Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

Purge server cache

June 4[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Merge per consensus below. There were no objections to a speedy merge and the original nominator agreed. A comment has been left at Talk:Residence Hall Federation linking to this AFD. BigDT 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Residence Hall Federation[edit]

Non-notable student organization (outside of Virginia Tech, I'm sure it's decently important there). Perhaps a mention in the Virginia Tech article is appropriate, but not this type of article that describes every division and committee of the organization. Metros232 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to be an important student group as per nom. Probably better outside the main article although a merge might be ok. --JJay 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 794 hits on Google, but a lot of it seems to be personal pages mentioning so-and-so served as president/vice president/etc. of the organization. Some other hits are from the Virginia Tech website itself. It doesn't seem to be very notable outside the Virginia Tech community.--El aprendelenguas 01:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Every college in the world probably has some organization like this. (I served in one a thousand years ago). We do not want to start listing every organization and student government body from every school. Fan1967 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a college campus info booth Bwithh 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. RHF is not just another student organization at Tech. It is one of the major entities in the university governance system. Many colleges have separate subpages for particular aspects of the school. This is no different. BigDT 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you name one school which has an article for its dorm council? Fan1967 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but what level of importance do other schools' hall councils have in the university governance system? At Tech, our RHF is coequal with the SGA. BigDT 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point the user was making I misread, so I'll say that my point is that the key to Wikipedia is wikilinks, interaction of articles. It would take the creation of articles on the dorm halls, which don't merit articles. Aside from linking to the university, this article would be an orphan. Give it a brief mention in the VT article, but it doesn't even deserve a merge. Teke 06:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of information, there were individual articles for a handful of buildings on VT's campus. All except three notable ones have been merged into Virginia Tech campus and I am working to clean up that article. BigDT 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need an article for each school's SGA. If a school has a high-profile academic program, that may be worth a separate article. SGA's and dorm councils are worth, at best, a section in the university's article. Fan1967 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've made my peace with allowing middle schools, I won't give in to individual university organizations. Not encyclopedic. Teke 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Virginia Tech. Neither RHFs nor SGAs get main articles. B.Wind 06:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Motor (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't made my peace with middle schools or summer camps, either. -- GWO
  • Merge per B.Wind. MaxSem 09:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While it isn't that large, it seems large enough to not simply be a vanity page, so why delete it? Mrjeff 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and everyone above. -- Kicking222 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is worth mentioning with the Virginia Tech article Ydam 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. Rain74 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my objection above to a merge based on the general consensus here. I've created a section for it at Virginia Tech campus. Could the closing admin redirect the article to Virginia Tech campus? RHF is only at Virginia Tech - nobody else calls their "dorm council" RHF - and so VT's campus page is the logical place to redirect the article. If someone has a great objection to redirecting it to VT, the other place to redirect would be National Association of College and University Residence Halls, which, as the name implies, is the national organization for RHF-like entities. (Full disclosure: in case it isn't obvious, I'm a VT alum, though I was not involved with RHF - I was an RA and RAs were not permitted to participate in RHF because of possible conflicted interests.) BigDT 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of no interest to anyone outside Virginia Tech. Mr Stephen 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Virginia Tech hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless the article is changed to include the Residence Hall Association/Federation of every university. It is not notable when just for one university. --Strothra 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion to close as speedy merge - the most useful content has already been added into the appropriate spot on Virginia Tech campus. Because of GFDL requirements, the old article needs to be changed into a redirect with the history intact, which requires no administrative action. Does anyone have an objection to closing the AFD? BigDT 23:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since almost every comment here says merge, I say go for it. Metros232 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for the work, BigDT. Teke 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sounds perfectly fine to me. Grandmasterka 03:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game of physical activity[edit]

About as generic of a list as they come. I certainly don't mind lists, but this is a little ridiculous. fuzzy510 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The title of the article is just a wordy way of saying sport, a complete, well-written article we already have.--El aprendelenguas 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the need for, or benefit of, this article either. --Ed (Edgar181) 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary list. SM247 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too general to be useful. Not to mention the title of the article is rather odd as well.--SomeStranger (T | C) 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, generic list of games that you need to move around a bit to play. - Motor (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. MaxSem 09:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete not necessery. Andrew18 @ 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely useless. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per fuzzy510. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An oddly-titled, incoherent and highly redundant quasi-"list". Grandmasterka 03:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus[edit]

The full name of this new religious movement is apparently 'The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus', sometimes rendered with a dash between "The Way" and "The Church" and sometimes not. Searching on just "The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus" gets just 159 Google hits, and Google actually trims that down to just 14 when it eliminates similar entries. All 14 hits appear to be message boards or Wikipedia mirrors -- you'd think that if this was a notable denomination, we'd have at least one newspaper or magazine or journal article on it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Way The Church of Yahweh exists in The Los Angeles area. It began in San Bernardino California in late 2001. The article was started by Zarove who belonged to a Church of Christ.
The final editing and cleanup was done by User:Zanimum by an e-mail he received from me. It was no different than this article by The Christadelphians to which it resembles in beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians
The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus is not a cult like Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh, Jim Jones and The People's Temple...to name a few who have articles on Wikipedia.
The founder of The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus was vicepresident of Catholic Action in the Los Angeles arcdiocese in the 1980s. He has been a T.A. and mathematics teacher for the past 24 years http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/Lincoln_HS/Egonzalez/. Among those he has worked with in the classroom are Mia Hamm in 6th grade washington Elementary in Compton, Venus Williams and Serena Williams at Foster Elementary, Warren Moon's mother-in-law at Foster Elementary. He ws also a clasmate at Mr. Simmon's science class at Dominguez High in Compton of Andre Young, known as Dr. Dre.
I know these things because my name is Elpidio Gonzalez. I am more of the intellectual type, not the emotional kind. I try to avoid contraversy, that is why I am not in the news like these guys were.
I did not submit the article. But what got me is the way is being handled since it appears I am classified as a cultist, spammer, or something similar. the article has been cleaned up...by Zanimum...It is in the same format as some others...but it seems you guys love contraversy. Probably your wish will come true.
I have saved the article and this talk for future references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.235.181 (talk • contribs)
  • Question Do you mind if I ask for future reference in regards to what? Teke 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup The reason I ask is that the GFDL license doesn't always apply to these pages, for example my comments do not. So I was wanting to know if this was for personal reference or if you intend to do other things with it. Teke 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformatted your comments to help the discussion flow better. I hope you don't mind. (I didn't change any of your text - just compacted it so that the discussion wouldn't be so disjointed.) BigDT 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was no different than this article by The Christadelphians to which it resembles in beliefs. Well, that may appear true from your perspective. However, you may not realize -- we're not talking about the merits of the groups; we're talking about the merits of the articles. This means that it doesn't matter whether TCOYIJC is "a cult like Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh, Jim Jones and The People's Temple" or not -- that has absolutely no influence on the decision. What is very different between your group and the others you mention is that for all those other groups, we can report what reliable sources say about them. That's because ... reliable sources are mentioning them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the 12 apostles have spoken. What am I to do. Yet, Micah 4:1 NIV
      In the last days 
      the mountain of Yahweh's temple will be established 
      as chief among the mountains; 
      it will be raised above the hills, 
      and peoples will stream to it.

gives me hope. This is my last comment on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.235.181 (talk • contribs)

    • I corrected your citation - I hope you don't mind - that verse is actually 4:1, not 3:1. And, by the way, we have an article on Yahweh's Temple. BigDT 04:27, 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 not reached here, but will be reached at RfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VoteFair ranking[edit]

The term "VoteFair ranking" for the Kemeny-Young method is needlessly POV. Wikipedia's aim is to describe alternative election methods and not to promote them. Furthermore, the term "VoteFair ranking" is used only by User:VoteFair. This term is used for the Kemeny-Young method nowhere else. Markus Schulze 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You moved the article to Kemeny-Young method leaving a redirect. So you are proposing deleting the redirect. WP:RFD is the route. Incidentally, comparing [1] with [2] suggests that it is a reasonable redirect. --Henrygb 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question So, which is up for deletion, Kemeny-Young method or the redirect article? The latter needs to be taken up elsewhere (per Henrygb); if it's the former, the name above must be changed accordingly. B.Wind 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the subst from {{subst:afd1}} to {{rfd}}. Therefore, the discussion has moved to here. Markus Schulze 08:42, 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 snowy delete. Sango123 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful Playmates[edit]

Non notable business, what little text there is reads like an ad (" formed by partners with over 12 years of experience"), speedy deletion tag war going on, so I'm bringing the matter here Equendil Talk 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong speedy delete Marketing abuse of wikipedia. Warnings should be issued to the article creators Bwithh 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Author's strategy here seems to be the all too usual removal of the AfD notice on the article [3]. Equendil Talk 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/FYI: Author has been blocked for 48 hours for this behavior. Hbackman 04:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Adspam. nn biz. Crum375 00:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One reason for Speedy Delete is to beat the Google scraper. Some ad spammers may hope to get scraped into Google before getting deleted. Crum375 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, blatent advertisment. -Whomp 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps lacking an assertion of notability under WP:CORP should be but isn't. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image seems to be copy-vio. Crum375 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement--El aprendelenguas 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisement. Taylordonaldson 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Hbackman 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy is persistently inserting spam links into a bunch of adult entertainment articles, which doesn't endear his main NN article to me one bit. Spinolio 04:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User should be blocked indefinitely then Bwithh 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect as re-creation. -- DS1953 talk 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, spam, no assertions of notability. MaxSem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and probably speedy as being little more than a collection of links. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete blantant advert. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant abuse of Wikispace. Adverstising. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (I looked at the web site :) ). No evidence of the existence of the business other than the web site itself, and one advertisement in an adult business "directory". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no establishment of notability --Bachrach44 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Guinnog 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable business, spam. Grandmasterka 03:38, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

270 (number)[edit]

Non-notable number. Perhaps it would be notable if the information were correct, but I also fixed 2 or 3 errors while nominating. (At the present time, there is 1 notable property, Harshard not being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not paper, but even multi-Petabyte storage will run out if we generate a page per number. Imagine a bot doing it automatically (and correctly!). No way Jose. Crum375 01:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Original thinker award to Crum75 for that argument. Anton Mravcek 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talking about numbers, that one ain't mine, but thanks anyway. :P Crum375 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although I'll miss that insightful sentence '270 is the number of Interstate 270, which denotes any of a number of loop routes off Interstate 70.' Oh yes, my friend, oh yes. --die Baumfabrik 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That one was my fault. The original was something about a spur off Interstate 40, which is probably completely wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks for fixing my errors, and sorry about the mistakes, but you do realize that those alone are no reason to delete the page. I'm not sure what you count as interesting though, since this is the guideline: Name at least three interesting and unrelated properties of the number. It does not say mathematical anywhere, and by my count there are at the very least two, if not up to four interesting facts on this page. -JesterJester (not logged in currently)
  • Keep. From my point of view, it makes no sense to delete this when we have Category:Integers with a happy percentage of the other integers we know and love. Is 270 less deserving than 269? Or 155? How about -40? I don't think so. The nom seems to feel that some numbers are more important, or more notable, than 270. I'm not sure why that should be the case. Aren't they all equally important as abstract representations of an underlying reality? As such are we in any way equipped to differentiate between the notable and not notable? If these questions all have simple answers, perhaps we should make this a group nom to eliminate all the less important integers that are weighing so heavily on the reputation of this reference work. --JJay 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boring number, all properties listed except perhaps being an Ore number are not interesting. I'm getting tired of these senseless articles being created, and for the life of me I can't understand why a serious user would vote Keep. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have 269 either; it is listed under 200 and that is good enough. Please understand we need to stop somewhere; why should we have to endure debates as for 37564, 31999998, 99999999 or 10061092961? There is no end to it. --LambiamTalk 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Time for a history lesson. WP:NUM originally said every integer from 1 to 1024 was going to have its own article. The deletionists howled. So it was changed to 1001, then down to 257. The deletionists were still howling their tired old "numbers are infinite" argument. So WP:NUM went down to 200. The deletionists are still harping on the "numbers are infinite" argument. They're not going to be happy until the article on 42 gets deleted. So I quote Captain Picard and say "The line is drawn here. This far and no further!" Anton Mravcek 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't count that high on my fingers. No really, what Lambiam said Teke 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN per nom. mgekelly 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom - we really do get some very very odd articles here - Peripitus 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above- simply lacking enough sufficiently interesting mathematical properties. -- Kicking222 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply not notable enough Ydam 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn number. --Terence Ong 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spare us. Mr Stephen 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to 200 (number) as per convention. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per above. --Max Talk (add) 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Calwatch 06:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jjay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crum375 Eluchil404 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's my boyfriend's favorite number. Augurr 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't mean any disrespect, but could you please give another, more publically assessable reason for your vote? PrimeFan 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears in one core sequence of the OEIS and 63 nice ones (excluding sequences with keyword base). That it's an Ore number and the number of square permutations for 6 elements constitutes two mathematically interesting properties, while the fact that it's the minimum number of Electoral College votes needed to be selected U.S. President is a culturally interesting property. PrimeFan 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mathematicaly and culturally notable number. Numerao 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the political significance. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mathematically and culturally notable. Cholerashot 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anton Mravcek 23:12, 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, since it is already covered at Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heat (racing)[edit]

Extended definition page that doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Transwiki, perhaps? fuzzy510 01:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep seems slightly more than a dictionary definition even now, as it goes into variations and whatnot, perhaps beyond the scope of what a dicdef would cover, and there's room for expansion. Also it's got quite a few inbound links so it seems like a useful article. --W.marsh 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a stub at the moment but it seems like it could be expanded or edited into something a bit more appropriate Christopherlame 06:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as an overexplained dicdef. Unlikely to be expanded without further overwriting. B.Wind 06:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, dictionary definition. - Motor (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary per above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, lets wait for a while and see if it develops into an encyclopedic article. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How long do you plan on waiting, though? It's been an unedited stub since March 2005. --fuzzy510 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good sports article. --JJay 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per Nearly Headless Nick. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered at Wiktionary [4]. Peyna 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it has one line in a long list of definitions, or far less than our article. It also has one line on thermal energy. Should we delete Heat or maybe Heat (disambiguation) ? --JJay 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone used a lot of extra words to say the same thing Wiktionary said in one sentence doesn't mean there actually is any more information there. Peyna 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, where some see extrapolation, pertinent details and explanation, others see extraneous verbiage and unnessary bla bla. I mean, why let details get in the way of knowledge and understanding? Maybe we should strip down the wiktionary definition even further to something like heat= preliminary race. That would seem to sum it up in three words rather than their obviously long-winded eleven. N'est-ce pas?--JJay 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peyna --Guinnog 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its place in Wictionary is sufficient. Moreover, it doesn't show much room for expansion, and its having been an unedited article since March 2005, according to fuzzy510, proves it.--El aprendelenguas 20:31, 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 redirected to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdul Kahar[edit]

Maybe vanity, but mostly a news event; would be better on WikiNews. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 50 Google news results, and this happened a day ago apparently. Let's see how time treats this story rather than deleting a workable stub... if this become uneditted and forgotten in a few months, consider a redirect to an appropriate article. --W.marsh 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless properly sourced and proven notability. As of now, no sourcing whatsoever. Crum375 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepTranswiki to wikinews - well I inserted one reference myself so at least it has one source. Crum375 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that this is more a new article that encyclopedic, at this point anyway. Crum375 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.marsh, developing story. --JJay 01:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added the 'current' template. Who would think that the article was vanity?. As for sources, the papers hit the streets a few hours from now, so sit tight. --die Baumfabrik 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Delete Too early to say, so transwiki to Wikinews or delete. If he turns out to be a major figure in the public eye, recreate the article. I mean, I doubt the "Toronto 17" who were arrested hours after the two guys in London will be getting their own individual articles (and they shouldn't based on what we know about them so far, and assuming they're guilty) - heck, they still havent even been mentioned on the wikipedia Main Page headlines yet (which they should be). How does the arrest of two minor terror suspects make them more significant than those caught in the arrest of 17 minor terror suspects? (I'm using minor in comparison to major terrorist figures obviously, not the seriousness of their suspected plans). (btw, How on earth is this a "maybe vanity" article?) Bwithh 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Current events don't warrant article creations; not a crystal ball as to the relevancy they will end up having. Teke 06:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is a notable story right now in the UK and this person is one of the two key persons in that story. MLA 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the moment, but this is basically a Wikinews entry not a Wikipedia article. - Motor (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Abdul Kahar controversy or whatever & rewrite accordingly. Can't see a reason for article about a man who definitely fails 100 years test. MaxSem 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Too many "according to"'s and "allegedly" and general speculation to be an encyclopedia article yet. Once it settles it may be worth an article, but it is too soon to tell, and as the Jean Charles de Menezes situation showed, the references such articles depend on can change rapidly - compare the initial wikinews article to the now verified situation. Regards, MartinRe 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per MartinRe --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, would be much better in WikiNews; unwarranted article creation. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has potentially very significant implications about the controversial "shoot to kill" policy. Absolutely do not delete. ("Vanity"?!?) PizzaMargherita 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what implication? the police reportedly abandoned the "aim for the head" policy here due to the de Menezes scandal, and aimed for the upper body instead. I find the way the article puts the shooting allegation above everything else a little strange and POV incidentally. Bwithh 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is news to me, could you please point me to a reliable source reporting that the Met have officially abandoned shoot to kill? You may want to add it to the de Menezes article. I'm very interested. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway, to answer your question. De Menezes, bad intelligence. Alpizar, no intelligence. Kahar, potentially very significant implications. PizzaMargherita 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to this Independent article, the headshot/lethal force policy is only for suspected suicide bombers. Otherwise its a shot to a torso http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article624165.ece Bwithh 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...thus confirming that shoot to kill has never been abandoned, especially not because of the de Menezes incident. Not surprised to be honest. The reason to keep STK is clearly political, the day STK goes, Ian Blair goes. Anyway, point taken about Kahar arguably not falling in the category for which STK is applicable, though I'd disagree. Let's see what happens. PizzaMargherita 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews, its not an article but a news report. --Terence Ong 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or combine, we need to wait and see how the events pan out. There is some info at Forest Gate and it could be combined with that or added to an overall article about the events of 2nd june. The events need an article of their own surely, 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid as an article name anyone? talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 June 2006
    • Comment Every news event doesn't need an article of its own on wikipedia. That's what wikinews is for. Wikipedia can have "many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news" (from WP:NOT) but is this event historically significant? Remember, "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." (also from WP:NOT. Regards, MartinRe 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment ok, well can we get a consensus on combining with forest gate or moving to an article about all the events? i don't think at the moment it warrants its own article. We could place it all on forest gate and see if it evolves into something significant. I feel this is important enough to warrant some entries on the forest gate page at least Pluke 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is likely to be almost as significant as the Jean Charles de Menezes case--duncan 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When he is, he'll put him in. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deal? Delete -- GWO
      • I think he's already reached the Notability guideline: 'Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events'--duncan 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ñ

Comments moved from top of article as otherwise it messes up display on main afd pages. MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the page: 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid has been set up to bring all the info together, please help work on this page and we can then redirect Mohammed Abdul Kahar to the new page. This gives us the chance to move him back here if his details become any more significant. The new page needs a lot of work so please help.Pluke 10:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone can give me a good reason to keep this article as it is, I will redirect to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid tomorrow. The linked article already contains a section dedication to Mohammed Abdul Kahar which was copied and expanded from here. If Mohammed Abdul Kahar becomes a more significant figure in the near future we can always move that information back to his own page, but at the moment i think this is the best solution. Comments?Pluke 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would not solve the concerns I (and I believe others) had, in that this is too fluid with sources that are too liable to change, hence the transwiki to news. Simply moving the same information into a separate article doesn't address that in my view, as it's the fluid information than needs transikifiying, not the article title. Regards, MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluke, by all means go for it. I was convinced that was already done. Info duplication is bad as it induces forking. PizzaMargherita 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending further information on the case. Personally, I don't think this affects the Met's shoot-to-kill policy at all, as Kahar was shot during a police raid. He also was shot in the shoulder, not in the head; he is a terror suspect, not, like De Menzies, a victim of circumstances (and, of course, of the Met's decision to implement Kratos).
Pending further results, I'd opt to keep the article (albeit with improved sourcing of information given in the article). If this case does not develop in a way worthy of encyclopedic mentioning, merge with 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid (or simply redirect, as the text has already been incorporated). Cheers, Something Wicked 21:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sport[edit]

Dictionary definition. There's really not much else that you can say beyond the one sentence given that wouldn't be better suited someplace else. fuzzy510 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient scope for expansion. SM247 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - there is also a Team sport - it's not a spectacular article, but at least it shows that Individual sport could probably be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. That said, nobody has cared to try in the six+ months that the article has existed, so go ahead and delete it. BigDT 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already in Wiktionary. Teke 06:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictdef. MaxSem 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Teke. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive room for expansion as per Team sport. --JJay 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. Presently a dicdef. Punkmorten 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulations..! Weak keep, since it has been expanded. Punkmorten 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It shows a lot of room for expansion. If we delete it, it will deter others from recreating a better article. Even though it is currently just a dicdef, someone may see it and decide to expand it. While BigDT mentioned it has existed for 6+ months without expansion, it deserves at least a few more months as a stub.--El aprendelenguas 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think it can be expanded. -- Kjkolb 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But will it be expanded? Punkmorten 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if it's deleted. --JJay 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Information. I have added content to the article; does anyone have any objections to removing the {{expand}} tag? Folajimi 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way to go Folajimi. This will turn out to be an important article. --JJay 03:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Dana[edit]

Appears to be an attempt to advertise a surf shop that I am not sure of its notability. An older revision read like an advertisement, and, in the current version before June 5, the URL link to their website even had a tracking ID — ad_id=wiki Invitatious 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit & keep Request for cleanup to keep article within guidelines. This company maintains a noteworthy presence in the surf culture in the Southern California area. This retailer has multiple locations, and is just as worthy of existing within this informative platform as any of the other retailers listed below. Help with cleaning-up this article so that it satisfies all of the necessary criteria would be very welcomed. Wiki80 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete fails to establish meeting WP:CORP and from looking over google results and seeing nothing but advertising, I don't think it meets the guideline at all, even if the article were rewritten. --W.marsh 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't establish notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7 does not assert notability. - Motor (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. MaxSem 09:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Does csd:A7 cover business's? Ydam 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advertisement, corpspam. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. Compare this page at killerdana.com with the older revision referred to above. Mr Stephen 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. There is no indication that this is a major store chain like Sears, Montgomery Ward, Kmart, Kohl's and, Wal-Mart, that would make it significant for being here. -- Jason Palpatine 19:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like an ad and no assertion of notability. VegaDark 01:25, 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, no consensus for merge, see WP:MERGE to pursue that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_George_Washington_International_Law_Review[edit]

Not Noteworthy: this is a minor publication by one department of many in one university of very many. die Baumfabrik 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge with The George Washington University Law School. --Bachrach44 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bachrach44. Cut down though Bwithh 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong law student keep All verifiable academic journals are encyclopedic. This one is no exception. Faculty, practitioners and students write scholarly articles for publication. The fact that there are several hundred law journals in the U.S. is not a bar to inclusion. Let's instead focus on deleting the numerous Massively Multiplayer Cruftmags. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep frequently cited per WLU Law's what's cited (71 of 1302 listed for 2005); has ISSN and is available in university libraries (try Google) so meets the criteria for notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per above. An oft-cited notable (and reputable) law journal. Fluit 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bachrach44. ~ trialsanderrors 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BD2412's authoritative word on the subject: This is a notable Law Review, but the article is somewhat small. If reasonably expanded by the inclusion of noteworthy information (famous authors published therein? influential pieces? honors and awards from national panels?) before the end of this AfD, then keep; if not, then merge into the GWULS article until there is enough material to break out into a separate article. BD2412 T 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Lion King: Six New Adventures. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture Shock[edit]

This is a book in a set of books. Duplicate information exists in The Lion King: Six New Adventures. Starionwolf 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to The Lion King: Six New Adventures. (Looks like the duplicate info has been replaced with a link to Vulture Shock, so it'll need to be restored.) There doesn't seem to be enough notability or information to justify splitting this off into its own article outside of the series. – Zawersh 06:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, per Zawersh. - Motor (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, per Zawersh. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:59, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keith Smith[edit]

vanity article by marginal fringe figure, delete Homey 01:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keep" - I thought the idea of wikipedia was that anyone or anything of any significance could be looked up. Mike Smith is a leading member of a political party and leader of an association aimed at changing our politicial spectrum from the current one dimentional - same government (no matter who you vote for) - to a multi-dimentional conviction political spectrum we all need if democracy really does exist and isn't just part of some alice in wonderland lie! If this gets deleted, then I'm going to expect that similar artciles on other leading political activists and commentators be deleted (mmm who should we start with?). Lets have a cull of such people on Wikpedia. Or is this censorship politically based? If this goes, I will be nominating a long list of people who should join it!86.20.41.187 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Alice in Wonderland" - Wot? With Mr Smith playing the role of Humpty-Dumpty? Endomorph
  • Delete:: Never heard of him, Michael who? (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.182.62.130 (talk • contribs) )
  • Delete:: Vanity Article, insignificant politcal nobody211.48.25.2 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: depressing vanity article. NN POV. --die Baumfabrik 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete almost as notable as the marginally notable Lauder-Frost. but not quite Bwithh 04:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is saying something when I, as a Leftist, defend the right of CDA figures to have entries on Wikipedia, but I feel I have to. "Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks which make me, as a Leftist, hate him/her far more than traditional conservatives who at least aren't Thatcherite cultural vandals. As is often the case these days, what unites people like me with traditional conservatives, against the new centre ground, is greater than what divides us ... certainly, I feel that Homey's obsessive personal agenda is irrational and wrong-headed. We should not be deleting articles about people just because they aren't ultra-populist Americanisers, which I think is Homey's real motivation (he/she would, judging by the remarks I quoted above, be just as likely to want to delete articles about traditional socialists such as myself). RobinCarmody
    • The above was actually posted by an anon IP. RobinCarmody hasn't posted since FebruaryHomey 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I decided to sign my posting without logging in! It *was* me; I've logged in now. RobinCarmody
      • ""Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks" As an aside, what in the world are you talking about? What were these remarks you are attributing to me?Homey 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, article is vanity. Story could be the subject of a Wikinews article but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. - Motor (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the subject of this article, which I did not instigate. I believe that the original article was written by JASpencer, a Conservative Party activist who is not a supporter of CDA and subsequently augmented by others.
Whether or not the article remains or is edited or deleted must be left to Wikipedia. I would simply comment as follows.
Firstly, you may feel that notes on the Chairman of CDA are relevant to anybody researching the CDA article on Wikipedia. You may also feel that the references to the landmark internet libel action Keith Smith v Williams will be of use to internet law researchers.
Secondly, I have reviewed the current content of the article and find no falsehood in it. Providing 'citations' even for such mundane matters as (eg) my membership of the RICS, is less easy than it sounds.
Thirdly, recent 'vandalism' of this article appears to have been instigated by Tracy Williams, the loser in the recent landmark action Keith Smith v Williams and her associate Ed Chilvers, who has indeed published on the internet an abstract concerning what he believes to be the 'facts' of the case. http://www.lvl9.org/article.htm. You may gather from this that there is bad blood between Chilvers and myself.
As to the motives of Williams and Chilvers, you must draw your own conclusions from these facts.Mike Keith Smith 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First edit is todayHomey 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I enquire as to the relevance of that comment. If Homey has, as is alleged, an 'agenda' he/she should not be a Wikipedia administrator.Mike Keith Smith 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - fails the political requirements in WP:BIO. I would say to Merge to the Conservative Democratic Alliance article but that one is a mess at the moment anyway - Peripitus 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - a candidate in a parliamentary election for a significant party, seems noteworthy to me. Rain74 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or at the very least trim down. Surely we dont need to know all about his family history, and the article remains grossly under-sourced. User:Edchilvers
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTwo 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoTwo only started editing today. Homey 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless excerise in vanity and self-promotion.
  • Delete: fails the political requirements in WP:BIO. Merge details relevant to Conservative Democratic Alliance to that article. --Stephen Burnett 20:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. possible vanity. --manchesterstudent 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be merely a vanity article by a fringe figure. Endomorph
  • Keep. I think this meets the requirements for notability through being chair of the CDA and the manner of his leaving the Conservative Party. David | Talk 10:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Conservative Democratic Alliance describes itself as a pressure group that in reality stands candidates in other parties like UKIP as the Chairman Mike Smith did in the last UK General Election, therfore unless the Conservative Democratic alliance has made some real political achievements I believe the entry should be deleted, one reason is because it is not accurate as it does not explain Smith's role in the CDA honestly, and two it reads as a self-promoting vanity PR exercise. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.238.150 (talk • contribs) )
  • COMMENT

" but I feel I have to. "Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks which make me, as a Leftist, hate him/her far more than traditional conservatives who at least aren't Thatcherite cultural vandals. "

You can't ask for an entry to be kept just because you 'hate' the admin guy. Get real.(— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.238.150 (talk • contribs) )

  • Comment: but its fine for the admin guy to 'hate' all these various figures and groups on the British Right and call for their deletion or demonisations? Oh, good. At least thats clear. Sussexman 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And who do we know from Sussex??? Don't be such a drama queen, Smith's entry is up for deletion because he is a nobody in respectable British politics, he is an attention seeking right winger who spends most of his time posting a variety of rude and obscene messages about the Conservative Party and its leadership on his own message boards. If he was well known in respectable Conservative Circles as you put it, he would be listed in the search engines as being 'A well known respectable Conservative, but he is not. Most entries deal with the Conservative party dumping the right wing Monday Club to shake off its racist image, and Mike Smith setting up the CDA in an attack on the Conservatives's cleaner and respectable image. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.163.1 (talk • contribs) )
    • Comment: I would support deletion not of Smith's article, but of unsigned comments as above which have been made by those who lost a recent libel action to him and supporters of the loser. Hundreds of thousands of people live in Sussex. I know a few. How many do you know? What a stupid comment. 81.131.91.205 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<<Removed personal flame war about unrelated court case for the second time. Please keep comments relevant to the deletion debate - Wikipedia is not Usenet. Humansdorpie 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC))>>[reply]
  • Delete. Minor failed politico/hack. -- GWO.
  • Keep: Michael Keith Smith is a well-known figure on the respectable Conservative Right-wing. He has been a parliamentary candidate and an active Tory for decades holding office at local levels. He is presently Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliances and was previously on the Executive Council of the Conservative Monday Club for many years. Sussexman 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Smith is a major figure on the respectable traditional Right. 81.131.91.205 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the above "vote" is from an anon IP. Homey 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Smith is a "major figure" then the respectable traditional right is in a parlous condition indeed. Endomorph
  • Keep: censorship sux, just cause someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean the rest should suffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.166.82 (talk • contribs)
    • the above "vote" is from an anon IP. Homey 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
            • We ought to get this clear with the Prime mover of all these deletions, User:HOTR. You may provoke responses as much as you like, in the hope that you can then attack users as being uncivil and not acting in "good faith". But be clear on this please, as every individual who ever uses Wikipedia must be, you are just as anonymous to all of us as someone editing just using their ISP code. So your silly notes above about "anon IP"s are meaningless unless this assessment page is to be decided by a biased kangaroo court. 81.131.77.243 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikapedia should realise that people in politics can often suffer politically motivated attacks, included concerted attempts to delete them from Wikepedia. Please don't. - Chris Cooke— Preceding unsigned comment added by 33camhouses (talk • contribs)
    • The above "vote" was made by an editor who started editing todayHomey 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: campaigners on the British Right deserves their place in the sun too. Check out the endless biographies of Canadian politicians on Wikipedia who no-one in the entire world has ever heard of (especially all the Communist Party non-entities). Has anyone from the British Right been attacking them? Calling for their deletion? Some bias showing here, thats a certainty. 81.131.77.243 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Evidently a significent minor political figure currently under personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.225.131 (talk • contribs)
    • Above comment made by an anon IPHomey 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: What's wrong with the Right? 86.139.132.193 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:Any reader of the respected British anti-Fascist periodical Searchlight knows that Smith is one of the key players in the massive realignment that is taking place on the post-Cameron right. Leaving him our would be ridiculous. Seems that certain capitalist elements are desperate to hide the fact that the right is alive and well and very much part of the system they uphold General Kongo 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal views, and should therefore contain facts, however discomfiting to a minority of readers62.56.69.250 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the previous entry. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal views and should not be subject to the kind of huffing and puffing that is contained in Mr.Smith's entry which is basically not much than a list of dinner appointments and letters to the editor. Important though all this "much ado about nothing" may have been to him it is of no interest to the wider world.Endomorph. *Comment: If one believes Mr Smith's supporters we deletionists seem to span the entire political spectrum. On Smith's CDA Forum we are described as " Far left activists and traitors" and "the combined forces of evil" Yet General Kongo above believes that we are "certain capitalist elements" whilst Barry believes that we are "politically motivated PC types". If this is true then we are disparate indeed but we atleast have one thing in common,the belief that Mr Smith's outrageous example of self-promotion is unworthy of Wikipedia and should be deleted.Endomorph

Keep: Mike Smith is a well known figure on the Right in UK politics. Some politically motivated PC types seem to be wageing a vendetta. regards Barry 66.222.88.90 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC). Keep: the CDA is a viable and important part of contemporary UK political thought and discussion. MIke Smith is an important part of that organization. Atruelove 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason why I shouldn't vote for myself, and it's pretty obvious that the following two malicious posters know very well who I am or they would not be posting. Mike Keith Smith 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • less than 50 edits (and most of them are on AFDs). Homey 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Editors should be clearly aware of the campaign and its management here and on Stuart Millson and Gregory Lauder-Frost. It demonstrates clear hatred by some administrators and total lack of control by the Wikipedia Foundation. Sussexman 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep: Hopelessly biased attack on a leading figure of the Tory Right. Lightoftheworld 10:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mr Smith is not a "leading figure of the Tory right". In fact he is not even a member of the Tory Party having left some years ago when they failed to measure up to his pristine standards. Mr Smith is the leader of the miniscule CDA a right wing pressure group which exerts no pressure, is generally unheard of and which, when it is so, becomes the subject of mockery and derision. Endomorph


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Gregory Lauder-Frost (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mostly Rainy 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Aiken[edit]

Two Career Races in NASCAR is not important enough for one driver to receive a page in Wikipedia.Casey14 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, possibly just creeps in under Wikipedia:Notability_(people), Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, but needs more detail. - Motor (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand, meets WP:BIO marginally. MaxSem 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I absolutely disagree with the nomination. I'm not the biggest fan of a person such as this having an article, but he deserves one. Even if it was only for a couple of weeks, he competed at the absolute highest level of his sport, which, according to WP:BIO, asserts sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just meets WP:BIO. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kicking - Article asserts notability --Nearly Headless Nick 14:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs more meat - way too short right now. "Finished 1 race 4th, was 5th in points for season" is probably notable enough. Crum375 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above. Calwatch 06:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons noted above. Yamaguchi先生 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per above. WillC 21:30, 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. Mostly Rainy 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick O'Dell[edit]

One career race in NASCAR is not enough for a Wikipedia page. Casey14 01:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Adams[edit]

One career race is not important enough for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So All 2831 drivers to start a NASCAR Cup race should get Wikipedia pages? Casey14 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the 38,000 starters of the 1996 Boston Marathon? They all get pages according to you? Crum375 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure how much protest i'd put up, but that's apples and oranges - The Boston Marathon isn't a professional sporting league. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP not paper - don't be so shocked. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to remember the name of the midget that was once fielded by a major league baseball team as a gag. He has an article here, I've read it. One day contract, one career at-bat. He walked, because his low height gave him a terribly small strike zone, and was lifted for a pinch runner, never to appear again. Go figure! :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Gaedel. I love Eddie Gaedel. When I went to the Baseball Hall of Fame like eight years ago (at the ripe old age of 13), my absolute favorite thing was Gaedel's "1/8" jersey. -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One unfinished race does not confer notability. Crum375 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CrazyRussian's comments. Amazinglarry 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because WP:BIO says so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even one race means he passes WP:BIO. That's all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per above. WillC 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A starter in an elite-level-only event is not the same as a starter in a race with a fun-run element. Merchbow 20:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Moschella, Jr.[edit]

Racing a Season in a modified series is not anywhere near important enough for a Wikipedia page. Casey14 02:06, 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 - notable enough term. --Cyde↔Weys 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double posting[edit]

The author contested my prod (although they didn't remove it.) See discussion on my talk page and theirs. No vote. Grandmasterka 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote As I'm the author, I'm bias, so I'm not going to vote. However my logic was that there are: 1,680,000 Google hits for "double post" and 605,000 Google hits for "double posting" proving that it is a widely used term and I believe it can be expanded beyond being just a definition by showing how double posting is recieved on different forums.--SeizureDog 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And ghits are irrelevant for simple English words or terms - cannot differentiate between WP and wiktionary. Crum375 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, broaden scope, and expand. Beyond a simple dicdef, there's a social aspect to this. However, forums are not the only place where this type of thing happens. Double submissions happen with all manner of things: reservations, purchases, registrations, etc. So, what might be better is to rename the article to something more general and cover this broader range of conventions. Discussion as to what kind of software mechanisms are sometimes used to avoid double submissions would be a worthwhile addition to the article. – Zawersh 06:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take it to the Jargon File -- GWO
  • Weak keep, currently a dicdef. Some agreement with Zawersh. Comment on author note: I'd worry about expanding it to show how double posting is received on differnet forums. It would just end up filling the article with ephemera. - Motor (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictdef, there are other articles such as first post an so on. MaxSem 10:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and expand. Mrjeff 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable beyond a dicdef, room to move with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Badlydrawnjeff --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: Notable article, but there need to be more added to keep it up to standard. --Wizardman 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into Internet forum. Not notable by itself in an article, notable as a phenomenon that happens on forums. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or do what Hobbeslover suggests, although I doubt this is going to be an article with very many incoming links or a likely search term, redirects are cheap. The article has no chance of going beyond a dicdef, ever. Peyna 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. --JJay 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. Silensor 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. Silensor 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have to flame you now. --JJay 03:22, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Acton[edit]

14 career NASCAR races, and not one top ten, hardly notable, not important enough for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Formula One drivers with fewer starts and 0 career GP points also have articles. -- Grev 05:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Formula 1 is an international circuit, with fewer starters and higher barriers to entry. -- GWO
  • Keep - WP:BIO standard is that he participated at this level, not that he won. - Peripitus 11:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He competed at the highest level in his sport for half a season. By WP:BIO, that's certainly enough notability. -- Kicking222 12:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep drivers from other motorsports who competed in fewer races also has articles and the majority meet WP:BIO. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Punkmorten 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Mystery Meat 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Calwatch 06:51, 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Aars[edit]

One career race in NASCAR hardly important for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:09, 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 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Killam Trusts[edit]

only contributor is Killamtrusts. Likely spam/vanity Bachrach44 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I can vouch for the fact that the Killam Trusts exist -- the main library at Dalhousie University is named after Killam. This article could obviously use a lot of work but my sense is that the Killam Trusts are a sufficiently big deal to warrant mention. Certainly the article needs to be renamed. Greyfedora 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Seems to be a notable and important Canadian charitable trust. Needs a thorough rewrite for POV and other issues though Bwithh 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bwithh and, as the others say, rewrite. GassyGuy 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable but needs references and a good scrubbing for bias. - Motor (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify per Motor. Crum375 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into the articles about the people. The trust itself is not noteworthy enough to warrant an article. Peyna 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bwithh and GassyGuy. Adding the "cleanup" tag to this article was the wiser course of action. Fluit 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very notable Canadian charitable trust. I know about it mainly because the organization and founder (Izaak Walton Killam) share my surname. Grandmasterka 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marco Thomas 00:28, 9 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Broadcasting System[edit]

The network in Network is the United Broadcasting System, the network in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is the National Broadcasting System, and even if this article were factually accurate it wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Greyfedora 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the network in Network (film) is the Union Broadcasting System... but the point stands. Greyfedora 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable fancruft Ydam 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTo 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoTo was recently indefinitely blocked (on 4 June, I think), for attacking admins and other troublemaking Bwithh 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't need its own article. Why don't people work on fixing existing articles instead of creating endlessly pointless ones? (Yes, I understand the hypocrisy in trolling AfD while making such a statement.) Peyna 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes i created it, and for a reason. Its a fictional network from two TV shows and a movie and is worth noting. I created it when I saw it linked on those 3 pages and realized it was to the same article.Spookyadler 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there were some sort of common fictional thread it might be worth expanding and saving, but it's less notable than 555 telephone numbers. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But 555 phone numbers have their own article.Spookyadler 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, but I think the point Dhartung was trying to make is that the fact that there are a lot of 555 phone numbers in movies is not conincidental. The fact that there is a television network named the Union Broadcasting System in two movies seems to be coincidental -- maybe if there were some evidence that it isn't the article would be more worthy of inclusion. Greyfedora 16:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritess vs the Super Friends[edit]

NN. Non-encyclopedic. Do we really need an article describing the entire comedy routine of a relatively minor comedian? --Ichabod 02:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Delete My friends, this is what the future of Wikipedia looks like Bwithh 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if any of us can do anything about it. -- Kicking222 12:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 05:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably speedy. - Motor (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn. MaxSem 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. -- Kicking222 12:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ydam 12:57, 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 Keep Eluchil404 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Shade of Blue[edit]

non notable individual song. according to Bananarama, didn't get on top 100 in the UK, the US or Australia. Albums are generally notable for themselves, songs, not so much. Rory096 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would vote to merge with the album except we don't have an article on it. The article is of a high standard and appears to have been created in response to a request through articles through creation. I don't think that this meets the standards for a standalone article in which case the policy is to merge with I have left a message for Marudubshinki the creator of the article to seek his input. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seemed a reasonable request, so I fulfilled it. But if it should be mrged into an album, doesn't an obvious solution present itself which would kill two birds with one stone? --maru (talk) contribs 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. Capitalistroadster 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until creation of an article on the album, then merge per above. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 07:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until an album article is created and then merge/redirect. - Motor (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, then merge per above. -- Kicking222 12:35, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Millson[edit]

Vanity article about a marginal figure whose main contribution seems to be writing letters. Replete with original reserach. Homey 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote Keep. It is irrelevant if Millson is noteworthy. The article sheds light on the politics of his times, and it should stay as long as it if factually true. Edwin Hale
  • I'm going to vote keep here as well. As per the Lauder-Frost article, the content is pretty shabby but the subject is notable. CJCurrie 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no, this guy isn't noteworthy. An entertaining article, but NN and POV. --die Baumfabrik 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not as notable as Lauder-Frost, who is only marginally notable Bwithh 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Millson is, in his way, a prominent political figure who has become a mouthpiece for a certain movement and way of seeing the world which feels that it has lost the other representation it once had. I don't think the article is biased; it is a reasonable and balanced description of the man's views. RobinCarmody
    • RobinCarmody has not edited since February. The above was actually posted by an anon IP. Homey 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact I have regularly been editing; I just haven't bothered to log in. It was definitely me posting above; I have logged in now. RobinCarmody
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). - Motor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The man is a political nonentity, and has not published any significant body of work either. "Vanity article" seems a fair assessment. --Stephen Burnett 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is self-aggrandising self-serving rubbish. Millson is not a notable politician in any sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.163.184 (talk • contribs) .
  • This delightful comment placed by either Chilvers or his friend Williams. 213.122.134.193 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable on the right-wing of British politics. David | Talk 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Reyk YO! 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: another target for User:HOTR. Millson is a very well-known and prominent figure on the British respectable Right. Sussexman 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: as per the last extremely accurate statement. How do such fantastically biased Users get any kind of status within Wikipedia? How many more articles will be attacked like this? 81.131.91.205 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • posted by an Anon IP.Homey 19:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Just as "anon" as you. Having a funny pen name tells nothing but your targets and comments on Wikipedia tell us everything. 81.131.77.243 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For those who are new to Wikipedia editing, I should explain that here on Wikipedia editors are often judged by their contribution history. That is, on the merits of their work here. People who don't create an account or sign in are often seen as novices or people unwilling to stand behind their edits. If that bothers you, the easy solution is to create an account. --William Pietri 02:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All that tells us is that there are a bunch of sad people around with nothing better to do than spend their time in front of a PC screen boosting their egos by pretending to be up there with the editors of the Britannica. Still, at least you have the courage to sign your posts unlike the anonymous malicious creep HOTR.Mike Keith Smith 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: censorship sux, just cause someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean the rest should suffer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.166.82 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, censorship by bigots is never an attractive option. Brin— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.79.47 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: Wikapedia should realise that people in politics can often suffer politically motivated attacks, included concerted attempts to delete them from Wikepedia. Please don't. - Chris Cooke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.204.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Wikipedia should realise that people in politics can often suffer politically motivated attacks, including concerted attempts to delete them from Wikipedia. Please don't. - V. Clark,B.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.174.48 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Although I personally favour retaining the article, I do not believe that many of the preceding "keep" votes are legitimate. CJCurrie 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the fellow is notable, the article doesn't tell me why. I'm glad to be persuaded otherwise. As an aside, I'm very disappointed in what I presume is an outside attempt to stuff the ballot box, which in any case won't work. --William Pietri 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody asked you for your pompous opinion. Pretty obvious from your profile that you are the kind of nobody who thinks his words are worth their weight in gold. The only ballot-stuffing round here is coming from politically-motivated malignants and their sockpuppets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Keith Smith (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Millson is a significant figure on the radical right of British politics. <<removed unnecessary personal attack on nominator -- Humansdorpie 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)>> Mike Keith Smith 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As with Lauder-Frost and Smith Millson is clearly being targeted by people who want to hide the truth about the capitalist-far right alliance. You only have to read Searchlight to recognise that Millson is one of the leading far-right intellectuals formerly allied with Jonathan Bowden who now heads the BNPs think-tank. General Kongo 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* Whatever you think about his views, he is someone who has made waves, and merits inclusion by any objective criteria you care to mention. Why are liberals only liberal up to a certain point?62.56.69.250 10:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Millson is well-known in radical dissident circles.80.229.162.84 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Millson is at least as well known as many others in Wikipedia. Attempts to exclude him are politically motivated. regards Barry.66.222.88.90 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Millson is a significant figure in responsible, prudent and definitely well-supported current UK feelings on immigration, asylum, the dangers of Islam and the like; Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a spineless regurgitation of 'liberal' opinion and prejudice. Atruelove 19:19, 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 Speedy deleted at request of creator.

Midge (TV Show)[edit]

I would speedy this if I could, as it's not only an obvious hoax but borders on sheer nonsense. The article says it's a popular series that never aired. OK... Google turns up nothing. Painfully unfunny.

Also nominated: Midge Amelia Mayhan. Danny Lilithborne 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete lame joke by bored children. Burninate this crap. Danny Lilithborne 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article when someone started posting information about it on the page about the insect. I did so in good faith that the contributer was just confused. I have since looked for this show on Google with no result, and given the contradictory nature of the content, I would agree to the deletion of this page and the related page that I also created about the supposed main character (which I see you have also listed in AfD). I was meaning to speedy this earlier and I still can as the original creator of these pages. LaMenta3 03:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

610 Magnolia[edit]

Delete. Vanity article about an obscure restaurant. I live in Louisville, and this is not amongst the notable of the city's restaurants, none of which have articles yet. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also it only gets 474 Google hits. —Khoikhoi 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I agree that there are other Louisville restaurants which could use entries, but this one not so much. GassyGuy 07:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity, advert. - Motor (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure vanity advert Ydam 12:59, 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. Punkmorten 23:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Esplanade Mall[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion and the tag was removed, all it really is, is just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall. Also, this seems like an advert, Delete Yanksox 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The author is trying to create articles for all the malls in the New Orleans area, but isn't much of a writer. I have already edited Clearview Mall and will work on the others. There are many articles on WP on shopping malls worldwide. NawlinWiki 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Rehcsif that more info is needed besides a list of stores. Give me a day or so to search news articles and see what I can find. (What am I getting myself into??) NawlinWiki 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the cleaned-up version (of Clearview Mall) is simply a list of stores. If the article were to contain additional information, such as history of the mall, significant stores that have come and gone, significant events held at the mall, etc. I'd say keep. But if I want a list of stores, I can google the mall's own website. See Southdale Center or Mall of America for a good Mall article of a significant mall (interestingly, neither of these contain a list of stores). --Rehcsif 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just find it deeply troubling that pages about local malls are being created, that has a severe lack of notability, and could also run into advertising. Just because there are other pages that exist like it, is not excuse for keeping one up. If we did that, AfD would be almost useless. Yanksox 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While other malls have articles in Wikipedia, a couple survived AfDs in part because each of those articles made at least a half-hearted attempt to show notability. This one does not - until/unless such an attempt appears before close of debate, delete. B.Wind 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is some notability to the place. - Motor (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete malls are not inheirantly notable Ydam 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to assert notability, sounds more of listcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:NawlinWiki. People do care. --JJay 16:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, malls are generally not notable. -- Kjkolb 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: regionally significant mall with major anchor stores. This is not a strip mall. Calwatch 06:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Caldorwards4 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn digital_me(t/c) 03:57, 9 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 10:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Collins[edit]

Deleted on first AfD and then recreated. He hasn't gotten any more notable to my knowledge, and the article doesn't give help by way of sources. Crystallina 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The man has obviously garnered a significant enough following to earn a Wikipedia article.
Keep - Do a google, you'll find lots of pages referring to him -- and evidently he was even on David Letterman for this video. If Letterman thinks he's notable enough to show to the whole USA, he's probably notable enough for WP. Man, that thing is painful to watch tho... --Rehcsif 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think all the animal stars from Letterman's "Stupid Pet Tricks" should be in Wikipedia too? This Brian Collins essentially has the same notability and function Bwithh 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly -- he was also an internet phenomenon. See also Carson Williams, for example... --Rehcsif 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the only reason he was on Letterman is because Letterman was once a communications major at Ball State like this poor fellow. Show up at the Ed Sullivan Theatre in a BSU t-shirt and you'll probably be on TV too. Not notable enough to warrant an article. Peyna 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goooo Cardinals!! Bwithh 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a link to the previous AfD? DVD+ R/W 04:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Collins. Note that this doesn't mention his Letterman appearance or much else to establish notability. Also note the "consensus" last time around was about 50/50... --Rehcsif 04:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. The consensus last time was 80+% delete. Most of the keep votes last time were from anonymous IP addresses with one from an account with 10 edits in his history. None of those keep votes would be valid in the final consideration. there was one valid keep vote Bwithh 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: never heard of him, never want to, wouldn't use Wikipedia to find out about him. --die Baumfabrik 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nonnotable and possible vanity. And issue an warning to the creators to respect the delete conclusion of the first afd Bwithh
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. DarthVader 05:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability? Let's see here: Ball State student, cable access program, tape circulated on Internet, nervous on the air? On Letterman? (do the "contestants" on "Stupid Human Tricks" or "Know Your Current Events" each deserve main Wikipedia articles?) Delete nn. B.Wind 07:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The appearance on Letterman is not enough to change my mind about this. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Motor (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MaxSem 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted stuff. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Arnzy. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. and per Arnzy. Crum375 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This kind of one incident minor fame no more merits an article than the average road traffic accident. Osomec 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per B.Wind. Tiny tidbits of non-notability just don't add up. Let's let this one run the full seven days to fully ensure that it stays deleted. Grandmasterka 04:29, 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 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filehive[edit]

Completely non-notable. Not in top 100,000 websites, google only gives 36 results and not all are related. Article is pure advertisement. Crossmr 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with whether or not its permitted to stay as an article. It has no encyclopedic value at this time. --Crossmr 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Forumer, where it FileHive has already been mentioned. Matt 15:24, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall[edit]

Just a list of stores, not very notable. To see a similar debate refer to this [5], delete Yanksox 04:10, 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Chapone[edit]

Extremly non notable person Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notablity supplied or found. - Motor (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not everything in those public domain 'pedias oughtta be imported here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a real writer, even if somewhat obscure and not widely-known today. Article cites a source and even Google gives several different results. There are articles on less notable people. Rain74 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Rain74 and she passed the hundred year test (even if she's done badly on the two hundred year test). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Rain74. She merits a two paragraph entry in the better-known (and modern) lit encyclopedia, The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Espresso Addict 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And it appears that some of her works are in print here, "Volume 3 .. Hester Chapone: Letters on the Improvement of the Mind, 1733; Advice to a New Married Lady, 1777; Letters on Filial Obedience; Selected Poems, Essays & Letters ..." Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 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, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women sports announcers[edit]

Serves absolutely no purpose. It could certainly be expanded, but it would almost have to be in the form of a list, and there's already Category:Women sports announcers. fuzzy510 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: eminently pointless. --die Baumfabrik 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no need to debate the validity of a Wikipedia article with this name. The article under discussion is essentially empty (the "see also" is basically window dressing; as Baumfabrik amply puts it, pointless. B.Wind 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I suppose it could be expanded into an article on the history of women sports announcers... but preferably... delete. - Motor (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, unnecessary, blank list already covered by a category. -- Kicking222 12:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Motor's "could be". --Kickstart70-T-C 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as basically empty article. This should only be a category. Crum375 20:04, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Shopping Center[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable mall, the page is nothing but a list of stores, could be labeled as an advert. Delete Yanksox 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all articles for New Orleans area mall should be wrapped into one package for consideration here. They all share the same weakness: no real attempt at showing notability (although this one says "one of the oldest malls in the Metairie area," a rather weak assertion). B.Wind 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above - Motor (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --129.234.4.76 14:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTo 14:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTwo 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User, in addition to the below concerns, has only edited AfD pages. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am going out and a limb and I'm presuming the last two accounts are the same user. Yanksox 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe even the last three. MoTo's sole talk page entry is a recent indefinite block by admins , btw Bwithh 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I modifed the article (i.e. deleted all the specific store listing) to conform with Wikipedia standards and also included that the Mall gained national spotlight during last year's Christmas shopping season with Hurricane Katrina damage themed Christmas village display. Jungworld.com 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and slightly merge to whatever article covers the Katrina disturbances. Malls are NN. Events occurring therein get their own articles if notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mall is no more significant than any other mall, and is no more significant for having survived a natural disaster that affected a very large geographical region (and thus, lots and lots of otherwise common malls). It's just a mall, folks. No one will ever have a reason to research this, and it's a good example of Wiki Gone Bad. Additionally, there are probably a thousand malls in America alone called Lakeside.
  • Keep. Regionally significant mall, oldest mall in area's second largest city. Calwatch 06:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a flipping mall. -- GWO
  • Delete malls aren't inherently notable. If it is kept, would need to look at article title due to similarly named malls elsewhere. MLA 08:00, 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 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Canal Place[edit]

A list of malls, seems like it could be labeled an advert. Not notable, delete Yanksox 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for pressing, Zappa, I'm just curious what the rationale is. Yanksox 23:21, 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. Mostly Rainy 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFTAC[edit]

Non-notable group. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 05:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a whopping 47 hits with a Google search with "Foundation For The AntiChrist". Delete, B.Wind 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No evidence of notability (reliable or otherwise). - Motor (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about 4,570 for FFTAC on google FFTAC found on http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?acronym=FFTAC FFTAC found on http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FFTAC FFTAC has is a recognized non profit in the USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.177.28 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. English search returns 236 hits, 59 unique. Vast majority are unrelated to the antichrist. A lot seem to be related to Final Fantasy. Seems quite unnotable. Fan1967 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very delete with prejudice and extreme Russian accent. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This group, if it even exists in any sensible form, is too insignificant to have a Wikipedia article. Maybe if they listed something notable that they had accomplished, someone could write an article about them, but right now there is nothing here that anyone would want to read. Gary 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely verifiable, let alone notable. Nothing here worth keeping, I think. Terraxos 22:51, 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 as non-notable bio. Royboycrashfan 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margarite Mae-Bales[edit]

Vanity page. Meteshjj 04:46, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical dirt[edit]

Vanity Meteshjj 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Not even close to notable, vanity. DarthVader 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Just look at that entry, non-notable, prank nonsense. Ande B. 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity advertisement (with downloading information) B.Wind 07:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, whats bad about this i made this game to share with people, and i figured i would share it and write a short documentation of it at the same time theevilovenmit 07:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It seems like a good game, however the problem is that Wikipedia is only for articles describing people and things of great importance/notability. Unfortunately this game of yours is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia. Please do not take offence from this deletion. You seem to be a civil user and you would make a good editor. Please feel free to help out by contributing to other articles. Have a good day. :-) DarthVader 09:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't want to bite newbies, but Wikipedia isn't the place for this. - Motor (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fun game! I've been playing it for the past half hour. The article needs some revision but it's hardly "prank nonsense" as one other user suggested. At least Move this article to the creator's user page. Thanks for making a cool game. Keep designing them and at least post your creations to your user page, if not to actual Wikipedia articles. 172.144.191.214 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not what Wikipedia is for. I can't believe I bothered to clean up a tiny bit, but I guess that's the Wikipedian in me. Peyna 18:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • feel free to delete i set up a webpage to replace this article, i'll try making the article when the game is notable by wikipedia standards. theevilovenmit 05:26, 4 June 2006 (GMT -08:00)
    • Thanks for being such a civil and understanding user. I hope that your game becomes notable enough so that it can one day be included on wikipedia. CSD G7. DarthVader 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable game. I know at least 5 people who play it. Tobyk777 05:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 people playing the game is not notable enough. Please provide a source that shows that this article is notable enough for wikipedia standards. DarthVader 06:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article name could be WP:DAFTed, too. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cow says mooooooooooooove this to his user page, you crazy party poopers!!!!!1 172.164.26.170 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SOFTWARE doesn't even begin to cover it. Do not userfy, has no bearing on Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, "Do not userfy"? You mean this poor kid can't even talk about his own software on his own damn user page? Who are you, anyway, freakin' HITLER??? 172.128.23.117 20:39, 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 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ott Jud[edit]

Keep. Featured in various fechtbuchs, though I don't know of any translations of the wrestling portions online. More information available at The ARMA. --Fean 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person; top result on Google search is Wikipedia article. Freddie 01:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person; well-known in Western martial arts circles. There's a lot in life you can't find on Google, you know. Ken

Ott Jud is one of the most important grappling master in Western Martial Arts. Many of the fight books of the 1400s and 1500s describe and illustrate Master Ott's grappling techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.39.29 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Expand, if anything. It looks to me like 71.244.39.29 knows a thing of two about Mr Jud, and I'd like to know more about him. In any event: no reason to dump him other than the article is short of content, and that can be ameliorated. Deaconse 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...There is a trend in the Martial Arts community over the last decade to delve into the traditional arts of Western Europe. This has coincided with the translations of many period manuals. Ott is well known as a wrestler, and students of both western martial arts, and eastern systems, such as Judo/Jujitsu use sources such as Ott to determine the history of grappling techniques......where certain holds originated, and what variations were common between the different styles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.96.38 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, exts links are not English and contain no mention of Ott Jud. Sudden IP interest in AFD. Smells like a hoax. - Motor (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, he is mentioned [here] [here] and [here] but I cannot tell what it means. Peripitus 11:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so little is known about the subject aside from a few minor mentions in other very old texts. I'm hestitant to vote delete, but I think we're going to run into verifiability issues. Peyna 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o prejudice to recreation as a sourced stub - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find the name mentioned in any of the cited references. Unless there is WP:RS for these notability claims, it cannot stay. Crum375 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see the name in sources cited by Peripitus above, but like him, I can't really figure out whether those are sufficient proof of notability. Crum375 21:23, 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 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second War (Harry Potter)[edit]

Delete WP:NOT a J.K. Rowling book. This is a recapitulation of a giant chunk of Harry Potter, I guess. Details of a fictional book do not belong here, nor should we merge it anywhere. Note, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First War (Harry Potter), the result of which was delete. Through AfD'ing it, I came across this article. The rationale is identical, of course. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 05:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 05:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft KleenupKrew 12:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fancruft and precedent Ydam 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fan-created unsourced neologism. Information duplicates book summaries. Rain74 14:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't quite understand this. "Fan-created unsourced neologism" roughly translates to a new coining of something (namely, "Second War"), which is not sourced by the books and instead created by fans. Please read my explanation in my vote below to see why this is utterly wrong. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for my short explanation. The article is basicially a short summary of books 1 to 6, focusing on the war against Voldemort, which is the main plot element of the books anyway. As such, all the information is already available on character pages (particularily Harry Potter (character) and Lord Voldemort) and pages about individual books. That's why I think this article is redundant. Rain74 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superstrong transwiki to b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. WP:NOT paper either. This is valuable information of the battles/showdowns between Harry and Voldemort that take place within the current timeline of the series (between PS and HBP). I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia either, but the information is vital to the series understanding and belongs somewhere in WP's compilation of Harry Potter stuff. This is not "fancruft" either, please watch your terminology. "Fancruft," by definition at WP:CRUFT, is "content […] of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." This would imply this is a minor thing which HP fans like to see on WP. It is not. It is a selection of key events in the series. Please take note of this as you vote. Thank you. (PS: Wikibooks is a bit lacking in information as well, and this would be a good boost to their plot section.) --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need the AfD process to transwiki. Go ahead and do it if you think it should be done. I am sure the closing admin on the first war's AfD will gladly allow you to see the contents of the deleted article so you could transwiki it. The question for us here is whether to retain this on WP. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:05, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology[edit]

This article is about a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This appears to be nothing more than an abbreviatied college catalog description, somewhat in the nature of an advertisement or recruitment materials. There does not appear to be any historical, social, academic, or political accomplishment or achievement of note atributable to this program. Not that it's a bad program, it seems perferctly fine, but it's not appropriate for an article. Ande B. 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Alternatively Redirect to Wharton B School page as discussed below by Alex S, who has cleaned up the article quite a bit. Ande B. 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ande B. - Motor (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wharton School is considered by many to be the best undergraduate business program in the world. Information from the program's website [6], [7] shows notability in its faculty and in the accomplishments of its alumni. This is clearly a program with an international reputation and impact. Should not be deleted. If necessary, should become a redirect to the Wharton School. --Alex S 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'm aware of Wharton's reputation. If WP has a practice of including coverage of programs within articles covering educational institutions (seems sensible enough) then a Redirect may be the best resolution. Ande B. 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ande B. Deleteme42 11:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Edited the page for NPOV, notable facts, and general cleanup. I think it's also noteworthy that Metropolitan90 is nominating this article for deletion because he believes that Ivy League programs in general are not notable ([8]). "If you find any Ivy League affiliated joint degree programs with individual articles in Wikipedia, let me know and I will submit those articles for deletion too." --Metropolitan90 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia has 87 articles on fictional Japanese giant robots, I think it has room for programs that produce many of our country's future leaders, in business and otherwise. --Alex S 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My objection is to joint degree programs in general having articles, not to Ivy League topics. After all, if a university offers n different degrees, it could have up to 0.5n2 - 0.5n different joint degree programs, and I don't see the need for that many separate articles. --Metropolitan90 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Metropolitan90: Could. But the fact is, they don't. Penn, which is known for its emphasis on interdisciplinary programs, has only five. Most universities have none. --Alex S 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Ande B.: Take a look at the Harvard#Residential Houses and Yale#Residential colleges. If each house at one of these schools merits an article, then certainly each program within such a school merits an article. --Alex S 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1) That "An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own" is a point of view of your own. hundreds of people apply to these programs and having been one of those i would dearly love to see an objective source about it other than from its own website and very dubious entries on collegeconfidential. 2)"This appears to be nothing more than an abbreviatied college catalog description, somewhat in the nature of an advertisement or recruitment materials. There does not appear to be any historical, social, academic, or political accomplishment or achievement of note atributable to this program." that could be because nobody has put any in yet, or it is still too early, call me biased but i am sure at least some kind of "accomplishment or achievement" will happen sometime in wikipedia's lifetime and should a wikipedian wish to record it down he will happen upon this article. something that doesn't meet standards for an article now doesn't mean all of it should be deleted. don't throw the baby out with the bath water. 3) the last argument that there could be too many JDP's to cover as wikipedia articles... well.. i hear alex S on that one. actual PEOPLE spend years going thru these programs and even more years after seeking employment and a place in society based on the credentials and experience they gain from these programs. It is a life changing decision to join one, and i would at the very least prefer a resource on wikipedia to research. the seeming consensus on redirecting it to the wharton page where there it merely mentions "Wharton Undergraduates may pursue a dual degrees in engineering through the Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology (M&T) and international business through the Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business (ISB)." is not going to help a lot. and yes i declare my own interest in this to the extent that i have gone and put up a huntsman article, which is far from perfect (i am quite new to this) now but could be a lot better with a lot more work. go ahead and list it for deletion if you want, but i hope more people support me on my rebuttals of points 1-3 and find that it actually does deserve an article by itself. over to you. ahwang 03:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that I submitted a previous article about the Huntsman program for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business) and it was in fact deleted just 8 days ago. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • hm noted. didn't know cos i only started surfing around this corner of wikipedia i think 2 days ago. well anywaes, i hope the present incarnation is far more wiki-worthy. i shall be waiting around to have a feel of its general reception before working on it some more next weekend, got to go back into my dull dreary army camp soon :( and by working on it some more i mean reworking what is publicly available from the official site into something that people can truly use and is not quite so verbose. i'm somewhat cheered that you didn't immediately AfD the new article. any pointers? ahwang 10:09, 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 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartthrob[edit]

This article completely fails WP:NPOV in that defining someone as a "hearthrob" is inherently subjective, and also WP:V in that no entry has a citation to a published source. Kevin 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a slang definiton to me. Unless there is some standardized criteria to describe "heart throb" and that criteria goes beyond a slang definition, there seems to be nothing here of note. Ande B. 05:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wiktionary already has an entry. - Motor (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not entirely unknown for Wikipedia to have pages devoted to memes and slang terms, but this is too subjective, and, I think, adequately covered by other areas. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I removed the subjective/unreferenced content and now there is nothing but a dicdef, which is really all the article will become. Bombshell probably also needs the axe. Peyna 19:03, 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 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIMP houseparty[edit]

Non-notable social activity restricted to one university. -- RHaworth 05:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Yanksox 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Not even worth a mention on the University page. Capitalistroadster 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Sounds like a fun party though. mjb 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hehe - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugh, not my kind of party. Anyway, it's totally non-notable, per nom. Grandmasterka 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Chaser (T) 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is what The Facebook was created for. In fact, Bristol has facebook, so they should be planning it as an event there. They'd certainly get more exposure. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:23, 9 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, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theinternetdotcom[edit]

Proposal for kiosks where web-o-phobes could get internet searches done for them and printed out. Deletable as original research / crystal ballery and advert. Recommend for BJAODN. Despite the crudity of its web pages (eg. [9] and [10]), I think the guy is actually serious. -- RHaworth 06:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN. Yeah it isn't that funny I guess, but just meets my standards for BJAODN. DarthVader 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - but for the fact that the website exists it would be {{nonsense}}. Peripitus 11:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy for being nonsense. - Motor (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a running joke on a blog, not an actual business. --Metropolitan90 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as hoax. Peyna 19:04, 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. Punkmorten 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energizer_CHDCWB-4[edit]

Product seems minor and wholly irrelevant Tejastheory 06:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I consider this to be not notable. DarthVader 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarthVader. Kalani [talk] 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like the editor who created it meant well and put some effort into taking pictures for it... but it's not really suitable for an article. - Motor (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the author of the article mentioned. I intended it as an example of an NiMH charger, but since I do not have other chargers, I wrote it specifically about that particular charger, in a general category of "NiMH chargers". If it's to be deleted, I'd prefer to create a generic page for that type of charger, or add a section so a very generic "battery charger" page that provides some information about this type of charger. If the general consensus is to remove the existing page, I have no significant problem with that, other than the issues I mentioned above. --Ron 23:50, 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 Computerjoe's talk 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyGroup[edit]

Speedy Delete Ok where do we start, this article is 100% pure unadulterated SPAM and its sole purpose is to advertise one company belonging to one individual and provide backlinks to various websites controlled by that individual. From my understanding of WIKIPEDIA using an article to provide SEO for web pages and positive publicity is in breech of several of WIKIPEDIA's conditions and objectives. I recommend a deletion on a variety of grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politakis (talk • contribs)

  • STRONG Keep I'm sorry but the easyGroup is one of the most significant companies in the UK and western Europe today. Everyone knows of them and their subsidiary companies and they are perhaps single handedly responsible for an overhaul in how certain commercial sectors are run (mostly airlines, hotels and car rental). Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Incidentally this has been nominated by a user who seems intent on removing all the easyGroup companies from Wikipedia and has tried to do so on several occassions of late. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To clarify what's going on here, the user nominating this article tried adding links to etaxis.co.uk and eminicabs.co.uk to the article Minicab, and created EasyPizza which had a link to easypizza.co.uk. A simple examination of those pages show them to be all part of the same SEO machine. Going one link deep in on any of those websites reveals dozens of (often hidden) links to other websites, and these three sites link to each other. Because of my SEO suspicions, I nominated EasyPizza for deletion, not knowing that there was a legitimate easyPizza company run by easyGroup. During the AfD, other Wikipedians uncovered links to notable sources mentioning the real easyPizza, so I withdrew my AfD nom and fixed easyPizza to refer to the notable company. lowercase 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep it sure looks like a WP:POINT nom -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Speedy kept yesterday and probably a bad faith nomination here again today. DarthVader 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The owner is roughly the fourth most famous entrepreneur based in the UK (after Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Roman Abramovich).Piccadilly 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Surely fifth most famous, after you count Lakshmi Mittal Bwithh 20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't Mittal is more famous in the UK. He is richer and more important on a global scale, but he's in a business that sells to other businesses, so it is of little interest to those who don't read the business pages. Stelios operates a high profile consumer brand and is familiar on TV. He has certainly been famous in the UK for longer. Abramovich is famous with the general public because he's associated with football, not because he made billions in oil and alunium; Sugar was also been involved in football and has his own TV show; and Branson is head and shoulders above all other British businessmen in fame because he's a marketing genius and has been involved in many consumer businesses. Steelmaking just doesn't interest the British general public much, especially when the plants are overseas. Piccadilly 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, easyGroup is certainly a notable company in the UK. Though it needs some bias work. - Motor (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - highly notable company in the UK. Timrollpickering 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Obviously notable company Ydam 13:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, obviously. --Guinnog 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the nominator has a point regarding the SPAM, the article is not unsalvageable. Peyna 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could withstand a neutralizing NPOV cleanup, but otherwise it appears to meet WP:CORP item 1. Crum375 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed Keep / NPOV cleanup Major UK brand. Article seems satisfactorily NPOV already to me Bwithh 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and block the nominator for more than 24 hours for continued WP:POINT violations after a 24hr block. I think it does need some NPOV cleanup, though. Grandmasterka 04:48, 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 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki 69ers[edit]

This article is just a stub (plus links copied from the hockey article) that makes an unreferenced claim that a hockey team called the Thessaloniki 69ers will exist in the year 2012 in Greece. Google turns up nothing on the topic. mjb 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. It doesn't take 6 years to start a sports team anyway. --Metropolitan90 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it for non-notable sports teams. DarthVader 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax. There's no mention of a sports league for the purported hockey team. Not a single link provided in the "article" is remotely connected to the supposed future team. B.Wind 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarthVader (WP:NOT a crystal ball). Google shows no results. Kalani [talk] 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per B. Wind. --Grouse 08:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe in 2012. - Motor (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If plans were in place with Google hits, I could see it as a week keep. Otherwise, begone. Mystery Meat 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total hoax. Hoaxes are not a speedy criterion.Grandmasterka 04:50, 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 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almadeus Star Gioeli[edit]

Not quite notable, Google test shows only a few pages, mostly about his book Cancer is Good for You. Plus, the user who wrote this page is likely the author himself, as his name is the same. Possibly violates NPOV. --Geopgeop 07:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google returns one result. Kalani [talk] 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't really one result when I did the Google test, as I didn't put quotation marks. This Google test does give more results, but still not enough. Again, delete. --Geopgeop 09:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanispamcruft. - Motor (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vanispamcruft Ydam 13:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (I didn't even know vanispamcruft was a word...) Amalas =^_^= 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 07:18, 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 The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyright violation (A8). The JPStalk to me 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 7 Gallery[edit]

Is not encyclopedic content, possible copyvio bdude Talk 07:56, 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. Kusma (討論) 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francyne Walker[edit]

No claim of notability. Thue | talk 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google returns 17 results. Non-notable. Kalani [talk] 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, article doesn't assert notability. --Rory096 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Vanity article. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:37, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribu Polachirackal-Tharakan[edit]

This vanity page fails biography notability criteria, and it does not cite sources. It is not linked from elsewhere on Wikipedia Grouse 08:51, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRCDig[edit]

Non-notable website; fails WP:WEB. Haakon 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Alexa... Traffic Rank for ircdig.com: 395,091 - Motor (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising for a non-notable site. -- Kicking222 12:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable is matter of opinion. Site has over 100,000 unique visitors a month. Alexa is a weak search site and using it to verify notability is a weak argument. Alexa still shows old design which was changed weeks ago. Google search results shows 16,600 results for a search on ircdig and Google gives ircdig.com a page rank of 4. I would call that notable. PackVillian 20:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note User's only edits are to IRCDig (for which he is solely responsible), this AfD discussion, and one article where he put IRCDig at the top of a list as opposed to in the middle of it. -- Kicking222 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Oh boohoo, look at me, I want to remove an article that is not advertising, defamatory or insulting in any other way. Grow up people and get a life away from wikipedia. There is a whole world out there, go expereince it. PackVillian 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia ia not a platform for advertisements. Deleteme42 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do all you care so much about deleting this article. I agree with packVillian, the article is informative and not advertising. There are numerous other similar articles for most torrent search engines. Looking through most of your guys contribs, it seems all most of you do is recommend articles for deletion. Give the guy a break. It seems well written and nuetral. And yes I registered an account specifically to comment on this but I have been a participant on wikipedia for years. KernelPanic 13:52, 9 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. Redirect optional. Mailer Diablo 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Deluxe[edit]

  • Delete
There is not one reliable or official source ANYWHERE stating this movie is coming out or is even on the drawing board. There is also no mention of this movie on the IMDB. Seems like just an internet rumor, which really isn't all that believable, considering the age of both actors in question, and one is running AGAIN for Governor. --JOK3R 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete None of those are official. And WP is not a crystal ball.
fix nomination, listing under today's date, 81.104.165.184 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like someone trying to start a rumour, and not succeeding particularly well. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 11:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources, hoax, rumour-mongering. - Motor (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Warhorus 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Speedball, an article about the Speedball games, the second of which was called "Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe". Might as well get some use out of this one. -- Captain Disdain 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Speedball per Cap'n Dis, Brutal Deluxe being both the subtitle of one of the games and a significant team within the Speedball franchise. MLA 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:27, 9 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. -- RHaworth 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoil (band)[edit]

NZ band that fails to meet any of the notability requirements --Dom 10:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedy delete. They don't even claim notability. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 11:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no albums, no live history, no decent media mentions. Ac@osr 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7 no assertion of notability. I've just added a db-bio. - Motor (talk) 12:37, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guus Hermans[edit]

Probably a hoax, with a small side bet on non-notable. Name gets eight google hits, none seem soccer related. Editors' other contributions all have similar problems. Deprodded Weregerbil 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, definitely a hoax. In his second edit the creator added a link to an image on the UEFA web site, which however shows another person, John de Jong. --LambiamTalk 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on NN alone Ydam 13:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, virtually certain it's a hoax... from google, its edit history and reading the later text in the paragraph. - Motor (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most probably a hoax; websites in Dutch don't even mention him. JoJan 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. Crum375 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely certainly a hoax. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious hoax delete. Scoring six goals in a match for a national team? And nobody has heard of him? This is some poorly written fiction. Grandmasterka 04:55, 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 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerz Realm Network[edit]

Delete Reads like an advert, soo little information it is virtually impossible to wikify. Websites seem to be very minor and google hit wise there are less than 200. To demonstrate how minor this is, one of their "main" realms has been decided to be removed from Wikipedia's article on RuneScape (On which RunescapeRealm is about) when there were 5 links (All 5 are gone now) J.J.Sagnella 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom... alexa ranking. Advert - quote: History of RSR & GR approved for GFDL use by Duke Atreide, head of GR. No reliable sources provided, and I'm willing to bet that any sources that do show up will all be web forum posts, personal sites and blogs. - Motor (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this were notable, it would be over-represented on Google so 200 hits is insignificant. MLA 14:31, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Spannaus[edit]

nn failed political candidate - delete KleenupKrew 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pernom + recent AfD. The JPStalk to me 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, and doesn't the "I support Lyndon LaRouche's demand that (insert Larouche nonsense)" justify a fast exit with a bullet in the back of the head? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. - Motor (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons listed above. GentlemanGhost 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I read BigDT's info below, but it didn't change my mind. GentlemanGhost 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Eluchil404 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a higher up in the LaRouche Movement and has plenty of publications and references (media and otherwise) unrelated to her failed political candidacies ... [11] [12] [13] ... she is currently the editor in chief of Larouche's New Federalist newspaper. Further, due to the shenanigans in the 2002 election, she would be notable from that alone. Basically, there was a big fight between her and the Democrat party. She tried to become a Democrat and steal the Democrat nomination (ala Pat Buchanan / Reform Party). I didn't see this AFD when it first came out. As such, there are a bunch of deletes in the now-several days old AFD. If there are no responses after this one, I would encourage the closing admin to relist it for further consensus. (If other people reading this still feel she is non-notable, ok, that's fine, I'm not going to get too upset over it - just if nobody but the closing admin reads this, it's probably worth further consideration since the seven people voting to delete are probably aware that she has any notability beyond a failed candidacy.) BigDT 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As an admin who watches articles related to the LaRouche Movement, I don't care one way or another. Spannaus is a figure in that movement, but her overall notability (such as it is) rests in her U.S. Senate campaigns. As with other LaRouche candidates (see Janice Hart), Spannaus' minor degree of success seems to have been based on ignorance of her positions rather then knowledge of them. How many articles do we have about people who's chief claim to fame is getting 20% of the vote in a statewide election? However if there is a considerable lack of reliable sources to base an article upon, then it may be impossible to write a verifiable, NPOV article about her. In that sense it may not meet the notability standard of having reliable, 3rd party sources. It's up to you, closing administrator! Cheers, -Will Beback 10:18, 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 10:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered the worst ever[edit]

This article has been acknowledged for a long time to be nothing but POV. Additionally, much of it appears to be original research. Despite this acknowledgment, the article remains the same: uncited, unencyclopedic, and unprofessional. Chris Griswold 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK guys, I will dare and remove the AfD tag as the result seems to be "Keep" with little or no doubt (and no, no ballot stuffing here). Plus the AfD tags insist on calling this the "second" AfD nomination, while it's the third one. Oh well... EpiVictor 15:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, forgot that only admins can do that :-) EpiVictor 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, the nominator did not disclose that this article has been nominated for deletion twice; there was no consensus first time and keep (by a wide margin- 13 to 5) the second time. Much like the GNAA, there's no reason to keep re-nominating an article. Second of all, while I feel that this list is POV, it's at least POV that pretty much everyone can agree with- not many people are going to tell you that Big Rigs was a particularly great experience. The fact that there's already a note to use the talk page before adding to the article certainly helps its cause. As a huge gamer, I greatly despise gamecruft on WP, but in my opinion, this isn't it. -- Kicking222 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, by the way, if you look at the talk page, the note in the main article is true- each game somebody wants to put on the list is first proposed to the community (via the talk page), or else it's simply removed from the page. Thus, while the article is POV, at least there's a consensus as far as what belongs on the list and what does not. -- Kicking222 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was listed for deletion several times unsuccessfully. I don't see how this time it would be different.  Grue  13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While at first it may sound POV all entries are seemingly backed up by references to calims that said entries are in fact terrible. it is after all list of games considered not list of games that are the worst ever Ydam 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Guinnog 14:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite beginning While the list itself is a good collection with references, the article before the list itself is indeed very POV, especially the "2D as out-of-fashion" section which is disputable from many angles including the many popular 2D games released for newer handheld consoles including not only the likes of the Gameboy Advance but also of mobile phones. The part before the list definitely needs an NPOV-rewrite. AdamDobay 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rename. Listcruft. Horrible name for an article: "considered" (weasel words), "worst ever" (hyperbole). If it is kept it needs to be renamed. 70.108.111.17 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:"Worst ever" isn't really hyperbole. Someone's gotta be the worst... -LtNOWIS 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. I invite 70.108.111.17 to suggest alternate wording that won't render the title POV. 23skidoo 14:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "List of video games that have been called among the worst" or "that have been panned by most critics". Make sure every game included is sourced to a notable reference (not just some kid's blog) justifying inclusion. See list of groups referred to as cults for example of how this can be done. 70.108.111.17 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I voted this way last time too - the title is POV. --Bachrach44 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If individual games within the list is notable enough, give those games coverage in their own individual articles. Otherwise, this page amounts to consensus reviews, which by definition is point of view. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are references to prominent gaming websites for every entry.  Grue  17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus reviews are by definition point of view. A list of the worst movies ever would be deletable under the same criteria. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as not only it has survived two AfD nominations before, but the current revision of the list is much more mature and well observed/mantained than older versions. Plus, there are similarly named articles (one example for all: Films considered the worst ever) which are suspiciously not subject to as much AfD nominations and criticism, neither for their name, nor for their content. And about the "2D out of fashion theory": the only systems where they're considered "hip" are lowly handhelds and Java games (for technical reasons, mostly, but even on those platforms, developers and manufacturers are striving for "3D at all costs" strategy too, so there's definitively a bias or policy in the industry. EpiVictor 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and quit listing it for deletion. It's ridiculous to list articles over and over when there's a consensus to keep them. 81.170.50.197 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Per above. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. It's sad that ballot-stuffing managed to keep this article alive so long. Peyna 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By my current count, 11 people are going with keep, 3 with delete, and 1 with rename. While the first two AfDs might be different, I'm not sure how you can attribute this discussion to ballot stuffing. -- Kicking222 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, did anyone else notice that my (kicking222) comment came at 22:22? That's awesome. -- Kicking222 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment was in reference to the prior dsicussions. Peyna 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Per reasons already exposited above. --Ghetteaux 20:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Ditto (how else can I say it, especially in one word?) Mattderojas 21:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this actually have have some use as suggested eariler, as a repository of games that are considered bad; most of them give reasons for why, allowing the reader to do further research as many have their own page dedicated to them. And I would think that 12-3-1 (The 1 being a Rename) would be considered to be a legitimate vote, since ballot-stuffing would imply that someone is logging in under different accounts to do this. Coyote42 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite beginning. Films considered the worst ever is an exemplary list in my opinion... This has attracted more negative attention I think because the intro is way too long and messy. Clean it up, but I know this can be made into a well-sourced and unambiguous list. Grandmasterka 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But it needs revision. There's an article for greatest, there should be a reciprical. --Mystalic 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite article title. Having a weasel word right in the title undermines this article from the very beginning. Aside from that, I vote this article should be kept because making it finally work would provide an excellent testament to the power of the Wiki community to tackle tough articles. NO ARTICLE LEFT BEHIND! --Metron4 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs work, but is a worthy subject to be included. If Films considered the worst ever and other subjects can have their own 'worst' lists, I do not see why video games cannot have their own 'worst' list either.--Cini 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please keep. It's my favorite Wikipedia article.
  • Keep. The worst film list is POV too. --Passerby Cat talk cat 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as an authoritative source (magazine, etc.) can be found, I'd say that this list is fine, if worthy of keeping the {{disputed}} tag. Isopropyl 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big time delete Pages like this are too subjective to be included on a encyclopedia (because Wikipedia is not truly an encylopedia). Nevertheless, this page displays opinions rather then facts which is totally the opposite of Wikipedia's mission. Farine -- 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I see someone from here is trying to get List of movies considered the worst ever deleted too. The fact is that these pages' entries are democratically chosen, are not added arbitrarily and must meed guidelines to be added. --Philo 04:43, 9 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. Prodego talk 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter rowan (model)[edit]

Some assertion of notability, but it's awful, really. Delete unless expanded. The JPStalk to me 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not really notable enough.--Andeh 13:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be expanded somewhat. Seems like he might be notable but at the moment there is no real assertion of it. Ydam 13:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Yes, it's ugly but that could've been fixed. Ifnord 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Even if the article were cleaned up (why bother?) still not worth an article. Somebody's little brother whose picture was used a few times. Fan1967 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with his brother's article, Guggi but cut down first. Guggi. Guggi? Guggiguggiguggi. Guggi!! Bwithh 19:28, 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 to Pole. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pole (object)[edit]

Two reasons for nomination. "Not a Dictionary" is the main one. The second is that the page did contain text that was proposed for merge into two other articles. I have performed the merge and turned it into a disambig page, but I keep coming back to the "Not a dictionary" reason. Thus the seciond is a subset of the first Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really should write more clearly. What I mean is that a "pole" as an object, is something that requires a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedic definition. As an article here it is not important. As a disambig page it is not important either because wikilinks to Pole (object) are, to me, not encyclopaedic links, so should not really exist either, though links to a particular kind of pole, such as a barber's pole make perfect sense because they are enclyclopaedic. Lack of this disambig page ought therefore to lead to better articles since they will, one hopes, link to the correct places. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and it does nothing that can't be done at the pole disambiguation page Ydam 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The pre-disambiguation version was not that bad. Disambiguation pages are not "dictionary definitions." The links now there should be retained. The Dutch page seems better. Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree wholeheartedly that the pre-disambig version was not bad it was pretty much a duplicate of the two pages it was suggested for merge into, and was by no means expansive enough to be what it purported to be - a set fo definitions of poles which are objects. After the merge it became a page which is either incomplete and needs strengthening with everything one couold possibly disambiguate a pole to be, or is a duplicate of Pole, which I should doubtless have found before nominating it. There is thus an argument for turning it into a redirect page instead of deleting it. It is a very week disambig page as it stands. I was frankly unsure which course to take, hence the nomination whcih will give correct guidance. Fiddle Faddle 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to pole, then; that's already a disambiguation page, and a page like pole (object) suggests it's already disambiguated. Smerdis of Tlön 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Merge to the disambig page, then redirect - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:08, 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 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime iku[edit]

Not many google hits. Seems like spam. Nearly Headless Nick 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. Does the vote still count? --Andeh 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, spam, plus the article makes no assertion of notability, CSD A7. - Motor (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like spam, Visit us at <webaddress>. Their forums seem to be quite quiet showing that it's not considerably notable/popular.--Andeh 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely advertising WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

This list is stupid it is just made up and Michaeld Jackson is the best but he is not top. I think it is not npov and it should be removed MoTo 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to earlier nominations:
--LambiamTalk 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTwo 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- well-sourced, quantified. I don't see the problem. 23skidoo 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone else realize the person who listed this is blocked forever? So keep. I love patrolling it and-despite what a lot of people say-it is a very well researched and sourced page. --69.145.123.171 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Caldorwards4 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Nothing wrong with this article at all. 81.170.50.197 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Seems like a bad faith nom. — RJH (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously a bad faith nom by a now banned user. Peyna 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Peyna --Robdurbar 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peyna and 23skidoo. -Mtmelendez 19:48, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian values[edit]

Speculation, point-of-view and original research. The term is near-impossible to define in a NPOV manner due to the wide range of values it can possibly represent. Presently a subtle attack article. michael talk 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Might be original research as of now, but article can definately be developed and the subject is encyclopedic. Nearly Headless Nick 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poor quality article... unreferenced and OR, but the subject "Christian values" justifies an encylopedia entry. - Motor (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add references. Rick Norwood 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. valid topic. Needs expansion. --JJay 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very much per nom. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't warrant its own entry, Christian values should be inferred from Christianity. --Coroebus 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Content duplicates existing articles such as Christian views of marriage, Christian views of women, Christian views on contraception and the 22 articles in the category "Doctrines and teachings of Jesus". Humansdorpie 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Christianity. Peyna 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there already are articles on the subject. Rain74 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no problems with encyclopedic content, but covered in more detail on existing topics as referred to by humansdorpie. --manchesterstudent 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even within Christian groups (protestant, catholic, mormon, eastern) there is so much variation that it would be difficult to come up with common values, but combined together it is impossible. This article is merely unsourced claims about conservative christians in the U.S. -- Kjkolb 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, need much improvement, but the article can be used to describe, analyze and compare past attitudes which are considered "Christian" against those "Christain Values" embraced by political conservatives.--Bud 03:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christianity. Though my sympathylies with Bud. -- GWO
  • Weak keep per Motor. Valid topic, the article needs much improvement though. --Zoz (t) 17:58, 9 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, incredibly notable term in American politics --Cyde↔Weys 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family values[edit]

Speculation, point-of-view and original research. The term is near-impossible to define in a NPOV manner due to the wide range of values it can possibly represent. michael talk 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article appears to be too hard to keep as a NPOV. --Tarpy 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it is had does not mean that it shouldn't be attepmted. Even if it takes many attempts. Spewin 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be careful to reference everything. Rick Norwood 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject justifies an article. - Motor (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important topic, actively edited article with references, I don't see any problem. --JJay 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Very much per nom. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article isn't perfect, and is US-centric, but the topic is worth having an entry on. --Coroebus 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conditional upon extensive cleanup, POV scrubbing and making the article about what various people might consider "family values" and what that terms means to those people and how they make use of it. Peyna 19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically a WP:OR. Neutrally sourced parts, if any, could be merged into Value (personal and cultural). Crum375 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a common political topic. More work can be done on the article re POV but a notabel topic nonetheless. Capitalistroadster 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a complete soapbox. ER MD 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family values in U.S. politics. Rain74 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No point in denying that the movement exists. Pollinator 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family values in U.S. politics. Little here of relevance to the rest of the world. --Guinnog 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family values in U.S. politics. Also address POV issues as does appear to be biased! --manchesterstudent 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family values in U.S. politics per previous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. -- Kjkolb 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good explanation of political views.--Bud 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and broaden to include other countries (especially the Muslim world, where there is an analogous conflict between secular and religious candidates). Calwatch 06:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvagable leftwing soapbox article--RCT 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but work on a near-complete rewrite. Important to have an article on, but this is completely insane as currently written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--James Bond 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - It's an entirely notable term. If there are POv issues, let's fix them, but there's no excuse whatsoever for deletion. Al 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - Very well written encyclopedia article. — CJewell (talk to me) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is in common use among conservatives and even others, it deserves to stay here; however, that is not to say it should not be edited to fit NPOV. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even with the inherent NPOV pitfalls. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:44, 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, nn-band. Kusma (討論) 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Phoenix[edit]

Article is about a non-notable band. Searches on Google and Yahoo don't turn up any other link to this band. Nothing links here from other wikipages Andante1980 14:43, 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. -- RHaworth 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttamoose[edit]

No relevant google hits at all. Looks like an hoax. Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 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 not enough of a consensus to delete, but sufficient not to give the guy his own article, so very slight merge into Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars as the founder. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yong-chuan[edit]

Claims to be "well-known" leader of overseas Chinese students. Well, obviously not, as I see no evidence that he is well-known. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak-ish Keep I can't find a ton about him, but there are several different souces mentioning him online, and he seems to really be a published author. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 08:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start again - article doesn't assert notability, but if Goldom found indications of his being a published author, it should have been mentioned in the first place. B.Wind 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just got that by the fact that one of the external links goes to a book on amazon he wrote, so it is mentioned in that manner. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.ifcss.net is a place about overseas Chinese in the 90s. He was a leader in 1989 and after, mentioned in New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and many other places.


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no clear sign of notability Bwithh 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This gratuitous comment does not help your cause. If he's notable, show that he's notable. --Nlu (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO. Willing to reconsider if anyone can add a verifiable citation from a [[WP:RS|reliable source that he meets the WP:BIO criteria as an author. Right now I don't see any evidence that his book has sold enough to meet that criteria.--Isotope23 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does the fact that he's a published author make him notable enough? Hong Qi Gong 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He appeared in New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News when he was IFCSS's president in 1989-1990s. Also, a lot and a lot in Chinese language media. Definitely, he is well-known to overseas Chinese students and scholars of 1980s and 1990s. Student80
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise Board[edit]

Delete. Non-notable local messageboard. Alexa rank of over 800,000. discospinster 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Metropolitan90. - Motor (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, but do not keep any content. (meaning don't merge). Much of the text apears to be an attack page. --Bachrach44 17:00, 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 redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette Frye[edit]

Whatever the historical significance of his arrest being connected to the start of the Watts riot, there simply isn't enough information available to make him himself notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Watts riot, per Eivind. - Motor (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge per Eivind. Unless he had some kind of Rodney King media status after the riots, he doesnt need an article for himself Bwithh 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge I was gonna say "give it time, see if it'll get fleshed out," but it's been around since 2004. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:49, 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, consensus reached. Punkmorten 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie de Roland-Peel[edit]

  • Delete - two sentences do not a Wikipedia article make. Also, while the subject's titles seem notable, there is really no indication as to how notable she is. In addition, there's WP:V...B.Wind 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough even if verified Bwithh 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the organization itself seems to barely be a blip, let alone a member of that org with a fancy title. Peyna 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proof offered of notability per reliable and neutral sources. Crum375 19:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the talk page, posted by User:216.183.37.60 on 19:45, 1 October 2004:
Given that Laos, Burma and Viet Nam are all republics, and totalitarian ones at that, I find it impossible to believe that a group made up of people pretending to royal status in the countries in question would be able to have any dialogue whatsoever with the Communist governments of Laos, Burma and Viet Nam. Even in Europe, such as in Austria, Greece and Italy, no republic would even deal with an actual royal figure until they disavowed their favored status and accepted the legality and legitimacy of the ruling government.
Further, in the article posted by the same clique which posted this on the "Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League" it says that they hold that the last legitimate ruler of Viet Nam was the French puppet Emperor Bao Dai. Therefore, how could they hope to have a dialogue with a government they refuse to even accept as a legitimate power? Additionally, the website for the British House of Commons, which lists all committees of every kind, has no mention of this group, and it seems highly unlikely that they ever would considering that the United Kingdom and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam fully recognize each other, have exchanged ambassadors and are on friendly relations.
If the British government was actually sponsoring a group composed of royal pretenders claiming status from the countries in question, and working in opposition to the ruling government, I assure you the Vietnamese government would protest loudly and probably break off all diplomatic relations with the British. -Nguyen Van Tuan
  • That said, I'm closing this debate as delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JavaSVN[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement. No incoming links, no categories. kingboyk 15:05, 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 deleted by Drini with no summary, probably for the copyvio. For future reference: There's a defined process for handling copyvios; see WP:COPYVIO for information. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Dissolved Solids[edit]

The information on this page was just copied over from http://www.tdsmeter.com/abouttds.html Benzi 16:05, 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 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weed patch[edit]

This article doesn't assert notability or meet the criteria for notability outlined in the guidelines furthermore, it is written in a completely un-neutral way Benjaminstewart05 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:Copyvio from the band's website[14] BuckRose 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I certainly agree that in its current form, the article has no place in an encyclopedia (besides, it's a copyright violation, as it has been lifted directly from the bio section of their site), so it would have to be completely rewritten, but they do have an Allmusic entry and get a fair amount of Google hits, so they're kinda notable. Still, they don't quite seem to meet WP:MUSIC. -- Captain Disdain 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, in its current form it is a copyright violation and CSD A7. - Motor (talk) 19:07, 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 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Picolo[edit]

Does not seem sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most bars in the world are not notable, and student bars are that even more rarely. -- Captain Disdain 17:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there's something actually notable about this particular student bar. - Motor (talk) 19:08, 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 delete. Punkmorten 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Cabino[edit]

I have thus far been unable to find major, independent sources that say this guy is notable. Making a chocolate sneaker is interesting and all, but the vanity of the page and the lack of real assertions of notability are suspect. Plus, one of the two contributors to the page is User:Cabino. If anyone can find major news coverage or something to support this artist, bring it forward. Otherwise, this page should be deleted. Grandmasterka 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Al Cabino has launched this campaign. It ahs been covered by major news sources. Why should it be deleted? Maybe people recognize him as a sneaker celebrity, and there are around 19,000 signatures on his petitions. I mean like geez, Guy Goma has his own page, and he didn't do anything.Also, it has nothing to do with slow newsdays. Guys, this page on Al Cabino is not just about the petition campaign going on now! He has a movie deal and a book deal in the works, so why should we delete the page on the basis that there are slow newsdays? Harrydude 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few human interest stories about an obsessed "sneaker fan" don't make for notability. Fan1967 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Some slow newsdays the papers look for anything to fill space. Should WP follow suit as an encyclopedia? Crum375 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Wikipedia isn't for cataloging everyone with an odd obsession that is mildly amusing enough to attract a desperate editor on a slow news day. - Motor (talk) 19:16, 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 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age 3[edit]

Completing AfD. Nominated by anon IP 81.104.165.184 (talk · contribs) who couldn't complete nom. No reason for AfD given, but I suspect it's based on crystal-ballery with no hard information at all about the planned movie. Fan1967 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess, though you'd have saved yourself some trouble by looking at the talk page :-) 81.104.165.184 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is hard info: "It will be released in 2009. It will be made by Blue Sky Studios." I think it needs a cleanup, but not deletion. 81.170.50.197 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it definitely will be released in 2009? Or maybe 2010? Or that it will even be released at all? These are reasons we have the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 81.104.165.184 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you can certainly say "scheduled to be released in". Otherwise why is there a special template for future film releases? 81.170.50.197 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that, but you'd need some pretty solid and up-to-date references. I imagine the original intention of the template was for films 3-4 months, rather than years away. 81.104.165.184 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball, no IMDb page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Whomp 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because if it's in development and there's a speculative release date I think it's worth having a stub saying so. 81.170.50.197 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The operative word being speculative. 81.104.165.184 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per previous votes on Ghostbusters 3, Mrs Doubtfire 2, Scooby Doo 3, etc., endlessly, ad nauseam. How about we wait till they actually make the movie? Fan1967 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball policy. Crum375 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no refs given. IMDB has nothing. At the very least wait until the prodution is actually announced before creating Wikipedia articles. - Motor (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no refs given. --Tone 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could mention that it is scheduled to be released in the Ice Age (film) article. BuckRose 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you can come up with verifiable sources for production plans and schedule. Fan1967 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's find some sources on this film and put in on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.216.74 (talk • contribs)
    • The fatal flaw in your plan is that the relevant sources won't exist for another 3 years. 81.104.165.184 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing but Speculation Deathawk 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball. When I see commercials for it on TV, I won't object to the articles recreation.--El aprendelenguas 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball and this article being nothing but a placeholder until anything exists. Peyna 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice until verifiable sources can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only refrence I could find was from [15] Fox has not locked in the talent for a third Ice Age film but doubts that will be a problem, said Chris Meledandri, president of 20th Century Fox Animation Not enough for its own article but maybe a mention in Ice Age (film)#Sequels. Eluchil404 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that we've got the article here we may as well. It would be a waste to delete it, as it will save us making a new page when the movie comes closer to release. 211.29.137.28 11:18, 9 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 Rechargeable battery. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse charging[edit]

not noteable enough. it is a batteries feature, merge a sentence or two there. Yy-bo 17:57, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Griffin[edit]

This article was speedied under CSD A7 before, but apparently recreated. Since another attempt to speedy would probably just begin a cycle of delete-recreate-delete ad nauseum, I have brought this to AFD. Subject has not done anything of note for inclusion in Wikipedia, even for a model. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted unless we can find some reason why she should have an entry in a general encyclopedia. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adendum: Also, should this AfD succeed, we should delete the redirects Michelle McCurry and Sandy Reed, and {{orfud}} the image as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. -- Captain Disdain 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn per WP:BIO. People get sued all the time that doesn't necessarily make them notable. No verifiable neutral source for notability otherwise, some of the porn links don't even show her, and I doubt we need to 'join' to be able to learn if she's inside. Crum375 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What isn't notable about this famous adult entertainer who garners over 225,000 hits on Google? [16] Silensor 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAICT, most ghits are commercial sites, many linked to each other. What we need for WP inclusion is a neutral site, that reliably indicates to us that she is well known, i.e. notable per WP:BIO. If there is one, I couldn't find it. Remember 'neutral' means, among other criteria, not making money from the promotion. Crum375 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and Wikipedia needs more articles on porn stars. bbx 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable persons are acceptable for WP, porn stars or not. But they must be notable by WP criteria, per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Just a bunch of interlinked ads and promos do not confer notability. There must be a neutral source (e.g. that does not get money from promoting the person) that vouches for notability. If you think a person is notable, all you need is to point to one such neutral and reliable source, and it's a keeper. Just saying they are notable won't cut it. Crum375 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many neutral and reliable sources in the two hundred thousand links provided, most of the sites are not pay-per-view or commercial based. You are not properly citing the WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Many' > 1, right? Can you please cite one such neutral and reliable site, that shows she's notable, that does not get paid to promote her? That's all it would take to get her in. Crum375 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable porn star, and Wikipedia should document the subject accordingly. Yamaguchi先生 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above --Haham hanuka 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable porn star, not to mention the AVN lawsuit writeup. A pornstar making AVN's headlines is like getting a headline story in the New York Times. AVN is THE #1 porn industry rag.  ALKIVAR™ 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think she would make the porn notability criteria? If so, how? Crum375 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep... Criteria #6: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film industry news or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets." News story in AVN I mentioned above qualifies.  ALKIVAR™ 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So from now on, if this one gets kept, all an aspiring porn star, eager for free Wiki advertizing has to do, is get in a minor dispute with an agent, have a minor lawsuit, get cited for it in the porn press, and voila - instant free lifetime wiki-publicity. Somehow I don't think this is what our Founding wiki-Fathers had in mind for an encyclopedia, nor is it my own read of porn notability criteria, but I could be wrong. Crum375 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the sum of all human knowledge. Any "free Wiki advertizing" is incidental, we're providing coverage in a neutral and verifiable manner. If you have any doubts as to what the founding fathers had in mind, why not just go ask one. Silensor 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this may not be PC to say, but I wonder if the keep-delete ratio is a function of the easiness-on-the-eyes quotient of the particluar AfD candidate. Crum375 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn-bio. Being sued does not make one notable. --Golbez 05:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Crum375. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a notabel pornstar we should cover here not a nnbio Yuckfoo 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vegaswikian 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A keep or delete vote here does not count for much unless it is explained, based on applying the WP policies to the article in question. Crum375 01:29, 9 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 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Slaczka[edit]

Non-notable small company executive, has ingored request for notability proof for an extended period, during which additional edits have occurred. Kickstart70-T-C 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. -- Captain Disdain 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, vanity page. Crum375 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and 5th Cell needs some bias work too... at least. - Motor (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For looking like a dick in his photo, and for being irrelevant. (Mainly the former). -- 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 as an admitted hoax. -- Kjkolb 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Saltboy And Pepperlad[edit]

Appear to be unpublised superheroes, at least google knows not of them. Deprodded. Weregerbil 18:12, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapunzel Unbraided[edit]

Completing nother incomplete AFD, nominated by 81.104.165.184 (talk · contribs). Per note on talk page: unreferenced speculation, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fan1967 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to agree with the nom and vote Delete on anything with a speculative release date of 2009. Fan1967 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Documented major-studio feature film that is well into production. The information on animation techniques is very valuable (although it does need a source). Per WP:NOT: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." I believe this article meets that guideline. Powers 19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can provide some documentary evidence that this project was finished and released by 2009, feel free to produce it. 81.104.165.184 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what Wikipedia requires. Per WP:NOT, "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." 22.1k hits (using phrases, so it's a valid search) on Google. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the quote you're looking for is: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Having taken out the stuff that is too speculative (how do we know the artists are using revolutionary new technology?) or POV (the supposed "uniqueness" of the style), what's left is Just Another Speculative Stub. 81.104.165.184 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too far into the future Bwithh 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article itself is well-written for something occurring so far in the future. We have other examples of events in 2010 (Olympics for example). Wikipedia has articles which are far less deserving that exist, so why delete this one?--SomeStranger (T | C) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We know the 2010 Olympics will take place. This one doesn't even have a firm cast. It's pure speculation and drawing board plans. If we have less deserving articles, they should be deleted, too. Fan1967 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(post edit conflict) Bzzt... fallacy! That, and (as Fan1967 also pointed out) the false assumption that all future-dated articles that currently exist are equally worthy of being there. 81.104.165.184 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, good point. Regardless, this is still a movie by Disney, a highly reputable company and considering there are now sources, there is no reason to delete.--SomeStranger (T | C) 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Powers — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been announced and has a source. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 2009 is way too far out to justify an article. Pure crystall ball gazing. - Motor (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major studio film that has already been announced. There is very little crystal ballism in the article. In addition, this movie has already had an IMDb page for quite some time, so it's not just notable, but beyond verifiable. -- Kicking222 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented and easily sourced - no crystal balls here... --manchesterstudent 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By being a film 3 years into the future, it is speculative by definition and necessity. 81.104.165.184 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Movie from a notable studio that has a notable actress and a IMDB page. The only reason why it might be deleted is because of it's far off release date which is not a criteria for deletion. Deathawk 23:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Even mere months before its scheduled release date, a movie can easily be pulled and never see the light of day. Please also note the standard set for future music albums, which are often deleted when there's minimal information with a release date one year into the future, not to mention three. And while this may have a notable actress signed on, there's no guarantee that she'll stay signed on, nor does the presence of any singular notable actor make a picture notable. fuzzy510 02:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: I've added three sources to the article. I have not yet been able to find sources for the new tools or the "non-photorealistic rendering" bits that were added by an IP editor some time ago, but those bits could be excised if needed without removing the rest of it. Please re-evaluate if you advocated deletion due to lack of documentation. Powers 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreate in 2008. -- GWO
  • Keep. Interesting. Unlike the rumored, but cancelled, Fraidy Cat, whose Afd can be found here (and its consensus was to rewrite about a different meaning of the same phrase,) this is a confirmed Disney film, Georgia guy 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not confirmed until it's too close to release date to pull. 81.104.165.184 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the film does get pulled, an article on it would be appropriate, given its attempts at changing the way 3D animation is done, and for Glen Keane's comments on 3D vs. 2D animation. Powers 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the film is not yet released, the article contains some useful information that shouldn't be deleted.  Grue  14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This film is already in production. And it's only 3 years away from its current target release. Chris1219 13:43, 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. Punkmorten 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Hits (Nancy Ajram)[edit]

Hoax. I asked about it on the main Nancy Ajram talk page and got a response that there's been no talk about it aside from this rumor article. Metros232 18:23, 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 transwiki-fied. Mailer Diablo 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swank[edit]

Dicdef followed by ...I don't know what. Transwikied, speedied, prodded, deprodded, the works. I doubt Wiktionary wants any part of this. Weregerbil 18:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napsis[edit]

Article has almost no content. "Napsis" gets about 940 Google hits, many of which are completely unrelated. Article doesn't really assert notability, and I can't find any myself. (Their product, nTPV, may well qualify for an article, but that's kind of unrelated.) It was tagged for cleanup in October, 2004 (not that there was anything to clean up, really), and in August, 2005 HopeSeekr of xMule added a notice that said "This is a non-notable company that was created by a person from auna.net, a Spanish ISP. It is thus probably purely self-promotional and thus should be removed." Not surprisingly, doing that didn't get the article removed, but what did happen is that Steve espinola removed the notice and the clean-up tag. Steve espinola is now apparently blocked for sockpuppetry and there was apparently some kind of a thing going on over there that I don't really want any part of, but despite the apparently unrelated dramatics, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. -- Captain Disdain 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article is about the company, and the company doesn't meet WP:CORP. - Motor (talk) 21:59, 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 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project X (team)[edit]

Neither the individuals involved, nor the team itself, are notable. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Mtmelendez 19:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD a7. It doesn't appear to assert notability. - Motor (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is speedy material, as having sponsors (albeit local ones) is a claim to notability. But, of course, this team is surely non-notable. -- Kicking222 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete The team is notable in a local stance most likely and many of the listed sponsors are notable and incorporated, like Kaos Surfboards and No Fear. Also, the article matches its category well. -- EastCoastSurf 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 9 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, nom withdrawn. Punkmorten 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto (band)[edit]

Was tagged for speedy under WP:CSD A7 for failure to assert notability but was told it might just meet WP:MUSIC so am bringing here Ydam 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am withdrawing this nomination in light of crazyrussions evidence Ydam 19:52, 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. Ok seriously, gang. The consensus here is that this large, well written article, which has survived 4 prior AfDs needs to stay. I think at this point there is not much point in nominating it again. --++Lar: t/c 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films considered the worst ever (fifth nomination)[edit]

This AfD brought this article to my attention. Consensus reviews are, by their very nature, point of view, and although "mass opinion" may deem these movies awful (and I don't necessarily disagree), the simple fact that a majority holds an opinion does not, by its very nature, render that opinion an objective fact. Although this article is well-written, it is nevertheless subjective opinion and thus merits deletion. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Same arguments as in the prior AfD nominations for this page. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could only find this, so renamed it to "(second nomination)". Please provide links if there's more. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓ 
  • Keep While there are lists, articles, books, etc. elsewhere about the "worst films ever" WP can't have an article by such a title (unless it were about one of those specific books), so the title seems a reasonable way to address the topic in an encyclopedic way. The criteria for inclusion seems narrowly written enough so that wikipedians don't simply add their own most hated movies. Шизомби 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The way you've phrased your statement, your argument seems to be that Wikipedia should have an article about it because there are lists, articles, books, etc. elsewhere about the "worst films ever." I disagree. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for pretty much the same reason as the last list. This has been the subject of much debate in the past but the evolution of this meant that all entries in this list are well referenced and meet numerous criteria. Would not agree that it is subjective. Ydam 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from this being a fine list, isn't it apparent that, after having survived FOUR AfD debates, that the consensus is to allow the article to remain on WP? -- Kicking222 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Not that it changed my opinion of the article's NPOV status, you'll note from above that the article's history of AfD nominations was dug up after the article was nominated — and none but one have been documented on the article's talk page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I've taken care of that now. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced, intelligent way of approaching a very notable concept (how many times have you heard "Worst movie ever!"?) CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I agree with the sentement that this is well-written, has survived numerous attempts to delete it before, and the idea that because there are books devoted to this proves that a list like this can be considered academic in nature. After all, there are pop-culture encyclopedias (a fact that seems lost on those who want to delete pop culture references from Wiki...) Coyote42 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable subject and is handled in an encyclopedic manner. Maxamegalon2000 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again): best ever and worst ever need to be there. Calwatch 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, explained well and majority opinions. Voretus the Benevolent 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very notable subject that has engrained itself into society. HighInBC 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A great deal of effort has been made to make this article well-referenced and NPOV (see History and Talk pages). - 164.58.90.94 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (User: CNichols - signature cookie failing.)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, etc. As well written as it may be, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peyna 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a (mostly) very well-referenced article, and a notable concept/topic. I've used this page before and found it reliable and interesting. The nominator was well-intentioned, but from now on, please don't nominate this. It's not going to go away. Grandmasterka 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. AdamDobay 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, well-written and cited article. These nominations are useless --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work to make it more "encyclopedic" Gil-Galad 7 June 2006
  • Keep - enough is enough. Metamagician3000 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually reasonaly well referenced. Seems to have avoided the growth of listcruft that limits Movies considered the best ever. Eluchil404 06:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article, plenty of references and very notable in regards to films.--Cini 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All claims are backed up by verifiable evidence. EVula 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. --Guinnog 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there's no problem with "best ever," there's no reason to zap this one--Ed Wood 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pretty much absolutely everyone. Driller thriller 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - see my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games considered the worst ever (second nomination) --Philo 04:45, 9 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Blue 28[edit]

Previously voted on VfD in 2004. Since then, the article hasn't evolved much and it isn't notable, other than the fact that porn actress Traci Lords had her scenes removed after she was found to have been under-age. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I'll be the first to stab at a controversal issue. First off, the original nomination was more focued on morality and "unnatural love." This article really has more to deal with notability. And when I review the article itself, it could be condensed. I honestly believe that this article is a keep. Having notability from an actress that meets WP:Bio, should be enough to keep an article afloat. I'm going to borrow some text from WP:Music and use it in this context, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Being involved with an actress that is notable, and under those circumstances should keep this article afloat. Yanksox 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Traci Lords controversy was notable... and it pushes this back into the keep column, along with its IMDB entry. The reason for the original VFD nom (from the link supplied by the nominator) was bogus since morality has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. Although... this keep vote shouldn't be take as any kind of support for articles on porncruft like Electric Blue 1-27 and 29-X. - Motor (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge what little content in Traci Lords. Not a notable or much-noticed Lords movie. New Wave Hookers, on the other hand... -- GWO
  • Delete per GWO/Gareth Owen. Traci Lords made "somewhere between 80 and 100 X-rated movies between 1984 and 1986" we can't have an article for every one of them. We probably do want to have an article for some (she was one of the top stars of her time, even besides the scandal), but I see nothing about this particular movie that makes it stand out. I am also highly wary of saying that #28 in a series is particularly notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think every porn movie ever made deserves an article, even with notable cast members. There is nothing too special about this one and I don't see why it should be kept. Grandmasterka 05:41, 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. Punkmorten 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Nuss[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, not backed up by reliable sources Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:42, 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. Royboycrashfan 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flatman and Ribbon[edit]

This article is about the punchline to one joke. Chris Griswold 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep -- there is actually a whole category of "Jokes."
  • Speedy Delete -- Then make a Batman and Robin jokes page, but one page for one joke? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice Hobbeslover talk/contribs 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there does exist a whole category of jokes most of those are much more notable. Ydam 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. JGorton 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mediocre Popsicle stick joke. Danny Lilithborne 21:06, 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, as the creator has said that he'll transwiki and I assume that if he's not done it already he's copied the text. Please contact me if that's not the case and the deleted content is needed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAO Developer Notes and related articles[edit]

and also:

This is a series of tutorials: it should be moved to Wikibooks, then deleted from Wikipedia. Please be nice to the author; they are clearly acting in good faith here. -- The Anome 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- they may be acting in good faith, but they are treating WP as a free webhosting service. NawlinWiki 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will move it to wikibooks. The comment that this is an attempt to use wiki as a web hosting service is unfair. This tutorial page is an attempt to provide needed documentation for free for an open source project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecarew (talk • contribs)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. This is uncyclopedic material, but I'm sure it'll make a wonderfull addition to wikibooks. Maybe wikibooks needs a bit of a publicity drive so more people will realise it exists and will try over there first for this kind of thing. Ydam 20:36, 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. fails WP:MUSIC --++Lar: t/c 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motionless[edit]

No evidence this article meets notability requirements of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:01, 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 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Target[edit]

NN band. Francs2000 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. Maybe after they get an album out? JGorton 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable references for the "50,000 in arenas" quotes. "Working on a new debut CD"... recreate when the debut CD is published. - Motor (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete So in 5 months of existence and with nothing recorded, they've played arenas that hold more twice as many people as arenas actually hold and shared the stage with AFI and a band that broke up in 1996 and only has one living member? Complete and total hoax. fuzzy510 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. LeeG 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoax/non-notable garage band. Grandmasterka 05:49, 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 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Pizza[edit]

Notable enough to be in Wikipedia? JGorton 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim of notability, seems to be an advert. --Zoz (t) 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoz. Google returns 31 results. Kalani [talk] 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No historical record of Beethoven eating pizza. And per nom. Midgley 21:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert and per Midgely. - Motor (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extra cheese and everything, hold the anchovies. fuzzy510 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although interesting that there is a pizza place with the same name in Burnaby. I wonder if it's a chain. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny name, but no evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable bordering on advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroid[edit]

Does this fit in to an encyclopedia? JGorton 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed, not useful, not right in etymological roots either, I think, in that while gynoids are more likely to appear than androids, an anthroid would imply something modelled upon the primates but not a hominoid. Midgley 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Midgley --Zoz (t) 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would suggest Transwiki to the furophile Wikifur too, but the page in that wiki looks to be exactly the same as this one. Aaah... the wonderful world of furry lovers and their completely uninhibited furry fantasy friends. Wow, wikipedia is so educational. What a creative combination of the furry sex fetish with a cyborg sex fetish. I learnt two fantastic new words from that article too, both of which should be in the Oxford English Dictionary: "mainstreamization" and "postfurry". Bwithh 21:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Usrnme h8er 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd dismiss it as a joke, but having recently looked at some "furry" articles... I'm not so sure. Nevertheless... not encyclopedic. Though I did get a laugh out of "Postfurry". - Motor (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete um, yep. --manchesterstudent 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Android Along with all the many terms listed there. It's a valid idea that if humans start to build robots that very closely resemble humans, they will build robots that very closely resemble creatures which are similar but not human. A group of star trek fans might create a robot designed to mimic a vulcan, which would not fit the traditional definition of android. Such robots are likely to created by hollywood for entertainment, or by the toy industry, for entertainment or education. An 'anthroid' featured in the scifi short story 'Super toys last all summer long' which became the basis for the film AI. The term anthroid should be listed as a subcatigory of android until another term comes into more popular usage. ANTIcarrot 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else can I say? Delete. --Slgrandson 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the 9 people who have voted 'delete' so far all have their own personal pages on wikipedia about themselves? Wouldn't they all (or the vast majority) be up for deletion under the WP:NOT rules as well? You must all of course be aware, in your desire to delete other people pages, that wikipedia does not have infinate bandwidth and server space.ANTIcarrot 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:User page --Zoz (t) 13:23, 9 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. Punkmorten 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads to Success[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable school program. It looks like it's in about 10 schools at most. Google's a little tricky because "Roads to Success" is a popular term in other arenas. "Roads to Success" McKelvey only returns 7 hits. Metros232 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google returns 6 results for "Roads to Success" Andrew McKelvey. Kalani [talk] 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a few students from a few schools is not notable. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 20:18, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andorozon[edit]

Delete/Transwiki as non-notable, comes across as marketing abuse of wikipedia. Article is an article about a self-published comic book about furry cyborg anthroid (also up for afd) superheroes with attractively tight-fitting costumes (which is possibly an argument for keep, but doesnt quite do it for me) which scores just 164 google hits. Creator should be told to Transwiki material to the furophile Wikifur, if he wants, which is really his target market anyway. Sincere congratz to the Wikifur community, by the way, for starting their own wiki. If only more fancrufters on wikipedia would do the same. Bwithh 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creator didn't make this page, I (RVDDP2501) did, I have not read any of the comics, I just found the characters interesting and there was little info I could find in one place, so I made the page, How do I stop this page and Extinctioners from being deleted—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RVDDP2501 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 June, 2006 (UTC).

RVDDP2501, don't take the afd personally, its not to undervalue your hard work. The concern is that your subject may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia on notability grounds. If you can show verifiable proof that this comic is read and known widely enough, your article would pass the Afd test. I also suggested that the highly commendable project, Wikifur may a better home (with a better audience) for your efforts. All you need to do is copy and paste to that wiki. Bwithh 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you are not the creator of these comics, and do not have permission from the creator, then there are significant copyright violations from the use of the comic images in this way (would also apply if you transferred the images to Wikifur) Bwithh 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RVDDP250, I am a furry fan, but I think this level of fandom is excessive for a general encyclopedia. At the most, the first part could be left. All the character detail should be left on WikiFur. also, above you state that you have not read the comics... however, the text make it sound like you have drawn them extensively... VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 23:49, 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. The numbers here are borderline, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television interference (weak signal) has a much clearer consensus, took place at the same time and the same arguments apparently apply (certainly editors appear to have put forward the same opinion in both), so I feel it is appropriate to treat both articles the same way. If anyone particularly wants to transwiki and hasn't done it yet, leave me a message and I'll retrieve the content. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television interference (radio transmitter interference)[edit]

This is reallty really a how to. How tos are include in what is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Useful info though - is there a wiki this info can be transwikied to? Bwithh 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, if possible, or just plain delete, if not. -- Kjkolb 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Television interference or Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, just doesn't include a lot of encyclopedic material atm. JYolkowski // talk 00:12, 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) 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television interference (weak signal)[edit]

This is reallty really a how to. How tos are include in what is covered by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information + I don't see how this could ever get turned in to an encyclopedic entry Ydam 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ydam. -- Kicking222 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if possible or just plain delete, if not. -- Kjkolb 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Television interference. --Dakart 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above or Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, just doesn't contain a lot of encyclopedic material atm. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge what little there is to merge that isn't a HOW-TO. The valid topic is Television interference at best, there's no need for several sub articles while the main article is essentially a stub. Equendil Talk 10:12, 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 no consensus – Gurch 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners[edit]

Keep/Clean up Why is the Extinctioner artical up for deletion? If it is just because of its popularity, then it has already been proven that the Extinctioner comic series already has a large fanbase with numerous fangroups and a distrabution region that spreads over two continents. It may not be as popular as "Spiderman", "X-men", "Daredevil", or "Star Wars", but many underground comics are not widely known. Does the artical provide too much information? In a sense, yes. It focuses too much on the characters themselves than the actual history of the continuity of Extinctioners and the comic's history. If the artical in question is being targeted because of it's assosiation to Furdom, then there is no reason to continue this discussion. Should Extinctioners move to Wikifur? No, I do not believe that it should. If I may, I would like to point out several other comics, such as Shanda the Panda[[17]], Atomic Mouse[[18]], Albedo Anthropomorphics[[19]], and Buck O'Hare[[20]], are not apart of Wikifur despite the fact that they are listed as Furry Comics[[21]] right here in Wikipedia. If Extinctioners is truely classified as a Furry Comic here on Wikipedia, and the Administrators seek to move it to Wikifur, then why is it allowed that other Furry Comics remain undistubred? Kantorock 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep&Transwiki Upon further revision of this article, I've noticed that it does, indeed contain a uselessly large amount of information. It should be cut down to a minimal size, with only a short summary of main characters as a group, and the rest should be transferred to a main article on Wikifur. Though the article has a right to exist on Wikipedia, it does not need more than a simple summary and a link to a more thorough article on a personal site. Dikastis

Delete/Transwiki as nonnotable, possible marketing abuse of wikipedia. Same as anthroid and Andorozon afds. Too obscure:perhaps as many as 674 google hits. The subject is more cyborg furry crimefighters in tight-fitting costumes. Plus some repetition with the Andorozon article. Transwiki to [Wikifur] if the creator wants to. Bwithh 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE TO ADMINS The Extinctioner's creator is posting multiple keep votes in the discussion below, and there are several likely pro-keep sockpuppet users Bwithh 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give the guy a break, he's new to the process. I've been trying to manage unsigned votes since they started coming in. He's got a big fan base, it's not surprising that some will show up to try and support him. I'll strike the multiple votes. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shawntae Howard Apologies for the multiple keeps, I'm not familiar with how wiki works, I thought you had to add that if you were going to comment, that, and I know nothing about script writing or code so I'm sure all of my posts are wrong in one way or another. I'm learning as I do. Just figuring out how to make something bold letters is a bit of a challenge. Shawntae Howard
  • Weak keep, if this comic is actually in production, etc. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says its being published at the moment by Shanda Fantasy Arts, which is a very small scale publisher, a step above self-publishing. They pay "up to $10" per page - $5 for pin up art. The last copy of the Extinctioners is dated March 2005 and the one before that, March 2004, and the one before that Jan. 2003... seems to be annual publishing of 40 page comics. Couldnt find a Jan-March 2006 edition though. Bwithh 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a tough one then. I'll withdraw my vote until we get some more feedback. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page as a form of marketing! (I am not the creator of the comics) what must I do to prevent deletion?! an why now is is being concidered for Deletion, I worked hard on this page, why is it being concidered for deletionRVDDP2501 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVDDP2501, don't take the afd personally, its not to undervalue your hard work. The concern is that your subject may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia on notability grounds. If you can show verifiable proof that this comic is read and known widely enough, your article would pass the Afd test. I also suggested that the highly commendable project, Wikifur may a better home (with a better audience) for your efforts. All you need to do is copy and paste to that wiki. Bwithh 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you are not the creator of these comics, and do not have permission from the creator, then there are significant copyright violations from the use of the comic images in this way (would also apply if you transferred the images to Wikifur) Bwithh 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH TRUST ME, I GOT SHAWNTAE HOWARD'S PERMISSION AND SUPPORT, JUST ASK HIM AT <[email protected]>, HE'LL TELL YOU.RVDDP2501 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikifur, given the information from Bwithh regarding the publishing status of the comic. Wikifur is right place for it. - Motor (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per Motor. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the article is directly violating policies, and I don't see that it is - as I know the creator of this comic personally and the poster is not him (the creator was also the one who pointed out the possible deletion of this article with some concern, so I highly doubt that the person who wrote this article is violating Shawntae's wishes) - then I don't see why it should be deleted. I read Extinctioners and know several others who do, some of whom aren't primarily interested in anthropomorphics, but in superhero genre comics. A new issue of the comic has come out within the past two months, so it is clearly still in production. - GrowlyGenet 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above comment is GrowlyGenet's first and only edit to Wikipedia Bwithh 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, yes, but not my only edit. I was already juggling around the idea of editing for some time and had viewed the aforementioned article long before it came up for deletion. I remember when it was merely a stub. And I have been active on other Wikis before as well. I just thought it better to sign my name to an edit than to merely leave an anonymous IP number as my tag. Besides, now that I have an account, I am happily seeing about correcting a few oversights regarding missing articles for both cartoons and sci-fi shows. Growly 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: A user already mentioned that this comic is an annual production. To delete it from the wiki just for this seems illogical and unfair. So, please don't remove this comic from this site. Thanks! ^_^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.29.121 (talk • contribs) 10:22, Jun 5, 2006 (UTC).

SHAWNTAE HOWARD, CREATOR Extinctioners is a quarterly comic not an annual, but due to injuries, graduate studies, and serious family issues over the past 2 years, yes, it has come out with only 2 issues a year, the primary comic and it's annual. However, I do not see why that would cause it for grounds for deletion from wikipedia, nor do I personally consider the comic book 'furry' since it also features a main human cast so I'd say I personally feel a little insulted that the idea that it belongs on wikifur is it's appropriate location. The creator of the page did indeed e-mail me and asked me for permission to create the page, which I consented and gave him information on character bios, which he used in his article (such as the person who created the less detailed wikifur page did). The company that the comic is published by has been in existance for 10 years and still is currently publishing, infact an issue of Extinctioners is available for pre-order right this moment in the current month's Diamond Previews listed under Shanda Fantasy Arts. It's readership spans the globe, with the internet only helping it's notority, with only the limited resources of foreign readers being able to easily aquire an issue. The comic has also spanned a number of yahoo fan groups with memberships in the thousands. I'm not sure who reported that the book was not worthy of a wikipage in the first place, probably out of some sort of spite, but if onther comic related material can have a page I don't see why this one doesn't as well. It's a comic that's been in existance for 10 years now, regardless of it's frequncey of issues per year, there still are issues per year, with the latest currently in production from me (and it's page lenght went from 32, to 48, now down to 40 of which I do all of the work on from writing, penciling, inking, and greytoning, so yes, it takes a one man production crew time to complete when I'm also a working teacher who's taking graduate classes and supporting a family at the same time.) I'm not sure if this is enough proof to maintain the page on wiki, but if no, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] and I can further answer any inuquires. Additional note, a poster stated that the last publishede issue was March 2005, this is incorrect, the latest issue #15 came out just 2 months ago, the SFA page has not yet been updated by it's webmaster. http://www.rabbitvalley.com/item_6468_1959___Extinctioners-Volume-2-Number-15.html Is proof of its existance and availability.

Keep Proof that extinctioners is 'known and read widely enough' could be derived from the membership lists of the following yahoo groups, which (usually) list user name, real name, age and location. The groups also indicate an active and ongoing interest in the publication. Though the information is publicly available, the groups are protected by yahoo's content rating system, which requires viewers to sign in.

  • Artica's fan club: [22] Fan group for the character Artica, and lately, Scarlet as well. 1832 members
  • Beauty & Courage [23] Fan group for the characters Pandora and CeeCee. 358 members
  • Club Extinctioners [24] General fan group. 569 members
  • Extinctioners Storage [25] An archive of older pictures, required because of yahoo's file limit of 20MB per group. 107 members
  • Armies of Alden [26] Group for fan fiction set in the extinctioner universe. Stories range from comedy to erotica to military/hard scifi. 205 members
  • Club Extinctioners Listed [27] Yahoogroup's policies mean that any group that contains even mildly titillating material is not listed in its searchable directories. This group was set up specifically to be listed, and to provide a gateway into the others. 729 members

As a note Bwithh, the phrase 'read and known widely enough' does not seem to appear anywhere in wikipedia, let alone as a standard. Is there a more specific/official requirement you are reffering to? - ANTIcarrot 13:20 GMT 5/6/06

    • Above user User:ANTIcarrot has a short contribution history. and yes, I've refering to Wikipedia's guidelines on article notability. This is an encyclopedia with certain standards for acceptance. These standards are debated and not fixed in stone, but they exist. See Wikipedia:Notability. I invite you to make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • User contribution lists do not reflect other contributions made before a user account is created. You might wish to bare this in mind when talking about the contributions of other people. For the record I've been editing and writing articles since feb 2004 - which is longer than you 'newbie'. I would invite you to be more polite in the future, and clearer about what your concerns about an article are. Notability is much easier to understand than the word by itself. Both for new commers, and those more familar with creating content than deleting it.


I have heard of Extinctioners a number of times, though I've yet to read it. It seems to me that the three pages referencing it could easily be merged into one, combining 'anthroid' and 'Andorozon' as subtopics in the Extinctioners page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesdeleroy (talk • contribs) .

'Andorozon' AND 'Extinctioners' are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Comics which at one point had a fictional crossover and should not be either deleted or mergedRVDDP2501 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as it does have a lengthy publishing history despite gaps in its schedule. Go gently with the arguments, those folks who are opposing deletion. Please remember that this is a place for rational discussion about the merits of the article in question, and the best way to ensure that the article remains on Wikipedia is by assuring the nominators and other participants in the discussion that the topic meets notability requirements. This means providing links to credible sources that indicate the book's existence - and even then, as it is a small-market publication, the article might not quite meet the notability requirements. I would note that the article as it stands, as with the Andorozon page also up for deletion, needs some serious work to be properly Wikified. Tony Fox 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to full keep based on non-trivial coverage as noted by the author below and the history of the magazine as compared to others with long-standing articles in Wikipedia - with the proviso that the article be pared down and cleaned up. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Extinctioners is NOT Past its peak. IT is one of the most inventive, sexy, well drawn, Thought out comics that is out there. It still is colorful, well made, and creative even when other comics have lost its luster. The artist and writer have created the most colorful characters. THese characters are so different from each other it's amazing and inspirational. PAST its PEAK BAH! It still keeps going and will never grow old! This comic is a staple for the furry world :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) . - comment placed at top of page, moved here. Tony Fox 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Transwiki Cleanup This would be an excellent article for WikiFur. It does seem to be a bit heavy for the regular WikiPedia. (The character sheets section, for one, I think could be deleted.) Most of the characters seem to have 2 illustrations, which is excessive. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked on WikiFur, and they already have an article on Extinctioners. The main characters have their own articles there, which I do not think should be done here. Basically, I think this article just needs to be trimmed down. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawntae Howard: Creator Perhaps it is felt that it belongs on Wikifur is because the main characters happen to be humaniod animals. However, I as it's creator do not consider the comic "Furry" as it is traditionally thought of at all, and while the individual who worked on the page focused on those characters, they were in the process of including the human characters from the comic as well, as he was asking for information about those particular characters as well. Also, I notice that on wikipedia an article for the comic Gold Digger, written by Fred Perry is allowed, a comic that also started out with a strong anthropomorphic cast and features human main characters as well, yet it is not recommended that this article would be an excellent article for Wikifur. I've noted that there is an article on Albedo Anthropomorphics, a sci fi comic with an all anthropomorphic cast on Wikipedia, yet it hasn't been recommended as an article best suited for Wikifur (when it could be argued that that book was a large influence in the creation of many anthro related comic book titles, including the much acclaimed Usagi Yojimbo, who got it's start within the pages of that comic.) May I also note that very short articles on the 'furry' comic titles of Furrlough, Wild Life, and Genus have Wikipedia articles, yet not comments that these would be best suited for Wikifur, when techincally since they do advertise themselves AS furry comics, it would make since that is where they belong. If it's a question of who publishes Extinctioners, would it be more relevent if it were published by Antartic Press, who I am ironically in negotiations to do just that? Evidence of it's continued production can be seen here: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99828/ ,

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/ , and http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/. These are examples of pages currently in production for the next issue (Apologies for not adding shorting links, I'm not familiar with how to do that on these pages).

It is also stated that the reasons it would be better on Wikifur is because it already has an article done by someone on it, but may I also point out that many of Wikipedia subjects are repeated on Wikifur as well, such as the above stated articles on Antartic Press, Gold Digger, Atomic Mouse (also published by Shanda Fantasy Arts), and Furrlough to just give a brief example. Granted, one source may be more informative than the other depending on the individual who wrote them, however, I haven't seen complaints that one belongs on the other as I have with the Extinctioners article, which may now be on Wikifur, but was not as detailed as the one on wikipedia until the creator of the article just recently moved it there due to this complaint and deletion hearing. And if it is felt it is a bit 'heavy' for wikipedia due to it's amount of informative information about the characters, then I'd like to point out any of your other superhero article such as Justice League or X-Men related characters. The fact that so much information on each character can be found should be a testiment to just how much the individual who created the page has gotten from the comics and online sources. Perhaps if the creator trimmed down the amount of images in the article to just one per character it discusses that would be acceptable, though I'd like to point out these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-men and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Frost as an example of an article with multiple images featuring a single character.

Or is the bottem line that because the book is published by an independent company rather than one of the mainstream companies it's validity as a wikipedia article is not as up to standard or is it it's content that makes it so (which again, I'll say again, if its due to the anthropomorphic cast that has been talked about in the article thus far is the issue, there are a number of human ones too, if humans make people less xenophobic). I do not say that Wikifur is a bad place, nor that I'm disturbed that an article on it has appeared there, but I as the creator, do not consider the comic furry anymore than the creator of Gold Digger or Ninja High School would just because they use anthropomorphic characters in their story telling. I hope that's not the case, because if someone decides to do an article on the currently acclaimed small press comic Mouse Guards, I hope it too won't be considered more appropriate to be a wikifur article because it's cast are anthropomorphic mice. 207.69.137.34Shawntae Howard

Mr. Howard, My comment about this article being a bit heavy for the general WikiPedia has nothing to do with the fact that the article as it currently stands is primarily about the anthro/furry characters. Rather, it is about the sheer number of images, and the level of detail. The weight of the characters, for Ghu's sake? Date of birth in a non-standard year count (when is year 989?)
your pointing out Emma Frost as a comparison is partially invalid, as there is more text per picture, and the images are scattered throughout the text. In Extinctioners, once down into the character info, there is almost 50/50 text to image. I have also pointed the main author of the page toward some templates the Comic Project has that I thought might be useful. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up I'm a little bit disturbed, actually, that this entry is being contested on the grounds of popularity rather than factual validity or intellectual property. There are no certain stipulations in the Wikipedia policy that outline exactly how popular certain media or certain topics must be in order to justify their existence. I think the reasons for this are clear. Wikipedia would lose a lot of its intellectual appeal if it filtered articles on the grounds of popularity. An infrequently visited article isn't irrelevant, and no one can truly predict when a thread will be popular or unpopular. The other arguments for the removal of the Extinctioners entry seem to imply that the author of the article did not have permission of the creator, which he did (see Mr. Howard's entry) or that the article is being used as a 'marketing tool', an expression just as subjective as 'popularity'. If file space and/or bandwidth are the core issues behind the loosely used expressions I just stated, we can take steps to reduce image file size and streamline the article. However, this is likely not the issue since it was stated that the entry receives little traffic. I don't wish to slander anyone with claims of bias, but I can't help but think that irrational and emotional motives are governing some of the claims to remove this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.54.67 (talk • contribs) .

Keep/Clean up The Comic is past it's peak but still very Notable in underground circles. I've seen Extinctioners Full sized Plushes, two video games, Custome Heroclicks, A role playing game, a Soundtrack and there are at least Two Spinoff comics, purhaps more I Havn't located yet. it's been featured by Diamond Preveiws twice, and it has several fanclubs that have dozens of members. It's very underground, and fans aren't totoaly organized but they DO number quite a bit. Shanda Fantasy Arts isn't "Next to Self-Publishing" Either. It's a private publishing group run by comic book insiders. its very small-print but well known in underground comic circles. They've worked with Stan Lee, Dan Decarlo and Stan Sakai in the past. Exticntioners IS well know, just in a diferent way. I say the article should be cleaned up for Wiki standards, IE Drop the extensive profiles and talk a bit more about the actual history of the comic rather than it's fiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua the samurai (talk • contribs) .

I've just reorganized and moved some comments to the bottom where they're supposed to be. This was looking a mess. Tony Fox 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To Vik-Thor OH, well, that makes more sense then and gives some concrete information of what can be done to prevent the page's deletion. Now the page creator actually has something to go on, because before, one has to admit, the reasonings given for possible deletion were a little on the vague side. I will inform him to reduce the number of images and needless data then. Out of curiosity and personal noisiness, just why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? What was the inital grounds or complaint in the first place? 207.69.137.13 Shawntae Howard

The first reason for deletion is the one right at the top of the list, under the big red box. Basically, it's a question of notability as defined by the site guidelines.Tony Fox 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Then I would assume that since it has been proven contrary to the point that the topic has more notability than originally thought and it has as much notability as other comics that currently have articles on wikipedia, that the issue for deletion, if that is afterall the primary reason for it's possible deletion, has been more than met? Again the latest issue of the comic was released in February 2006, it's next publication is in the current Diamond's Preview for release in August 2006, evidence presented in the form of links show that it has a very active online presence with an active fan base. And that it is considered a comic book first, not pigeon holed as a "furry comic". In addition, Extinctioners has gotten a full page review 3 yearas ago in The Comic Buyer's Guide and received a B rating and it is currently listed among other comics in the 2006 edition of the Overstreet Price Guide, currently available in any national book store such as Barnes and Noble or Borders.207.69.139.9 Shawntae Howard

Please don't mark in more than one 'keep' opinion per person, please. And this process runs for several days; the decision will be made by an administrator at the end of that process. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up Don't let the name fool you, I had to think a while before commenting here. I agree with the gentleperson waaaaaay up there about how there's *way* too many images. Cut it down to a cover in the comic 'infobox', a small 'group shot', and maybe a villian. Also, leave out all the 'stats' in the writeups. We really don't need to know details about *every* character. --;; If there was ever an entry that needed editing--read: trimmed to fit--this is it. Furrysaint 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above user, User:Furrysaint has a short contribution history Bwithh 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Does that matter? It just seems like you're going out of your way to denigrate--or hint at sockpuppetry--any people who do not want it deleted. And your comments down below about Major Fabian seem to indicate a severe prejudice against the 'furry' community. I think you may want to reread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Furrysaint 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bwithh, your repeated attempt to use the length of people's edit logs as a weapon against them instead of interacting with their opinions in a neutral and civil manner smacks of attempting to turn Wikipedia into a popularity contest. I second the opinion that you should reconsider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. As well, I invite you and Tony Fox to reread Wikipedia:Notability. Note that the first two sentences in the box read: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. I invite you to become more familiar with Wikipedia. Go ahead and post my IP in response to this, it's not going to insult me one bit. -- 11:57 EDT 07 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.66.233.230 (talk • contribs) .
For the record, it's common practice to point out new or short-edit-count users in AfD discussions, because often they're being recruited to join the argument on the incorrect consideration that AfD is a vote, which it is not. Taking a poke at someone for doing what's pretty well standard procedure is not a good way to make an impression in an AfD discussion. Second, I'd like to point out that while the notability guidelines are just that, they're also the basis for keeping or deleting about every article of the hundred or so that hit AfD every day. Finally, I'm kind of trying to help *keep* the article, so I'm a bit upset that you'd suggest I'm doing something to not keep it. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Tony Fox 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be pleased to assume good faith when others do the same, sir. You tell me to assume good faith, but permit Bwithh to continue assuming lack of good faith withotu comment, and then tell me that something that clearly states it is not a guideline is, in fact, a guideline. I am not attempting to "make an impression". I am pointing out inconsistencies that others have not mentioned. I would ask you to please reconcile your words with your actions, sir. If you wish to continue conversing I will see about creating a user account so that you do not have the impression of holding a conversation with a shadow, but until such time, I remain respectfully anonymous. 12:32 EDT 07 June 2006
What I'm trying to do is keep this discussion from going to hell, and while I do agree that Bwithh has been actively pointing out new editors and has made a couple of comments I'd rather he hadn't, arguing with him over it is basically counterproductive. As for notability, I'd suggest you take a look through the AfD pages for previous days and survey how many of them use 'NN' or 'non-notable' as an argument. Once again, I'm not against the article - I'm going to give it a rewrite this evening and try my best to save the damn thing. If you'd like to continue discussion, I suggest you do so at my talk page. Tony Fox 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been pointed out its pretty standard to note new users and editors with a short history in an afd discussion (for similar reasons, we have the the warning sign template for this kind of situation). This practice doesn't break the good faith guideline. Anyway, I apologize if certain people feel offended at my occasional attempt at humour (I try not to be too serious all the time in the afd process). I'm not opposed to furry fan culture per se. I just feel that the hard work going into the Extinctioners article is more suited to a home on the excellent Wikifur project than in a general encyclopedia, in terms of notability etc. Bwithh 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User account created and discussion moved to your talk page, as promised and requested. CydoniaRaven 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there is now an article for each character over at the WikiFur version. Perhaps something short to summarize here, with a link to the main content over at WikiFur? GreenReaper 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

My Log in Name is Lordgriffin, and yess I woudl like to talk about Extinctioners. i hope this is within the scope of what is permissible. I am currently a Major in military Inteligence deployed with the U.S. Army in Iraq, and I am a fan of teh comix.

Your service is gowing and known and it was quite extraordinary that you posted on extinctioners, and I admit i am a little distressed that you ight delet it. I do not know much about your administration but if tere is a large concern about content, it woudl seem a better policy, if yoru able, to screen these things BEFORE hand.

I thin what concernes me most is he way our society looks atthese policies, it is actually more accepted to write and draw about torture and murder, then it is to be suggestive about sexuality.

Your site is of course yours, I hope you will find Extinctioners DOES have a place here, but I recognize you will do what you consider best for your site

If allowed a Vote I vote to KEEP Extinctioners

Major Norman M. Fabian

  • Comment - Hokay. I've just taken a sledgehammer to the article to try and pound it into something that's much shorter and provides a general introduction to the comic that, if someone is interested, will lead them to the WikiFur article with much more detail. I hope everyone approves, and this hasn't been an hour of my time gone to waste.... Tony Fox 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message to Lordgriffin

Hi, I am the guy who originally created the Wikipedia.org Extinctioners page, I am amazed and suprised that my page has not only recieved so much support to keep "alive" but from where and from whom, I am so glad that my page has been so well recieved that various people from nearly every corner of the globe has protested the deletion of the Extinctioners Wikipedia.org page and I would like to thank every one for their support and for those who are saddened by the current state of the Wikipedia.org page can find a somewhat better version at http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Extinctioners which now has individual character pages (make sure you all check th bottom of the page for Extinctioners Characters)and I hope everyone likes it, now back to Lordgriffin, hope you and your friends like the Wikifur.com version and hope you and every one you know makes it out of Iraq in one piece, Good Luck and God speed from RVDDP2501 and from Barbados (home country)RVDDP2501 10:22, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Diet Discussion Forums[edit]

A page with no content except external links, this page has no encyclopaedic value and wikipedia is not a web portal. Usrnme h8er 22:02, 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 speedy delete as a non-notable biography by Fang Aili. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Smith[edit]

Not notable at all - consider speedy delete? not marked as speedy delete in case anyone disagrees manchesterstudent 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now marked also as speedy delete --manchesterstudent 22:36, 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. nn bio. --++Lar: t/c 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gomez[edit]

NN standup comedian. 0 Google hits for Joseph Jarod Gomez, 80 for "Joe Gomez" standup and 35 for "Joseph Gomez" standup. Many wikilinks point to the article, but note that the article creator has recently added (spam?) links to this article all over the place. In addition he seems to share the name with a wrestler etc. Punkmorten 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No DeleteAppears in several Archives under Doug Stanhope. Appears to be legitamet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricktorn (talk • contribs) .
    • This is the article creator, if anyone was in doubt :) --Punkmorten 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously, I'm trying to defend it's right to be here, having signed the aforementioned.Ricktorn
  • Weak Delete note the concerns of nom but also the links to article --manchesterstudent 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The hype seems created by the article's author so far. Danny Lilithborne 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep in this case, verifiable legitimacy is determined by the presence of a figure within his or her respective field insofar as that presence is discussed in the article itself, not said figure's presence within that field as represented in a search performed on yahoo! or any other such drag of mainstream domain. a verifiable presence within an artist's respective field, to all intents and purposes, then, remains a highly subjective evaluation; unfortunately, it may very well be up to the article's creator, ultimately, to determine the ultimate legitimacy of all content within the article in question, including but not limited to the article's subject. as the submission policy is currently written, the creator assumes all [forms of] liability for the information contained within the article -- unless the creator is found to be in violation of copyright law as presented to the creator under the policies of the site, or has submitted something libelous to which an outside party to this discussion can later make a claim after having witnessed the article in question, there doesn't appear to be a case for its deletion. --Brandon8ter 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First edit from brand new user. Fan1967 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, unverifiable. Editor's rather interesting legalistic statement, sort of, kind of, taking responsibility for the material, does not mean Wikipedia ignores its standards. Fan1967 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable and unverifyable. vanispam - Peripitus (Talk) 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely, utterly non-notable, and the article is borderline nonsense. -- Kicking222 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notwithstanding any other principles, all articles must be verifiable, and the burden of proof for verification is on the editors who want to keep the article. --Metropolitan90 02:25, 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. fails WP:MUSIC --++Lar: t/c 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Windmill EP[edit]

Released "digitally" (ie. for download, not published) by a band with no apparent notability that fails WP:MUSIC. See also Motionless AFD - Motor (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An unpublished album by a non-notable band? Hmm... -- Kicking222 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite the fact that both digital releasing and self-releasing are now common place in the music industry both major and independent, a debut EP will inevitably struggle to be notable. Ac@osr 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally non-notable EP by a very new band. Grandmasterka 05:54, 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 Delete --Cyde↔Weys 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne crookes[edit]

Not notable at all - POV - low google manchesterstudent 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per CSD A7: nn person. Recommend nominator to Be Bold and use {{db-bio}} more often. --Evan Seeds (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google doesn't tell the whole story. This guy has apparently several lawyers poring over the net looking for mention of himself. He's quite notable for the sheer number of lawsuits he's promised against his critics. One of the ones he actually filed, "Crookes v. openpolitics.ca", has very substantial implications for the use of wiki to debate politics in Canada, and will likely become a Canadian Charter of Rights case soon. There was an article in the Province about him recently outlining this controversy. Crekshin
  • Delete, while there are ongoing problems with the candidate selection process within the Green Party in BC, that have occasionally made the news, this small player in those problems isn't notable enough (yet) for a page. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Evan Seeds. DVD+ R/W 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above.
  • Keep. Obviously the article needs to be renamed but the material is verifiable, and the people above clearly have not done their research, not even looking for the back links or the stories in the Canadian press. As the primary funder of the GP of C in 2004, Crookes is very hard to separate from the rise of that party to national prominence. In 2001 he was notable in the rise of the GP of BC too. Both of these parties have had a substantial impact on politics, if only by splitting votes. There must be some consideration also for people who actively try to suppress mention of themselves, which is notable in itself.Crekshin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - vanispamvertisment. --++Lar: t/c 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting merit[edit]

Non-notable website hosting service, {{prod}} removed, reads like an advertisement. Delete. Evan Seeds (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --manchesterstudent 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Web hosting services are plentiful. What makes this one notable. The fact that it is also an advert, and probably a cut and paste job also gives it an extra boot up the backside on the way out. - Motor (talk) 10:00, 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 (No consensus). What would be nifty would be if someone actually transwikied these to MA and THEN nomed them for deletion, then they'd go... Counting noses, the deletes have it, but we don't count noses, we judge consensus and the keeps on balance are strong enough IMHO that this is a no consensus. --++Lar: t/c 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Magellanic Cloud (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

This seems like a very specialized part of a fictional world. I realize people like articles on their favorite TV shows and movies and bands, but I don't see how this article fits into a general encyclopedia. I like to see articles on real world topics myself, but that's just my preference. Isn't there a place for this stuff at Memory Alpha? Erik the Rude 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Well, there's a page up for the Omega Octant - another setting within the Star Fleet Universe - and the SMC is as relevant to the SFU as Omega is (perhaps more so, as unlike Omega it has Alpha races present within the established timeline). MA likes to keep its focus on Paramount Trek, so we've found a home for the SFU here at Wikipedia - why is that such a bad thing? --Nerroth 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are articles for many of the elements of this Star Fleet Universe ... see Category:Star Fleet Universe ... this article appears to be a part of a series of articles on a handful of games that take place in this universe. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with exiling the whole kit and caboodle to Memory Alpha as suggested by the nominator, but as it is, it doesn't really make sense to just delete one of the articles. BigDT 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All these Star Fleet Universe articles should be put up for AfD discussion - this is rampant runaway fancruft, and most of it probably should be transferred to Memory Alpha or another Trek wiki Bwithh 07:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This particular article is a somewhat weak end of the SFU section (I doubt it'll have much call to get bigger any time soon), but the main article's too big to keep all of this sort of thing internally. Also, Memory Alpha tends to be just for Star Trek canon material, at the expense of separate spin-off properties, even if based on a game that's been in print for nearly 30 years now. (Of course, if you look at my contributions, I am biased here. ^_^) --Rindis 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Memory Alpha won't take it, then it seems like it shouldn't exist on WikiPedia at all. Does someone want to make a "Memory Omega" or Memeory Beta wiki for non-canon Trek? Afterall, Memory Alpha is the specialist Trek wiki, if it's not acceptable there, I don't see that it should be here. 70.51.9.70 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Obscure fancruft/trekkiecruft. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Create a new wiki for non-canonical Trek entries if Memory Alpha won't take it , as the above user suggests Bwithh 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per Bwithh. - Motor (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need SFU articles, but not too many. This is the cruftier end, and should go. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom; textbook fancruft. Sandstein 19:31, 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. fails WP:CORP --++Lar: t/c 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch perception[edit]

I can find zero Google hits for "switch perception" which refer to this company. There are only three hits for "Switch, Inc." + "Hugo Carrillo", and of those hits, one is a press release and the other hits don't seem to exist any more (or at least the page they go to no longer contains the information). The "famous and acclaimed" movie director Hugo Carrillo does not exist at imdb. There is a director named Francisco Vargas, though no executive producer by that name that I can find, but I don't know if the person I linked to is the same person or not. Ricardo Bárcelo-Villagrán also does not exist at imdb, and only has four Google hits. The official website is under construction and only contains a front page with no links to anything. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; vanity page (or spam at best.) Probably also a copyvio from somewhere... Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Seems like a verbatim copy from the press release at this URL. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:47, 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 Delete. Oy! Copyvio, non notable, spamvertisment... --++Lar: t/c 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter[edit]

Blatent advertisment. Probably made by the people who produce it. Meteshjj 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong (speedy?) Delete Designed for versatility and ease, the Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter enhances your Xbox 360 experience in the digital home - oh please! --manchesterstudent 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sez in the first edit summary it's "straight from the official site". So it's probably copyvio as well. 69.145.123.171 |Hello!


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Apparent patent nonsense given the dearth of sources and the somewhat fractured prose. --++Lar: t/c 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan hummel[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. Google search returns three pages about some high school kid. Is there a speedy tag for this? Oh well - Delete anyway Spondoolicks 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:V verification can not be found or more importantly is not shown. The closest relevent information I could find was with google "Thomas Hummel" poet only seems to relate to a modern poet.--blue520 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - it has some of the usual signs of a hoax ... the prod was removed without comment ... the user has no other contributions ... an IP user from a school added "he was an amazing person" ... it smells like something made up in school one day BigDT 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. --manchesterstudent 23:21, 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 Userify to User:Rob_Hain/Bio. --++Lar: t/c 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hain[edit]

The author of the article (who, coincidentally, has the same name as the subject of the article) repeatedly removes speedy deletion tags without explanation. IMHO this looks a lot like a vanity page. I see a lot of unverifiable OR, and have strong suspicions that the article is written by the subject himself. Bachrach44 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sorry not notable enough. --manchesterstudent 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Burninate this exercise of egomania. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleated, vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the fact that the sole editor has the username "Rob Hain" pretty much spells out that this is pure vanity. fuzzy510 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. He has a user page and isn't using it. And also possibly truncate if it's too long, I dunno what the rules are for userpage lengths. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence I am the author of the article. I take all your points and I was at pains to point out that this is an artist's cv which usually accompanies exhibitions and publicity. While it may seem like vanity publishing to some, this is the accepted method for artists to have written documentation of their work. It is not an ego trip in my opinion as I am attempting to only put down salient facts relating to my work. How else am I supposed to provide information for collectors and students who contact me for information? If you decide to delete the article I am not particularly bothered, as there are less stressful ways open to me. Thank you for your kind advice. Rob 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you want to put your CV on the web, find a free web host.

--Bachrach44 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How else am I supposed to provide information for collectors and students who contact me for information?" Erm, Mr Hain, you have a website at http://www.robhain.com/. That should be the starting place for your internet presence - not here. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Thanks Bachrach44. I didn't understand the way that Wikipedia works. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I also note in the vanity guide page that short biogs can be included on the user page. It seems obvious now but I didn't appreciate that at the time. Best wishes Rob 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the wayDanny Lilithborne, that's a fantastic 'God Passes By' article. Are you Baha'i? I should point out that I am. God Bless. Rob 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I only started the article; the majority of the work was done by other Bahá'í Wikipedians such as Jeff3000. Danny Lilithborne 19:28, 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. Notability not established. --++Lar: t/c 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Student Magazine[edit]

Delete-Article is about a nn magazine that has so far published 3 issues. It may well be famous someday, but right now, there are absolutely no google hits for "New Student Magazine" + "Any of the eds. mentioned in the article." Gershwinrb 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hasn't yet achieved notability. Notability first then wiki article second Ydam 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - maybe in the future?--manchesterstudent 22:57, 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. No evidence of notability, no significant google or alexa hits when I searched. --++Lar: t/c 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hifiwigwam[edit]

Not a notable organisation, possible advertising. Low google. Depressingly short article. manchesterstudent 23:17, 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College athletics[edit]

Contested PROD. Article doesn't give much information, and I don't see what could be added - anything that refers to athletics in the three major governing bodies (NCAA, NAIA and CIS) could go there, while anything else is either apparently not notable enough ("only followed by competitors and their close friends and families") or would be put into an article for that particular governing body. fuzzy510 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - an article overarching this well reported subject is certaily verifyable. Article may be poorly written and a stub but we should be WP:BOLD. I have a crusty old 1960's encyclopedia that mentions ( albiet briefly ) college athletics in this way - Peripitus (Talk) 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important topic and this article needs to be improved. Breaking things up obscures the broader picture. That's why Britannica is divided into a "Micropaedia" and a "Macropaedia". This article needs to explain the context, eg how did college athletics get started? What are the landmark developments since then? How do the three major governing bodies relate to one another? Why is it so much more prominent in USA than elsewhere? I will add an expand notice to the article and list these questions on its talk page. Landolitan 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The history and evolution of college athletics would be a valid subject, though the article clearly needs work to become that. - Motor (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Important topic with no suitable substitute page, including the suggested, but USA-specific NCAA page. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 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. Insufficient notability established. --++Lar: t/c 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Feeley[edit]

Delete. Otherwise undistinguished minor league player, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Wright, which was my test AfD for Newark Express players. One user created many bios for the players of one minor league basketball team. No other comparable team has player bios as far as I was able to tell. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. notability?--manchesterstudent 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and fully supportive of notability criteria for sports figures. fuzzy510 23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN —Mets501talk 03:25, 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. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also deleting the redirect pages. --++Lar: t/c 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra the band[edit]

Page seems to be about a non-notable band in Australia, from what I can tell from the article and their website, they fail WP:MUSIC. Article was original proposed for deletion. Delete Yanksox 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Andorra the band Wikipedia is not US centric. Because an entrant isnt immediately familar to an editor with their own musical knowledge and tastes doesnt preclude an entrant. Go through the weblinks to see the activity and relevance of the band in the Asia-Pacific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.79 (talk • contribs)

PS: Can the page author stop vandalising this AfD? AlexTiefling 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment User may be reported to WP:AIV, if this keeps up. I'm going to warn him again. Yanksox 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say what is note-worthy and what is not?

You see we do a lot of work for social justice here. What difference does it make in your life if this little bit of cyber-space helps us promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community? None of course, but it will help us. So, let it go by the by and we'll all be happy. No-one is contradicting anyone, vandalising or slandering, we're just detailing several years of political progress through music and our ongoing efforts to bring peace.

Joel

Joel we are in the business of building an encylopedia not "[helping to] promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community". Promote your band somewhere else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your comments are legitimate then so are mine. If you object to the editing and removal of comments by others then your equal action is also objectionable. Therefore, as legitimately as before...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.25 (talk • contribs)

the business of building an encylopedia

A 'encyclopedia' is a store-house of knowledge covering all topics, just as a dictionary is. That includes individuals, organisations, objects and interests. To the communities of Australia our work is of current and historical relevance, as it is world-wide as an example of art, freedom fighting and social justice. A true 'encyclopedia' is one that is compiled objectively, outside of the ethno-centric value systems of an elite (in this case the millioneth of a % who own a computer and have access to the internet.) If you regard your monitoring and contributions here to be of significance then it will encompass that and accomodate the value of our accomplishments. Look through the links for the events and actions we have facilitated and read the responses and impetus they have generated and then ask: 'What have I created and accomplished and, bearing that in mind, what power do I have to eradicate information about others who are inspired to create history?'

Comment: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't surprise me in the slightest anymore. If the standards of Wikipedia say this article doesn't belong, then there are two choices: remove the article or attack the standards. Fan1967 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP left this comment at the top: Re: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things.

History, til this point has purely been a record endorsing the self-serving interests of the rich elite. One potential benefit of the internet (when it becomes accessible to the poor) will be the opportunity to break that standard. Instead of remaining an account which justifies the excesses of a few who reserve the tools that preserve information for themselves, the stranglehold may be broken. Let's hope that accounts, such as the music of social justice, illuminate a pathway to this.

  • Comment Add Andorra the rock band, Andorra rock, and Andorra (band) to the ever increasing list. This guy doesn't seem to get it. That being said, WP:MUSIC says that two albums by a major or "more important" indie label establishes notability. Has anyone looked into what labels these were released under? --Chaser T 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Add Oz-andorra to the list, too. Would advise grumpy page-creator to read WP:POINT and provide better-attributed sources for one sole article, to give the project any chance of survivial. IMHO. AlexTiefling 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and check what links here for the final list of redirects! Blackspiderhead's childish behaviour means they do not deserve an article here. -- RHaworth 08:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Childish behavior on the part of a contributor is not a valid reason for deletion - it is cause for disciplinary action against the user. --Dystopos 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for Pete's sake quit blanking bits of this AfD! AlexTiefling 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all - and block the irritating child who's vandalising. Dweller 11:36, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Zhou[edit]

No references to the guy on google/web generally. Also question notability manchesterstudent 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFSAA does not list individual athlete's achievements or biographies. by Jamesino

  • Delete nn high school athlete. Possible vanity article. The few results that show up on google ([29]) don't show him as very impressive. Fan1967 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Site created by user Jamesino. Vanity article highly likely. Certainly not notable or encylopedic. Consider speedy delete? User making changes to article after AFD nomination. --manchesterstudent 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its real--Jamesino 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Real is not the question. Is James Zhou notable? Can you show any press coverage, any exceptional results or accomplishments? Fan1967 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check photofinishes at OFSAA Track and Field. --Jamesino 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please provide a specific link. I can't find any finish better than third place, and most are much worse. Even a win or two wouldn't make a "Midget Boys" racer notable, unless there is significant press coverage or attention. Fan1967
  • Delete References or not, it's a non-notable 15-year-old athlete. -- Kicking222 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable--Jamesino 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is Sébastien Lalonde and I am in charge of timing races at all major competitions held in Ottawa (at the Terry Fox Athelics Facility) including the NCSSAA Championship that James Zhou ran in. Our timing systems name input had a mixup between James Zhou from Colonel By and Spencer Bell from Canterbury so James Zhou did indeed win that race.-Sébastien Lalonde
  • Comment ^ No he's not
  • Speedy Delete tag added given the silly debate by the schoolboy above trying to list himself on Wiki. Vanity Article now clear. Most certainly not notable. --manchesterstudent 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very notable

just because the information is unavailable on Google, does not mean it is notable. Google is not the only place for information. News channels and local newspaper are sources as well. Just because it is not on Google, doesn't mean it is not notable.--Jamesino 23:07, 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 speedy delete - blatant hoax and very little content. -- Kjkolb 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barzeski[edit]

The link amused me but its not encyclopedic and I seriously question notability manchesterstudent 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. I've just added the tag. - Motor (talk) 23:56, 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 the argument put forth by Drdisque is persuasive. The originating editor may want to create articles in userspace next time to give them time to grow and get fleshed out. --++Lar: t/c 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Murphey[edit]

I question the notability of this sports 'personality' manchesterstudent 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Indy 500 race driver who never even finished a race or even led a lap. that's it. Bwithh 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Indianapolis 500 is arguably the world's largest race and every other competitor in the last 10 years has an article. -Drdisque 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this stub and would argue that any driver who has competed in the Indianapolis 500 is notable. He also was involved in a major crash in the inaugural IRL race in Las Vegas. This article was nominated for deletion the very minute that it was created. I would, at the very least, request that it be given some time to evolve.--Brian G 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Google gets about 912 for "Brad Murphey". Better expand with reliable sources.--Jusjih 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Elite level racing driver. Hawkestone 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added to the content of the article.--Brian G 03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KeepI can honestly say I learned a little something from that.--SeizureDog 02:47, 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. DS 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Blue[edit]

Non notable and not NPOV. Not a single CD of theirs is listed in Wikipedia, and whoever wrote it seems to have a bit too much information to be a third party. Meteshjj 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed as per nom. --manchesterstudent 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I strongly advocate it. The Ocean Blue had many sizable radio hits and, I bet, were I to check Billboard Modern Rock charts, I would be able to tell you that their singles charted high. "Cerulean" is a classic, and though I may be biased in this vote as I enjoy their music, they are extremely notable for having several well-played singles. GassyGuy 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had to go ahead and break out a reference. All of these figures are peaks of their songs on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart:
      • "Between Something and Nothing" #2
      • "Drifting, Falling" #10
      • "Cerulean" #16
      • "Ballerina Out of Control" #3
      • "Mercury" #27
      • "Sublime" #3 ...... GassyGuy 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey gang, sorry about all this, but I'm new to the rules of Wikipedia. I wrote the expanded text entry for 'The Ocean Blue' over the past few days. I am indeed a third party and just a die-hard fan and collector for the past 16 years. I've met the band once about a decade ago, but always keep up on their current goings on. It wasnt until after I wrote the Wikipedia entry this weekend, that I realized that I was writing in the form of a 'biography', when I SHOULD have been writing in the form of a true 'encyclopedic' entry. I will gladly clean up this entry to make sure that opinion, conjecture and bias are removed. I just wanted to try my best to write a solid, fact-filled submittal. Please feel free to help me correct any errors or Wikipedia rules that I may have broken. Everything I've written I can backup with hard-copy from my collection, but since much of the band's hey-day was 'pre-internet', its tough to cite facts with an online link. In addition, the bands website features an email, so I'm sure the group can clear up and confirm any questions of accuracy. Thanks folks, MAPAZ. MAPAZ 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. NPOV is a basis for a maintenance tag, not deletion. Multiple studio albums listed in article (plus singles etc. listed) is prima facie indicia of notability and should be an invitation for investigation before nominating for Afd. A look at allmusic substantiates notability, as does amazon [30]. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:MUSIC. Three albums released on Sire Records and one on Mercury records meets our album requirements. Modern rock hits meet the chart requirements. Allmusic.com has an article on them see [31] I added some sections as it is a long article without a break. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per information that's just been brought to our attention. Also, let's please not consider something not having an article on Wikipedia as an indication of not being relevant, since it's far from a complete database. fuzzy510 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and GassyGuy. ---Charles 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely meets WP:MUSIC and a biased article/content dispute isn't grounds for deletion. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- Kukini 16:20, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last step before failure[edit]

notability. probably vanity article manchesterstudent 00:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_4&oldid=1081096382"