have their own articles in Wikipedia - with about the same degree of importance like this politician. Of course the article should be rewritten in accordance with the Wikipedia style guidelines. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The governor certainly deserves an article--if it he is the governor. As it is, it triggers my patent nonsense detectors and certainly isn't encyclopedic as is.--Prosfilaes 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak Keep~~. This new article isn't great, but it works.--Prosfilaes 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Weeble-wobble. The position isn't high enough to meet WP:BIO.--Prosfilaes 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Agree with Prosfilaeas. Though he might meet WP:BIO, the effort required to verify and clean-up this article isn't worth it.--Chaser (T) 08:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy is "governor" of a subdistrict of Trabzon (Trabzon pop. = 900,000), so this is more a county prefect than a state governor, hence WP:NN. Also WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, ~~WP:SOCK~~. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think every managers bios should be in WP.Kaymakams defenetly shold be in WP for local historian sake.--3210 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:3210 is the subject of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that he is a governer is unsourced and does not appear to be supported by a Google search. If proven, I will change my vote, though all of the Wikipedia-specific content should go anyway. Vizjim 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that he is as claimed. For example, if you click on the external link and go to the bottom, you will find a newspaper clipping (from the local newspaper Günebakış) in which you see the phrase: "İlce Kaymakamı Eyüp Sabri Kartal", which is Turkish for "District Governor Eyüp Sabri Kartal". --Lambiam ^Talk 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not less notable than many US politicians who have their own Wikipedia pages. Remember WP:BIAS, please. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above comments. Xyra e l ^T 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after rewrite. --Chaser (T) 21:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, still sounds like vanity to me. --InShaneee 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a significant figure. Also, people creating and maintaining articles about themselves is generally a bad idea. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we need less bias and more international coverage like this Yuckfoo 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hectorian 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not really notable for his political office, but the Turkish wikipedia campaign put it over the top for me Bwithh 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete Not notable for political office or for wikipedia campaign. what was I thinking? Bwithh 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article on noteworthy political officer and wikipedia campaign. --JJay 05:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiF 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notable achievement except that he was elected as a governor... As a Turkish citizen, I don't find him notable enough to be in any encyclopedia. - Kubra 11:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, though, that as a kaymakam, he was not elected, but appointed. —Saposcat 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

He has more than 40,000 people in his district. From my East-European point of view, he is much more important than e.g. Mike Bach (a mayor of a 2,000-people town). Do not be so US-centric, please. And some of the facts are easy to see at the Turkish Wikipedia page. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Now, I deleted the user-page-like stuff from the article and formatted it; I hope that it will be a usable stub.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not American, so I'm having a hard time being US centric, and just because Mr. Bach has a WP entry doesn't mean I endorse it. ~ trialsanderrors 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) You would be able able to excel even in hard disciplines. I should have written perhaps "Western World centric" but this does not sound well. Cheers --Ioannes Pragensis 09:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I grew up in a town of 37,000 and my mayor has no business having her profile on WP. It's not, as you note above, statewide office. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, No opinion yet, but I'd like to see some verifiable information that he is indeed a regional governor. Most of what I see about him is wikipedia related or from the Turkish Wikipedia, site which is not a reliable source in my opinion (and this is not bias; I don't consider en.wikipedia to be a reliable source for wikipedia articles either). I'd also strongly suggest removing the "He is an active user of Wikipedia and supports the project - he has started the first and only official Wikipedia campaign so far in Turkey..." text. It is self-referential and not really important in the grand scheme of things; lots of people are active users of Wikipedia and support the project. Oh, and if anyone wants to bring Mike Bach to AfD, I'd vote delete on that one.--Isotope23 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable information that he is a regional governor: It is enough to search in Google for "Beşikdüzü Kaymakam" (name of the province + "governor" in Turkish language); you get e.g. this: [11] (a newspaper). I think that this is beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course it is true, that his province is a small one. But IMHO still enough to fulfill WP:BIO somewhat. Here in the Europe/Near East region, all things are smaller than in the States :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even better is to Google for "Beşikdüzü Kaymakamı", which makes it proper Turkish. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the map of Trabzon province in Turkey. There are 18 districts in the province, one of which is Beşikdüzü. It's the orange one in the upper left corner of this map. So let's make it clear that Kartal is not the governor of Trabzon province, but the officeholder in a district.~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to taxonomy of national administrative units which makes clear that Ilceler are Level 4 units, of which there are 923 in Turkey. It's a level below German Kreise, and far from the level 1 or 2 needed for notability. ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, please. Nobody says that he is a governor of the Trabzon province.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Isotope's inquiry, not to your post. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second map is interactive and gives further verification: if you hover the pointer over the upper left district (for left-right blind people: the orange blob) you'll see some offical information being displayed in the panel underneath, including the function and name of our friend. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still have no strong leaning towards inclusion/deletion, but I cleaned up the article a bit (like the fact that is an active Wikipedia user... aren't we all?)--Isotope23 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To correct various pieces of misinformation offered above: Turkey is divided into 81 provinces or iller, comparable to French départements. The head of a province is a governor or vali in the sense of the head of the highest regional subdivision. Wikipedia considers governors notable. Below the province is a district (ilçe), with a sub-governor (kaymakam) as its head. This is comparable to French arrondissements.

Eyüp Sabri Kartal is not the governor of Trabzon, in which case he would be notable ex officio. The governor of Trabzon is Hüseyin Yavuzdemir. Kartal is the sub-governor of a district of Trabzon province named Beşikdüzü (pop. 40,000), and as such he is not notable ex officio, just as a sous-préfet is not notable. A search on Lexis-Nexis also yields no English-language newslinks over the last two years. The only reason why we're discussing this is because Kartal had the chuzpa to create his own entry (against WP:AUTO) to promote his campaign (against WP:VANITY) ~~and uses a sockpuppet to continue this campaign (against WP:SOCK).~~ ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that Eyüp Sabri Kartal (a.k.a. User:Eculum and User:3210) is using a sockpuppet, I think that this is not entirely true. While it is true that both users are one and the same, a quick look at Eculum's contributions as against 3210's contributions shows that the earlier account, Eculum, has effectively been abandoned. There is a reason for this man's change in accounts; namely, a name change in real life, the story of which can be found here, in Turkish.

I do not disagree with the WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY claims, but I think that the WP:SOCK claim, when looked at with these facts in mind, is not entirely true. Cheers. —Saposcat 07:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sockpuppetry is simply the usage of two accounts without linkage but given the contribution histories I accept that this was not done in bad faith. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that VP:VANITY was true when the article started. But now it has been thoroughly rewritten by Lambiam and by myself - both independent editors - and is based on sources.

Moreover I feel here something like double standards against people living outside of English speaking world. For example, I recently AfDed Veronica Ruiz de Velasco, a living US painter of Mexican origin, who has only two (!) independent hits in Google and had never a solo exhibition - only a hadful of articles mostly in general newspapers and magazines, and a few photos with Prince Charles. The AfD discussion is leaning clearly towards Keep. Now we have a man who lives outside of US, has a comparatively high political function and an interesting story, but his AfD should be Delete. I am perhaps a bit paranoic, but this looks like apartheid to me.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bolstering his political office. Countering claims (including his own), 99.9% of politicians of his rank do not have WP entries, and that includes US county supervisors. Also on the rewrite it looks like you simply reused his original sources. Are you following the local Trabzon press closely enough that you can include events that might not be to his liking? (Eg. "Local politician accused of graft") If not you should not pretend you're able to independently edit this article. If you're looking for a Turkish politician notable enough to warrant an article go here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you can vote on the deletion of the Mike Bach entry now. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh – The article on our friend at the Turkish Wikipedia has just been nominated for deletion: [12]. The rationale given is "unencyclopedic" (an argument I dislike; as it says on the page WP:AFD: The reason "unencyclopedic" is not an argument at all but just another way of saying "should be deleted".) I won't be able to follow the debate as I will be travelling all next week, but you can tally for yourself using the key Kalsın = Silinmesin = Keep; Silinsin = Silinmeli = Delete. Further Kesinlikle = Strong and Hemen = Speedy. --Lambiam ^Talk 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing "Unecyclopedic" is shorthand for "tons of scanned newspaper articles posted by the subject to praise the subject's accomplishments" here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just before that nomination, on the same Log page, there were nominations for the articles on Turkey (the Republic) and Turkish (the language), the latter also with the rationale "unencyclopedic" (and furthermore: "wrong"). I don't know it means much. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same nominator? ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Turkish Wikipedians are also leaning towards Silinsin. Evidently it's not all Western bias. ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is also writer .His books about Mir'at--85.98.216.208 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miratülmemalik.JPG

Türk Edebiyatının ilk seyahatnamesi olan Sidi Ali Reisin Mir'at-ül Memalik adlı eserinin günümüz Türkçe’sine açıklamalı bir şekilde Beşikdüzü Kaymakamı Eyup Culum tarafından kazandırıldı..

.

He also has a swimming rekord.

File:Kartal rekor kırdı.jpg

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Armstrong[edit]

Although interesting, this ancient obituary is about a non-notable person. Medtopic 06:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd almost think Speedy for no assertion of notability, but I'll stick with NN and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenswing 07:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. VegaDark 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a memorial. although if the article could assert some kind of notability for this individual and it was rewritten I might change to keep Ydam 08:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. DarthVad e r 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 19:44, 2 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) 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spokane nicknames[edit]

An uncited and probably unverifiable mess of a useless list stub. Spokane, Washington is no Big Apple, though it is apparently refered to as "Spocannabis" and "Little Africa" ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two thinks stand out especially for me: (1) Uncited and (2) Useless. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also probably fails WP:NOR and certainly fails WP:BALLS. RGTraynor 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. VegaDark 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unverifiable. - Longhair 07:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. JIP | Talk 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New article to me. Don't see how it fails WP:BALLS. Spokane is the second largest city in Washington State and the largest city on the BNSF(110+ trains per day)/I-90 corridor between Seattle and Minneapolis. I have lived here for only three years and I have heard 2/3 of the perjoratives used in the article (hadn't heard "Spocannabis" and "Little Africa" tho) and have heard all of the traditional and commercial variants. These get mentioned in [| Doug Clark's columns] in the local Spokesman Review. So I think the WP:NOR is not insurmountable. An aside, I've heard Spokane named 2X in gansta-rap lyrics in the context of percieved overreaching by the police-powers (popo) - Spokane is no Big Apple but it has some big city problems. -- Paleorthid 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge whatever is verifiable back into Spokane, Washington. Pointless fork from Spokane, Washington that should have stayed part of the main article. KleenupKrew 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paleorthid. --JJay 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason for this to have its own article. Many cities have numerous nicknames and they sit just fine on those city's articles. Peyna 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or delete, but don't merge). I am the one who split this article off from Spokane. While in that article it received more edits than the rest of the article, with each addition more imaginitive than the last. I have never seen another city article with nearly so many nicknames. It was getting ridiculous and after discussion on the talk page I split it out. It is not a POV fork (which is an article that covers the same material as another article but from a different POV). Ever since the split it has been serenely quiet. I was content to see it deleted as unverifiable, but now that Paleorthid is sourcing it I think it is worth keeping. But please don't merge it back to Spokane. -Will Beback 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Typical addition:[13] -Will Beback 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept, it should probably be renamed to List of Spokane, Washington nicknames. I still feel this page doesn't have enough encyclopedic value so my vote stands as delete, even with proper sources. VegaDark 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:CanadianCaesar and User:RGTraynor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 5 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 merged with List of fictional beverages and redirected there, since there is a consensus that this doesn't merit its own article and no-one was kind enough to explain where it should be merged in Cowboy Bebop. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pippu[edit]

Delete I'm not even sure if this is fancruft or what. In tons of movies and animes and whatever there's a "generic" version of sodas, McDonalds, etc, that the writers use so they don't get sued. This is far from a notable element of the anime. Ned Scott 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with Cowboy Bebop.--Andeh 07:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about just doing a merge and redirect, but.. I'm not sure if it's even notable at all.. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the item commonly appears in the show it should be notable and put into the cowboy bebop article, if not delete.--Andeh 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes were also a common item.. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a fan of the series, and I never even noticed it. --Jamoche 07:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of fictional beverages, worthy of a mention, but not its own article. JIP | Talk 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to list of fictional beverages. - CNichols 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, animecruft. —phh (^t/_c) 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cowboy Bebop and Redirect per above comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge*--Dangerous-Boy 03:11, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Contention Fleet[edit]

40 members seems to be not enough notable - see WP:WEB; speedy deletion contested Ioannes Pragensis 06:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as NN, possible vanity, and certainly fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT. This reads like it was cut-and-pasted off of this gaming group's website. RGTraynor 07:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 40 members hardly makes this notable (shouldn't this nom have one of those 'this is not a vote' tags on the top for the benifit of any members who wander along here Ydam 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems as though its more a recuiting page than anything else DRCarroll 00:57, 3 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) 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National AFV day Odyssey[edit]

Found this page while searching for random articles. Article appears to be pure advertising, in violation of WP:NOT, and contains neither links to other pages nor categories. JimmyBlackwing 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable, just needs expanding. They have an official website here.--Andeh 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omigod an offical website. The org doesn't seem to be notable enough on its own, so it's highly unlikely that this article is worth keeping. Peyna 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article of this quality smells like a copyright violation. Google for "National AFV Day Odysseys inaugural year in 2002 drew crowds from California to Connecticut with sites in thirty-one states nationwide". Go to Cached (the actual website already changed). Bingo. Deleteme42 12:30, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferk[edit]

per WP:BIO. Amazon.com does not show books written by this author; otherwise no special notability claims. "Only time will show if he is a genius or retarded idiot," as the article says. Speedy deletion has been contested, so AfD. Ioannes Pragensis 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Spam/self-promotion. Per nom. Not notable.--Andeh 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; what a turgid mess. Whether Time will register a verdict or not, I've an opinion already formed. RGTraynor 07:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as advertising. All I had to do was take a quick glance at all the external links and I could conclude there was no hope for this article. JIP | Talk 09:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Poorly translated advertising. Yanksox 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:WEB Casino spam. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Admins about to close this afd?--Andeh 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have examined the claims of this article against CSD A7 non-notable bio. This article does assert notability as author of books and person behind websites. However, as the books appear not to be widely available if they exist and the websites don't appear to meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero parade[edit]

It's a non-notable parade, seemingly no longer being held. Evan S e eds (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. --Evan S e eds (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Keep, i obviously missed the notability. Nomination withdrawn. --Evan S e eds (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability.Keep - looks like any questions of notability have been answered. RGTraynor 07:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the subject is more notable than the article states, as the parade/festival is not dead. A quick google easily found a link to the Hero Festival 2006 site. The site also alludes to a history of two decades, so it seems quite notable. hateless 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see, on that website, a good bit of info regarding a festival at a fixed venue. I see not a shred of info referencing parades. Were there a "Hero Festival" article, that would be another matter, but this AfD isn't about that. RGTraynor 08:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly well known in New Zealand. Should probably be moved to Hero festival. I'll add this to the list of New Zealand-related deletions.

I note that the article has been expanded significantly from the two-line stub that it was at the time of AfD nomination.-gadfium 10:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that AfD nomination took place only 10 minutes after the article was created. -- Avenue 12:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Certainly notable, both well known and controversial in NZ and particularly Auckland. I have no problem with moving it to HERO Festival (note the capitalisation). -- Avenue 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the Hero parade attracted a large amount of press at the time (although the archives for NZ news of the 1990s are generally not online it is still mentioned [14] [15] [16]) and was widely discussed throughout the country. Notability ain't a good criterion, as I often say. Ziggurat 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it is defunct or not is irrelevant. It was notable during the 90s, and whether it is still active or not doesn't change that. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's tough to accurately guage attendence at something like a parade, but if the numbers in the article are even remotely close to true (300,000 people!!!) then it's notable enough by far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Nominator is old enough to drive, whooopeeee, but......21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Moriori
- Comment. The fact that I'm only 16 has nothing to do with my ability as a Wikipedian. At least I'm not vandalizing. --Evan Seeds (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was more about experience than age. Had you checked with google this AfD would never have happened. Go on, type "Hero parade" into google. Did you read GWO's comment below. He has a point (although ethnocentricity is not unique to the US). In my weird way I was trying to say that you have a driving licence but have never driven outside your own backyard. In a nice way of course. Sorry if I upset you, because I didn't mean to. Moriori 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is a importrant parade Yuckfoo 00:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to be missed. It was a significant event in NZ. --Midnighttonight 02:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fairly well known in NZ, was/is very controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian New Zealand (talk • contribs) .

oops, thanks gadfium Brian | (Talk) 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep notable Bwithh 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was in the US, it'd never have been nominated. -- GWO

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory(SEN)[edit]

Non-notable. It's a radio show on an AM station in Melbourne, Australia. Evan S e eds (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. --Evan S e eds (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable. The radio station can fund it's own advertising. - Peripitus 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 14:17, 2 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. JIP | Talk 09:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computerforums[edit]

Attack page. Two speedy tags were removed, so bringing it here. Jamoche 07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A6; I'm surprised it wasn't already speedied. Ravenswing 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Speedy Delete per nom, self-promotion/spam not notable.--Andeh 07:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, obviously. Attack page, borderline nonsense. VegaDark 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per attack page Ydam 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super speedy delete per Ravenswing - I am also surprised it was speedied already. Kala ni ^[talk] 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user Pharao left the attack edit on the page, don't know if an admin would like to leave a warning on the talk page or just block their user. His only edits are on this page. The user Blackdogs377 created the article but doesn't appear to have left any attacks on the page, nor has contributed to any other articles.--Andeh 09:16, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lacche[edit]

Contested Prod. No reason given for removal of tag, but I am assuming it was done by the subject of the article, given the username of the person who removed the tag. Much of this page contains non-notable information about the person, but there is one major claim to notability in this article: "A journalist by trade, Lacche has authored more than 1,000 articles". Unfortunately, this claim cannot be verified after a Google search. I found a total of two real articles that he wrote for student newspapers after going through the 158 Google results. The only link that supports this claim is his own personal web page, which reads as a resume and I don't feel can be used as a reliable source for one's own claim to notability in this case. His resume also contians several interesting claims, such as "Yahoo! Sports: 12 articles on Pac-10 football." In a Google search for ""Justin Lacche" Yahoo Sports", only 2 results appear, one of which is his personal web page and the other of which is a post of his on the "bostonredsoxfanclub" Yahoo sports group message board.

The only thing I have verified is that he is indeed the chair of the International Association of MBA Presidents. Unfortunately this doesn't do much for his claim to notability as this is an NN online group that has 44 members. It does look as if he may have won at least one of the MBA awards his page claims, but winning student awards at a university doesn't make someone notable enough for Wikipedia. His claim of "President, Oregon State University MBA Association (2004-2005)" is true, but a search reveals that this is simply a student group and hence an NN claim.

After investigating his claim of being the "Father of the Neo-hieroglyph art movement, http://www.hieroglyphsku.com", I can't get the page to load for me. Perhaps you will have better luck. The extent to which I found any information on this was an EBay auction of which one of his pieces of "art" is going for $0.01 with no bids, with him as the seller. Finally, his baseball mentions are NN. I think this is clearly a vanity page. VegaDark 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good researching there VegaDark, the website loaded for me and only displayed a picture of that item that is currently on ebay. The article appears to mainly advertise the persons 'artwork'.--Andeh 07:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NN. Not to mention this reads just like a CV. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise oneself Ydam 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per brilliantly worked-out nom. Is there a "How to make good nominations for AfD" page we can frame this nom up somewhere? Kimchi.sg 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent research. The one-cent eBay auction with no bids really clinched it. I hope that lack of initial success doesn't discourage him, though, since his ideas certainly have merit (hint: galleries first, then eBay!) I'd also like to congratulate the nominator on one of the most thoroughly-researched AfDs i've seen in awhile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and applaud the efforts of VegaDark on this one. Metros232 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark's very thorough nomination.--Isotope23 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IrishGuy 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very well researched nom. -- Vary | Talk 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: http://www.hieroglyphsku.com consists of two poems, one the one at the e-bay auction (both translated or transcribed into hieroglyphs) . The other reads:
Summer Nights

Finally, some cool air!

We play Ella and Louis,

And sip cold grape juice.
- I am not qualified to comment on the hieroglyphic translation, but there appear to be cartouches for Ella and Louis. Septentrionalis 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note The subject, who is apparently blocked now, sent me a wikipedia email requesting that I post this link which he presents as evidence of his having written newspaper articles. I can see no harm in doing so, and so there it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user sent me that email too. It was addressed to Sceptre. Anyone else who has voted in this AfD receiving this email? Metros232 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same link over email, also addressed to Sceptre. -- Vary | Talk 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got it as well. Will (^E_@) T 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get it - but then I don't have e-mail enabled from other users so it's not really that suprising Ydam 11:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely doubtable noteability. --mboverload @ 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close, and while "writing 1,000 articles" sounds impressive, if they're of the form shown by the link -- small-town USA news tidbits -- it wouldn't take very long to wrack up such a total: a newsbite a day for three years would do it at a daily paper. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LOL this guy is proud of beating a bunch of people for MBA awards that are 8 years younger than him...good jobNihil 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the median age for MBA students hovers around 28, so he's within range of the norm. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Grand master ka 03:46, 4 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: as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, verifiability is non-negotiable, and this article contains no reliable sources nor have those 'voting' keep attempted to claim there are any, delete. No merge/redirect to David Firth as it is apparently unverified that they are in fact the same person. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jackson[edit]

No reliable sources provided and no evidence of notablity. Hopelessly unencylopedic. The most notable thing about it is that it likely to be an alter ego of another guy who makes flash animations on the internet David Firth (who also has no reliable sources to established notability). - Motor (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although David Firth actually has a large following following his salad fingers series. This article, however, is irellevant and any detail can be merged into the full david firth article. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge with David Firth if a source can be found that they're the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!! You can't delete it! He is a very important web-animator. And is made possibly even more important by being an alter-ego of Dave Firthwho is an inredibly important Web-animator. He is important for many people and just because he isn't important to you doesn't mean you should delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydie86 (talk • contribs)

Note: User has only 12 edits. Eight edits on standard articles are vandalism-related and were made on May 2, 2006; the remaining four edits are made on June 2, on AFD pages related to David Firth. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I Agree, you obviously dont like it.. so what. He is extremely important, probably better than david firth. If people search for him why should there be no related article? Doesnt make sense, rather improve current page. I will create this again if you delete it! (not original creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.177.72.66 (talk • contribs)

I advise that the Jerry Jackson entry should not be deleted. It is by far one of the most original web creations by an artist anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.27.0 (talk • contribs)

Merge with David Firth if you must remove it. Although I think the article is amusing, I realize wikipedia is serious business to some people. PrettyMuchBryce 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see why this would be deleted and it has been already stated, we do not know if Jackson is Firth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.20.33 (talk • contribs)

Keep Jerry Jackson is notable and deserves to stay. Héous 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP! I would like to see Wikipedia continue to be the best and first source for information on the Internet. So stop trying to bloody delete it!!
Keep Honestly, it would be ridiculous to simply get rid of the page. It provides users with information on the animator, and if people even a single person has come here looking for information on him, then why would there be a need to get rid of the page? One should not delete the article simply because they find it unimportant, because that could be said about numerous articles on Wikipedia; it should be kept for those who visit the site, and actually want to read more about the animator. Having obscure articles like this is what makes Wikipedia so great! You can find information about new things all the time, and those who have knowledge on the topic can make contributions to the site by fixing/adding/removing information. Please don't limit the site, simply because this is unimportant in your own eyes - after all, I searched it, didn't I? Lastly, just for the record, Jerry Jackson is quite notable, and many people on Newgrounds know who he is. Whether or not they all like him doesn't matter, the fact is that it is not as if he is completely unknown. Sandwiches99 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User's first edit is voting in this AFD. - Motor (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you delete Ricky Gervais because you have a section titled The Office? Would you delete a secrtion on Mickey Mouse because you already have one on Pluto? Or Walt Disney. (A lengthier comment has been added to the even more ridiclous suggestion to delete David Firth)... - I dont know how to sign it in the Wikipedia way but I am Bob Slayer!

Jerry Jackson can not be deleted he must get a lot more visits than over pages on this website it is interesting because Jerry Jackson is orginal.If you delete Jerry Jackson because you have no prove he is real then you should delete all the stuff on the bible because have you got any proof that is real.

Keep --DragonWR12LB 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I nominated and this is just make sure my vote is clear. A joke article that is 100% original research with no basis for notability. - Motor (talk) 08:48, 11 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. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finbar Mallon[edit]

Minor character from a minor flash animation by a minor flash animator. No reliable sources establishing notability supplied or found - Motor (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable fictional character. JIP | Talk 09:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grand master ka 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too non-notable, even within the Firth fan sphere. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:49, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock (Flash cartoons)[edit]

Part of a collection of non-notable articles relating to a minor flash artist... none of which have any reliable sources provided to establish notability - Motor (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. -- GWO
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 13:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a major flash artist and the most important flash artist in the UK. This is one of his key pieces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Boydie86 (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 redirected to David Firth (as there is no consensus that a redirect would be invalid, redirects are cheap and it allows merging if anyone wants that). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsbury Toast Boy[edit]

Part of a collection of articles relating to David Firth, none of which have any reliable source establishing notability and are all basically WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. -- GWO
Comment, I don't have any real strong feelings on this either way (even though I contributed to it a little and am a fan of the cartoon), but I would think at least a merge back to David Firth is in order if it isn't kept. Recury 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Firth (unless that also gets deleted). Doesn't contain much useful information. -- jeffth e jiff 09:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I nominated the article. This is just the clarification of my choice. - Motor (talk) 09:40, 11 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. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson's Safari[edit]

No evidence of notability supplied or found. Homepage is on tripod. No encyclopedic content. - Motor (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't appear to be very notable.--Andeh 08:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn Jll 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Andypandy.UK --Guinnog 19:24, 2 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of technologies in Civilization III[edit]

Much as I enjoyed civ III I think this article is a bit too crufty. Wikipedia is not a game encylopedia Ydam 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with main Civilization III article. Wikipedia isn't a place for guides on games.--Andeh 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Civilization III per above. JIP | Talk 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can type in game manuals, too. Doesn't mean I should. MiracleMat 09:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Civ2 is very notable, and people may find this of interest. Most games shouldn't even have one article about them let alone several, but Civ2 is very popular and this is probably useful to enough people. But if it is kept, it shouldn't be a precedent for dozens of articles about non-notable, or semi-notable games. Captainj 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is CIV III not II Ydam 10:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I realised my mistake when I saved it, and was about to correct. I feel the same arguments apply.Captainj 10:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game guide. -- GWO
Keep per Ydam. -- cds^(talk) 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Ydam 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - per Captainj. -- cds^(talk) 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was there incomplete forever, then I take the time to finish it and now it's up for deletion. Czolgolz 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this as a comment upon your editing, indeed as an article it's quite well put together. I just don't believe the subject matter is enclopedic or is suitable content for wikipedia Ydam 12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Civilization III, per Andeh. PJM 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a simple collection of information. Either people have the game and don't need this list or don't and won't care. - Peripitus 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and interesting, per Captainj. - CNichols 15:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use all the time 66.98.130.129 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per captainj MarineCorps 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See StarCraft units and structures. This article is not a game/strategy guide, but information about the game. I think there's no reason to clutter up Civilization III from a merge. Again, see the structure of and information in the Starcraft article, which (as a featured article) has been debated before. ~ PseudoSudo 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Starcraft may be a featured article, but StarCraft units and structures is not a featured article. So I don't quite see how that's relevant? — Haeleth Talk 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that StarCraft is a featured article to point out the fact that other, widely-publicized articles about games have in-depth detail about their components; it was mostly to address Peripitus' claim that including a list of technologies is merely a simple collection of information. ~ PseudoSudo 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per JIP. bikeable (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Captain j --Guinnog 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT GameFAQs. Sorry to those who are arguing that this is not a game guide, but it clearly is – the constant use of second-person pronouns and references to "your civilization" makes it very difficult to read as anything else. — Haeleth Talk 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Civilization III. People this interested in the technologies will have bought the manual - for everyone else, a mention on the CivIII article should suffice. -RCBTDrumwolf
Keep As per captianj. davidzuccaro 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the very model of fancruft: if you own the game (and manual) you already know this stuff; if you don't, it has no application: either way, it's not the slightest bit of use to you or anyone else. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calton I have no interest in several things that have entries on Wikipedia. Does THAT mean those entries should be deleted? NO.TruthCrusader 07:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to read the entire sentence, or just the bit you could pull out and use as part of your non sequitor disguised as an argument?
Let's try to make this simple: let's divide the world into precisely two groups: those who CivIII, and those who don't:

Those who own CivIII: already have the (rather thick) owner's manual and fold-out chart which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.
Those who do not own CivIII: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none.

Any questions? Or do you have any more bogosity up your sleeves? --Calton | Talk 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your remarks, not only to me but to other users as well, highly uncivil. I think it is time your adminship is reviewed, because to be honest you have a very condescending manner that i find unfit for a Wikipedia Admin. TruthCrusader 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How awful. It's a good thing I'M NOT AN ADMIN, then. Your close attention to detail -- and utter lack of substantive response -- is duly noted. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. -- cds^(talk) 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to add on a side note that all this info is also available whithin the game itself in a graphical tech tree and the civopedia which also includes a lot of historical context on the technologies too Ydam 10:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own civ III nor have I ever played it. I am however an experienced player of civ I, civ II and freeciv. The article is of interest to me as I might use the article to help me to decide whether or not I should purchase civ III. Not that this is necessarily a reason to keep this article. I am just rebutting Calton's fallacious arguments. Paper documentation can be lost or damaged. The games' electronic documentation is not able to be modified and improved by the gaming community. These are good reasons to keep the article.davidzuccaro 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of interest to me as I might use the article to help me to decide whether or not I should purchase civ III. You -- an "experienced player" of the previous versions -- need this level of detail to make a purchasing decision? Does ANYONE need this level of detail to make a purchasing decision? Allow me to be skeptical.

Paper documentation can be lost or damaged. Missing a copy? Try the local used-book store, or let me know and I might send you mine.

The games' electronic documentation is not able to be modified and improved by the gaming community. And Wikipedia's role in "modifying and improving" game documentation is what, exactly? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to mention that TruthCrusader's point has been largely ignored. Whether this article is interesting to the average viewier (encyclopedias are practically by definition uninteresting), useful to its intended audience, contains information extractable from the game manual or the game itself, or whether any editor has played the game before, is all 100% irrelevant to the deletion discussion. We are here to evaluate the article for Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, such as WP:NOT as the nominator alluded to. Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment quote:encyclopedias are practically by definition uninteresting - what a brilliant insight! I think this should go into tbe mission statement of Wikipedia. or at least into that Wikipedia humour section whatever its called. Bwithh 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very nice job on this civilization related article. Wikipedia is a game encyclopedia. We also do quite well on porn and schools. --JJay 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT: "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not...Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things." --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's real interesting, but this is a list of technologies in the game. For a good starting point for our computer game coverage try Category:Computer_and_video_games. Let's make wikipedia the best game encyclopedia in the world. --JJay 13:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god, let's please not make wikipedia the best game encyclopedia in the world if it means a flood of walk-throughs, level maps, and lists of game skills and game items? You can set up your own wiki separate from wikipedia you know.Bwithh 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Delete Civ is a good game but this is total fancruft/listcruft. Wikipedia is NOT a game guide and is not a freakin' "game encyclopedia" whatever hellish thing that is. There are a ton of game guides and faqs and review sites on Civ and other popular games on the web. Those who say that this article is useful for people who have lost their manuals or just want to see if they want to buy the game are being ridiculous too. Wikipedia is a not a dumping ground for game manuals and reviews Bwithh 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I could live with a list ot techs at Civilization III (not at this detail, however). I really hate to say it, because this is very well done, but WP:NOT GameFAQs, and this is basically part of a game guide. Someone should really start another wiki for this sort of thing, because I hate having to vote to delete these and would much rather transwiki them somewhere. BryanG^(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - As a player of Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4 and as a frequent contributor to CVG articles, this article is really really game specific to the point of being a game guide. I can absolutely see why a list of technologies in civ3 may be helpful and interesting, for the players of the game who actually want to learn more about what the technologies are about and their affect in the Real World, it'd be a great starting point. But right now, it's just the tech tree/game guide laid out in textual form. Please just put it into a simple list in the Civilization III page, like the list of wonders and list of races. - Hahnch e n 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge: It is a bit fancrufty, but I believe that given the chance it could be retooled into something more apropriet for wikipedia. TomStar81 06:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a gaming wiki per WP:NOT and WP:CVG content guidelines. --Muchness 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Calton's explanation of who this cruft is useful to: nobody. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a game guide. We don't do game guides here. My suggestion is that you take this to a game wiki or GameFAQs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ubercruft. Grue 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. BoojiBoy 02:15, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 08:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Openbravo[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet WP:SOFT or WP:Corp. 490 google results. Sleepyhead 08:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:03, 3 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. A redirect seems unnecessary as only one article links here (which I will correct), and I don't understand how this could be disambiguated. "Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman may refer to Margaret Weis or Tracy Hickman"? Although the bolded 'delete's are not in an overwhelming majority, it's clear that the current content should not exist (making a 'no consensus' close nonsensical) and deletion seems the most logical alternative. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman[edit]

The article is a tiny stub, and is redundant with information found in Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. Zorblek (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary as there are articles on both authors, seperately. Kala ni ^[talk] 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Kalathalan.--Andeh 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kalathalan. JIP | Talk 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Captainj 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. PJM 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Weis. I don't think it's wholly impossible that someone might look them up this way, and redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is true that these people are pretty iconic as co-authors of the most important books in the Dragonlance series, I don't think it is fair to redirect this title to either of the authors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone interested in finding out more about these authors can look for their names individually. 23skidoo 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Per Andrew Lenahan, it isn't impossible that someone may come looking for both of them. Per Sjakkalle, it isn't fair to either author to redirect to one or another's page. Disambiguation seems the answer to me. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. - CNichols 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Weis. The answer to Smerdis and Sjakkalle's worries about "unfair" is that the person who chose to search for this term listed her first - we're not judging, the searcher is. Likewise, if there is a Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis page, it should redirect to Tracy Hickman. Solomon, better known as AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew. -- Captain Disdain 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Smerdis of Tlön... a better solution than a simple redirect.--Isotope23 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weis, since she's listed first in all the collaborations. Fan1967 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Smerdis of Tlön and Isotope23. People may come looking for Tracy Hickman. Vorlon24 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current stub essentially works as a dab page, but needs more links to their coauthored works. I wikilinked their names but I don't know enough about the stuff to add links to Dragonlance and whatever else they coauthored. ~ trialsanderrors 01:53, 10 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. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captains of Industry[edit]

Advertising for non notable company. Ben W Bell talk 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this, you may as well delete the entire advertising category and all other companies in it for the same reason. --Icomb 2 June 2006
Secondly I am curious as to why Necrothesp has taken it upon himself to mess with everyone of my wikipedia contributions, it seems to me that this is a violation of the civility guidelines.
Delete Unsourced statements/claims about awards of their company. Probable advertisement.--Andeh 09:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (article content). I'd have no objection if it was simply turned into a redirect (not merge) to Captain of industry. But as it stands, definitely delete. Captainj 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert for non-notable company. -- Necrothesp 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to captain of industry; that way it can actually be of use. -- Captain Disdain 15:42, 2 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. Two keep 'votes' are from very new users/IPs, and the arguments for keeping are generally unconvincing, hinging on Wikipedia being an indiscriminate collection of information, which it is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Jet[edit]

Subject does not seem sufficiently notable, e.g. doesn't appear to meet guidelines in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) Jll 09:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google search for exact name brings up 42,000+ hits. Article does need expanding though. Doesn't that image on the page need removing?--Andeh 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the adult film/porn industry's use of "Googlebombing" to influence rankings on search engines, the Google test is not exactly a good method of determining the notability of a performer. Jll 10:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep for now, need to do more research.--Andeh 10:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we had every porn actor/actress on Wikipedia we'd be swamped. Captainj 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Complete nobody. Athenaeum 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Comment read Wikipedia:Google_Test Ghits are useless all around IMHO. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I believe GHits (or any other search engine hits for that matter) are utterly worthless and should never be used to determine notability. But that's just my opinion on the subject. (Also, the article in question qualifies for CSD A7, so it might've been easier just to tag it as {{db-bio}}. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me at CSD A7; I'll bear that in mind in future. Jll 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Faris b 07:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Why should it be deleted? Wiki is an encyclopedia and it should have every entry possible. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the article, I looked at it and it seems fine to me. Plus, she is a mainstream transexual porn acress, not one of the "underlings" I vote keep it.[reply]
Keep (assumed) From Craig Campbell: Indeed, within her specialty, this lady is one of the top performers. Possibly the photo could be replaced, but if Wikipedia is to be comprehensive the entry should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.180.157 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 June 2006
Keep Lc691 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Joe Beaudoin's proposed porn bio guidelines would systematically exclude gay and especially trans porn stars. They are explicitly heterosexist as written. It does make one wonder what kind of agenda is being pushed here. I do assume Joe and Jll are acting in good faith and are simply ignorant of some of the people who live in the same world as them. Nevertheless, we should not let their ignorance about our existence turn Wikipedia into a "queers not allowed" website.[reply]
- Why not help define it better then? Join the discussion! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:20, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corndogging[edit]

(Disgusting article alert; reader caution advised.) Non-notable slang dicdef. 54 unique google hits, mostly about something else. Weregerbil 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified via notable sources.--Andeh 10:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary Captainj 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons above. PJM 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to say dicdef. ouch. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and delete mental image, por favor. Aguerriero (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please, delete. DJ Clayworth 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the sake of all that is good and holy delete this!!!! Pokes out mind's eye Plus, it's nn and probably a hoax. --Dakart 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with all possible speed, nn unencyclopedic dicdef.--Dakota ~ 18:06, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Early_Air_Way[edit]

Non-notable company run by university student. Using WP as advertising (Website [17] uses wikipedia page as advertising). Business seems related this [18] non-notable ebay seller. novacatz 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for advertising + NN + WP:NOT a crystal ball regarding the speculation in the article Ydam 10:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy if possible!) - clear and blatant advertising. Company is obviously using the article on their website [19] and pretending it is an independent writeup of their operation. It's a shame this wasn't AfD'ed in April when it was first created. Kimchi.sg 10:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It describes a REAL site and its history. I think its pretty impressive to be honest... KEEP it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.67.58.125 (talk • contribs) .

Just because a site exists does not make it acceptable for wikipedia. It has to be notable aswell. Ydam 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It should stay... the article tells the history of a [very] small, unique business! Do we see anywhere "buy here!!" Absolutly NOT! If you are so adamant about pressing the issue that it has an advertising nature, why don't you just edit the page to what you consider acceptable? Keep it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.67.58.125 (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 delete, previously deleted material Joelito (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen[edit]

I thought that this is a case that is interesting, that it might be worthy of creating a separate page demonstrating how to create circular notability by use of wiki. Maybe there is already such a page on wiki? Initially I just thought simply to put it up for speed deletion, but as I thought about it, this may actually be worth using as a demonstration of how quickly wiki can create circular notability.

Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen was deleted on Marts 19, 2005 as vanity; see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen. The same article was recreated as Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen on Marts 25, 2005. For a little over a year few has paid attention to the article, so it has just quietly been living on wiki for over a year. However you go to google today and search for “Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen” you get around 400 hits. Upon examining these hits you quickly realize that 95-99% of all these links take their information from this wiki page or the 1979 page that has a link and a little text on it.

For the un-observing reading “Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen” now appear to, at least to a little degree, to be a notably person, as there surely are google links for him. But these google links exists only because he has been living on wiki for a year now, e.g. circular notability.

Is that not really an interesting phenomenon to document? As said maybe there is already such a page on wiki?

Anyway delete as per decision established in previous article name “Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen” Twthmoses 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're right, if I saw this now without the above info, I'd have thought that being around that long, it must have been notable. I guess some things just fall through the cracks though - if this page was made now, it'd be marked with {db-band} for sure. Other than an interesting phenominon, like you say, I don't see any reason to keep it though. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree completly on the circular notability part, It's always been my biggest fear with wikipedia that one day it stops documenting facts and start making them. We must all be ever vigilant with cases like this simply for the way so many people turn to us for facts first and the way everything gets copied accross the globe from us so quickly and easily Ydam 10:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and don't forget the link in the 1979 list Ydam 10:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete repost of deleted material under a new name. Tagged with {{db-repost}}. Kimchi.sg 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, but that takes all the fun out of this bizarre loop through space and time :P -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:38, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellen Ingram Plummer[edit]

This person doesn't seem to have any claim to notability over then being married to someone who does and being the mother of another. Most of the ghits I found were wiki mirros of this article Ydam 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not quite notable. DarthVad e r 11:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 15:48, 2 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. A note to those who wanted to keep this article, removing other users comments and behaving disruptively has not helped your case. --Ezeu 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Groome[edit]

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

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

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

Claims of notability but they don't stand up. Google search returns a grand total of 3 hits, none of which give any evidence of notability. Tagged for speedy at first but that was removed as I suppose he is claiming notability - although implausibly. Prod tag also removed. Spondoolicks 10:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, Although there is a humerous aspect to this page, there is also proper claims for its existance (1) the number of hits the video has received on google video - 117,000 results can be found for Brain and the McSheffreys (2) the wide popularity of the video, not just in England but Holland and Spain etc (3) To highlight the point everyone has their '15 minutes' of fame! - I can see how this page is fancruft but If you cannot see this atleast put the page up for BJAODN User: krispy1234

DO NOT DELETE!!! Olly Grome is no mere vanity hog he is a great young man, he has completely altered Bromley and south london with his charity work, his videos are simply stunning expressions of modern art. I am some what bais as he saved my son's life he was drowning following a freak Swan peddle boat incident to delete him would be a crime and an offence to my young son existantance!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.227.198 (talk • contribs)

noteI originally deleted this post because it was not exactly helping! Not to be taken seriously Ollywozere

Note Above "vote" deleted by User:Ollywozere in this edit. Restored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hopefully before the rest of the sockpuppet army gets here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-If you check the IP addresses you will see that these are not infact sockpuppets— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispy1234 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete WP:NN and they used the word wacky. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn bio- fails WP:BIO WP:V and is not funny enough for BJAODN - Peripitus 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete none notable.--Andeh 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Google search for Brian and the McSheffreys bring about over 1000 results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollywozere (talk • contribs)

Important Note The following comments were all deleted by an anonymous user. Please do not do this again. This AfD is rapidly descending into ridiculous vandalism, with all hope of debate out of the window if people are just going to go around deleting others' comments. Can we Speedy this completely NN and Vanity-based article as quickly as possible, please? Seb Patrick 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, The humorous aspect of this page is indeed backed up by the nuber of google video hits. As i understand it, he is somewhat of a 'local' celebrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffJeffdyJeff (talk • contribs)
Delete, vanity article Jll 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as fast as possible. Another classic example of complete overstatement of own importance. If only there was a WP:NO-ONE CARES or something to point to... Seb Patrick 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE, Although there is a humerous aspect to this page, there is also proper claims for its existance (1) the number of hits the video has received on google video (2) the wide popularity of the video, not just in England but Holland and Spain etc (3) To highlight the point everyone has their '15 minutes' of fame! - I can see how this page is fancruft but If you cannot see this atleast put the page up for BJAODN

- Comment Please cut it out. We can read a message posted one time, we don't need it spammed multiple times. Article fails WP:NN Dominick ^(TALK) 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Someone has been deleting defence of this article. Somewhat unfair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollywozere (talk • contribs)
Delete for obvious reasons, then salt the earth. Fan1967 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Seems fair enough. Seen the videos around. Lots of results on Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollywozere (talk • contribs) , who originally forged the signature of JeffJeffdyJeff . - Fan1967 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. The lack of correct AFD terminology is helping to identify the sock/meat puppets here aswell Ydam 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that the different ID's are editing each other's posts and signing each other's names. Kind of makes it clear there's actually only one or two. Fan1967 14:32, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Hockey[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, vanity page written in the first person in parts. See also AFD:Michael Westendorf. I suggest Delete. Colon el Tom 11:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; thanks, Colonel, I'm awake now. (grins) RGTraynor 13:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief, "Organized Non-Entity"? The creator of the article actually calls it that? Delete. --Calton | Talk 12:37, 3 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 Speedily deleted by Jni as "communication attempt". DarthVad e r 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colvin Taluqadar's College, Lucknow[edit]

Not an article at all. Probably created by a new editor as a sort of experimentation. In the format of a letter! Regards. Dwaipayan (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attempt to communicate. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per above. PJM 12:28, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Roosters 1911 Season[edit]

As per previous decision. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sport almanac material - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT - Peripitus 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep - Athenaeum is correct - I'd never viewed that section before in relation to sporting results but if the club stays here then this stays here - Peripitus 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that wikipedia ends up storing the results of every professional sporting event ever? Because that's the natural spin-off. If the 1911 Sydney Rooster get a full listing, then we need the 154+ results of every major league baseball teams for every year since 1880, every division 1 soccer game for 100 years in at least six major countries, every NFL/NBA/NHL game ever played, every top flight rugby league or rugby union result... Furthermore, who the hell is going to put them in? You? Me? This keen Sydney Roosters fan? Is he even going to do the other ARL teams? -- GWO
Keep Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material. Athenaeum 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe move to Eastern Suburbs 1911 Season. Also, what's with the use of the current logo? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a sports almanac. Isn't there as site like http://baseball-reference.com where this can go? -- GWO
- The great thing about Wikipedia is that it should no longer be necessary to wonder what specialised site one might have to visit to find a piece of information, as all subjects can now be covered here. Piccadilly 08:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athenaeum's reasoning. Of course, this assumes that the Sydney Roosters are notable enough. I know nothing about Australian Rugby leagues, so feel free to let me know if my assumption is incorrect. ScottW 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Athenaeum although we need a policy for Foo team season. I voted delete for a similar Afd a few days ago. The Sydney Roosters are a notable Australian rugby league playing in the National Rugby League. In those days, they were called Eastern Suburbs so this article should be renamed in my view. It would also be better if it was an article covering the Sydney rugby league competition in that year as a whole. The logo appears anachronistic as well. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page and I believe it is an extensive resourceful piece of information, to answer a few questions:
1. I named it Sydney Roosters 1911 Season as many people associate the club with that name and Eastern Suburbs is not a name that is recognisable by today's generation. The purpose is that a search of the Sydney Roosters is more likely than Eastern Suburbs and will show the necessary information, also I have noted that the club was named Eastern Suburbs within the article. However if the decision was made to change it Eastern Suburbs 1911 Season I would have no objection.

2. The logo is used as I consider this page moreso an archive to the Sydney Roosters main page. In the effort to uniform all archives, I have opted for the current logo so that is more recognisable by the reader. I was also planning of including the old logo in the near future.

There will be more additions to come making it a resourceful database, events including the playing squad and their point statistics as well as including season highlights. The information justifies its existence as well as the promise of more updates. Sbryce858 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as reposting of previously deleted content.--cj | talk 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That can't apply forever regardless of the current consensus. Piccadilly 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate and useful. Piccadilly 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Athenaeum. Sandstein 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Sydney_Roosters_Season_articles concerning some analoguous articles. I've proposed relisting them here for the sake of a coherent decision. Sandstein 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT.--Peta 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just realised I haven't voted myself. Wikipedia may be an almanac, but there has to be a limit. Listing every result, for every single season is not encyclopedic. The Season Standings section in the main Sydney Roosters article is sufficient. The Club history section could be added to, or made a seperate article giving a rundown of any notable seasons. Either that or, as previously proposed, there could be an article for each NRL season, eg 1911 National Rugby League season. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This article should have been deleted according to previous discussion. As said previously, these results might be acceptable at 1911 NSWRL season or something like that, but there's no need for a page for each team. JPD (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed as it seems things like this will be kept. I still think this information would be better in one article for the whole season, but if we are going to have these articles for 2006, we can have them for 1911. The anachronistic names and logos still need to be fixed. JPD (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also that the page Athenaeum cites does not say that Wikipedia is an alamanac. It says that articles include information that is encyclopedic or almanac-like (meaning charts, tables, lists, etc.) It does not try to say anything about what should be deleted or not, simply what is an "article", rather than some other sort of page. JPD (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is highly desirable to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of sport on the net and no one else is going to create one. Hawkestone 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Rebecca 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ubercruft. Grue 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who would have thought a few years ago that Wikipedia would ever have over a million articles. We did that, so let's keep going and getting better and more detailed. Merchbow 20:49, 6 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 recreation of deleted content. Royboy crashfan 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Face Man[edit]

No reliable references supplied or found. Minor flash animation that has already been through one AFD and was deleted. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Back again after having been deleted eight times already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, *eight* times. Woah... my mistake I thought it had only been up once before. I put it up for speedy deletion as a db-repost first and it was rejected. - Motor (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Up up and away to Speedy Delete and Protect per nom Dominick ^(TALK) 13:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous VfD for this article. DarthVad e r 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Starblind. PJM 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be deleted for being improperly recreated after previous deletion, but... doesn't the fact that this is produced by the well-known and notable creator of Salad Fingers, David Firth, (384,000 google hits) make it notable? Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say so, but it does make it a reasonable merge/redirect target if anyone feels very strongly that this information belongs in that article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Firth article (and protect the redir) per Aguerriero. Salad Fingers appears to be referenced in other media, whereas BFM hasn't. Current version of BFM tagged with {{db-repost}}. Kimchi.sg 15:30, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media whore[edit]

Delete Article was AfDed in 2005. Nothing has been done with this dicdef and inherently PoV article. Non encyclopediac. The list of Media Whores doemonstrates the lack of WP:V this subject contains. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. PJM 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably something useful to be said about Media Whore as a term in general; although WP is, of course, not a slang dictionary, it's worth remarking upon as part of the current social and cultural make-up. Unfortunately, this article as it stands is complete tosh - it's an arbitrary list of celebrities whom the editor doesn't like, and it lacks any sort of NPOV or verifiability. Delete, until someone can bring it back in worthwhile form, if at all. Seb Patrick 13:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can be arsed to make a sensible entry about the concept (personal favourite example would be Kevin Warwick, but that'd just be pushing my WP:POV). --Coroebus 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That'll please the press in Belgium. -- GWO
Keep. The concept has been used frequently lately and I think the concept deserves an article. The solution to problems with POV is editing, not deletion.

Kostja 03:41, 8 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. TheProject 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.Fegen/LOM[edit]

Article reads like an advertisement, doesn't seem notable, and it's somewhat fishy that the creator's name is also in the article. Was originally, proposed for deletion, doesn't seem like an encylopedic entry. Delete Yanksox 13:52, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Book Database[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable website trying to piggyback on the more notable The Internet Book Database of Fiction, even cross linked from the latter, and even IMDb to insinuate a connection. Searching google like this yields 36 hits. Alexa ranks them at 6,082,234. – Ezeu 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main page of the ibookdb site says it is new and the article says it is currently beta testing. Maybe we should let the internet book database article stand and delete the cross link from The Internet Book Database of Fiction?? I was the one who put in the cross link because it is a similar site. And Alexa rankings have no meaning whatsoever.

Maybe cross link IBDOF and IBList from iBookDB Also? Heavenhelllord 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New website in beta test = not notable yet, fails WP:WEB. We don't list websites that intend to become notable, only ones which already are. Come back when it's established. Fan1967 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I don't think linking from IMDB Insinuates any kind of connection between IMDB and this site other than that they have a similar purpose - one is for movies and one is for books. Maybe google PR is a better measure than Alexa rank and I checked ibookdb home page has PR3, nowhere near ibdof with PR 5, but ibookdb is new. I was browsing around the ibookdb beta site and I found it to be much more useful than ibdof as far as book information goes. Celmeyi 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note First edit from new user. Fan1967 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't give an unbiased opinionI am the creator of the Internet Book Database and the site is based on my Book Database here - http://www.parchayi.net/books - This site has a higher Alexa ranking than ibdof, however all links I added to it were deleted from wikipedia in favor of ibdof/iblist because I have affiliate links (well so do ibdof and iblist). I am flattered that somebody made a page for ibookdb at wikipedia, however feel free to delete it until iBookDB goes out of beta and is better established. If you are looking to add a better established site, then feel free to add a page on the parchayi.net book database. I am not going to do it myself because, well, it is going to be deleted anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgd2z (talk • contribs) 15:06 (UTC), 2 June 2006 .
Delete, not yet notable. Vizjim 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above KleenupKrew 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Domain Name: IBOOKDB.NET \n Created on: 22-Feb-06" Brand new pretty much. Owner of website admits they think its not really notable enough to be in wikipedia yet anyways. Best of luck in getting a successful website. Kevin_b_er 06:27, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meep[edit]

Poor quality urban dictionary entry, followed mostly by unreferenced nonsense (or links to blogs/personal sites). - Motor (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be an article in there somewhere, but this isn't it. The "character" section is clear self-promotion describing a NN fictional creature, the links are mostly, as noted, to blogs/personal sites, it really doesn't seem to have a great deal of relevance; and if you take out all the stuff that's wrong with it, you're left with little more than a dictionary definition. Would have to say delete unless something seriously useful can be done with it. Seb Patrick 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Road Runner cartoons. -- GWO
Redirect to Dr. Bunsen Honeydew or delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this page had a previous AfD, though I can't seem to find it. In any case, it was once merged with beep because it was not considered to be enough of an article to stand on it's own, but consensus was that it should me merged with other onomatopoeic sounds. (Note that this was before the article had any references - reliable or not.) Then, for some reason unknown to me, it became its own article again. (I will try to find links for this history, later when I have more time.) In any case, I'll vote later when I evaluate whether I could fix this article up with serious effort, but I'm leaning towards keep. (Perhaps a {{cleanup-verify}} tag would be better for now.) Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (History). Okay, so so there was in fact no previous AfD, but there was a short discussion about deletion on Talk:Meep. The consensus was to merge Meep with Beep, which was done on January 21, 2006. (Note that at this time, the article had no references, reliable or not.) Beep was then moved to Beep (sound) on February 3, 2006, and Beep became a disambig page. On March 26, 2006, and anon thought the redirect to a disambig page was page blanking vandalism, and reverted it. However, Meep remained on Beep (sound), in addition to having its own article. Thus, there are now too versions of Meep - one on Meep and one on Beep (sound). Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the above, I vote ~~strong remerge~~ with Beep (sound). I agree with the original consensus to merge with Beep (which is now Beep (sound)), but I believe the present revision of Meep is mostly better than the one on Beep (sound). Meep would then redirect to Beep (sound). However, it still needs considerable cleanup, but I believe this can be done. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to strong keep. Some of the material isn't appropriate for Beep (sound). Salvage anything worth keeping from the "meep" section in Beep (sound), and delete that section. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, regarding the history talked about above: Meep is a complete mess... which was then dumped (rather than merged) into Beep (sound). As a result, there are two dire articles rather than one. The Meep stuff that was dumped into the article Beep (sound) needs to be removed (unless we think that Wittgenstein's last words really are rumoured to be "Meep Meep"), and the Meep article deleted, since there doesn't seem to be a single encylopedic entry in it. - Motor (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific about what is still a "mess" about it? It now has several relatively reliable sources (an academic paper, a truck-fixing article, a couple episode transcripts, a couple links to official sites). Some of the personal sites, at least, are the site where the actual "meep" is located. Yes, there are still some things in there that could use more reliable sources. The article has also been reorganized. (As for the meep section in Beep (sound), I have made no effort to clean that up. Some of the material in Beep (sound) was deleted from Meep due to being wholly unreferencable, such as the Wittgenstein rumor.) Also, the Beep (sound) article wasn't very good without the stuff from Meep... it only has one reference. Why not try to put specific cleanup tags on the top, and provide some specific criticism? (Not that it should be deleted, but a {{cleanup-verify}} tag could attract attention from editors willing to try to help.) In any case, it's far from being one of Wikipedia's best articles, but I think it's good enough to be included, with the potential to become better over time. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, specific criticism is exactly what I provided in the nom. The article is not remotely encylopedic and is, at best, a collection of indiscriminately googled up mentions of the word "Meep". You might try moving it to wiktionary and see how they react. Your one "academic" PDF comes from a personal website and is merely routed via google scholar, the rest are blogs/forums/websites that have been formatted according to wikipedia guidelines and a "Fantasy creature" section that is WP:BJAODN material. As for the schools point below: that is not an argument not to delete this article. You need to argue about those articles elsewhere. - Motor (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried to make it less of an indiscriminate collection of information by reorganizing it. Do you have further suggestions on how to make it less of an indiscriminate collection? I'll look into the reliability of that PDF and see if there's anything else to use, but it will take time. (For the record, the references were found with google, but I have no idea how the information was found in the first place.) The references are at least better than they were when the AfD started, and I think the article has the potential to improve. Also note Wikipedian policy regarding self-pulished sources in article about themselves. I believe Denni was referring to past precedence. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes... as I said, Delete it since it is unsalvagable as an encyclopedia article, and large chunks of it are WP:BJAODN. I think you should re-read WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, since it has no relevance here. - Motor (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it can be made not to be an indiscriminate collection of information (it is already less of one than it was a few days ago). The trick is doing that without crossing over into original research, but a skilled editor could do it, given time. I believe that section of WP:RS does have relevance to some of the references in the article. In other words, I agree that the article is bad, but not that bad, and I believe it has potential. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per in camera argument. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that we keep school articles which are way less well researched than this... D e nni ☯ 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to roadrunner cartoon article Bwithh 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-researched entry. Grue 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than a dictionary definition, well presented and researched. Silensor 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meep. Margana 14:31, 7 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 all. Mailer Diablo 08:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Blonde, Back to blonde (redirect), Swim West[edit]

Joint nom for band and LP. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. One self-released album. kingboyk 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all DJ Clayworth 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 23:09, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows throng[edit]

Appears to be a card-based RPG made up in 7th grade. No trace of this on Google, the two relevant links being to WP mirrors. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Docether 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bhadani 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well-nominated. Ifnord 13:57, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick's Law[edit]

Never heard of this, it's unsourced, and Google doesn't come up with anything. Seems made up. TomTheHand 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. -- GWO
- This google cache page suggests it was invented by someone known as djw84co. And guess who created this article? http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PwmOXn94KBYJ:www.djw84.com/archives/2005/02/f_law.php+djw84co+fred&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 -- GWO
Delete per Gareth Owen. ~ PseudoSudo 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GWO... hey, you aren't going to tell us who created this article? That is breaking Fredrick's Law!--Isotope23 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sighs at user Djw84co.--Andeh 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. SM247 21:32, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman's law[edit]

Never heard of this. Google doesn't come up with anything. Seems like vanity to me, created by the person who coined the "law." TomTheHand 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails Google test. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an attempt of a spinoff on Godwin's Law. ~ PseudoSudo 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PseudoSudo.--Isotope23 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the Nazis would (oops). SM247 21:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is completely non-notable and probably vanity. Falcon 23:30, 7 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. Fl owerparty☀ 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa[edit]

Porn star is not notable by any present criteria. Has neither won awards in her field nor have demonstrated any other noteworthy attributes that would make this article worthy of inclusion. Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM
Keep, --Haham hanuka 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 50 films [20]. --JJay 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those "50 films" are all videos, says IMDB -- or maybe they showed Pirate Fetish Machine: Secret Delights of Baroness Kinky at Cannes? --Calton | Talk 01:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly possible since porn in all its permutations is a big part of MIPCOM held every year at...Cannes. --JJay 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - By "Cannes", I am, of course, referring to the Cannes Film Festival, which MIPCOM (movie/TV trade show) is not -- any more so than the Association of Pakistanian Physicians of North America is the same as the American Seed Trade Association merely because they're both holding conventions in the same place at the same time (early July at the Chicago Hyatt Hotel). But I suspect you knew that already, but was hoping no one else would. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strangely enough, that pretentious, annual, champagne-charged Cote d'Azur conclave, a stomping ground for film fetishists and their fawning, Godard-spouting followers, Le Festival de Cannes, has not yet been included in the Porn Bio essay criteria...So I guess what I already suspected (but naturally I wanted to assume good faith by striving to find a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of relevance in your remark) is that your original question was utterly extraneous to judging the porn industry and the noteworthy attributes of its video-prancing participants. --JJay 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another porn "star". --Calton | Talk 01:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. based on WP:PORN BIO criteria. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 50 "films"? Gosh, I bet it took a whole week to shoot them. D e nni ☯ 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Grue 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 50 films is nothing by porn standards, especially not direct-to-video fapfuel like "Private Superfuckers 10: Nonstopsex" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rain[edit]

Delete. Does not meet any criteria on WP:PORN BIO. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ❝Sverdrup❞ 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep famous porn star. --Haham hanuka 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks pretty successful [21]. --JJay 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to have read WP:PORN BIO. One of the standards are "Performer has been in around or over 100 movies.". 47 is below our level. ❝Sverdrup❞ 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I did. I stopped when I got to the word "proposed". It is neither a guideline or policy and was created by a small handful of users in the last five weeks. It thus has zero influence on my thinking. My standard is 10-20 flicks. I think that is more than sufficient to generate substantial interest that should be represented here through encyclopedic coverage of this important industry. --JJay 14:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted. On the other hand, many of the criteria in that proposal have already been created from previous AFDs. So the underlining consensus exists, despite your view. And given these mini litmus tests for the proposed guidelines, it seems to be fairly effective thus far. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mildly successful, desperately needs expanding.--Andeh 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the slightest sign of notability, even within her industry. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. based on WP:PORN BIO criteria. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't believe we have a WP:PORN BIO - Hahnch e n 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Grue 14:05, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ferrari[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet WP:PORN BIO criteria. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ❝Sverdrup❞ 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Haham hanuka 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of movies --JJay 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those "movies" are all videos, cranked out on a daily basis. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another porn "star". --Calton | Talk 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. based on WP:PORN BIO criteria. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another dime-a-dozen porn "actress" who will never see the other side of the green door. D e nni ☯ 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iMDB. Grue 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to expand. Silensor 07:06, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 08:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Park hill football club[edit]

Much as we support sporting achievement this is essentially a local amateur football club of which there are many hundreds if not thousands in the UK alone. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable , vanity page? KsprayDad 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the importance of this club any less important than any of the other Football clubs on this site? There are many "non-notable" articles (to some) on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony beck (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn Sunday League team. In answer to Anthony Beck, from previous AfD discussions and discussions on WikiProject Football the consensus has generally been to keep an article about any English football club playing at a level high enough to enter the FA Vase, and delete those lower down. Oldelpaso 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Givern 09:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Minfo 23:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andymarczak 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd like there to be a day where every sports club has an article on here, but since we draw the line somewhere, it has to go. SLUMGUM yap stalk 21:40, 7 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 for deletion or merge. -Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtisden Green[edit]

importance?...lists this as close to another area which itself isn't in Wiki. KsprayDad 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could perhaps be expanded into a reasonable article. Goudhurst is the other area mentioned. This has an old Church and is larger. It deserves an article and then perhaps Curtisden Green information could be added there. --Bduke 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a Merge with Goudhurst, but is there anything worth merging ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent for cities: "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." If merged, I'd suppose you could reference Bethany School.--Chaser T 09:02, 10 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) 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sporting events in 2004 by audience number[edit]

Article is incomplete, has a misleading title, and serves no useful purpose. It is also the only article of its type and the article's discussion page contains a debate about its usefulness. BoojiBoy 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The title's rubbish, and it needs context of other years, but its actually quite interesting. -- GWO
Keep. Good list of useful info for sports fans. Would like to see this for every year. --JJay 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of information, could mean anything and is not limited by jurisdiction or status, but only by events in that particular year; is a footy match in western Sydney valid (whether it is an NRL match or a school game) if it is independently verifiable? SM247 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay (though I doubt anyone's going to pay registration fees to create these articles). How would you suggest retitling, GWO? I actually think it's fine. --Chaser T 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Broadcasting of sports events where this could actually be meaningful in the context of a real article. Oh, and I definitively don't want to see this for every year, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Edit: Just clarifying: numbers from other years are ok for as long as they illustrate something such as the popularity of sport events. Having tables of this for every year, however, is just cruft with no purpose whatsoever). Equendil Talk 06:06, 11 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. Mailer Diablo 08:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British companies[edit]

To be complete this list would need to have at least 1.6 million entries[22]. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

All British companies with articles in Wikipedia are already in listed in the category Companies of the United Kingdom and/or its subcategories.

The largest 350 companies in Britain are already listed in the articles FTSE 100 Index and FTSE 250 Index.

There seems to be no additional purpose for this article. THJames 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list will never be complete. No private companies appear to be listed, and these are by far the majority. Stephen B Streater 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this isn't really needed. --Scot ^t 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent nomination, which seems to cover all possible objections. — Haeleth Talk 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not necessary. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resources such as Companies House Online or FAME make this list redundant. Even if it could be completed, of what value would such a page be to a researcher? (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category "Companies of the United Kingdom" per aeropagitica's excellent argument. However, that being unlikely, as Categories seem to be the holy grail in Wiki at the moment, Keep this as a perfectly valid list. Jcuk 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category would make more sense (per above). Captainj 23:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful list although I suspect I have lost this one. Capitalistroadster 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I give up: how IS a list with one-and-a-half million entries useful? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list doesn't offer any real information not already handled by the category. If someone consider it important, an additional category for the former companies would be a better choice. Deleteme42 12:35, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holley Nethercote Commercial Lawyers[edit]

Australian law firm - no evidence of notability

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator of the article, I've now expounded on the notable feature of the entity - its compliance business model. I've also included references to Holley Nethercote from publications of external organisations. This is evidence of notability, as set out in item 1 of the Wiki guidelines.Visitpaul 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Dlyons493 Talk 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. As far as I can tell, there are only two external-linked items in the article that actually mention Holley Nethercote (the "Money Management" and "Good Returns" links). The article in Money Management features a single quote from one of the firm's partners, giving his opinion on another company's legal troubles, with no further mention of Holley Nethercote. The article does not feature or concentrate on Holley Nethercote itself, and is not evidence of notability. The second article, from Good Returns, is a "special report" on that site -- however, Good Returns is an online-only "magazine" started in 1996. I'm not sure what this means in terms of its influence -- perhaps someone else could illuminate me here. Certainly, it's not on the level of, say, Fortune. In summary, these two links do not make Holley Nethercote's notability obvious to me. Unless more evidence can be supplied, this corporation remains non-notable. Best, Docether 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This firm is nowhere near notable enough. Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers profile is the sort of notability we're looking for to sustain an article about a particular Australian law firm. SM247 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find one reference to this lawfirm in an Australian media database - an article in the Australian of December 1, 2004 referring to financial planning. They appear not to have been involved in any notable cases or reached a critical mass to make them notable according to our guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn law firm. - Longhair 02:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable law firm. --Roisterer 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable law firm. Rebecca 09:30, 6 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) 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poweriser[edit]

The gadget that is the subject of this article was invented in 2004. See related AfDs for PowerBocking and Bocking, both by the same company, apparently. TheProject 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article should stay, but should be rewritten to be less ad-like in tone. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten If the article is not in a better shape at the end of this AfD discussion, it should be deleted. Deleteme42 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. —Keenan Pepper 22:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge There is a powerbocking community that has three different companies that supply the poweriser type ... equipment, this spans more than one company or a vanity post. Bock was something like the patent holder's name I believe. Sethwoodworth 01:04, 7 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 merged to Poweriser. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBocking[edit]

198 Google hits. Possibly vanity. See related AfDs Poweriser and Bocking, both by the same company, apparently. TheProject 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with poweriser. This doesn't warrant its own article, but could be used to beef up the poweriser one somewhat. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 20:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per stubblyhead. —Keenan Pepper 22:47, 4 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 merged to Poweriser. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bocking[edit]

Most Google hits have to do with Bocking as a name, not as an action. Marked as transwiki to Wiktionary, but the only definition I can find in any dictionary has to do with fabrics. See related AfDs for PowerBocking and Poweriser, both by the same company, apparently. TheProject 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with poweriser. This doesn't warrant its own article, but could be used to beef up the poweriser one somewhat. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per stubblyhead. —Keenan Pepper 22:48, 4 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matías A. Oyarzábal Fuchs[edit]

NN musician, Google search turns out no results other than Wikipedia. Article was written by Mmatias, possible vanity page? Wildthing61476 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 17:11, 2 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. I moved Paul Shannon (Pittsburgh) to the vacant Paul Shannon title, if you're wondering why the link is blue. Fl owerparty☀ 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shannon[edit]

this author is not very notable, google has few if any references and most of his books are out of print. Seems to be a vanity article Reid A. 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aboveHomey 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming (as seems reasonable from the article content) that he's the Paul Shannon who wrote or co-wrote Coal and Minerals (Rail Freight S.), Yorkshire: The West Riding (British Railways Past & Present S.), Class 37 (Rail Portfolios S.) and umpteen more books in-print and available from Amazon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Change to delete per [User:Squamate]]'s more thorough research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a P.D. Shannon who teaches at the school, and there is an author Paul Shannon. I checked online and could not find a connection. Also, this article has been vandalized several times from anonymous IP addresses, many the same, and much of the vandalism consisted of potentially libelous or defamatory statements. Squamate 02:54, 6 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 recreation of vanity page. Royboy crashfan 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Karpay[edit]

Delete: He has yet to establish notability. I wish him all the success in the world. When he becomes a more notable cello player, we can write another article for him. Until then, he should be considered not notable. --Asbl 16:18, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCharity.org.uk[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable web host. Computerjoe 's talk 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. -- Paleorthid 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't speedy per WP:WEB. Computerjoe 's talk 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 22:56, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vectoid[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball, especially for non-notable, non-existent sci-fi works. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Interestingly, can't find any article about the series itself -- has it been deleted already as well? Best, Docether 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete --Jim Henry 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball, possibly wishful thinking or hoax. Company named doesn't seem to exist (though there is an industrial pump company named Dynamatic Technologies that does use the abbreviation of DYNAMATECH). Fan1967 18:45, 2 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. Fl owerparty☀ 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reid Boxing Scandal[edit]

The article's subject matter is already discussed, in better form, under Harry Reid. --Soultaco 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Scandal is clearly as worthly of separate mention as any in Wikipedia (ex. SunCruz Casino scandal) Deletion would be a clear indication of Wikipedia's leftward bias. --138.162.0.41 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect --blue520 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom KleenupKrew 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even correct info. Vegaswikian 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't even allege a violation of law (in fact, there was none; Reid, as are other Senators, is free to accept anything he wants from a government agency, which the Nevada Athletic Commission is). John Broughton 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No violations of law are alleged, nor is there even an alleged violation of the Senate ethical rules. There has not even been an accusation to date from a political opponent. This is not a scandal by any stretch of John Solomon's imagination. In the Sun Cruz matter we have a murder, five criminal charges, two guilty pleas, and a current criminal trial. The only reason that Sun Cruz is not the major political scandal of the day is that Abramoff is at the center of two much bigger scandals and then there is Cunningham, Ward, Wade et al and the Watergate prostitutes... --Gorgonzilla 03:36, 8 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. I'm relying on the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cesar_Davila_Gavilanes; the content of that deleted article and this article are extremely similar. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Father Cesar Davila Gavilanes[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, only a handful of Google hits (using various forms of his name). Another article, Cesar Davila Gavilanes, was deleted back in February for lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cesar_Davila_Gavilanes cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:42, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heat retentive plates[edit]

Also see Microwaveable heat storage device, which is nominated for deletion as well

Ill titled article and unencyclopedic content about an obscure product in a prototype stage Equendil Talk 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. Dr Zak 21:44, 2 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. There's enough consensus for a keep in this AfD, but since there were only three registered "votes", I have no prejudice against a re-AfD in the future if this article doesn't get expanded. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Zinchuk[edit]

Can't find anything on this person other than social websites and other open-entry user-contributed sites, although a CD appears on CD Universe [23] which doesn't appear to be that open. I am fully aware of the potential for ignorance of regional notability, so this AFD is a partial attempt to invite evidence of familiarity. Abstain - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding an article with a foriegn artist can be EXTREMLY difficult (I tried it with Lucio Battisti), I think we need to Keep a close eye on this article and NPOV the first sentence. Also, more information needs to be collected. Yanksox 04:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten Sounds like an advertisement. If it's not in a good shape at the end of this AfD discussion, it should be deleted. Deleteme42 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I called various people that I knew and looked up a translation for the site. Also, I am very tired, but I revamped the page. It's a little better. Yanksox 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems notable for his genre. -Drdisque 22:10, 11 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 it's cheep and easy. 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Transmorph[edit]

Transmorph is a stubby article about a rare term for transformation or shapeshifting. It has no notable content that isn't in Shapeshifting, it's a rare term (less than 1000 Ghits, many of them for a computer program of that name), and the article has no incoming links. I would just make it a redirect to shapeshifting except for this last fact (nothing links to it). --Jim Henry 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's just an alternate term for the same thing, which makes it redundant and pointless in an encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, unencyclopedic term. KleenupKrew 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Consumed Crustacean. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 11 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tang Minority Squad[edit]

STRONG Delete. Normally, I wouldn't even consider AfDing something like this, but according to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, contested vanity pages are not eligable for speedying. Not to mention that this fellow is likely going to repeatedly remove the tag no matter what I do. The reasons for deletion should be obvious: it's a little club with three people in it and not a trace notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not speedy deletion? Oh well, I guess the slow afd deletion should work. Consumed Crustacean, do remember to revert the author if they try to remove the afd tag. J.J.Sagnella 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, considering how stupid this is, I've remarked it for Speedy. Really, there's no reasonable controversy here. I go from overly happy on the speedy tags to not being liberal enough with them. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nominator --Jim Henry 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unsourced/fake not notable.--Andeh 18:57, 2 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. Article was not rewritten in the course of this AfD, therefore the consensus is unaminous to delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Balls Bearings[edit]

It's a real product, but it's not an especially notable one (four Google hits) Rklawton 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if Rewritten - the article is flat wrong (ABEC does not produce bearings themselves - the "ABEC 5" that appears on the box refers to the tolerances). I get a lot more than 5 hits: [24] They're skateboard bearings. They might be notable, if someone can produce some non-trivial articles about them. — AKADriver ☎ 19:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given how you phrased the search, most of the Google hits have no relation to the product article. This search provides more accurate results: [25] (and demonstrates more notability than I originally found). Rklawton 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither is notability proven nor is the article in a shape worth being kept. Deleteme42 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. There might be an article in some skateboard magazine somewhere, but as of now it miserably fails WP:CORP's guidelines for products.--Chaser T 09:19, 10 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. Mailer Diablo 08:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Kypchak language[edit]

This article doesn't cite sources which seem relevant, and doesn't give any examples. I found no mentions of "New Kypchak language" except Wikipedia clones.

Delete. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kala ni ^[talk] 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good job catching this, the page is a well-designed hoax/fantasy, here since 2003. Grand master ka 03:57, 4 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 Disambig. This disambig page will have two entries in the beginning. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peculier[edit]

This article refers to Royal Peculiars, which already contains a full discussion and conveys the standard terminology and spelling Fishhead64 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. "Old Peculier" beer is quite popular and someone might just type the word in the seatch box. Dr Zak 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation page: Royal Peciuliar and Theakston Brewery#Old Peculier. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 08:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kypchakia[edit]

Similar reason to this of New Kypchak language - it seems like someone's fantasy about Turkic unity. I found no relevant sources. Failed Google test. Of the two external links one is dead and the other is a Yahoo group. Amir E. Aharoni 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, though there is a historical region called the "Kypchak Steppe" (Dašt-i Qipčaq) which already has a well-sourced article at Cumania. — AKADriver ☎ 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - both this and New Kypchak language were created by the same IP, thought that would be worth noting. Kala ni ^[talk] 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good job catching this, the page is a well-designed hoax/fantasy, here since 2003. Grand master ka 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Eluchil404 00:53, 5 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, even after discounting "votes" by new and anonymous users. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth[edit]

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

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

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

Already been through an AFD here back in early 2005, and the result was to redirect to ~~Salad Days~~ Salad Fingers. The article was unredirected and filled out with information and references to blogs and forum posts. I can't find anything in it that is actually encyclopedic. I keep hearing people say he's notable (on AFDs for articles about minor flash animations), but if he is... there must be some source for solid reliable information to fill out a biography article... or this should (at least) just be redirected to ~~Salad Days~~ Salad Fingers again. - Motor (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the result is to redirect, it should be to Salad Fingers, his most (?) famous creation. (This is not my vote.) --Billpg 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Merge with Salad Fingers. He keeps a list of press mentions on his website here, and while that's more than a lot of our AfD subjects can say for themselves, it's a short list indeed and they're all pretty obscure/minor mentions. There's only 5 of them, and probably the most major one is a mention in "FHM Estonia", which I guess is the Estionian edition of FHM. Getting there, but not notable enough at the moment, IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew Lenahan; but the Salad Fingers article already seems to contain everything there is to say about the chap, so it's more a case of redirect really... — Haeleth Talk 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (A) I assume the nominator means Salad Fingers and (b) the fact that all these pages are being created by people and have sopme detail in them, and that his cartoons seem to be a memetic phenomenon suggests to me that this more than just a mere vanity page, although it needs more work. SM247 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -- yeah, I've been typing Salad Fingers in messages beforehand, and for some reason I brainfaded into using Salad Days for this nom. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is "Salad Fingers" the reason for his notability? Yes. Does he meets WP:BIO? Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, WP:MEME... "People associated with memes: If a person is only notable for their meme, then any information related to them should be at that meme's page. If that person is notable under WP:BIO, they can also have their own article." Or the short and sweet version: It is a meme, barely. Does the creator meet WP:BIO, no. - Motor (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per badlydrawnjeff. DarthVad e r 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could someone please explain why this meets WP:BIO? I've been googling, and get this flash animator, stats professors and an actor. Apart from a single mention in FHM Estonia (noted earlier) relating to Firth (the flash animator), that appears to be it for reliable information. Right now we seem to have an article full of opinions from "Jeffy's ultrablog" and web forum posts. - Motor (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If Salsd Fingers is notable, how can the person that created it not be? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the Salad Fingers article should have this "Created by David Firth of Doncaster", which appears to include every single bit of reliable information available on him. That's his level of notability. - Motor (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Yanksox. Jono 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe just leave in what actually is reliable. there's plenty on there that's obviously uncorroborated speculation and which could reasonably be removed." - guy with no grasp of Wikipedia formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.102.48 (talk • contribs) 14:58, June 3, 2006

Keep - Popular if contraversial web animator. This page at least should be kept. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Salad Fingers is his his 15 minutes of fame as an internet meme (equivalent to 15 nanoseconds of actual fame). We don't need two articles. -- GWO

Strong Keep: Meets WP:BIO, and is very well-known in the internet community. --Wizardman 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - if you had created what this boy has then i'm sure you would want your own page detailing who you are.

Comment, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Jackson. - Motor (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is clearly estabilished. Grue 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Does not appear to be a vanity article. -- backburner001 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here looking for information, he has produced quite a few comedic videos, is about to be on TV. He was mentioned in prancehall's blog recently as devvo (prancehall) so there will likely be interest. Not vanity to me, informative.--Phatmattbaker 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my choice. Not one person has said why it meets WP:BIO, and there isn't a source of reliable information. NOTE: Should this dire article survive this AFD thanks to fan voting, I will still be taking an axe to it to remove all the bias, cruft and unreliable information. It will likely end up looking (as I said above) like this: "David Firth, Doncaster, flash animator responsible for Salad Fingers and x,y,z"... and that's it. - Motor (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it meets WP:BIO because if fulfils all of the requirements therein - surely it should be you who is telling us why it doesn't meet it. Jono 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, how many times would you like me to restate the same thing. Read this submission again... you know, that bit at the top where I explained the problem with this article. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is "reliable information". There isn't anyway in this case. Notable people generally have solid reliable sources for information about them. People whose flash animations have 30 seconds of fame among a tiny section of newgrounds fans... don't. This article is entirely populated with cruft from blogs, personal websites and web forum posts... all of which are expressly ruled out by WP:RS. - Motor (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I wasn't contradicting your reliability of sources issue. But now you mention it, I will. Expressly ruled out? More like expressly ruled in: from WP:RS, "Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in". Basically, take it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think the article should definitely stay. Although we can't quantify his fanbase, I'm sure you're underestimating it when you say 30 seconds of fame among a tiny section of newgrounds fans... I admit that I am a fan, but I've never been on newgrounds. And I certainly have been a fan for more than 30 seconds. Jono 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment -- Well, I notice that you ignored the main part of of WP:RS that relates to this: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.. There's nothing case by case about it. Nothing in this article comes from reliable sources. It's blogs, web forums and personal websites. What we have here is someone with no notablity outside of a small selection of people, who happen to also be internet users and show up to vote "keep" in AFDs. - Motor (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable in his domain, meets WP:Bio Beltz 06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain traumatised from watching Salad Fingers. heqs 10:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Wizardman. --Billpg 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - AND HOPEFULLY A CONCLUSION TO THIS NONSENSE! Dearest Mr Motor Billpg Gareth Owen etc and the others behind deleting this entry - with the greatest respect you have no idea what you are talking about!! I use Wikipedia almost daily as a source of information - I am not really part of the community and I do not really know the ins and outs of Wikipedia's rules and regulations. However I do know what I want from it as a user. I want Wikipedia to provide answers to questions that I have. Here is the prospective of a user:- When a year or so ago I first came across Fat Pie (The website of David Firth) I wanted to know more and so I searched Wikipedia. I found a number of entries and my knowledge of the guy grew. Surely the fact that one person found the information useful should be the end of the discussion? I am increasingly noticing that articles I want to read are marked for deletion due to certain members of the community having no knowledge or understanding of them. If this continues then Wikipedia is destined to only cater for the majority? Or be restricted by the very structure that has created it so far. I don’t want Wikipedia to become the McDonalds of Internet Encyclopaedias! Back to David Firth: (Because I know Mr Motor will ignore what I have said and bleat on about WP:BIO – Christ he is so anal!) David Firth has not just experienced 5 minutes of fame - He has steadily built a following over a number of years, his characters and creations are commonly known throughout UK, USA, Australia and around the world, particularly so amongst students and young people. No he not restricted to just the enormous success of Salad Fingers, he has many other popular individual cartoons and character series and his 'documentary' of Devvo is due to appear on both Channel4 and E4 in the UK in June and July. For some time he has showcased his animations on New Grounds an online community of 1,010,452 (As at 9th June 2006) flash animators where David Firth is known by all and has influenced a large majority, so much so that Newgrounds now pay him so that he can keep animating and submitting to them. (Mr Motor can you show that you have inspired nearly a million people?!) David Firth is a unique and prolific creative talent who has many many fans... Maybe some of these entries need to be cleaned up but deleted? Not if you want to maintain Wikipedia as an important resource. TO CONCLUDE MY LITTLE RANT! I would like to see Wikipedia continue to be the best and first source for information on the Internet. So Stop Bloody deleting it!! Would you delete Ricky Gervais because you have a section titled The Office? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.59.143 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 June 2006
- COMMENT I have just realised that you have deleted DEVVO - thats just stoopid! Wikipedia appears to being edited for taste. Oh dear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.59.143 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-09 17:21:28
Strong Keep Salad fingers and it's artist David Firth are both very notable. There is absolutely no reason to completely remove this article. Look at all the people commenting here. People are searching for david on wikipedia so please keep the article, however cleaning it up couldn't hurt. PrettyMuchBryce 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and yet, as with all the other keep votes, you don't say why or explain how he meets any of the guidelines. Or why a biographical article should remain when there isn't a single reliable source of information for any of the information in it. See WP:BLP. But hey, you know... David Firth and his half a dozen flash animations on newgrounds are as notable as Ricky Gervais. Oddly I can point to hundreds of reliable sources of information regarding Gervais, so we can write a nice interesting and informative biography. Unlike, say, the creator of a minor internet meme who's had his 15 mins of blog fame. - Motor (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A key player in a community of a million Animators not a half dozen... And the point about Gervais / office is that a creation and a creator can both be notable...
    - Comments, "can be" vs "actually is". Gervais is notable outside of the The Office. As I said, Firth is the creator of a minor internet meme. WP:MEME is a proposed guideline regarding this -- if the meme is notable (and I actually doubt that it is) then have an article, but do not create a biographical article for its creator unless there is something else worth adding. There isn't... because there is no more information available. It's forum posts from a few fans, blog entries and his personal websites. WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noobs stop afding it --DragonWR12LB 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up the crap. Although i'm not sure where 'pedia stands on "Internet Celebrities", he's not really notable as a person - but notable for his works, which i think exceeds just Salad Fingers. I'm not a deletionist, but maybe it should be deleted and remade when he's actually Meatspace Notable and we have verifiable information on him. -- jeffth e jiff 09:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is designed as a source of information. If it is deleted, redirect it to Fat-Pie.com --PureLegend 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source of information. This is why WP:RS and WP:VERIFY exist, and why articles like this should be deleted. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. -- WP:VERIFY, official policy. - Motor (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: [26], [27] will do me. Jono 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, yes... well... that does demonstrate where the confusion is coming from. Reliable sources are needed. Read the links I supplied above. "Stuff grabbed off misc websites and everything2.com" definitely do not qualify. - Motor (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The page is still useful. I was extremely pleased to find the article, then at least equally displeased when i noticed that it had been marked for deletion. I was unable to find the information in the article anywhere else, and it answered several questions I had. It should be noted that pretty much everyone petitioning for the article to be removed seems to be ignorant of mr firth's contribution to and impact on the internet. Even if only a couple of people have been searching for him, that should still validate the article. I knew he created salad fingers; I wanted to know more about him and this article was the only source I could find. Instead of deleting it, we should all be researching David Firth in order to make the article more valid!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexy cam (talk • contribs)
- Comment, user's one and only edit is to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 08:20, 12 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 The result of the debate was speedy delete under A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Galan[edit]

Non-notable bio, could be an A7, but I'd prefer AfD this time. It's some high school kid writing an autobiography of tall tales and nonsense, which I guess includes a claim of notability. Delete per WP:BIO. GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable/veriable, simple as that.--Andeh 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were right the first time. Speedy Delete A7. Fan1967 19:02, 2 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, delete, and redirect to Big Brother (UK series 4). — Fire Fox 17:30, 10 June '06

Ray Shah[edit]

Past Big Brother housemate, not really notible. (See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Precedents) -- cds^(talk) 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete/Redirect to Big Brother (UK series 4). This housemate is no more notable than any other past housemate. More than half of the article is Big Brother related, and he has not done anything 'big' enough outside of Big Brother to assert his notablity. — FireFox ^user_talk 19:14, 02 June '06
Keep, is a notable radio DJ in Ireland, so has his own career post Big Brother. Trampikey 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of notable radio DJs throughout the world - hardly any of them have an article. — FireFox ^user_talk 19:34, 02 June '06

Keep Being a Big Brother housemate surely denotes notability Computerjoe 's talk 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Precedents. — FireFox ^user_talk 19:38, 02 June '06
Merge and redirect per Ydam. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marge and redirect to Big Brother (UK series 4) per precedent. Being a contestant alone does not qualify you for an article in itself. on a side note is that stuff about him finding one of the golden tickets true. It sounds a bit far fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydam (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Big Brother (UK series 4).--blue520 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough notability for his own article --Scot ^t 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ydam. Kala ni ^[talk] 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have some Irish friends who know this guy from his DJ work and never watched Big Brother. Essexmutant 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not doing any harm... Ellisjm 09:29 UTC 3 June 06

That's not a reason to keep an article Bwithh 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Big Brother (UK series 4) as not notable outside Big Brother. Sweetie Petie 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Big Brother UK series 4. not notable in itself and so causes harm to wikipedia Bwithh 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has done plenty back in Ireland and is a successful TV and Radio presenter as well as club DJ. Also being a former Big Brother runner-up should be acceptable foe his own page

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Brookes[edit]

Not notable. Possibly vanity. I've been working on the various Brighton related pages, and I don't consider his biography as notable for Wikipedia. Seaweed 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable bookseller. --Scot ^t 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-n bio -Drdisque 22:08, 11 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 userfy. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sparks[edit]

Singer/Song writer that fails WP:Music, and is the creator of a non-notable record company, delete Yanksox 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (move to User:ChrisSparks) and delete as NN. -Big Smooth 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we certainly understand that there needs to be criteria to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia, we feel that the criteria are inaccurate in determining if an artist is notable or not especially in the internet age. There are many artists who are prolific without chart action or major tours. So, we first recommend that you take a hard look at these critieria especially considering this is a web site. Furthermore, Chris Sparks is in the Rodeo genre which is mainly underground and is a genre with no radio or tour support. Radio airplay on a mass scale is not even possible. Even so, Mr. Sparks still has a major tour coming up with numerous major sporting events as well as several articles with major music publications. He is sponsored by Wrangler, the largest apparel company in the world, and Resistol Hat. Also, Mr. Sparks' contributions to the music industry are also as an editor and developer for a large network of music and music-related sites in his genre. Separately from music, he is the creator of one of the largest business and career site networks in the world. So perhaps this means some changes in the bio and the category. Given this information, we would certainly appreciate any suggestions you have so that we may abide by the guidelines and still have an appropriate bio for Mr. Sparks. ChrisSparks
Userfy despite eloquent argument above. Danny Lilithborne 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User-fy Close, I'd almost say keep, but I really can't tell much of the notiblity. I mean, there's some stir on google, but his name is so common. Though apparently Mr. Sparks has some competition for notability, as this dude founded a company, and its not the same person as the article say. I see a resume of a guy by that name, but they went to the wrong to college to be this Chris Sparks. The other spattering of early results are for things reguarding the 3-4 websites this person runs to help forward themselves. Who knows, maybe in less than 5 years he'll be listable. The user ChrisSparks can have the article on their userpage. If this article is user-fyied, I remind the admin that the artwork is fairuse, so don't forget to nix that out of the user space. Kevin_b_er 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We appreciate the feedback. We're putting some stuff together right now for documentation. We will post it shortly. ChrisSparks 08:12, 10 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. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Russell[edit]

Delete-This article is about an actor who is still a student at Oxford, and, since it appears he hasn't done anything besides college plays (no listing at IMDb), doesn't meet WP:BIO. Plus, how can one recently guest star on Seinfeld? Gershwinrb 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Since the only assertainion of notability is pretty nonsenical: having appeared in 2005 on a sitcom which was cancelled in 1998. Suuuure. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready to be on the Ed Sullivan show tonight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-speedy delete I believe the article asserts notability, but not sufficient Computerjoe 's talk 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete: fails WP:BIO - questionable verifiability. --Hetar 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the only assertion of notability is a pretty obvious hoax. In any case, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Grand master ka 04:02, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Henderson (football)[edit]

non-notable person Travelbird 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Professional footballer, automatic keep. Plays for a non notable team mind you.... Jcuk 22:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and also note the 17,900 Google hits for "Ian Henderson" Norwich. Punkmorten 23:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, playing for the Canaries' first team, even if they aren't very good, is notability per WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep professional footballer playing for recently top flight English football team MLA 08:11, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hinshelwood[edit]

non-notable person Travelbird 21:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Professional Footballer, automatic Keep Jcuk 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep According to Wikipedia guidelines a footballer at a proffessional club is eligible for an article. Fork me 14:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I played Brighton in Football Manager and he was great, until Southampton bought him from me. Grue 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I came to this article because I saw the name in the deletion category and knew who this was. Professional footballer for notable professional English football team. Article should be improved though. MLA 08:04, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microwaveable heat storage device[edit]

Also see Heat retentive plates, nominated for deletion as well

Seems someone has re-invented those dishes that heat up in the microwave and coined a new name for them. Delete as an advertisement. Dr Zak 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete Both. Not notable at this time. Looks like a new product that is not yet on the market, or if it is, is certainly not well-known. Fan1967 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Second article contains the key words "First working prototypes...". Actual production and marketing is still crystal ball. Fan1967 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. At this time not notable, doesn't seem to be a actual product / commercial item yet and Wikipedia is not the place to promote or gain notability for new ideas / inventions.--blue520 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Equendil Talk 12:06, 3 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 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Friendly Gaming[edit]

Article was originally speedied, then reposted, this was challenged. Seems to be a non-notable gaming magazine that was recently created. Yanksox 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this gaming magazine is the only one of its kind makes it more notable than all the others. The fact that this video game magazine has brought new innovations to the world of journalism is also notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FFGaming (talk • contribs)

Comment You keep making these statement, but it would be very helpful if you can verify them. Yanksox 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like them to be verified? www.familyfriendlygaming.com has more than enough information on it. Which other gaming magazines distribute through not only hardcopy, but also PDF format online, and on CD? I don't know of any.

Where are the other Christian video game magazines? This again is the only one I know of.

The magazine was created in 2005, and has 5 issues already completed. Currently moving from quarterly to every two months. http://www.familyfriendlygaming.com/Store-front.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by FFGaming (talk • contribs)

Delete - non-notable. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it notable in your humble opinions?

I see no backing for the opinion that it is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FFGaming (talk • contribs)

Comment: There is a lot of POV, and it has a low Google hit rate. The article is poorly written. It seems like pure advertising. Please sign your posts using ~~~~ The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and sign, but have not had much luck with that cliche aloof part of this site. 20K a month is a low Google hit rate? How many hits did EGM have in their first year? None, because the internet was not around as strong back then. Your kind of comments is why I consider this site to be combative in how their mods run things. Please point out how it is poorly written, aside from being revised so many times because the rejections kept changing. I am about ready to just completely ban this site from my memory.

FFGaming 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFFGaming, the google hit rate is different now because the web wasn't as large. It's like inflation, the cost of many things in 1850 is far different now. Yanksox 22:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is ya'lls elitists attitudes then fine. I shake the dust of my cloak off on this site. FFGaming 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN with 54 google instances. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:06, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Close[edit]

No notability besides winning the spelling bee. not all the winners have articles. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rageshree_Ramachandran Zalgt 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If the article were to contain nothing notable, then her name would be a redirection to Scripps National Spelling Bee#Champions and winning words, which provides a list of every winner, their winning word, year, sponsor, and hometown. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Other winners like Rebecca Sealfon have pages, and this article has good links to the winning words and what they mean. Readers are naturally going to look up her name beyond news articles and she deserves having the honor of her own article after winning the Bee. Nate 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sealfon seems to have an article due to her South park character. Bwithh 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was also only one of the most visible winners of the Bee ever, and helped push the home-schooling movement to the forefront because of her win. She's also regularly referenced in any piece about the Bee, there's alot more to her than having a one-note South Park character. Nate 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. There's unfortunately something missing in WP:BIO regarding non-sport competition, but she won the damn thing, how is that not notable? Besides, the Spelling Bee is also newsworthy, and she qualifies there, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep Notwithstanding WP:NBD, the Rageshree Ramachandran discussion Zalgt adduces would seem to militate in favor of deletion, and the arguments made there are compelling. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that, applying the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO, the subject is notable. The arguments of the many anons that the article ought to be kept because it's likely that many will search for Close in the wake of her victory not only fail to assert that the subject is notable and encyclopedic but also, in view of their insistence the temporal propriety of our having an article, seem to evince that Close will not be perceived as notable in the future and seem not to comport with WP:NOT, viz., that Wikipedia is not a news service (cf., Wikinews). I think this to be a very close call; if Close is notable only per the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO, then so too would be several United States Chess Federation junior/amateur champions. For me, though, the decisive factor is the particular role of the spelling bee in the American media; Close has been sufficiently well-publicized as to merit keep (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). Joe 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. She's certainly more deserving of an article than Yamaoka. Fan1967 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's a notable figure. --MZMcBride 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Katharine Close article contains more information than can be found on the Scripps National Spelling Bee article. Since there is nowhere else for such information to be found, the article should be kept. If the article were merely to say, "Katharine Close won the national spelling bee in 2006," then I would completely understand and vote delete. But that's not the case at all with this article. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the figure is notable Yuckfoo 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person...". --Rob 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, as mentioned by Rob. It is a national televised competition, and she is notable at least by popular culture.--El aprendelenguas 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to winning the Bee, she is a main subject of the book American Bee: The National Spelling Bee and the Culture of Word Nerds . Being the subject of a book is not sufficient reason to keep an article, but this is a notable new book about the history and culture of spelling bees and adds to Close's recognition. In any case, winners of the Bee are notable. Finally, the argument that not all winners have articles and she is notable for only one thing is absurd. The other winners also deserve articles and many biogrphical entries in Wikipedia describe people who are notable for achieving only one thing. Crunch 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A jewel of an article on this national champion. --JJay 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional information provided by User:Crunch, and the fact that her win was on a broadcast network (as opposed to cable). This should not be established as a precedent to have articles about all past national spelling bee champions. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe that this even got nominated. With the Wiki doomed to have an article on every secondary school, one can hardly argue that the winners of the national spelling bee are of less notability. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pure insanity to even suggest this for deletion. Take the stupid deletion tag off. The article is relevant, factual, notable, unique, and has potential to grow larger.69.180.181.16
Merge and redirect to Scripps National Spelling Bee. — Gulliver ✉ 09:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly and completely nonnotable. I can spell Ursprache too. Angr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page. This girl deserves to have a page to herself. She should be and inspiration to everyone!
Keep Having this 80-year-old abecedarian competition televised on ESPN for a dozen years and now primetime ABC validates this event albeit endorsing the perverse compulsiveness imposed on these young competitors (and fostering the peculiar spectacle of adult pundits watching puerile antics produced by naive nervousness). Ms. Close, a five-year(!) competitor obviously worked long and hard for this victory and deserves all of the accolades she has received, including the posterity, such as it is, of a Wikipedia entry. --John 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Redirect Not notable enough. Working hard at memorizing dictionaries and winning at a spelling bee does not mean you deserve a wikipedia article. Bwithh 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe you can be so disregarding of Close's efforts. I was an active participant of spelling bees until this year, and you will not believe how much stress these competitors have and how much nerve they have to even participate in the national spelling bee. Close worked for five years to get to where she is now, shouldn't that count for at least a Wikipedia article? Please read WP:BIO. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can spell ursprache. I even figured out what it meant. I didn't win the Scripps National Spelling Bee. She did. She's notable. Alansohn 05:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kerry Close is a member of my school and of my classes, and if you knew how much time she put in to studying for the spelling bee, you would know how hard it is to compete. She studys everyday for this one event, and her winning is a great accomplishment. Not only is she the first girl to win since 1999 but she is also the first person ever to win from New Jersey
Keep On the premise that the article be expanded from its current stub, although this may be difficult given the subject matter. Vernon 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So how can we tell whether young Katharine's 15 minutes are up already or does she have some left in the distant future? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest feasible keep After the Rebecca Sealfon vote, where (despite being a huge fan of Sealfon) I only voted "weak keep," I've adopted my official stance on articles for National Spelling Bee winners. My stance is that every one deserve his/her own article. For spelling, the bee is the biggest event in the world; there might be a bit less fanfare (and a lot less prize money), but in this sense, the event is absolutely equal to winning the main event of the World Series of Poker- so long as they're of a certain age, absolutely anyone can enter, have a chance to win, and be known as a champion of said event for the rest of their lifetime. As far as I'm concerned, if there's ever an AfD discussion on another Nat'l Spelling Bee winner, my vote is already sealed. -- Kicking222 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per above-Hornandsoccer 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Do not keep. Gamaliel 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned and unregistered votes/comments[edit]

This page should not be deleted. Winning the Scripps Spelling Bee is a significant accomplishment. The subject is a newsworthy individual and should not be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.27.62 (talk • contribs) .
This page should not be deleted. You don't need multiple levels of notability to be considered for Wikipedia. If someone hears the name Katharine Close, they should be able to look her up. To not have a significant entry like a National Spelling Bee champion would undermine Wikipedia as an information source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.51.27 (talk • contribs) .
I concur. She is important enough to have an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.14 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. The article is neutral and factual. The acheivement is notable (and nationally discussed, at least for a day). Under what circumstances would deletion be appropriate. This kind of timely info is precisely the major benefit of this site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.253.60.5 (talk • contribs) .
Keep I just went to the Scripps page specifically to see if information had been added about this year's winner. It was good to be able to read more and have links to specific articles about the winner

Keep the article, please. Just because the other winners haven't received articles, it doesn't mean that her article should be removed.

KEEP IT!! Are you crazy?? All the other winners have articles. Why shouldn't she!!!

Fixed some comment deletions. At least my comment was removed, please don't delete the talks.15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Although not all other winners have pages, there are a few that do because they are a little more significant than the others. For instance, one winner is now a ########## for the Bee, so he has one. She is significant because she won the first primetime spelling bee.

Keep it. The Bee is now prime-time, big-time, with books and movies. The winner is a culturally significant person.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan pool[edit]

Does not seem notable or important. Alexa ranking in the 64,000s. M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking is low because the site is a game fans play during Bob Dylan's tours and Bob Dylan isn't currently on tour. The site is very popular and has been featured recently in the New York Times.Mappymousepd 05:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment: they're right, here it is. NY times article preview Also, the picture on the article (while bad quality and I can't tell what it is) is named something like CNN screenshot - a site featured on both CNN and the NY Times is certainly notable -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, if there had been a link to the NY Times article when I found the page, I wouldn't have nominated it. M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being featured in a piece by CNN or the NY Times doesn't mean it merits its own article on Wikipedia. It does mean it is notable enough to mention in the Bob Dylan article itself, which is already done.—jiy (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jiy's excellent reasoning. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no idea what the Dylan pool was, and this gives a perfectly adequate and useful introduction, which consequently would be difficult to place in a Dylan article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.69.68 (talk • contribs)
Delete per jiy. The above IP's vote is reason for a redirect, maybe. --Chaser T 09:06, 10 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 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandeep Bamrah[edit]

Contested PROD. He just earned his MBA, apparently on his 18th birthday. Getting a master's degree at a young age is a mild assertion of notability, and sources (including the BBC) confirm it's true, but is this guy really notable enough for an encyclopedia article? Will anyone remember him in two years? I think not and say delete. Angr (t • c) 11:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 53 Ghits--Jusjih 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging a short comment plus a BBC cite into MBA article. Interesting MBA fact is worth recording, but I don't think he warrants an individual article yet. Abstain from whether there should be a redirect. Paddles 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deleting this article. This person warrants an encyclopedia entry. This is an amazing achievement; of 6 billion people, how many have completed high school? This individual completed postgraduate studies before even being able to vote or drink! Stories like this need to be told to inspire today’s youth. Educators, athletes and politicians worldwide are always encouraging today’s youth to stay in school. They need stories such as these to provide motivation and inspiration. According to these sources, Nandeep himself was inspired to complete a university degree after hearing of other exceptional feats. What if he had not heard about them? It would be an injustice to deprive people access to this article. Not only do I think this, but so do my friends, family, colleagues, and others whom I have shown this article. Furthermore, major media outlets such as the BBC agree! This Wikipedia site alone links to newspapers on three different continents in several languages! With all the other rubbish on the Internet, even considering removing this article is an outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

Comment WP is an encyclopedia, not a repository for inspiring stories. Similarly, it is not a platform for pushing agendas, even ones such as "stay in school" that are generally considered worthy. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end. Paddles 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging per Paddles. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. T e ke 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep upon reconsidering; we kept the real Michael Tang. T e ke 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD? Who is contesting it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

Comment Perhaps you don't understand. A "prod" is a proposal for deletion without discussion. If someone who thinks the article should be kept deletes the "prod" tag, they are contesting the deletion - a contested prod. If someone else still thinks the article should be deleted then it it becomes an "article for deletion" (AfD) where there is discussion and hopefully a consensus. For this particular article, the person that removed the PROD (i.e. contested it) is User:70.29.104.24 - that would be you. Paddles 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records. I would delete the Michael Tang article as well Bwithh 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought PROD stood for Prodigy. en·cy·clo·pe·di·a Audio pronunciation of "Encyclopedia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pd-) n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. (Dictionary.com)

How does this article go against that? I cannot understand why people would contest this article, especially when we are discussing a positive, inspiring story. There has to be a sanity check; serial murderers are in Encylopedia entries. Just because they have killed dozens, does that make them more "worthy" than positive stories?

What makes serial murderers more encyclopedia-worthy than Mr Bamrah is not their actions, but the notoriety they achieve through their actions. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, and Albert Fish garnered tons of press at the time and even now are objects of morbid fascination for thousands of people. Mr Bamrah you read about in the newspaper, think "Well, good for him!" and then promptly forget again. They aren't better than he is, but they're definitely more notable. Angr (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying Angr's point: Bundy was executed almost 30 years ago. How many people can you remember as getting their college degrees as teenagers three decades ago? How about ONE decade ago? B.Wind 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Keep. I came to this article via another article, because it interested me and I wanted to know more. The article as it stands could be expanded, but it doesn't mean it isn't interesting. - 80.229.165.51 11:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) user jb something, but I can't remember my damn password or the exact way I spelled my username.[reply]

"Amplifying Angr's point: Bundy was executed almost 30 years ago. How many people can you remember as getting their college degrees as teenagers three decades ago? How about ONE decade ago? B.Wind 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"

That is partially my point -- how many people earned their MBA as teenagers within the last three decades? Or within the last decade? Only this person! I vote to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. A cool personal achievement, and possibly a hint of future notability, but not worth an encyclopedia article totally by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Prodego ^talk 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ScottW 01:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable achievement, imho and is also verifiable from reputed sources. Should stay. --Gurubrahma 11:49, 3 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 Not delete. Basically, there seems to be a consensus to keep before the relist, and redirect after the relist. A keep vs. redirect debate is a debate that be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diet of Worms (Medicine)[edit]

Delete as Neologism or edit/merge with Whipworm and Helminthic therapy. Cannot find any evidence on google that this term is in common or specialized usage to describe this medical treatment. Only usage is in punning news headlines - the phrase almost always appears only in the "eye catching" headlines not in the article text. If evidence can be found that this phrase is in common ordinary usage by doctors/patients to describe this treatment, than it should be kept. Otherwise delete as neologism (and barely one at that - the news articles are using the phrase for a funny headline, and never claim its a new phrase. neologism is by the wiki user who created the article.). For the medical info in the text, this could be merged with the Whipworm and Helminthic therapy articles already mentions the treatment. I am not suggesting that this treatment doesnt exist, I'm saying that the usage of this phrase in a common way doesnt exist. Bwithh 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This information was just placed on the Diet of Worms page, a page that is constantly vandalized with a poor joke that I'm sure you can imagine. I created this page because it appears to be a legit treatment and I want to prevent constant posting of this stuff in the historical article. See the disambig page as well. Let's give it time to see if some more info can be found on it. --CTSWyneken 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the treatment doesn't exist, I'm saying that "Diet of Worms" needs to shown to be a phrase that is commonly used to refer to the treatment. Don't give in to constant vandalism / misguided editing - that shouldnt be a reason for keeping this article. A rash of punning newspaper headlines (mainly regurgitations of the one New Scientist magazine headline) are not enough to show common usage. I see now that the treatment is already mentioned in Whipworm and Helminthic therapy. Any new medical info should be moved to these articles Bwithh 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per CTSWyneken above. --Drboisclair 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the person who put it in the Diet of Worms article, because I thought it was topical, but if there is already an article on Helminthic therapy, the disambiguation page for Diet of Worms should point there. --Chris Thompson 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just deleted it from the Diet of Worms article because the Disambig page works just fine for that 0.005% of people who come to Diet of Worms looking for Helminthic therapy and its integration into that article was both highly off-topic and redundant with this article. Furthermore, if there is a more detailed article using an actual scientific term for that approach, I would suggest having the Diet of Worms (Medicine) deleted and the Diet of Worms (disambiguation) point to Helminthic therapy. Isoxyl 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--Jondel 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. --StanZegel (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query Can this afd be relisted for further debate? thanks Bwithh 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Yes it can. Prodego ^talk 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Prodego ^talk 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disamb page should point to Helminthic therapy per Bwithh and Isoxyl. -Medtopic 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JFW | T@lk 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helminthic therapy. Eluchil404 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helminthic therapy. Diet of worms is by no means the common name for Trichuris suis based therapy -- Samir धर्म 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is a redirect in place, I'm comfortable with the article being deleted. Aa long as there's no serious threat of someone putting yet one more diet of worms pun in the article. ;-) --CTSWyneken 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helminthic therapy or merge into inflammatory bowel disease. The treatment appears to be a topic that is generating a fair amount of attention based on the fact that there are numberous publications in medical journals. Here are just a few-- to demonstrate it isn't an internet hoax: Kradin RL, Badizadegan K, Auluck P, Korzenik J, Lauwers GY. Iatrogenic Trichuris suis infection in a patient with Crohn disease. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006 May;130(5):718-20. PMID 16683891. / Summers RW, Elliott DE, Weinstock JV. Is there a role for helminths in the therapy of inflammatory bowel disease? Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Feb;2(2):62-3. No abstract available. PMID 16265104 / Yuan Q, Walker WA. Worm therapy for ulcerative colitis: a possible link to regulatory T cells. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2005 Jul;41(1):139-40. PMID 15990650. / Parthasarathy G, Mansfield LS. Trichuris suis excretory secretory products (ESP) elicit interleukin-6 (IL-6) and IL-10 secretion from intestinal epithelial cells (IPEC-1). Vet Parasitol. 2005 Aug 10;131(3-4):317-24. PMID 15978725. Also, it should be pointed out that the name of the article is misleading-- worms are a treatment... they aren't a diet. Diet and treatment are not the same thing. Nephron T|C 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Helminthic therapy, as that seems to be the more official and widely used name. ENpeeOHvee 22:53, 10 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Rooms[edit]

An article with just an example of a few chat rooms. Delete —M e ts501^talk 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's impossible to understand what's the article about unless one already knows. At this state it isn't worth keeping. The subject might have something, but less than a thousand hits is extremely low for a purely internet thing. CP/M 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the title should be "Yahoo! Rooms", if anything. —M e ts501^talk 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CP/M. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArenaFan Online[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 270,000+. fuzzy510 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WEB. Possible speedy under CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memefare[edit]

neologism, dicdef, nn, unencyclopedic "may have been" speculation as to origin of term. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Trias-Kelly[edit]

Her father was "known by some as 'the Father of Karate in America'", but does that make her notable? No vote. Medtopic 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete 7780 Ghits--Jusjih 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is already mentioned sufficiently in her father's article. Bwithh 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although a 10th Dan ranking is particularly good, I don't see anything meeting WP:BIO here. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 6 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 to Rebecca Fransway. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Goes Down[edit]

Non-notable poem. The poet seems somewhat notable (though her article needs to be cleaned up), but this particular poem does not have any notability. Google search returns 4 hits: this article, a reprint of the poem, a lesson plan for a teacher that taught this poem, and a porn site. Little content to say about the poem--article originally had the poem in it but I removed it because of copyright issues. Metros232 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Rebecca Fransway, or delete. Articles for individual poems seem a little much, especially when Shakespeare's sonnets are all in a single article. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUZANNE GOES DOWN Should Not Be Deleted

Suzanne Goes Down is a significant poem that should not be deleted. For one thing significance of poetry is often a matter of the world view and experience of the reader. Also, this poem is mentioned in several reviews as an excellent example of American Outlaw Poetry. One review by Mark Spitzer can be found at Jack Magazine, in which the poem is mentioned as well as several lines quoted.

[http://www.example.com Mark Spitzer]

The poem has additional significance in that the author is the editor/author of a particularly controversial book 12-Step Horror Stories: True Tales of Misery Betrayal and Abuse in AA, NA and 12-Step Treatment,which was banned in bookstores in certain areas due to the clamour of local recovery houses and individual members of 12-step groups. The dialogue in the poem also points to the uselessness of A.A. meetings for the speaker. Because of this social blasphemy, the poem is just as likely to be a target of a book-burning-minded minority as the book was.

All of this history can be verified by dialogue between Mrs. Fransway & members of 12 step groups during 1996-2000 recorded on google groups.

The poem itself should not have been removed from the article. Mrs. Fransway gives permission for it's use on her web site [28].

Frank R. Keilman, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.171.166 (talk • contribs)

Comment Fransway's other work does not make this poem significant. Her book is mentioned in the article on her. The poem is copyright 1996 apparently, if the poem is "just as likely to be a target..." there would probably be some action being taken already since it's been 10 years already. As for her poem being allowed on Wikipedia, where does it say that anyone can reproduce it elsewhere? I don't even see anywhere that states that it is her website. Metros232 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

Anyone who has not seen the permission on the website gothicromance.net needs to clean their eyeglasses.

As far as gothicromanc.net, one can very easily perform a whois on the site and find out who it belongs to: Rebecca Fransway.

Suzanne Goes Down Has Been Expanded

The article Suzanne Goes Down has been changed, adding a paragraph proving significance of the poem.

--Prof. F. R. Keilman 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but that notice was not there yesterday. That website changed in the last day. In addition to adding that line about permission, it also moved the poem down in the page In fact, here's a cache of what the website was just a few days ago.

And yes, I did a registrant search now, but I shouldn't have to do that just to find out whether or not its her website. Metros232 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These points are now moot. The article has been expanded, explaining the significance of the poem. Later the poem itself will probably be added again, once I learn how to register permission for use.

--Prof. F. R. Keilman 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rebecca Fransway]. This is readable now, but still better placed under the poet's entry, no matter how spirited Prof. Keilman's defense. ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Trialsanderrors. Seems similar to WP:FICT's guide to discuss characters within the work's article; discuss poems within the poet's article. btw, someone has been adding articles for some of Shakespeare's Sonnets.--Chaser T 20:17, 11 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. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Farm Workers Association[edit]

More NATLFEDcruft. Most info claimed in the article about this group is unverifiable. Notability not established. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, questionable verifiability and I am not convinced that this article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, i.e. it may be unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Homemakers Association[edit]

More NATLFEDcruft. Hardly anything about this group is verifiable from independent sources. Notability and importance not established. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a long rambling article about a group with questionable if any notability. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The College School[edit]

Article seems to be an example of things made up in school one day. Unverifiable and I'm really confused by the fact that it was formed in the fall of 2006, considering it isn't even summer of 2006 yet in Massachusetts. Metros232 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- cds^(talk) 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No resources. The article mentions "...it is only a matter of time before the work being produced by the emerging College School enters the English Literary Canon." When this happens, it will notable, but right now it's WP:NFT.--El aprendelenguas 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable...yet... Yanksox 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable organization (not even "formed" yet) unless there are verifiable sources that they've found a portal between now and the future... Hmmmmmmm... Grand master ka 04:08, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 10:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Valentine[edit]

A non-notable health quack. Books were not significant and are out of print or self-published. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has numerous books listed. The fact that they are out of print is irrelevant. I also object to the word quack. Please make your case without attacking article subjects. --JJay 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether a book is in print or not should be completely irrelevant to the discussion of one's notability. The man has written a number of books for non-vanity presses, which seals it easily for me, but he also appears to meet basic standards in other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep marginally notable. Eluchil404 01:03, 5 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. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig B. Hulet[edit]

Notability and importance not established; marginal at best. Three of his four books are self-published and the fourth is obscure and out of print. Much in the article is unconfirmable. Delete KleenupKrew 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy of Hollywood[edit]

Non-notable radio host, he is on one noncommercial FM radio station. Stub. Not encyclopedic. Delete. KleenupKrew 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Jusjih 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 6 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 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory fong[edit]

listing now --Melaen 23:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've moved it to capitalise his last name. Keep per List of North Dakota Tax Commissioners and http://www.nd.gov/tax/misc/faq/indincome/index.html -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be of interest to a very limited number of people; unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appointed official, no particular significance - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:35, 7 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 to X-Men: The Last Stand. "Merge and delete" is not generally a valid course of action unless an admin is willing to perform a history merge. I am not. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men 3 Movie Tie-In Figures[edit]

Useless one-sentence article that tells nothing specific about an improperly named item. Chris Griswold 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context at all -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, commercial product which actually exists, is a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.148.166.5 (talk • contribs) .
Merge to the movie. Since when has "existence" been a sufficient condition? -- GWO
Delete or smerge to the movie. It's a one-line substub, doesn't appear to need its own article. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with X-Men: The Last Stand and delete. Wikipedia doesn't aim at listing every existing commercial product. Equendil Talk 09:26, 11 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. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umlaut House[edit]

Author admits that webcomic relitavly few readers and article exists to promote the comic:

http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopic.php?t=71179&highlight=wikipedia

Geni 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Umlaut House has already been copied to Comixpedia. It's here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good research, Geni. TheProject 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another nn-comic which I've had on my watchlist for ages, but never got round to deleting. - Hahnch e n 17:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity article which does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already at Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 6 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 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euronat[edit]

Organization was never really active. ~~Delete~~. Nomination withdrawn. Intangible 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom KleenupKrew 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inasmuch as quasi-fascists provide handily-found information online (which is to say, they generally don't), what information do you have that the organization wasn't "ever really active" or, for that manner, is no longer in existence? The Tom 01:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Searching the archives of Le Monde or Le Figaro results in the 1998 news of Le Pen wanting to create an internationalist (youth) movement and another news clipping in 2002 saying that Le Pen's actions were in vain. Furthermore, I do not know how I can prove a negative with a positive. Intangible 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. 1) There seem to be printed references about the organisation (see article) + the Front National's web site has a page on it, so it must have existed sometime. 2) Even if the organisation never really was able to take off, the fact that 1. Le Pen tried to found it and 2. didn't succeed, has enough significance to keep a Wikipedia article about it. It would be nice however it the article grew a bit above the level of a stub. --LucVerhelst 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What Front National web site? Of its youth organization? Intangible 12:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment : Exactly. I was referring to the website which is linked from within the article. There is also this page, on the website of Front National proper : Le Front National - Les Organigrammes - Services Rattachés. Look under the heading La Direction aux Affaires Etrangères : "Le rôle de ce service est d’entretenir des relations suivies avec les partis nationaux dans les autres pays, notamment en Europe, à travers la structure Euronat." (The role of this service is to maintain relations with national parties in other countries in Europe, through the Euronat structure.) --LucVerhelst 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LucVerhelst. Jobjörn 12:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least two books about Euronat have been published so it would be bad to delete the article. // Liftarn
Keep - It was a tentative, Wikipedia does not only register success but also failures... IF there is two books & there really was an attempt by Le Pen, although it failed, than it's definitely notable enough. Beside, it's not that surprising that it failed, since although those parties may agree on common far-right policies, national interest necessarily divides them... the paradox of a "International of nationalist movement" is not new, and was tried by Mussolini... Tazmaniacs 19:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although more references would be very helpful. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, You can't delete history, even if you disagree with what has happened. Hauser 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comment : See also the EuroNat Manifesto, signed at the first EuroNat meeting at Paris 9 th October 2005 by Jean-Michel Girard (international secretary, Front National), Nick Griffin (chairman, British National Party), Luca Romagnoli (chairman, Fiamma Tricolore), Michiel Smit (chairman, Nieuw Rechts), Vávra Suk (party secretary, Nationaldemokraterna) and Manuel Canduela (chairman, Democracia Nacional).EuroNat Manifesto --LucVerhelst 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.The article needs to updated to reflect the current organization. Intangible 14:34, 3 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 to Boyd Rice. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas Foundation[edit]

This "group" was just one person, not notable, no verifiable independent info available on it. Delete. KleenupKrew 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will support a merge with Boyd Rice in the interest of seeing a consensus on this AFD. KleenupKrew 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was founded by Boyd Rice, and it's pretty interesting, and it does pretty decent on the google test.[29] Yanksox 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Possible merge with Boyd Rice. --JJay 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boyd Rice. If Rice was nn, this would be too.Ac@osr 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as per Ac@osr. Bwithh 19:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if somewhere relevant to merge it to can be found, otherwise delete. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 6 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. Being a neologism, failing WP:NOR and WP:POV trump 'I've heard of it'. Easy decision to make. Proto||type 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euronationalism[edit]

Original research, pov and no scholarly definition. Delete. Intangible 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. The article itself admits it's a "rather vague concept". KleenupKrew 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have heard the term used on several occassions on news broadcasts. Ben W Bell talk 08:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Neologism that may well gain more popularity and wider usage. but at the moment, too little used Bwithh 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've heard of it. Rework it, if necessary. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's all nice, that you have heard of the term; but instead, you should focus on the definitial problems surrounding the subject at hand. Intangible 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as badly-defined POV terminology. I would be willing to change if some sources are cited; this page currently has none. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least as it stands, with no reputable sources to support the 'definition'. Besides, the article casts neo-nazi, conservative, religious and regional autonomist parties into the same vague concept, which is just ridiculous. Justice III
Keep // Liftarn 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism that is in little use and has different definitions depending where you look. Refers to strong pro-europe sentiments in some places for instance. Article also reeks of original research. Equendil Talk 09:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of google hits, although i agree it does seems to feature some original research which should be removed and hosted elsewhere 195.92.40.49 09:11, 12 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. Mailer Diablo 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitakora[edit]

Non-notable program with an official forum on Yahoo Groups. Also, reads more than a little like an ad. Pugs Malone 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like it was formed VERY recently, probably a Wikidream. Yanksox 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yanksox. If there's notability here (see proposed guideline WP:SOFTWARE), I'm not seeing it. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Christie[edit]

About fairly unknown minor league golfer that committed suicide. Burgwerworldz 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the information given is accurate, he did win some tournaments, setting one course record while doing so. IrishGuy talk 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the information in this article is verifiable. While Christie played most of his career in the minor leagues of golf (he won four times on the second-highest U.S. golf tour), his performance was good enough to graduate to the highest tour for the 1997 season and then stay on the highest tour for the 1998 season. Two years as a PGA Tour member should be enough to qualify under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to add a few things. I'm disagreeing that being a member of the PGA Tour for 2 seasons is enough to assure notability. Looking at his stats, he barely got his exemption in 1997 (finished like 112th on the money list, 125 is cut-off) and played pretty lackluster (as explained by article) for the rest of his career. There are literally hundreds of golfers in the recent past that have had short careers on the PGA Tour, and IMO, I don't think winning a PGA event should even assure you of an article. Even Calvin Peete, one of the best golfers of the 80s who won 12 PGA events (including a Players Championship) does not have an article. I feel that notability guidelines should be written for sports figures, or more in-depth ones. Also, looking at the BIO link given, there are different guidelines for the dead than living. And I’m a pretty big golf fan, and I’ve never even heard of this guy until I was editing some other pages. Burgwerworldz 05:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep Easily and indisputably meets the WP:BIO criteria for sportspeople. Calvin Peete is one of just over a hundred red links out of over 900 names on list of golfers and at the current rate of progress they will all have articles in a month or two. Osomec 08:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Easily and indisputably fails WP:BIO criteria for sportspeople as a basic requirement is for them to be um... alive. Also fails WP:BIO basic test for deceased persons - "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?". The Nike Tour (or "Nationwide Tour") win record is not notable enough - here is the description of the tour of the wikipedia article - "The Nationwide Tour is the developmental tour for the PGA Tour, and features professional golfers who have either failed to score well enough at that level's Qualifying School (the main tour's qualifying tournament, popularly referred to as "Q-School") to earn their PGA Tour card, or who have done so but then failed to win enough money to stay at that level." So it he won several times at a tour specifically for lesser professional golfers who are still "developing". Also, the description for the NGA Hooters Tour he won at too says it is less significant than the Nike tour. Also as per the objections about PGA tour notability from Burgwerworldz who knows much more about golf than I do. Delete as per nom. Tragic, but not notable Bwithh 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He does meet WP:BIO. Being alive isn't a criteria for golfers or for anyone else, and Wikipedia would be a total joke as an encyclopedia if it was. Calsicol 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sports criteria in WP:BIO falls squarely under the "People still alive" subheading. Since the subject is deceased, he gets to be judged under the "Deceased people" subheading Bwithh 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BIO is NOT a policy. All the criteria should be the same for living people as for dead people. I've looked at the detail before, but I've never noticed this totally false distinction it makes between living and dead people before like others seem not to. It makes the page worthless if you take that structure literally, but I don't think you should. Golfcam 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There are thousands of articles about sportspeople further down the hierarchy of sporting achievement, eg losing Olympic competitors, Aussie Rules footballers who played one AFL game and reserve players in the English Premiership who haven't played at all. A player who finished 112th on the PGA Tour money list would probably have been in the top 200 global practitioners of the this major sport at that time, and Wikipedia goes a lot lower than that in accepting notability in thousands, probably tens of thosuands of cases. If you think that Wikipedia's criteria should be narrower, that is your right, but this guy very clearer falls within the consensus level of notability and there is no justification whatsoever for this totally random and arbitary nomination. Calsicol 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Random? I was cleaning up all the pages for events on the Nationwide Tour, which had all past champions of said events listed. Most are redlinked, as a vast majority of winners never had long or steady careers on the PGA Tour. When I got onto a page of a tournament that said subject won, I visited the page as I had never heard of the player to make sure it wasn't directing to another Michael Christie. So, this was not a random posting whatsoever. Burgwerworldz 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This nomination is dangerous threat to Wikipedia's golf coverage, which has been improving more rapidly lately than it did before. He was the equivalent of a major league player in team sports, and when was the last time one of them was deleted? Golfcam 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, golf is not a team sport, so calling him equivalent to a "major league player" is dubious at best. Your logic is also quite flawed. So if someone had played on the PGA Tour for a season (even if they missed all cuts), they are notable enough to have an article? I hardly see how a journeyman golfer can be one of the 1,000,000 most important subjects in the world. There needs to be some set guidelines for including athletes rather than the vague suggestions given by BIO. Also keep in mind, this golfer is dead, so he should be judged by the simple question posed by BIO at the time being. Burgwerworldz 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's unreasonable to consider a PGA Tour player equivalent to a major league player in team sports. There are over 1,000 players on opening day rosters in the National Football League and over 700 players on opening day rosters in Major League Baseball. Looking at the PGA Tour exemption list, there are fewer than 250 players who can claim tour membership at this time. [30] That's fewer even than the number of players on opening rosters in the National Basketball Association. We can dispute whether a deceased player who spent two years on the PGA Tour meets WP:BIO, but if Michael Christie doesn't meet the criteria, neither should someone who played only two years in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's quite unreasonable, and i'm stunned that there aren't more delete votes. Also, golf is not as popular as other team sports, and that means that the proportion of golfers included from a roster should be lower. I look at a lot of the players on the 1997 money list, and if you get toward Christie's name, there are a bunch of players who may have only had status for a few years that I just couldn't fathom an article being created for them. Christie's case is the same, except he shot himself. His suicide is his most notable characteristic, and if you let him in, you'd have to let every golfer that has ever played a full season on tour, and that is just absurd. Burgwerworldz 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wrote "equivalent", not "the same as". Golfcam 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had a tour card for two years. -- Mwalcoff 04:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There aren't many delete votes because it really couldn't be much clearer that he meets the relevant criteria. You can't dispute whether he meets WP:BIO without making yourself look ridiculous. He just does, period. If you don't like it, that's tough, but please try to read what's there, not what you want to see. In the long run there probably will be an article for every player that spends a season the PGA Tour in the future, but Wikipedia isn't mature yet. There are articles for most current players in the top teamsport leagues in the English speaking world, including fringe squad/roster players. There are a lot more of them per sport than there are golfers on the top golf tours. ReeseM 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like the following vote to be disqualified, as it is a personal attack against me and others who are in favor of the deletion. Burgwerworldz 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The one above or the one below? I don't see any "personal attacks" in either. Landolitan 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything the requirements for living people is *higher* than that for dead people, because we fear autobiographies. Over time, we've progressively "opened up" the rules on WP:BIO to more people. Such updates have gone in the "living section", because most new bios are obviously for living. And it makes it look now, like we're softer on the living. But this was never the intent. If somebody is notable alive, they're at least as notable after death. --Rob 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PGA Tour golfer. I found this because he's one of the two blue links on the article about the Rex Hospital Open, which was this week's Nationwide Tour event. I would like to see all of the links turned blue. How can it be better to have more red links than blue links in that article? Landolitan 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets (but not exceeds) established standards of sporting success, despite golf being the dullest game in the history of the world. -- GWO
ZZZZZZZZZ Oh what? The golf game is over? *Yawn*... Keep per WP:BIO as someone who played on the PGA tour... even if he is dead... and golf is more boring to watch than paint drying.--Isotope23 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial and the article is highly unlikely to be expanded beyond a stub. Stifle (talk) 21:30, 6 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.