Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

Purge server cache

March 17[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Tunisia[edit]

I really think that it is an unnecessary article, not only due to the fact that it is poorly written and non-wikified, but additionally its content would easily be suited to be included in the article Tunisia.

--NicAgent 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per every other African country having one. See the template at the bottom of the page. The current state of the article has nothing to do with whether or not it should be deleted, the potential does. --Rory0 96 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Transport in Tunisia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in Tunisia. kotepho 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Jcuk 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Osomec 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite into a coherent article. Punkmorten 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. We have articles on transport for every country in the world and Tunisia should be no exception. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mop up as per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, must be cleaned up --Ugur Basak 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup, as above Bucketsofg 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, then keep. A bit painful at the minute. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have similar articles of several other countries, like Brazil, so, why not Tunisia? Carioca 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have started work on cleaning this up. Hope to have it completed over the next couple of days. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup completed.

Capitalistroadster 06:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbend Mall[edit]

I would like to propose this defunct mall for deletion. Apparently there has been in the past some disagreement on whether malls are in general notable. Consider this negligible mall, which operated for about 15 years, and not in Times Square, either, if you catch my drift. Does it deserve an article? I say it's non-notable. Then consider "Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States" (18 entries) and "Category:Shopping malls in the United States" (hundreds). How big is big enough for mall notability? In opining on this page, I ask you to not only decide the fate of Riverbend, but broaden the discussion, so that we could set a meaningful well-argued precedent for the future of malls on WP. DELETE. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good article. I'm an inclusionist in most cases. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article was written by the same person who wrote it on deadmalls.com with a personal knowledge of the center. Enclosed malls are not a dime a dozen and if they had major anchors and served a whole city count as legitimate. This mall was also notable in that it contained the only Georgia store for several major, now defunct chains.
Weak Delete Malls are a dime a dousin, surely a defunct shopping mall that was neither the first or greatest in anything, doesn't assert much notability.Eivind ^speak! 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nn mall. No comment for now on the others. JoshuaZ 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete questionably notable and very poorly written. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and WP:V. I think a lot of the defunct mall stuff unnecessarily mirrors http://www.deadmalls.com . It's possible there are other sources for this article, but actually no sources are identified even though http://www.deadmalls.com/malls/riverbend_mall.html was probably a major one. Esquizombi 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ordinary, non-notable, defunct mall. Not a bad article, though. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article and makes no difference to me whether the mall is operating now or not. It played a role in its economy and thus has historical interest and a story to be told. -- JJay 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, my great-grandpappy used to run a tobacco and snuff business off a horse-drawn cart. He stimulated growth in the local lung cancer treatment center economy, and reduced horse unemployment. Should he have an article too, under Cat:Defunct Solo Proprietorships? lol the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do the article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I fail to see why you think removing information from this site is some kind of joke. -- JJay 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete It's no more or less a joke than the assertion that this article on a mall which is indistinguishable from thousands of others is worth keeping. Building on a flood plain isn't too bright, but if we want an article telling us that people are stupid, this is not it. D e nni ☯ 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Weatherman90 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay, although it should be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic. BryanG 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are literally hundreds of thousands of non-notable shopping centers, and even more failed ones, in the world. One could spend a lifetime cataloging them. If it has some historical significance aside from being flooded in the 90s and the site of a kidnapping in the early 80s, I may be persuaded to change my mind, but I just don't see that in the article. -Dawson 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn mall. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think malls should be included unless they are the first/greatest/most of something (biggest, most visitors, first in a state, etc.) GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I tend to think that there should be a centralized discussion on what makes a mall notable. Otherwise, I fear a string of no consensus votes on the horizon. ~~Also, I find the mall to be as notable and well-referenced as most of the high schools that have articles here, so yeah, keep~~. youngamerican (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another problem area... I blithely tried to AfD one or two recently... Lack of experience. It turns out, high schools are notable by virtue of existence. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I struck the part of my vote that was meant to show frustration with school inclusionism, since some people misunderstood what I was saying. But, yeah, keep for now (although it would need cleanup and verify tags), have a centralized discussion and a policy in place, then delete this if it fails to meet the guidelines. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crazy ruuskie ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe I'm missing something here but if we had a corporation that owned the mall, even owned a few malls we would probably delete it by WP:CORP. So I have trouble understanding how when the malls are separated they should be kept. JoshuaZ 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some people tend to view malls as objects of geographical notability. E.g., the Mall of America, a profoundly notable thing, is run by the ~~"Ghermezian Organization", a profoundly NN Corp~~Melvin Simon and Associates. ~~Not that that should detract from the "delete" for this one.~~ the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Well, there goes that one. You prob. get my point tho. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any statistics regarding malls? Any rankings per country? This would give us a better clue as to notability. Also did it contain any notable stores? Did it leave an impact on the area or did it simply vanish without a trace? Did it have any attributable economic/social impact on the area? I believe these are things to consider. Joelito 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after failing to see notability. Joelito 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Perhaps a Shopping mall wikiproject? - Scaife
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If schools are considered notable enough, why not malls? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because there is currently an odd attitude towards schools among some editors(which is being reworked btw) doesn't mean we need to start applying the same logic to other areas. JoshuaZ 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; I tend to support the idea of a wikiproject. ProhibitOnions 10:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm mis-understanding, but does this mean that you support keeping any article that's part of a Wikiproject? If I started Wikiproject People's Left Shoes, would you vote to keep Lord Bob's left shoe because it was in a Wikiproject? I realize this is a very absurd example but, honestly, that was the first thing that came to mind when I read your comment. I'd just like to know where the line comes in. Lord Bob 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A wikiproject isn't really what is needed here. There needs to be a centralized discussion, leading to a policy proposal, so we can sort out what, if anything, makes a given mall notable. youngamerican (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles such as this are important as they show an example of a general economic trend. The article could do for some citiations of sources, if those sources arent from first hand observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.80.147 (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep What, are we running low on space? Why not? I mean, it's a place, no? --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So is my garden. So is the McDonalds' down the road from me. Should they have articles? Please, could you explain your reasoning, I'm concerned that I'm missing something, here. Proto||type 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a place that has had a large cultural and economic impact on an area, and was visited by, and known to, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. So, unless you have a really popular garden, the distinction is clear. McDonald's is a chain, and no different than most other ones, unlike malls and schools, which have unique characteristics to them. Plus, the latter two have a far greater economic impact on area than a single restauarant does. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete malls aren't notable unless there is a clear reason why they are. In my opinion, schools notability should not be automatic. MLA 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A standard mall is a lot less important than a standard school. Scranchuse 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (per MLA). Kuzaar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable and of strictly local interest. Adolescents may find shopping malls to be interesting subject matter, but this article is deadly dull, and I had to make a real effort to finish it. I doubt this mall has significantly affected anyone who hasn't shopped there or otherwise seen it. Brian G. Crawford 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and no doubt a slap on my wrist for daring to expect some kind of quality control to be applied to Wikipedia. WP:NOT a memorial, and that should apply to buildings even more so than people. Was the mall notable in its time? Nope. Therefore, it is not now. The arguments to keep this 'article' are exceptionally flimsy (along the lines of 'keep because it should be kept'. Proto||type 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strong delete - article is ENTIRELY unreferenced and unverified, as well as ugly and badly written. If hyper-inclusionism does prevail, then merge a less-boring and badly-written (ie, three line) description into Rome, GA. Proto||type 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; large buildings are "notable". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Question though (which has nothing directly to do with this AfD, sorry). If Schools are automatically notable, and malls are becoming so, why are churches not? Jcuk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if this isn't an indication of the general absurdity of the inclusion of all malls and schools, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given up on trying to figure things like this out. The beliefs of some Wikipedians make my brain hurt. So I just don't worry about it and try to pretend they don't exist. It's remarkably effective. Lord Bob 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an important part of the local economy and something that has affected thousands of people. I've also cleaned up the article a bit - if people have further complaints or suggestions on it, please leave a note on the article's talk page. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a shout into the wind. It's a mall, dead and buried. It wasn't even around for a particularly long time for a mall. It wasn't particularly significant, unless being the only Bon-Ton in Georgia is something that's particularly notable. That said, it lacks verifiability, which is the final shot to the head of this dead horse. We don't need to mirror deadmalls.com. RasputinAXP c 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn mall, nn concept, nn category. 204.69.40.7 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say Delete. I see no reason why a defunct shopping centre is notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it has a historical interest the wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and information duplicated at DeadMalls.com. Mhking 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not deadmalls.com Yuckfoo 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, and it's not a repository for useless information either. Denni ☯ 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - this is not useless thanks Yuckfoo 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable defunct mall Cursive 02:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added some info on the Millican kidnapping and murder- the subject of books, plays and Oprah. In fact, malls are not just cultural and economic centres for their areas, the village squares of our times. Besides being fun places to shop and buy ice cream, they are often the scene of real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society. I think that is part of the reason why we should be talking about them here. -- JJay 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball courts are also scenes of "real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society" but should we have articles about every basketball court? Joelito 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is where serial killers prey because of the easy access to young girls, yes. -- JJay 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The killers are notable but the site where the killing occurs is not necessarily notable. Furthermore the killing didn't even take place in the mall. Joelito 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combined with all the other aspects Riverbend clearly deserves a place here. Its connection with this notorious crime means that its memory lives on and it should not be forgotten. Millican would be alive had she not gone to the mall or gotten separated from her group. She would also be alive if the Neeleys had not seen Riverbend as an easy place to grab vics. The question is why are malls breeding grounds for these kind of events? Telling the story of individual malls helps shed light on the issue.-- JJay 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I fail to see other aspects which establish notability. Also I doubt that telling the story of individual malls help shed light on the issue. Finally deadmalls.com clearly states that "the mall is now merely a memory". Joelito 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deadmalls page is a blog post by one user...but thanks for sharing your opinion -- JJay 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAHHH - the pain! The murdered Lisa Ann Millican doesn't even have her own article! If her murder is notable, it should be on her page, not the mall's! For crying out loud, people! the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and Turnstep. Zagalejo 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Look folks. I wrote the article for deadmalls.com and I did duplicate it here, but wrote it much better than on deadmalls.com. I have wanted to sever ties with that site and have been publishing NOTABLE malls and major store chain histories for the state of Georgia on wiki. I especially like to note the vacant or demolished ones because these are places that people made memories that they might like to look back and find information on. Rich's? The Rich's at Greenbriar? I remember Greenbriar from 20 years ago, I'd like to hear what they had to say about it (see the point?).
There are approximately 40 noteworthy malls in Georgia with major department store anchors: that is it. I am talking traditional, general enclosed malls that featured at least one major department store anchor. This one had three. Malls are disappearing at a rapid rate nationwide. These malls were significant, including some that were short-lived. Some successful malls die young. If an earthquake destroyed the world's largest mall five years after it opened, it would still be significant. Also, most of these descriptions consist of maybe two paragraphs with no photographs, logos or anything. I think Wiki wouldn't crash over that. This information is enjoyed by a surprisingly large amount of people and represents a time when malls were like cities themselves. People made memories in these places and they were known by thousands, maybe millions of people. The fact that they are dying this soon represents a major shift in American society. Riverbend Mall had a very large shopping area drawing people from upwards of three states and caused downtown Rome to lose its two major department stores and completely killed it for years. The mall also stood for actually 24 years though its period of actual success was only 15. And yes, this information came from memory and research of the various regional department store chains. I also remember seeing them report the flooding of the mall on the Atlanta news that year. I knew Hess's, Belk Rhodes and JCPenney (three major anchors) were all there and saw them with my own eyes. I do not need to quote that...I saw it for myself. And yes, this was a successful mall that died young because of a natural disaster (albeit poor planning). The location where it stood is still the major commercial strip of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.147.54 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 March 2006 moved down here for chronology sake. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)

Thank you anon user for clearly establishing this as original research and lacking verifiability. Joelito 16:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There is a huge difference between writing something from memory and OR. All the store changes, flooding, etc. are verifiable right out of the newspapers. -- JJay 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I was there. I saw the anchors, remember when it happened. I saw the banner in front of the Belk Rhodes that read "Outlet Store" a year after Mount Berry opened. I saw the very seedy looking Bon-Ton there with the cheap looking sign. That was strictly from memory and I remember the year well. I was going to Little River Canyon that day and noticed it. I ate in the Morrison's Cafeteria and shopped in the Reed/Big B/Revco/CVS drug store there. I spent much time in that old Belk Rhodes as a kid with my mom and even took a photograph in 2002 of the store just before the wrecking ball finished it off. I can also see a Chick Fil A employee handing out samples along that ramped part of the mall up to the food court around 1991 or so. We used to shop there a lot from about 1985-1992 or so.

Delete as this mall lacks particular significance or notability, and malls are not inherently notable. ~~The murder does not affect this — it had no geographic resonance; a tragedy that could have been located in thousands of other non-notable malls.~~ Sliggy 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strikeout as issue not relevant now a separate article has been created. Sliggy 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: due to the recent rash of "if it exists, we need an article about it" folks showing up at Afd, I raised the question of notability of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of buildings. Malls and dorms seem to be the most common buildings that we get articles about. We have standards for businesses, see WP:CORP. I don't see how an individual property is more "notable" than the business than owns it, so I don't think being a mall is sufficient reason for inclusion. There are hundreds of thousands of them, they pretty much all do the same thing. For this article my opinion is delete (not that it matters), but I've no prejudice against someone making an article about the kidnapping incident. That seems to be the most significant thing about this mall. Friday (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:N Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the AfD for List of dead and distressed shopping malls, we already determined that dead malls are notable, and determined to keep the list. Articles about dead malls, this one included, are notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have removed the Lisa Ann Millican murder into its own article. That was the only potentially notable thing about this mall. To the admin who closes this: please disregard that rationale.- the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 17:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

This article was originally moved from the Storm history of Hurricane Katrina, and after that, the section was greatly condensed from this article. Most of the important details on this article are already on Hurricane Katrina, and everything else is excessive detail which can be obtained from the official source given on the article. Since there really isn't anything to merge, it should be deleted. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reyk 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is nothing to merge. Note that the article "History of Hurricane Katrina" redirects to this one. If this is deleted, so should that, or redirected to Hurricane Katrina. Carlo 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't accept deleting an article based on a claim of "excessive detail". Who is to say what is excessive and what is not? The material was spun out from the main article, and while I'm not opposed to merging it back, I see no point in reducing our coverage of this event. Furthermore, what kind of argument is it to say that there are better sources available elsewhere? In that case, why should we bother working on articles in the first place since there are great pages, fan sites, official sites etc. for just about everything. Or to put it another way, maybe we should devise a template that blanks pages and provides a link to the better sources available on the internet. -- JJay 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down. Denni ☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just about everything has been done better and in greater detail elsewhere. For example, witness Vegreville, Alberta a little town of no consequence that no one has ever heard of. Our article is six lines, some statistics and a bad photo of an easter egg. What is the point of having editors try to maintain that inconsequential bit of villagecruft when the good folks at www.vegreville.com already provide such incredible detail and a halfway decent picture of the same egg? Why not just link directly to that site, since god knows we will never do it better than the people condemned to worship that egg 365 days a year? Of course, I'll fight for the right of the editors who think they can outdo vegreville right here at wikipedia. I just wish you would join me... -- JJay 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it should still summarize history rather than describe it in excruciating detail. Merge anything crucial to Hurricane Katrina. Deizio 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conditionally only if the article contains info not already in other articles. Weatherman90 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail is excessive because this amount of detail is available in the tropical cyclone reports of every Atlantic hurricane. Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No, because it does not meet notability criteria. If anything, the TCRs should be added to wikisource. This is text I cut out of the Katrina article because it became too long, and the article itself has thus become a rather poor copy of the TCR (which is very interesting reading, by the way). — jdorje (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. -- JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that having such a large amount of information for one storm makes it extremely difficult to manage and improve the article. As Jdorje said, this information is already available somewhere else in Wikipedia, and to have detail to the amount you're indicating, it should be added to Wikisource instead of here. Katrina may be a remarkable storm due to its impact, but the majority of the editors who actually maintain this article want it gone, as it is completely redundant. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem managing or improving the material since it was spun out from the main article. Deleting will certainly not help editors to improve it. Also, jdorje has not said that the material is available elsewhere in wikipedia. A simple comparison of this with Hurricane Katrina shows that the material is not covered there to this extent. Finally, please do not speak for the "majority" of editors here. -- JJay 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So long as there is any new material, it needs to be kept. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any new material that can be added, everything has been covered in detail at the Hurricane Katrina article. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Given the impact Katrina had, I don't think this article offers excessive detail. David Sneek 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major issue. This amount of detail is useful, given the controversy surrounding the failure to evacuate on time. Some of the detail from the main article can be offloaded onto this if there's duplication. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProhibitOnions — important aspect of a major event. Feezo (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do people even read the article being AfD'd and the explanations? All information is in other articles, this article is unnecessary. Everything else is available via the external link. Proto||type 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that "all information is in other articles"? David Sneek 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not aware of the servers nearing capacity.....Jcuk 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid sub-page, along with all of the others for HK. "...available via the external link." is a terrible argument. This is Wikipedia, not Google. Turnstep 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid subtopic. mikka (t) 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's an interesting article. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clean it up and keep it! Sparsefarce 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. This might have been better dealt with as a redirect to avoid this discussion. I'd normally defer to the nominator, especially when one looks at the histories of the pages and sees whom the major contributors are. However the "keep and cleanup without ever editing the page" bloc appears to have spoken, so I'll say "delete but barring that merge (oh wait that's already done and oh, but this isn't a useful redirect) so bugger." - brenneman ^{L} 02:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James McDougall[edit]

Delete. I am proposing this article be deleted because the person to whom it refers is of questionable importance in warranting a biographical entry, there is little information in it of interest beyond the name and the individual's connection with the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (an existing article in which this information could be, and in fact is offered), and because the article conflicts with what I consider a more important historical figure, the explorer James McDougall (explorer) Fishhead64 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a central figure in a major event, and he is linked to from the Flight 103 page. The article should be marked as a stub and possibly expanded. Carlo 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and significant, and Move to James McDougall (Lockerbie) or some such other name, as appropriate. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to James McDougall (Procurator Fiscal) and make James McDougall a disamb page.Eivind ^t ^@^c 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Weatherman90 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this guy is notable enough to have his own article. What more is there to say about him? A brief mention in the Flight 103 article seems sufficient. Plus, as the nominator points out, he is hogging valuable namespace that rightfully belongs to the much more notable James McDougall (explorer). dbtfz ^talk 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be expanded. Any conflict with the article, if it exists, about McDougall the explorer can be remedied by disambiguation.Phase4 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like the Lockerbie article should more than take care of him, but a stronger article might make a difference. ProhibitOnions 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to more suitably named page and convert to disambiguation. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 (number)[edit]

Delete as a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was put on {{Prod}}, which was deleted immediately by the creator of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN StephenFalken 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. You have got to be kidding. Carlo 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DE1E7E = 14,556,798 converted into decimal notation. Redirect to 14,556,798. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense to Leet fans, but this vote reminds me of those people who spell "Boobies" in their calculators. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the numbers WikiProject. --light darkness^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per wikinumbers. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Czar Dragon 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments . Reyk 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But seriously... Deizio 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but its not as bad as some other year-articles I have seen. We have articles for each year going WAYYY to far into the future. Weatherman90 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a number, not a year. Specific guidelines or policy on years might be different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject. This will definitely grow larger. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Joelito 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a number. JIP | Talk 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number, not a year yet, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers.--Dakota ~ ° 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not listed on List of numbers or linked to by any mathematical page. Non-notable number, whatever that might be. ProhibitOnions
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3000 (number). — RJH 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will be the sole inclusionist vote on this one, I guess. 3055 is a verifiable number that can be proven to exist. That's more than you can say about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Prove to me that Saddam Hussein exists ... ohh that's right, you can't. But the existence of the number 3055 follows directly from the fundamental arithematic axions. Cyde Weys 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is an infinity of numbers, but there's no space for an infinity of articles. Thus existence alone is not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but there aren't infinite four-digit numbers. In fact, there's not so many of them. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you seriously want to extend the ceiling on number articles with no signifigance, you might want to shoot for three digits first, not four. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. There's a real chance that you'll get your way, but I have to say it's small. Melchoir 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We could ask the developers to have the server autogenerate an article page for every request of the form "N (number)", where "N" stands for a non-empty sequence of decimal digits. That way Wikipedia will have an infinite number of articles! Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll join you on this one Cyde. Did you see what that number is in hex? And its found in quite of few lists of integers. Pretty significant stuff I'd say. --BostonMA 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "BEF" in hex. How is that any more notable than "BEE" (i.e. Bee or 3054), which doesn't have an article? Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee already has its own page. Why would it need another one? --BostonMA 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few lists? Are you aware that OEIS currently contains 116943 lists and counting? Being in only 41 is pathetic. Melchoir 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's notable because it is in only 41 lists. Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a Wikiproject Numbers subsection of "non-notable numbers" or something. Let it incubate in there for awhile. To me, numbers are inherently notable, although most of them don't have alot of content you can say about them, usually not enough for an article of their own. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has enough articles about subjects without any real-world existence. As Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man"; and while the underlying theological debate can't be resolved, the existence and singular importance of integers should be clear. Monicasdude 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 3000 (number) (which probably ought to be 3000s (number). It's a charming article, but if we keep it we have to let everyone make an article about their favourite number. Peter Grey 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject criteria. Note that BostonMA has been campaigning for "keep" votes. --Carnildo 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and because of the spam from BostonMA. ---J.Smith 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and shame on BostonMA for spamming in favor of keeping this. Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. mikka (t) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pa Computerjoe 's talk 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the factorization is useful, even if it is trivial. Although arguably that would be wikimath.org or something, but as that has yet to exist, most numbers tend to have certain properties in number theory which are encyclopedic to describe. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every integer has a factorization. Melchoir 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to do a little bit more research on that (unless you're counting the trivial case of the number itself and one). --Cyde Weys 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am. And prime numbers are hardly trivial; if this number were prime, it would be more notable than it is now. Still deleteable though. Melchoir 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument above. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge it to a list of numbers in the 3000 range. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Come on, gang. It's easy enough to prove that all positive integers are notable. They're well-ordered. If there were non-notable integers, they'd form a set. Then that set would have a least element. And being the smallest non-notable positive integer would, of course, be notable. And that's a contradiction. So there can't be any non-notable positive integers. So there. Monicasdude 01:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How silly. Was this article created to make some point? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it had any unique properties in number theory, as Natalinasmpf describes, then it should have an article, but otherwise, there comes a point where details are too trivial to include. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 is the unique integer between 3054 and 3056. It is also the unique product of 611 and 5. Michael Jackson doesn't even have a unique name people seem to think he is notable enough for an article. --BostonMA 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing to write a permastub on every integer? Melchoir 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --hydnjo talk 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (or merge per Bookofjude, inter al.) (although I always have wondered about what comes between 3054 and 3056; I always thought it was 12). Joe 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the obvious consensus above. This should've been deleted already. Cool3 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So it's boring, so what? It is just a number, but it has various mathematical properties associated with it. One thing my education taught me about math is that it's too complicated for me to understand. There's probably a lot you could write about this single number. People complain about how you could go on writing about numbers forever, since they're infinite. That's obviously true, but I'm not going to complain if that means we end up with millions, billions, or even trillions of number articles. Bring 'em on. To me this is like a guy who inherits a big pile of money and complains: "That's too much, I can never count all that..." A little wisdom tells you it's nonsense to worry about such things. Also, a number could potentially fall into an automatically notable category, like natural species in biology, natural languages, planets, stars, that kind of thing: just by existing it has some notability attached to it, since it's automatically going to have some scientific significance. Everyking 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every species, language, planet, and star on Wikipedia has already been written about elsewhere; otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Nobody has written anything about 3055. You propose that we could make up stuff to write about 3055; that's called original research. It is not the job of an encyclopedia. Melchoir 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anything that is patently provable using the laws of mathematics can be considered "original research". Mathematics is really an entirely different realm than the rest of the encyclopedia because in mathematics things can be and are proven 100%. --Cyde Weys 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the contrary, the history of mathematics is full of incorrect proofs and assertions; now, even after a theorem is proven, often it is not accepted without reservation. Whether a mathematical statement is "really" true or not, Wikipedia requires verification of its proof. Now, I am aware that in practice, mathematics pages contain some trivial original research, especially number articles, and we tend to look the other way. But an entire article filled with the stuff, and using it as a justification to exist, is completely and absolutely unacceptable. Melchoir 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no such thing as an incorrect proof. Either a proof is a proof or it contains logical errors in which case it's not a proof at all. Can you provide any references for the kind of stuff you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Classification of finite simple groups, Four color theorem, Fermat's last theorem. Melchoir 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, I was almost going to say, "And don't say Fermat's last theorem", in my post you just responded to. I had actually typed it out and thought better of it and deleted that part. You do know all Fermat did was saying that he "proved" it without offering up any evidence whatsoever, right? --Cyde Weys 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I know. Asserting the existence of a proof is, sadly, not the same thing as having a proof. We Wikipedians, being a wiser sort, prefer to demand verification. Melchoir 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Fermat claimed to have a proof, but didn't offer it. Andrew Wiles actually did have a proof, but his first version was incorrect. --Carnildo 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody has written anything about this number? How can that be? Recently I read about this kid who was able to recite pi out to over 8,000 digits...nobody has ever factored out the number 3055 before, or written its Roman numeral, and published it somewhere? Everyking 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are welcome to look for a source. Melchoir 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I won't pretend to be able to interpret it, but is this a source? It's linked right there in the article. Everyking 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a database query generated by computer and input by the author of the article. If that counts as a reference, you might as well have an "article" on every phrase in the English language by referencing Google searches. Melchoir 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silliness. linas 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obvious reasons Nigelthefish 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject Numbers. Looking through the OEIS, it's in maybe two interesting lists. The number has no special properties unlike other existing number articles - it's not prime, perfect, square, culturally significant (see, for example, 42 (number) or 1138 (number), a taxicab number, triangular, or any of a large number of interesting, verifiable properties held by most of the numbers which have articles. In other words, unencyclopedic. Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --C S (Talk) 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete otherwise we'll be on our 2millionth article quicker than we though. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Harr o5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television news music package[edit]

Seems to be unverified original research. Surely this should be merged somewhere else, or has been covered previously, but it currently seems unencyclopedic. Harr o5 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather unusual that I only created this file just a few minutes before and already an AfD stamp had already been placed. I created the file after I was left a message by somebody (I can't remember their user name), but they said that I would be a good candidate to create such an article, so I created it. I had created other articles revolving around news music and when I was "enlisted", so to speak, to create an article about the subject, I took the chance and went with it, you know. But if anybody can gather information as I'm trying to on this subject, put it in. Tmanok oTmanok 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I saw what looked like a strange and waffling list, but didn't know the history. At least it wasn't speedied out of haste. Harr o5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep this seems like a reasonable article. it's not really original research to simply state that some channels use particular melodic lines for their news programs and describe how they do so. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tmanok. The nom also seems unclear and suggests a merge but provides no target. I think engaging the author before tagging the article two minutes after creation might have provided some clarification. -- JJay 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important part of the branding of television. Eivind ^t ^@^c 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, requested in connection with another AfD discussion to provide context and as a possible umbrella replacement for a set of mostly boilerplate small articles. Monicasdude 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify soem of the terminology being used. D e nni ☯ 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopaedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I suggested the creation of this article. We already had a whole Category:Television news music packages, about individual news music packages and their composers. I thought we should have a background article explaining what they were. Smerdis of Tlön 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records[edit]

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 Gonzo[edit]

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the show being discussed is Zane Lowe's radio show; its not called Gonzo, which is the name of his MTV show; the article is a poor stub at best; info about the show can fit into the Zane Lowe page anyway. Robdurbar 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Rewrite The MTV show Gonzo probably (just about) deserves a page, but this is poorly written and wrongly titled. DWaterson 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after merging to Zane Lowe. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zane Lowe. Then redirect. Merge then delete is not an option under the GFDL. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD[edit]

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per WP:SOFTWARE? Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD. Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ... aa:talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. --MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto||type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it. Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Expression[edit]

I had listed this to go to Wiktionary, but a new edit shows the word was coined only last year, and this is a memorial to a neologism and its creator. Per WP:NOT, this is not a memorial, a dictionary, a place for original inventions, and this also comes close to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harr o5 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Contested Expression" is an excellent way to describe the activities of graffiti, street art, skateboarding and etc. Simply because respect was shown to the person who coined the phrase is not sufficient reason to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintergoddess (talk • contribs)

Delete NN. The phrase doesn't seem to google at all, except as cases where the two words just appear consecutively in a sentence. The phrase returns 0 Ghits when combined with the name of the person who supposedly coined the phrase. Fan1967 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having skated, and grown up around taggers, highly non-notable. Not for things you made up in school one day. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article even says it's a protologism; even if it is truly by a college instructor, WP:NFT seems to apply here. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted protologism. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice try, but no Google. ProhibitOnions
Delete. A neologism with an inherent POV problem. Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for things your teacher made up in school one day. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records[edit]

Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~non-notable corporation.~~ nn unincorporated entity. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the United States this month, making them notable under WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.
The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Systemic bias argument is ridiculous, this is nn record label. Bluelinked "projects" in article also suspicious. Deizio 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn record label. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete North Dakota HAS a cultural scene? j/k, but still non-notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I try to look sympathetically on "alternative" music ventures, they can be notable without selling truckloads of records. This one, however, seems to have hardly got started and is right now thoroughly nn. --kingboyk 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, regrettably. Startup label, no product except for a sampler LP. That makes it NN. ProhibitOnions 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MatthewUND. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a startup without any releases of note. Eivind ^t ^@^c 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. mikka (t) 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Non-notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and reaffirmed Keep. There are at least a dozen record labels in Category:2005 establishments, all with invariably small discographies. If Silvery Moon Records can have an article, there's no reason why This Could Work Records should not either.
I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other companies that are similarly unqualified for an article on WP haven't been deleted yet doesn't justify this one. Dbchip 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out? JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions. JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment It would be helpful if you could give us a citation for their completion of national tours. JoshuaZ 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP, red link cruft. Royboy crashfan 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft^{cruft}. --Deville (Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you mean $Cruft^{cruft}$ $Cruft^{cruft}$ perhaps? JoshuaZ 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Daah, I've been TeXing too much these days. How about $e^{CRUFT\,\ln(CRUFT)}$ ? w00t --Deville (Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Maybe you can find a North Dakota wiki and add it there? Or if that doesn't exist, start one at Wikicities. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been mentioned in any ND newspaper, or anywhere for that matter. Ashibaka tock 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN company. Or even a NNND company. Marcus22 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Eusebeus 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental game[edit]

Unhelpful pseudo-category for games that are better classified elsewhere, like in Word game and Guessing game. There may eventually be a reason for this page to exist, but this isn't it. phh 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. no inherent problems with the page. the mental games referenced are suspect but the page itself makes some sense by explaining the nature of the games. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the examples listed on this page can be (and already have been) placed into a better established category, except for The Game (game), whose status as an actual game is debatable. Article is unnecessary. WarpstarRider 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The fact that certain games require no equipment to be played (and hence can be played anywhere and at any time) is an important and useful distinction. Please read the more neutral rewrite of The Game (game), its debatability as a game is due to a misunderstanding of the rules. Kernow 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, category is sufficient. Stifle 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del. Non-notable definition/construct. Czar Dragon 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Listcruft. Contradicts itself into the bargain (is it mental games or mind games?). Lists should contain significant and substantive info that would not be held in a category, this doesn't do it. Deizio 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but should definitely be a category. JoshuaZ 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, categorisation will be better. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, lists are more user-friendly than categories, and it should be crosslinked to the other similar lists of games. ProhibitOnions 11:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kernow. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deiz. Categories are, if anything, more user friendly than lists, as only the articles need to be kept up to date. With a list, not only do the articles need to be up to date, so does the list. Proto||type 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very nice job on this list, which is so much better than a category it hurts my brain. -- JJay 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mikka (t) 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or convert to an actual category/list. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Works Of Mika Feldy[edit]

An article about some short stories by the author, whose self-bio down the bottom would be CSD A7 if separated, with no hint of them being notable. I'd say this is blatant self-promotion, going against Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Harr o5 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete apparent vanity. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentI the writer of this article claim that I am not useing this for self promotion but am simply useing this for those interested in extra information about my compilation of short stories or for those wanting to know more. If I wanted to promote myself, the article would probably give you a seisure as I have a habit of overdoing my advertisements. Please do not delete my article, it is form informative, not advertising, purposes. What can I change or add to make it seem more informative? Mika Feldy
Delete - nn, vanity. >> Hi Mika? Wikipedia has sets of criteria and guidelines for what is and isn't suitable for inclusion. It may be that your page isn't a keeper, please check out WP:BIO (especially the line: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more") for info regarding authors and WP:DEL for general deletion policy info. Deizio 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is a bit strict. What if a writer didn't have an audience of 5,000? We just leave them out and call them "unimportant"? Take a hint, everybody deserves a bit of recognition in today's day and age. Who cares if the audience is 3 or 3,000,000? You're singling people out Wiki... - Midnight

Comment Wikipedia has guidelines and policies for exactly this kind of case. Who cares if it has a readership of 3? An encyclopedia should damn well care. Wikipedia is not a weblog or personal page. If Wikipedia is guilty of "singling out" completely unnotable writers then count me in. WP:DEL. If it is going to be published then cross your fingers and WP:CHILL in the meantime. Deizio 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity, nn author. 14 Ghits (as Mika Haruhara (Feldy)) [2], all of which appear to be his own postings on sites like geocities and invisionfree. Fan1967 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoops, sorry. I got the gender wrong. I've previously run into "Mika" as a man's name (Finnish) and didn't read carefully enough. My apologies. Fan1967 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is informative, and I actually didn't know some of these things until I read this article. It's informative, and it varifies certain information. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do right? From what I can tell, its in threat of being deleted because not enough people look at it. Have you even given it time? Or a chance? You can't expect people to linch onto something in five minutes. People might want this in the future. Don't delete. - Maki

Delete. Per nom. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentI would also like to note that this was put up for deletion BEFORE the articlewas finished. The article is now finished completley. Mika Feldy
Delete even with complete version above still stands. JoshuaZ 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is very informative, because i've read the article and I see that this writer Mika has quite potential to become a good artist. I think this shouldn't be deleted because if more people find this article and see the works of Mika then she could grow out to quite a succes. Give Mika a chance, im sure she will get more viewers and that this article will grow out with importantence. -[Z0diac]

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO, impossible to satisfy WP:V, and is likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable self-promotion --MaNeMeBasat 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, unverifiable, self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as this might have attained notability in Japan, something I am unable to verify. Even so, it's a vanity piece that would be better organized under an article about the author. ProhibitOnions 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,per the original nom. Kuru ^talk 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm as impatient as hell, I have e-mailed Wikipedia about the deletion of this article. They claim that the descision to delete it is not determined by requests but by the editing comity, so are any of you from the eidting comity? The e-mail says "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia written by its readers. The subjects for our articles are chosen by the editing community rather than by request." Meaning that if anything we should wait for the eidting community to stop by here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika Feldy (talk • contribs)

Yes, we are all part of the editing community. Everyone at wikipedia is an editor. You may want to look at the Wikipedia intro page and related pages. JoshuaZ 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the choice to delete is not based on any judgement on the quality of your work. Rather, it is the intent of Wikipedia to document well-known people, not provide exposure for those who wish to become well-known. The policy is described in WP:BIO. Postings by people attempting to publicize themselves are generally subject to heavy scrutiny, but if someone else had created this article I doubt the response would be any different. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your post. Fan1967 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I have to wait before it is "decided"? When can I get rid of this delete message? Mika Feldy 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more details on the AfD process, you may want to see the relevant page linked here: WP:AFD. JoshuaZ 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Monkey Poop Fight[edit]

A Flash game created some time this year found here. Is it notable? Are there respectable sources concerning this game? I don't think so, just one of the many non-notable newgrounds quality flash out there. - Hahnchen 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it's high google score would allow it to stay on Wikipedia. --Nintendude 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you removed the PROD earlier because of this. I had a look on Google, and it just looks like the flash has been pasted all over various Flash mirrors. I couldn't find any strong fan following like say Salad Fingers or critical reaction from established sources like EPIC 2014. - Hahnchen 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del. Czar Dragon 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PROD'er. --light darkness^(talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and they're apes not monkeys. Eivind ^t ^@^c 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively notable, as I've played it before seeing this ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn software. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn software, its nothing more than an advertisement really, oh and the game sucks i tried it. Mike _{(T C)} 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tried the game, loved it, esp. the baby dropping part. My wife was terrified though :) :) the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another Flash game = non-notable per software guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable flash game --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn game. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure whether or not to put this up or not, but since someone else did I'd say DELETED! -- gakon5 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable flash game. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can SMPF retain nn status when it's google score goes above 1,000? --Nintendude 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have noticed that the alexa rating for the official website is not in the top 100,000, but despite that, I am still baffled by why 1000+ google hits dosen't merit notability on the game. --Nintendude 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandre Dharma-wardana[edit]

Seems like he is a good scientist, but I don't see how he passes the professor test. There are many Principal Research Officers (looks equivalent to full professor) at NRC Canada [3], and even I was in Who's Who Canada. For what it's worth, 52 unique Ghits [4]. "Ceylon Leather Products and Tannery" gives no hits. There are many more notable academics, don't think he meets WP:BIO or the professor test Samir (the scope) 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes notability Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't see it doing any harm, seems fairly notable. Weatherman90 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, current article does not assert compliance with WP:BIO or professor test. Deizio 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solid credentials, decent publication record, appears to be viewed as notable to those in his narrow but important field. And even if the "professor test" was ever more than a proposed guideline, a Cambridge PhD in quantum physics is usually pretty notable. Monicasdude 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has many publications, some in prestigious journals: [5]. JoshuaZ 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending verification that he is indeed a professor ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — passes the professor test. Feezo (Talk) 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable but you wouldn't know it from this weak bio. ProhibitOnions 11:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no, there are a tonne of no name academics like him. His publications are all in minor journals (mainly impact factor <2). He's one of many researchers in solid state physics, and he doesn't stand out among the crowd. He's working at a lesser institution in Canada (NRC, not even an academic institution) and he's an adjunct professor at Montreal. I think that it was a page made by one of his post docs. Monicadude, Cambridge solid state physics = 15 PhD's per year, I can't see how that alone makes you notable. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, as per the above. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel halperin[edit]

Non-notable bio written by User:Dhalperin. Some claim to notability in founding United Consumer Finance Network (11 google hits) and United Consumer Mortgage (4 google hits). Contested speedy, and talk page says, Who are you to say that I am not notable? I have been published in trade journals and my biography is relevant. Deletion is unncessary. Clearly doesn't mean WP:BIO. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and redundant, since it's largely a reprint of his User page. Perhaps he had intended it as a User Page, and made a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfortunato (talk • contribs)

Delete (I think the talk page rules out the possibility of it being a mistake, but that's neither here nor there). --DMG413 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history by (aeropagitica) says, Article has been userfied and deleted twice already. bikeable (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect if he keeps recreating it. NN Fan1967 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect per Fan1967. JoshuaZ 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; one day one plays in the "Midwest Suburban Baseball League" and the next day he/she is a household name. In all seriousness, delete and protect per Fan. Joe 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and {{deletedpage}} per above. Already deleted once via AfD at [6] as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect as recreated text, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and {{deletedpage}}. User has had sufficient time to read links related to biographical articles. (aeropagitica) 12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect: vanity and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and deletedpage, per Kinu. Kuzaar 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and {{deletedpage}}. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and deletedpage --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per above - recreated article. Kuru ^talk 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Holcomb[edit]

Delete - the subject was briefly in the news almost 3 years ago. There have been many, many cases of soldiers returning to the US then refusing to go back. This individual decided to tell the media. It's self generated "notability." Nothing more was written about this after she was reassigned to Fort Carson, and probably nothing else ever will be. Nobunaga24 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Delete per nom. Weatherman90 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del. Czar Dragon 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Self-generated notability" is notability, and is the norm rather than the exception. She fought the law, and the law lost, and isn't that notable enough, too? Monicasdude 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that notable, but notable enough. --DMG413 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will anyone care about this person in 100 years? 100 minutes? Does anyone care now? I doubt it. dbtfz ^talk 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dbtfz... couldn't have put it better myself. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep marginally notable in the greater scheme of things. ProhibitOnions 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although article could be cleaned/expaned. It may be a precedent of some small significance. Bondegezou 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone featured by major news sources. Turnstep 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If we're going to delete people who are self-notable, let's start with Angelyne. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more news articles about him than there are about me. Sparsefarce 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, borders on notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, might have some historical interest, but no context is provided in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario T Barri[edit]

Unverified stub about a supposed Filipino movie director (ie, directing Filipino movies, not that he is Filipino - there's no way of telling that, as he is unverifiable). There is a Filipino actor called Mario Barri, who should have an article yet doesn't. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling if telling for sure that this refers to the same person, and I don't think guesswork is appropriate. I'm noting that this article is for a director, and Mario Barri (with no T) was an actor, which also weighs against this being the same guy. Anyway, back on track. This fails WP:V, which is the bare minimum requirement for any article. Ergo, delete. Please note that this AfD in no way implies that non-Western 1950s pop culture people are any less (or more) notable than their Western counterparts, because God knows that's always the first accusation when you try and AfD an unverifiable and ugly hellpit of redlinks. Proto||type 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified and cleaned up. -- Krash (Talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original author created many small articles which met the the-current verifiability policy. WP:V does not require online sources, and enough of the already-contested pages have proved accurate. Whatever the AfD nominator may say, the consequences of this campaign is to exclude large swathes of non-Western popular culture from Wikipedia by the moral equivalent of Wikilawyering -- and the same standard hasn't been applied retroactively to recent Western popular cultrue articles. And I don't see any "hellpit of redlinks" listed among the valid criteria for deletion; if they bother you that much, just unlink them. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If a reference can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. Note that I am actively trying to create articles on Filipino film here (see, for example, Giliw Ko), not delete 'swathes of non-Western popular culture'. If an article has no references, then, unfortunately, we do have to rely upon online sources. All articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Mario Barri is a well known filipino actor and director. One of his claims to fame being that he gave Fernando Poe, Jr. his first big break. All of his films are verifiable on the net. For example here where he is clearly listed as director. [7]. Of course, this demands some effort and knowledge, because Manila is not Hollywood. On a side note, I see the same articles nominated, prodded, then renominated. Once again, I say there is no reason to destroy our incipient coverage of the Filipino film industry. The denigration of other cultures needs to stop. -- JJay 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if a reference to Mario T Barri can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. There is no verifiable proof that this is the same person. This is a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herminio Bautista - all articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep verifiability claims made by Monicasdude and JJay hold up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If JJay says it must be so. Herostratus 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:52Z
- Comment I'm sorry, but is it verifiable? There's not a single reference. You can't say 'no, this is verifiable', and then fail to provide a single reference or source. At the moment, it's verifiable because JJay and Monicasdude say it is. Again, if there's one single reference provided, I will withdraw this nomination, happily. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and Monicasdude Jcuk 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
I think User:Proto's concerns have not been addressed, at least not well enough for me to be comfortable closing this (no one's actually replied to him, for example). I realize this doesn't happen all that often, but in the interest of making the right decision (whatever that may be), I'm relisting to allow for more discussion. W.marsh 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the reference above not good enough? Or the IMDB page [8]? Or all the google hits? [9]. The nom refuses to accept any evidence and has repeatedly tried to delete this page based on a middle initial. I can't believe that justifies extending this debate. -- JJay 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of movies attributed to Mario T Barri in this article does not seem to correspond at all with the list of movies attributed to Mario Barri on IMDB. Like I said... there just seem to be some issues here that have yet to be addressed. --W.marsh 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's quite strange. Most of the movies listed in the article appear nowhere on IMDB. The ones that do don't mention Barri, but they are largely devoid of credits. "Anak ni Palaris" (Anak ng Palaris in imdb) doesn't mention Barri, but does mention Fernando Poe. Other film names appear to be spelled wrong ("Song of Sto. Thomas"). It looks like somebody made an article about a legitimate figure with a lot of questionable or downright false information. Can it be kept and throughly re-edited by somebody who actually knows about this person's career? Carlo 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that Barri directed Anak ni Palaris. I mentioned that above and the info was included in all of the FPJ obits such as this [10]. -- JJay 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People United[edit]

Fails to meet WP:WEB. SupahDupah 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outrageous FanCruft, ForumCruft & WebCruft. "Since its creation in 2004, it has grown abrubtly". Thats just wonderful. Oh, another: "Katie and Jeffy of A-F Records, Spaz, and chris#2 are all active members." Remarkable. Deizio 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Grown abruptly"? What an odd thing to say. Anyway, does not even come close to satisfying WP:WEB. Reyk 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanity cruft nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa rank of around 1.5 million. — TKD::Talk 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity fancruft. Possibly deserves a mention on Anti-Flag's external links. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mr. Deizio above. No WP:WEB. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, spaz and chris#2, it's nothing personal. --phh 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However I will link on Anti-Flag external links. Nigelthefish 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or not, it's already there. Nigelthefish 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LordTrox[edit]

I came across this while sorting stubs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. It reads like an advertisement, has no references, no Wikilinks, and hasn't improved since November. No assertion of notability either - so it might qualify for a speedy as a vanity entry. I'll list it here since I'm not sure role-playing games can be speedied. Durova 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Seems to be a mislabeled article on some RPG that I can't even find anywhere. Fan1967 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense, vanity, nn-club. Is it an ad for some kind of RPG? I don't know. Kiss it goodbye Deizio 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an ad for somebody's home-grown MUD. Durova 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Goodness me. How has this survived for so long? Reyk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - idiotic Nobunaga24 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per deizio ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best it's an advert for a non-notable RPG. PJM 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copy-and-paste job from the non-notable Medieval Times MUD page, which was hosted at Lord Trox.com (now redirects to Times Mud.com). Green Giant 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get medieval on this article and delete it. --E lkman - ^(talk) 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all Bucketsofg 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter WP:VSCA garbage. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. ProhibitOnions 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable, vanity, advertisement, and copyvio, considering it's a cut and paste job. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How could something this stupid survive so long. Didn't anyone see it sooner? Tobyk777 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAMELESS THING OF BERKELEY SQUARE[edit]

Individual poltergeists don't seem particularly notable, so up for a vote it goes. 13 Google hits. DMG413 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a group with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie_Hittler[edit]

Delete -- this group is not notable Steve 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD A7, non notable group, tagged. --light darkness^(talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Darkness. JoshuaZ 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lightdarkness ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GatorAider[edit]

Non-notable new student orientation organization at SFSU. Delete. DMG413 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn student org. And one would think that University students would be able to write better. JoshuaZ 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one of those days. ProhibitOnions 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quickly as possible. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Triage 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nigelthefish 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goanet[edit]

Hi - this comes across as a promotional article without any encyclopedic value. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh head hurts. Damn, it really has a go at convincing you, doesn't it? Umm.. gee... (damn).. Neutral as a long established and popular board used worldwide it approaches the bar but it's totally one sided and I would have to see a convincing media coverage link. Deizio 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Alexa ranking of 1,604,204. Green Giant 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem very notable per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone can get a sociological paper published in a peerreviewed journal on it we can have an article on it. Gomes, Alberto G. (2001) ‘Going Goan on the Goa-Net: Computer-mediated Communication and Goan Diaspora’. Social Analysis 45 (1), pp.53-66. Google scholar finds two citations of it. Certainly could use POV cleanup though. kotepho 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after major cleanup. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after major cleanup. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southover Bonfire Society[edit]

nn organization Wh e re ^(talk) 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Move to Shed Hunting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinting[edit]

Neologism. Can find no references to "clint" or "clinting". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that in the external link provided at Hunting it is called "Shed Hunting" and not clinting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete shed hunting is also known as Clinting.
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. [11]. PJM 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Prescott, Arizona and have heard the reference numerous times.

"Don't delete" I I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Carlsbad, California and I have heard the refrence before. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.4.74 (talk • contribs) .

Changed opinion Move to Shed hunting as per this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marripalem[edit]

Hi - this one-liner's topic is totally undefined. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only b/c I cannot find it on the city map. If somebody produces another map which shows this neighborhood, I'll change my vote. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I clarified the stub. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of this "neighborhood," and Google tells me nothing, so all I can assume is that it's a collection of houses, as the term would imply. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly, as notability might far exceed implications of Google results. However, creating a new one-line article won't be difficult. ProhibitOnions 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Visakhapatnam, then redirect. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deric Williams[edit]

Previously included in a separate nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artbox, there was no consensus achieved on this article, so it is being relisted separately. The original nominator (User:Fnarf999) argued that the person did not satisfy the criteria at WP:BIO. bainer (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worthwhile information into Artbox. While I'd like to see the article stay put, I can't come up with a convincing argument to do so. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no "worthwhile information" here. He's the nephew of someone famous; he did marketing for a not-very-famous website, making him their, what, 100th most important employee? There's nothing here. My newspaper guy is as notable. Fnarf999 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Artbox, all notability appears to be tied up with that band. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotal Software(India)[edit]

Hi - this is a promo article, related to Pivotal Corporation.

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable as Pivotal Corporation above. Green Giant 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad and promotion. Definitely non notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ugur Basak 01:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMMaster.com[edit]

Advertisement for a website said to offer freeware. The actual site just currently has a notice that "this website is coming soon." Delete. DMG413 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: non-notable and spammy. Bucketsofg 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't possibly be notable, because it doesn't even exist yet. --E lkman - ^(talk) 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Elkman. JIP | Talk 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable crystal ball vanity spam. ProhibitOnions 11:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin sellers[edit]

Delete non-notable biography/vanity page with unverifiable content Lucian Gregory 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - nn-bio. --light darkness^(talk) 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as above the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Prasad[edit]

Hi - this is a non-notable subject that has remained a one-liner and unsourced for nearly 6 months. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, the company he's CEO of, which might be borderline notable under WP:CORP. Sandstein 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... redirect to non-article that may or may not meet WP:CORP doesn't seem like the right solution.--Isotope23 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mikka (t) 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, it meets the first stipulation of WP:CORP definitely. --Gurubrahma 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gurubrahma. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: You can't redirect to a non-existant article. If the company is in fact notable, I suggest somebody write an article about it and mention Mr. Prasad there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eocene coal[edit]

Blatant self promotion. Advertizing by User:Eocenecoal (edits:[12]) - Vsmith 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - advertisement plus blatantly self-promoting edits on Coal and Eocene (sensibly reverted by Vsmith) and the related Image:Eocenecoal logo.JPG which should also be speedily deleted. Green Giant 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everybody. --Lockley 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Eastham[edit]

Non-notable in context, Google turns up little for this individual. I admire his entreprenuership, but not encyclopedic. TKE 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy a7 and tagged as such. Also a blatant advertisement. --Rory0 96 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree C&P'd almost directly from http://www.zacheastham.com/ Garfield226 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy a7 -vanity, advertisement, non notable.--Dakota ~ ° 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy a7 per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as nomination is withdrawn and nobody has expressed a wish to delete this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamba Juice[edit]

~~Delete~~ per WP:CORP. Nice co. but doesn't meet the stringent requirements set forth therein. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. They have over 500 locations -- which version of WP:CORP are you looking at? bikeable (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Definitely notable. dbtfz ^talk 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Extremely definitely notable. Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know it's notable, but WP:CORP reqires either

multiple works,
indexes of important co's, or
stock market significance,

and this has neither. It's a notable juice chain that fails WP:CORP. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to google it? It's being bought: [13] [14] [15] ; it has 70 entries total on news.google.com ... Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, please. Google News gives me 153 current articles about JJ. I do think that the second and third criteria give too little weight to privately-held companies, but that's not a matter for AfD. bikeable (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Good grief. Jamba Juice has 72 hits in major US newspapers in the last 12 months per Lexis/Nexis, the most recent being March 14, 2006 in the San Francisco Chronicle .Thatcher131 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "multiple non-trivial published works" apparently includes newspaper stories. Here I thought it was scholarly or industry articles. It's my misinterpretation of WP:CORP. Apologies to all. WITHDRAWN the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, speedy keep guidelines allow for it when the nomination is withdrawn and there are no delete votes. Speedy keeping now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Simmons[edit]

This article about a non-notable "guitar technician" has reappeared after being deleted after the following discussion: [16].

Delete again.Wickethewok 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it again, hurry, she's got a gun. --Lockley 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Her guitar tech'ing is nn. However, she was a member, albeit briefly, of a band that has its own entry (From First to Last) and band members of notable bands are notable. She's also engaged to someone with their own entry, a member of My Chemical Romance. That seems just about enough cumulative notability to me. Bondegezou 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a short mention on the band / boyfriend page will be more than enough. Deizio 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO and page protect against further recreation.--Isotope23 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if she was a member of a notable band. Jcuk 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect, recreation of previous deleted article. Content is identical to what it was when it was deleted. From First to Last lists her as Alicia Simmons: Touring Bassist. I can't see anything on their website listing her as ever being an official member of the band, either. Image:Gun2.jpg appears to have been taken of her MySpace. Did Alicia Simmons upload it, and hence have irrevocably released all rights? Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete and protect 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong delete - nn. Delete and protect. Megapixie 14:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above deletes. V i r tualSteve 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has been deleted four times previous. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. A misinformed nomination. Both titles are valid. mikka (t) 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAP-XI[edit]

An existing page with more contents found Exchange_Infrastructure kkailas 05:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and delete Exchange Infrastructure. I copied that improved version over SAP-XI, so it's just a matter of which name is better or whether they should both be deleted. Feezo (Talk) 09:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia James-Baird[edit]

Notability not established. I have two justification:

The Leslie Swan article was deleted because Swan had only done a voice for a single game character. According to her IMDb page, Swan has done voices for four games. Olivia James-Baird has only appeared in five episodes of just one show (Power Rangers SPD). If Swan was deleted for not being notable enough than so should James-Baird.
AFD Precedents - Entertainment states that contestants on a show should be listed on in the main article. James-Baird is not a regularly recurring member on SPD (five appearances) and should be listed on the main SPD article if mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 05:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. And I can't believe they're still making that god-awful show. Eivind ^t ^@^c 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sounds like that precedent you mentioned relates to reality show contestants, not actual actors. That's to discourage making an article on the 2nd guy kicked off the 3rd season of Apprentice - i.e., people that aren't even in entertainment for a living and will likely never be seen again. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, working actress with recurring role in TV series and other reported credits. If you think Swan was wrongly decided, go to deletion review, but notability criteria for computer game voice actors and game show contestants are not applicable to those for working actors. She hasn't released two albums on major labels, either, but that's not much less on point. Monicasdude 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRV doesn't cover notability issues, though; DRV is for whether the procedures were invalid or not, and this clearly doesn't apply to the Leslie Swan AFD. - Hbdragon88 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Power Rangers SPD until this person has a carear outside of a single show. ---J.Smith 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she is not a "contestant" as is not Leslie Swan. Power Ranger appearances makes her notable enough. Turnstep 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't like either argument. Subject is not a contestant and Leslie Swan was only a voice actor so it's not a fair comparison. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic slurs[edit]

Previous nominations:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs/Archive of previous VFD, 18 Sep 2004
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs, Dec 22, 2004

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.

The list currently has approximately 1462 entries with new words being added every day. Of those, only about 108 ~~(0.7%)~~ (7.6%) are sourced, mostly from a few old slang dictionaries and one unreferenced website. This article is inherently unverifiable, because it includes contemporary street slang and foreign words that are not included in any reliable sources, With no modern sources available it is impossible to be sure that the descriptions of usage are correct and NPOV. Many, if not most, entries are derived from original research, and some are possibly made-up by users, or at least neologisms. So it irredeemably violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. And the article itself is a direct contradiction to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

For those who vote to "Keep" this article I'd ask them to try to answer these questions: "How can we source this?" and "How many of the entries will you take responsibility for sourcing?" -Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP is not a dictionary or Lists of such definitions, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I note that the prior AfDs had people voting to keep but wanting the article sourced, which has not been addressed. A number of people voted to keep because the list is "useful," but without it being sourced, it simply is not useful or reliable. Transwiki would be an option if the material were sourced, but it isn't. It's also 200 kb! WP:SIZE. Esquizombi 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though proper citation may be difficult, the article should be kept. Fans of linguistics/etymology will probably agree. Some of these words are not even offensive/used any more("Tojo", "3/5er"), but the history of how and why they came into use is still important/interesting. If the article is deleted, consider moving these historical entries someplace else or creating new entries for them. Also, how important are credible sources for slang, the origins of which cannot always be easily traced? --Soulburglar 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- About 115 of the entries in the list have sources. I have been adding sources for over two months now because Will Beback insisted on it.--Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. joturner 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. WarpstarRider 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Guettarda 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have been working on this article for months, adding citations from printed dictionaries because Will Beback asked me to. Right now, there are about 115 citations in the article, and that number is growing rapidly.
This list is a remarkable work, comprising over 1400 entries written since June 2003. Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available. Further, it sets a bad precedent, threatening to change Wikipedia from the largest encyclopedia ever written into one of the smallest. The current insistence on verifiability was instituted after many of these definitions were written. This discourages others from writing articles in the future for fear that a future policy will result in their contributions being deleted.
If anyone here thinks the list should be in Wiktionary, they should move it there before nominating it for deletion. I would be much less reluctant to support this deletion if these entries were in Wiktionary, formatted (theirs is much more complex than our own), and accepted by the prudish administrators there. I certainly don’t mind that it is on Wikipedia right now, though, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." In a general reference book with almost no size constraints, almost anything can be included. Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". Stroll by a library reference section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of bullfighting, and so on. Another example I always like to give is the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana. It contains embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries. At 119 volumes, it is almost as large as Wikipedia.
I also want to say that I enjoy reading and editing this list because I find the strange idiomatic expressions in it to be fascinating. English slang is one of the most unusual things in the world. I think that the social effects of a list of words can be easily overemphasized, as these simply show others the degree to which racism exists, rather than encourage it. Deleting articles such as these really helps hide the problem, which could make it worse.--Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of definitions has existed since 2002.[17] As for whether the list could be judged "remarkable" or "the most comprehensive," that really depends on how reliable it is, and 0.7% isn't very reliable at all. Esquizombi 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I have six printed slang dictionaries at my house that I checked out from a library, so trust me when I say that the vast majority (about 75%) is verifiable. I also have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The OED is the largest dictionary of English ever created and M-W is the second largest. Also: 108 is 7.4% of 1462--not 0.7%.--Primetime 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment My apologies, I merely copied and pasted the percentage; I'll round you up to 8% and that still isn't very good. The list has no reliability as a whole at present, and whatever value it gains will be the result of your admirable efforts. It just doesn't belong here, and that has nothing to do with "social effects" and everything to do with policy. Transwiki might be a good case, they're awfully short over there on wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs. Esquizombi 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. No worries. I would be much happier, though, if it were moved via transwiki rather than just deleted. I edit on Wiktionary often. The editors there are a bit prudish, and their formatting is dramatically different from ours--but it's worth a shot if it means saving the list.--Primetime 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for catching the decimal placement error. I appreciate your efforts on this list. I would vote for moving it to Wiktionary. -Will Beback 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Transwiki to Wiktionary per Primetime, and remind them Wiktionary is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (content-rated). Esquizombi 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. If Primetime is willing to handle the move then more power to him. I'll help with the formatting. -Will Beback 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good faith in Primetime's efforts MLA 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dictionaries don't sort entries in this way. Scranchuse 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list of made up and unreferenced dictionary definitions. Particularly as new unreferenced / unsourced 'words' are being added far quicker than Primetime can reference them (and Wikipedia is not Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Category:Ethnic slurs collates all those slurs that have articles of their own, and those are the only ones that are sourced and referenced, and encyclopaedic. If an ethnic slur doesn't warrant an article of its own, then it should be on Wiktionary. Proto||type 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further review, and reading of many of the 'entries', make this strong delete. It's just a big, bloated troll magnet.. Proto||type 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Gazpacho 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki. Good information. Perhaps not in the right place, but deleting this in no way improves Wikipedia. --L33tminion | (talk)
Keep. This is the type of list that makes us great. We don't hide from real life like other encyclopedias. We face it head on and deal with it in an encyclopedic manner. Ethnic slurs exist in all cultures. There is no reason they can not be documented and listed here. -- JJay 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --TM 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't waste the work effort. Maybe move into Wikitonary or clean up, but don't remove. ( See also Wiki(pedia) Recycle Bin proposal. As implemented, it might help in resolving some borderline AfD cases ) --Easyas12c 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If unsourced material is truly overwhelming the sourced material, simply remove the unsourced material. There's no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidently, there's no reason not to throw out EVERY unsourced word at the moment. The truly unsourceable should go, but ones that have at least a decent circulation should stay, because they CAN be sourced, even if they currently are not. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the fight against sourcing last time, I wish you luck in your endeavour. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Primetime, Scranchuse, JJay and Dante Alighieri, and this: that it's encyclopedic as an extension and elaboration of our coverage of racism, human race and ethnicity in culture, etc. Delete it and it will surely reoccur again organically, someday not too soon, at someone else's hand as a spin off of some other article. Samaritan 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Czar Yah 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obscure and unsourced items could be removed. APL 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about these: Offensive terms per nationality, List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or 'not one of us', List of common phrases based on stereotypes, List of sexual slurs, and List of political epithets. -- Zondor 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate all the people who have signed up (as per the nom) to do the work of bringing the article up to standard. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am not convinced this is Wiki-worthy, especially given the italicized quotation at the top. Hyphen5 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't dispute that conscientious people have put a lot of work into this. Yes, its disappearance would be rather a pity. Well, let it be offered for transwikiing. Also, those keenest to retain it may note that it is GFDLed, so they may take it wherever they wish. Yes indeed it's an extension of WP's coverage of racism, etc, etc., as claimed above; and in a similar way that a list of, say, Hebrew words glossed in English would be an extension of WP's coverage of Hebrew -- which would not make the list encyclopedic. And what about Offensive terms per nationality etc etc, we are asked. They too are not encyclopedic (just as Flattering terms per nationality would not be encyclopedic). Dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic, and congeries (or thematic lists) of dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic. As for the notion that if this is deleted it will surely reoccur; well, that argument could be used to justify inaction in the face of all sorts of behavior on WP: spamming, the insertion of untruths, vandalism, etc. -- Hoary 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But see List of glossaries, Category:Glossaries, and Category:Lists of terms. Samaritan 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't appropriate, indeed. But people by popular demand just want to keep it because its useful and interesting just like what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads. Anyway, dictionaries contain separate dictionary entries whereas a list is more encyclopaedic. Does Wiktionary support this type of page? -- Zondor 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the list of slurs won't rid the world of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.203.70 (talk • contribs)

- Comment Nobody said deleting it would rid the world of racism, so that's a straw man. Esquizombi 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki. This is useful information. I ended up here to find out what 'Wop' meant, and this was exactly what I was looking for. As far as being unreliable - certainly, as with a large number of articles, more information and checking against other sources is useful, but I would suspect this to be by and large accurate already. Wisher 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the information is useful, and we have several other similar lists, like List of sexual slurs and List of political epithets. Carioca 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as was said before, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Furthermore, some of these entries are laughable, and could go on forever. There are billions of people in this world, and everyone could potentially be offended by some word or expression. I use words like "Navajo", "Apache", "Negro", and "Good ol' Boy" every day and nobody seems to find any of it offensive. If this article stays, it should be highly edited to include only the most common ethnic slurs, otherwise this article will become a circus, with people including ludicrous expressions that most people have or never will hear before.
Delete, As an undergrad student, I wouldn't use the vast majority of this information in a paper for fear of it being erroneous. Either delete the information that is not sourced, find a source for it, or get it off of wikipedia.
Keep Move all unverifiable slurs to a subpage of the talk page, and place a notice at the top of the talk page that people should try to find sources for them. JeffBurdges 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anybody who is offended by these terms should rent a copy of Eddie Murphy's "Raw," anything by Richard Pryor, and watch "Blazing Saddles," and get over it. Grow up and stop being so easliy offended already, you poosty molignons.
Keep. This is a useful list (one of the few on Wikipedia) and, as has been pointed out, both interesting and valuable from an entymological point of view. Being offensive is not grounds for deletion. If you find it offensive, have whoever is forcing you to load the page put in jail. Oh, no one is? Well, then... Hiddekel 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was not nominated because it is offensive to anyone. It was nominated because it is not verifiable, and because it violates WP:NOT. Are you willing to take a "letter" and verify all the entries in it? -Will Beback 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete the neologisms and consider transwiki. --Scaife ^(Talk) 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The terms themselves and the explanations of their origins should be moved to the corresponding "anti" page for the ethnicity in question... since it now seems like every conceivable group has some sort of discrimination page. Cyclopean typewriter 11:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very informative, I have used it to look words up. Dolive21 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been established, the article violates WP:NOT so I don't see a debate here. Unless WP:NOT is going to be bent and twisted to allow this through, in which case, knock yourselves out. Barryvalder 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Angr/talk 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have lists of all sorts of language related items: Rail terminology, List of US railfan jargon, List of UK railfan jargon (the last 2 of which survived AfDs recently), just to name a few. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Though in light of numerous other lists....Angrynight 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep Because it's useful. I'm not a contributor to wikipedia, nor do I usually share my opinions in these kinds of debates. I do, however, turn to wikipedia first when I'm looking for a quick and dirty explanation of something, which is how I got here. We users are *not* that naive: we know that a page like this will be a troll magnet, and we know the information contained in it is not verifiable. Its utility to this user was in no way hampered by its aforementioned shortcomings. --68.51.197.129 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep -- filter out the junk, stick to sourcable terms with historical significance. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- lack of sources is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Loom91 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep~ Eventually they will branch off into their own articles. Keep it. ~regruBgniK ....posted at 01:43, 24 March 2006 by 67.35.157.81
Keep per Loom91; and consider comparable sections in Henry Louis Mencken's American Language. I deny that it violates WP:NOT: it's a discriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Wikipedia's list is an invaluable source of information, especially considering the regional nature of most epithets. Web readers should not be forced to troll the internet searching random, nefarious web sites in search of racial understanding. -- 68.192.188.254 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia was never meant to become a plethora of lists. Regardles of how useful it is, it doesn't mean it belongs on wikipedia. A how to on Calligraphy was deleted from the main article regardless of its usefullness for this reason. Please consider this when voting. Angrynight
Transwiki. As a list of terms (rather than articles), this does not belong on Wikipedia. However, it should be preserved and moved to Wiktionary. Bhumiya/Talk 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen county museum[edit]

I listed this for proposed deletion, but the author has tried to assert notability. However, being one of 800 museums in the US accredited doesn't notable make. I'd argue that if this museum gets an article, we'd have to go back over hundreds of other similar subjects who have had their pages deleted. Harr o5 05:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if schools are considered notable enough to be kept, why not museums? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Kappa is going to save every high school in the country, why not the museums, assuming WP:V from indpendent sources. Thatcher131 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is more important than plenty of museums with articles. It just needs wikification. Scranchuse 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is of course obvious that we need articles on every museum in the world given their cultural importance as the repositories of the memory of our civilization. Despite the nom's assertion, I do not believe that hundreds of museum articles have been deleted as that would be a real travesty for our burgeoning coverage in this area. -- JJay 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all museums. Dsmdgold 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaytrin[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable vanity article Chris 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the first paragraph asserts to be unverified.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I put that "unverified" comment in some time ago.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add {{Unreferenced}} - I think that if true this is significant enough to have its own article - so not a vanity article. --David.Mestel 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hits in Google (though a couple for the project's author), and some of the content seems pretty fanciful (a Linguistics Board, a Chancellor, a "Praechancellor" for a project involving at best a handful of people), so I'd say it's profoundly unverifiable, as well as an instance of using WP as the first place of publication.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My vote is now Delete --David.Mestel 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article tells you that the language is unverified --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've asked several times on the talk page why the language would be notable. No response. Unless someone comes up with some convincing arguments, I think we can safely state that this languages does not meet any standard of notability. BTW, I've moved its content to the Conlang Wiki, just in case: http://conlang.wikicities.com/wiki/Kaytrin. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if verifiable, would not be notable. Sounds perilously close to something made up in school one day Fan1967 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any URLs that would help us out?--Chris 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article: unverified, undocumented and allegedly spoken by several individuals. --TM 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kaytrin has no significant use, and the several individuals consists of about 4 highschool students who usually speak in plain English, and its creator who apparently keeps a journal in "Kaytrin". A page devoted to "Kaytrin" is like a page devoted to a code that someone invented in school one day. - an informed student on the uselessness of Kaytrin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.106.158 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and rename to St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide).

St marks college adelaide[edit]

Non-notable, poorly written, not linked Sumple (Talk) 05:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree it was badly written and was actually a copyvio of the College web site. Why do students want to tell us they drink themselves silly? I have rewritten this article, although it is still a stub. St Mark's is the oldest residential university College in South Australia, affiliated to the oldest university, the University of Adelaide. The current Head of the College is a former Premier of South Australia. I think it is notable. If it is kept, I will move it to St Mark's College, University of Adelaide, a better title. --Bduke 08:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New name should be St Mark's College (University of Adelaide) per {{University of Adelaide colleges}} -- Ian ≡ talk 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (the rewritten version) at St. Mark's College, Adelaide. There are ~~about four~~ three articles that already mention it, although not presently wikilinked. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have not agreed on the new name yet, I haven't linked the articles, but there should be links to this topic from the following: North Adelaide, University of Adelaide, NAAUC. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see the Template:University of Melbourne Colleges and associated articles for what can be done and an example of naming. -- Paul foord 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- created Template:University of Adelaide colleges Paul foord 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scranchuse 14:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Monicasdude 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Thatcher131 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Bduke. Article seems in reasonable shape now after judicious editing and it seems notable enough. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--cj | talk 02:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realtime Gaming[edit]

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. Sandstein 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert.Wickethewok 05:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray renaghan[edit]

Has zero Google hits, but is "worth over 300 Billion" and has "invented such items as 3G Phones, Google, Shoe-Bombs, The Millenium bug (which he also cured)". Delete as hoax, would fail WP:BIO if he were real without the outrageous claims. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Clearly a nonsensical and outright hoax. — TheKMan^talk 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. JoshuaZ 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everybody above. --Lockley 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete... maybe it's not patent nonsense, but come on. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savushkin[edit]

After proposed deletion was challenged, I have begun an AfD. This article is a one line stub on a character in a book, but neither the book nor its author has a Wikipedia entry. This suggests no notability. I'd question whether a character needs an article if all it states is that the character was in a book. Imagine how many characters there have been in books. We'd get to 1 billion articles in a fortnight! Harr o5 05:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable character from a non-notable book --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and User:TBC. JIP | Talk 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character in a book without a book and author. --MaNeMeBasat 08:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Triage 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how can Wikipedia contain all human knowledge out if we leave out valid information on purpose? The Fish 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge into Yuri Nagibin, a notable Russian author with 300 unique hits on Google. [18] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per circumstances listed below.

Mohammed's sexual orientation[edit]

This article's information does not even match the title. The article is simply a list of quotes describing the age of Aisha, and thus uses that to decide whether the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a pedophile. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or else, get one about Jesus hanging out with twelve men. Dahn 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a fork. Pepsidrinka 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as nonsense. --Hetar 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hmm. - Eagle^talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Inflamatory and nonsense. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm speedying... for a few reasons... firstly... it's forked content from Aisha that only is showing one side. It's also from a troller (See adding "dog" to Korean Cuisine and "Wikiproject:No Israel"). It doesn't cover orientation so much... I mean... he married Khadija and, it'd need discussion of that to be a good article... but, just because it's content copy from a troller I am deleting... Note, that it's possible there could be decently done work on this maybe... but, this is not that and it's not fit for cleanup since it's forked and ignores previous debates over at Aisha. gren グレン 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Both speedily deleted by Xezbeth - CSD1 & T7. Proto||type 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryth Empire, Maxite[edit]

Wheel of Time fanfic, nothing on Google. Non-encyclopaedic. Sandstein 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. --Rory0 96 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nonsense. - Eagle^talk 06:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per eagle --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Would have been a speedy {{d}} but article author keeps reverting. --OscarTheCat ^talk 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fancruft. I've had some discussions with the author about suitability for this project, and I think he's either left or understands now. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense. I'll try and tag them as such again. Proto||type 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Saá[edit]

The article does not provide any evidence that Diego Saá has any publications in peer-reviewed journals, nor does it indicate that any notable scholars have cited and discussed his work. (As User:Dmharvey notes on the talk page, ArXiv.org e-print archive is not peer-reviewed; any registered user can upload a paper and have it appear within hours.) Searching for "Diego Saá" on Google Scholar yields only 11 hits, some of which are clearly not relevant. In short, the subject of the article does not appear to satisfy the usual notability criteria for academics. dbtfz ^talk 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. If he's actually a full prof at Politecnico de Quito, I might have to consider if that's enough, but I can't find any confirmation of that alleged fact. Of the 11 hits referenced above, the only ones that appear to be by el nuestro are three crank papers (unless a CS prof is branching out into the effects of chlorine gas on children's airways—an important topic, I suppose, but who thinks of these things? not that it matters here). --Trovatore 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment of course, crank status alone is not reason to delete, but I don't see any evidence here of notable crankdom. --Trovatore 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is listed as "principal a tiempo parcial" (whatever that means) of the Escuela Politecnica National at this page. I couldn't find any papers of his in Web of Sciece or MathSciNet. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable crank. JoshuaZ 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable crank. linas 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn crank. The only Google hits on the first page are from Wikipedia, WP mirrors, and similar open-content reference sites. Haikupoet 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd prefer we didn't disparage the subject of the article with terms like "crank". There's no need for that. dbtfz^talk 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Crank" is an accepted term for anyone who espouses theories that do not pass muster in mainstream scientific thought. Haikupoet 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a little like saying "asshole" is an accepted term for a person with poor social skills. :-) I'm just pointing out that we could try to be a teensy bit more civil. dbtfz^talk 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tend to agree, and I apologize for using the term first. I certainly don't agree with Haikupoet's broad construction of the term. There is room for dissent in science, and even in math; civility aside, I don't use the word "crank" just for thought that differs from expert consensus. It's when they claim to have discovered simple mistakes in the established theory that, somehow, everyone else has just missed, that I think the "c" word is accurate. Whether it's good judgment to use it is a separate question. --Trovatore 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:CIVIL Mainly applies to talking to/about other wikipedians. There is no issue if we are making vaiue judgements about people in articles. JoshuaZ 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The two aren't always mutually exclusive. :-) At any rate, I don't think that anyone here meant to be insulting or uncivil. dbtfz ^talk 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So just because WP:CIVIL applies only to Wikipedians, it means that it's okay to be uncivil toward others? —Larry V (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is borderline uncivil and relevant yes. In this case, "crank" is a useful classification term. Do you have a prefered, more polite term? JoshuaZ 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before we make a judgment about this issue -and any other similar issue- we should be aware that throughout human history, many of our systems have not been correct. The systems through which humankind validates its science today are definitely far from being efficient. This sort of incorrectness led humanity to the Dark Ages before. We should begin to notice that Science is being taken to a sort of Dark Age in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to question the consensus. In present time, someone who actually challenges the consensus is never taken seriously. We also should be aware that through history; the consensus has held incorrect theories/conceptions as valid/correct for long periods of time (for instance Geocentrism and Creationism). There are several similarities between the way we treated new ideas and people during the Dark Ages and the way we treat them in the present time:
- The inquisition condemned lots of people because their ideas differed from the expert consensus. In other words; their ideas differed from the church's opinion; so the church called them, not cranks, but heretics. Today, scientists whose ideas differ from the consensus rarely get published by peer reviewed journals.
- It was not really relevant to the condemnation of someone that he was right or wrong about something. It was only relevant that his ideas weren’t conflicting with the consensus, and that the ecclesiastical authorities accepted his ideas.
- To judge others, a person had to be part of the church. Today, to be a "notable scholar", a scientist has to agree with the consensus.

Does anyone think that maybe it would be better deciding to cease the existence of scientists in Wikipedia by judging their work instead of judging them in base of their so called notability? It would be good that a decision like this would be taken by someone who understands the ideas that the author has expressed as clearly as he can in his papers. Diegueins 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spurred on by the above comment, I had a look at the ideas in one of Diego Saá's papers, and based my decision on them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spurred on by Jitse, I decided to take a look at Saa's paper "Godel's theorem is invalid". I ended up being very not impressed. But that may be because I'm a "cantorian". --C S (Talk) 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Grantham Duncan[edit]

No Google hits, no sources, very odd photograph: probable hoax or spoof. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I recall, a Parliamentary Under Secretary has to be a sitting MP. I can't find any reliable Christopher Duncans through search nor any mentions of sitting MPs by that name, so I tend towards {{hoax}}. (aeropagitica) 08:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Feezo (Talk) 08:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as {{hoax}}. Ye gods, what a peculiar looking man! Reyk 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a parliamentary under secretary in the usual (ie sitting member) sense but a minor party worker. Author has removed AFD tag which i have replaced.--Porturology 01:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Creation Act[edit]

Starwars trivia, has a page on Wookieepedia already, and that's where it's belongs. We don't need an article of every fictional bill by a fictional parliament. Sandstein 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft--Mmx1 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fancruft. Haikupoet 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin[edit]

Website advertisement, non-notable per WP:WEB. Sandstein 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Ugur Basak 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising--foo19 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broomfighting[edit]

Neologism and definition: the art and science of armed combat involving cleaning, dusting or anteseptic weapons. Prod contested. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a prod in the history though, only speedy g1's, which he's not allowed to remove... --Rory0 96 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and send to BJAODN. dbtfz ^talk 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Send to BJAODN. I think "antiseptic weapons" fits perfectly into BJAODN's purview. - Rynne 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wait a sec ok. this is an unfinished article. broomfighting is a sport i invented with some friends, i wanted to get more people playing it. so i decided to give a wiki article. please let me explain more about- pics and everything - broomfighter

Broomfighter, I appreciate your interest in WP, but WP policy is not to accept articles on made-up topics. When broomfighting is well known and has received media attention, we'll be happy to have an article. Meanwhile, I encourage you to put your effort into other articles, since I can't see any way this one can survive deletion. best, bikeable (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC):*thanks, i owe you 1.--Broomfighter 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN and Delete --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The funniest parts of the article have been BJAODNized. dbtfz ^talk 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Comment. this isnt a joke either. i really do this. ill bring pics--Broomfighter 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Fleece Found![edit]

Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,848,000. Sandstein 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be vanity-published. Gazpacho 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable book --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and Gazpacho. No major media coverage found in Google search, just a couple of blog entries. No other indication of notability. Looks like just another attempt to fleece people of their gold. Barno 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as vanity bit per nom and Mr. Barno. Kuru ^talk 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incomprehensible crankery. Haikupoet 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Focoe 19:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, possible vanity. Nigelthefish 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmist[edit]

Non-notable MUD played by "many people". No Alexa data on their website. Sandstein 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google returns 150,000 hits the top few are about this game, but many of the hits are about other things, so no vote for now. JoshuaZ 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is basically no content - just a list of programmers. Triage 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorpiland[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable website (WP:WEB), Alexa rank 1,479,088 . Sandstein 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soes not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files Real Person Fic[edit]

Delete. Original research, unencyclopedic opinion, and, to use a word I don't like, fancruft. --Lockley 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fan-fiction. (aeropagitica) 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:POV and WP:CRUFT. Reyk 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Every keep vote is by new users with almost no other contributions, therefore they are ignored as sockpuppets. JIP | Talk 07:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Outings of Galloway[edit]

Local club, appears non-notable and unverifiable, as it doesn't show up on Google. Sandstein 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a nn school club.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 06:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-club. Shame it's not about George. MLA 12:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A web presence is not necessary for a club - regardless of size. R.O.G. is an organization of dedicated students and citizens who want to work towards the greater good. Simply because it does not exist on google does not negate it's importance by any means. inhiding88
"Keep" - "Keep" ROG is a legit club (why does it have to be on Google?) I have seen the kind of work ROG does for the Atlanta community such as reading books to children at a hospital. I think that is important enough to be on wikipedia. Also, who are these people saying to delete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.O'brien (talk • contribs)

I am Sandstein. Nice to meet you, ~~inhiding88~~ Dr.O'brien. Isn't it curious, Dr.O'brien, that this comment is your only contribution to Wikipedia (apart from vandalizing Richard Nixon once)? Please see WP:SOCK. Sandstein 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local club with no indication of meeting Wikipedia:Importance now or in the future. Tens of thousands of local clubs like this exist, and doing minor bits of good deeds with good intentions does not make any of them encyclopedic. Inhiding88, please note that verifiability through Google is not necessary, but verifiability and importance are core principles of WP, and Google is one method by which V and I might be shown. Barno 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep R.O.G's community service is invaluable to the community. If you delete this article, you are discounting community service. R.O.G's good work stands as an example to the entire world. If other's follow R.O.G's example, the world will be a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.60.99 (talk • contribs)
I am not the same person as Dr. O'Brien.. just because we share the same IP address does not mean I have two accounts. We in fact were using the same computer lab at the same time, and are both associated with ROG. Also, get off your high horse already man. inhiding88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by inhiding88 (talk • contribs)
"Keep As a local Atlantan, I can atest to the good ROG does for the community. It is more than a typical community service group. ROG is like a fraternity that helps bring the community together, and carries tremendous prestiege in Atlanta. Also what is with these people (that think way too much of themselves) that think that ROG must be on a search engine to be a serious thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.63.69 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kershner[edit]

I'm looking forward to hear people arguing that one-line articles on uncommon spellings of a German last name are encyclopaedic. Sandstein 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry to spoil your fun. JoshuaZ 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't Undictionary. Feezo (Talk) 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, here's to hoping your'e disappointed. The properly spelled word isn't even notable. Kuru ^talk 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Brookie - patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farticles[edit]

SINCE BEEN SPEEDIED Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete listed here as creator deleted speedy tag. Wickethewok 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy BJAODN, I don't think you even had to list it on AFD. - Sikon 07:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is there an alternative action to take if an article creator deletes a speedy delete tag? Wickethewok 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd just put it back on until an admin sees it and decides. Doesn't usually take long. Sandstein 08:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, list it at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Google bomb. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlewashing[edit]

Dicdef. - Sikon 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected this to Google bomb, which is the already existing and more generally used name for the same thing. 68.39.174.238 07:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigun yaoi[edit]

Delete - no reason for needing a page about this for one specific anime. Does every anime then get a similar article for this? I hope not. Wickethewok 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly attempted to include information about the yaoi fandom in the original Trigun article. It is a very important part of what this anime and manga is, and I believed that an original article wouldn't offend people's homophobic little sensibilities. Apparently I was wrong. I also plan to expand this article, so please do not delete it simply because one person does not like Trigun yaoi. Plenty of other people do.

millyfan 07:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)millyfan[reply]

- Comment - Umm, no homophobia here. It will not be deleted unless other people agree with me on the fact that every anime does not need its own article about a specific type of erotic fan art and fanfic. That is my reason for nomination, not "homophobic little sensibilities".Wickethewok 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Talk about a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. Just because there is an article for Trigun yaoi, does not mean that we'll see a flood of articles for anime erotic art. If mine was somehow just an "omg yaoi is hawt" stub or something, I could see deleting it, but this wasn't like that.millyfan 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Herrick 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do not see yaoi being canon in Trigun, I don't see why it isn't possible to have a page about it. If it is done in a manner which is unbiased I see no problem in keeping the page up instead of deleting it. Those who find a problem with Trigun yaoi having it's own page, should maybe consider it being allowed to be included in the section for Trigun (though Millyfan has told me that it has been edited out before).

Also, why is this a problem? Star Trek TOS even has it's own page for a certain slash couple (which some consider canon, though that has never been confirmed by Paramount OR Gene Roddenberry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk/Spock

If this is allowed, why is this page about Trigun Yaoi such a big deal?

--K R 07:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no problem with it being included in the Trigun article, I just don't feel it warrants its own article. Wickethewok 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wickethewok. Trigun is not long enough to require a separate fanfic fork. If fanfic is an important part of the anime's appeal, then it should be included in the main article and you need to work it out with the other editors. I think we generally discourage POV forks unless the main article is too unwieldy to accomodate it. Thatcher131 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wicketwok. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would gladly merge if the editors for the existing Trigun article didn't delete it every single time I posted anything suggesting anything less than a heteronormative interpretation. They even deleted a reference included to Vash's possibly being bisexual, and I dislike being tagged as a vandal and deleted simply because my opinion is different than that of the other article maintainers. millyfan 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, keep track of the link to this discussion, it will be kept in the archives after the AfD is closed and you can use it for evidence of community consensus in your favor. If the other editors persist in reverting you, you can post a notice at WP:ANI and try to recruit some admins to mediate for you. Thatcher131 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wicketwok. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google total[edit]

Delete - does not seem notable. As the author states, the site is not run by Google. Wickethewok 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to the above, seems like vanity. Author of site and article seem to be the same. Garfield226 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, written like an advert. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. WarpstarRider 10:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad, vanity and definitely non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And I expect this guy has some trademark violations going on that we do not need to promote. Triage 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad Nigelthefish 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-17 08:23Z

Bulgarian internet users[edit]

Delete: Nonsense Gershwinrb 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas J. Rogers[edit]

Another entry that shops at vanity R us. This is what I got from Google when I matched "Nicholas J. Rogers" with "Rogers Airship".[19] The same search with "Nicholas Rogers" did not do much better.

Delete as non-notable. JackO'Lantern 08:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails to meet WP:BIO by a long way.--Blue520 09:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and two laughs for the Google link. Draeco 23:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company Rogers Airship Company does appear to exist but it is a one-man company only. Even being a director of a company with some employees does not make a person meet WP:BIO, and a self-employed person even less so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team tøyse[edit]

Delete - seems like a non-notable lot of people. Google search yields little. Wickethewok 08:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Eivind ^t ^@^c 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete. Punkmorten 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Norwegian online poker team? NN per nom. Kuru ^talk 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7. Angr/talk 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Skoulatos[edit]

Speedy delete. No notability stated.

Speedy Delete JackO'Lantern 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridal Gala™[edit]

Delete. Deprodded by author without reason. Reads like spam. Link is not functional--Porturology 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Wickethewok 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. --Blue520 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for nn event. See associated AFDs for Elite Soirée. Kcordina 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. A mention in Elite Soirée would be more than adequate. -Dawson 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment as with the two related articles I just voted on. Company founder is 24, so it may not amount to much yet despite all the hype. Golfcam 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this has been incorrectly put up for a second AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridal Gala™ (second nomination)) while this discussion is still open, could the admin that closes this discussion please also the second one as well.--Blue520 11:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. The (tm) doesn't help, either. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AOTA. Andy Saunders 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AOTA. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and we never use trademark symbols like that. -- Mithent 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete™, non-notable outside of Elite Soirée, which should likely go as well per its AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taylor Lea Thomas[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice (model)[edit]

Was tagged as speedy but I don't think that's appropriate. Bringing it here~~, no vote~~. Cyde Weys 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Malice has her own website, but has no notable credits outside of that. Article was written by a person close to her. Ckessler

Delete nn, vanity, self-promotion. Fan1967 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:BIO. PJM 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to her broad presence on MySpace, LiveJournal, and her own website Malice has been involved in a controversy about her existence as "Faarwolf" in the video game development world & numerous game fan sites have posted long articles pro & con about her relating to this issue. She's also been cited on a few national sites, including Susie Bright's, for her recent material on hepres. The article needs to be expanded to reflect attention given to her outside the material posted by those who created the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)
- Having a MySpace and LiveJournal account do not make one notable. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the broad number of links to her blogs from other sites across multiple platforms of interest, not simply her having them. It's been enough to earn her mentions in other wikis.

keep no inherent problems with the article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need some cleanup & removal of POV by someone less involved than the creator of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)

Delete self-promotion. Moe Aboulkheir 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not self-promotion as was not done by the model herself. Recent changes show notable controversy. The Watchman
Delete, non-notable. No idea what this "Faarwolf" business is about but it's still entirely non-notable. If I get into a big spat with one of my friends that's a big deal for us but that doesn't make it encyclopedic content notable across the globe. --Cyde Weys 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Faarwolf business is noteable, it set off broad controversy across the online gaming world. If you Google Malice Faarwolf you get several hundred hits to pages in at least 3 countries with her identity being "unmasked" and its ramifications to the gaming world. Faarwold as a single search term returns well over 1000 hits.

Hate to break it to, but the online gaming world is itself pretty non-notable. Just because it's numerous doesn't make it notable. If she had set off a broad controversy in (say) the high-energy-particle-physics world, or the Shakespearean-scholar world, or the nanotech-engineering world, or whatever, then I'd feel differently about her. Herostratus 15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -changed my mind. --Phil 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article, as long as it is written NPOV. She does seem to have a large internet following. --Brand Eks 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)brandeks[reply]
Delete -
Weak delete, I don't really see any notability here. Stifle 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --MaNeMeBasat 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, vanity and self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity and self promotion Scranchuse 14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If proven self-prom, delete, otherwise, based on its content, this appears wiki-worthy IMHO therefore keep -- Simon Cursitor 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable webcam sexpot. Brian G. Crawford 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, she's not that. She's got some exposure as a fetish and gothic model with an amount of magazine and catalog work, but insufficient to keep the article in my opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brian G. Crawford Golfcam 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's under the bar, IMO. I've heard of her, known of her a long time, I have friends who know her, but really it's not enough for an encyclopedia article, I don't think. And the Everquest stuff is just lame - buncha geeks getting all worked up about finding that an ex Sony Online Entertainment employee / forum moderator who quit had a goth soft-porn sideline. She's a somewhat well-known fetish and gothic magazine/catalog model, but I don't feel it's enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, likely vanity, promotional. There's nothing to warrant inclusion in an encylopedia here. WP:NOT for web models who moderate RPG forums. To those who would keep, ever heard of systemic bias? Just because WP is on the web does not make web-related stuff more suitable, indeed we should subject it to even more intense scrutiny to ensure quality. Deizio 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Focoe 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite nn. Andrew Levine 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Williams[edit]

Another vanity entry. Google picks up nothing, for example, when cross-searching his name with "Never Noticed That Before", "Touch My Hair", etc. all his other "works".

Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just look at the history and you can see who created the page -->Al Williams Nobunaga24 11:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

João Batista dos Santos[edit]

A Brazilian craftsman. No notability evident or even asserted, so could even be speedied. However, it's a contested PROD, so let's hear it. Sandstein 09:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable maker of notable guitars. Eivind ^t ^@^c 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for this? Google shows only one pertinent hit: what I assume is his website. Sandstein 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible speedy. A Google search came up with 79 hits for him [20]. Not one of them is verifiable evidence of notability as an instrument maker. No sources provided and from my efforts none are available. Possible speedy as article does not assert importance. Capitalistroadster 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A skilled craftsman for sure, but not WP:BIO. Portuguese bio on his site doesn't assert any real notability other than being great at making and selling guitars. No independent sources thus far, making "keep" a curious choice here. Deizio 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Nigelthefish 20:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Soirée[edit]

Advert for nn company. The company's stated website doesn't even work. See associated AFD nominations for The Bridal Gala™ and Taylor Lea Thomas Kcordina 09:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement for non-notable company. Sandstein 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it seriously needs to be reworded to not be an advertisement, info from Taylor Lea Thomas should be merged into it instead of on a non-notable's bio page. The company has been featured prominently on a cable network, is award winning in its field, and has dealt with multiple celebrities, though it doesn't meet the independent source requirements of WP:Corp. -Dawson 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, it should probably be linked off of some of the people who have hired the company for events so its not floating all alone out in wiki world? -Dawson 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - if website is not notable enough to be online and working, then not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it imo. Wickethewok 22:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company founder is 24 so there's probably a lot less to this business than the article suggests. Golfcam 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Focoe 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article creator removed the {{afd}} tag from the article. You might want to keep an eye out so that he doesn't do this in the future (I've already dropped a note on his talk page telling him that he isn't supposed to do that; hopefully it'll prevent him from doing it again). Hbackman 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dear Readers: Thank you for your interest in this article. We have read every single comment and we're doing all we can to make this article better. The feedback is very, very valuable and we most certainly appreciate it. The comments left by all of you can only aid in making this article much better. This article on Elite Soiree is mainly to provide readers with the basic info on the company. Elite Soiree's success is attributed to it's founder due to her tenacity and dedication to her work, even at a young age, which has garnered her awards, TV opportunities, books and some of the most noted celebrities today. The story of Taylor Lea Thomas is commendable which is why it is written here. Elite Soiree was started without any partners or investors yet she has managed to accomplish the aforementioned on her own. For a woman in business at her age, her accomplishments are therefore notable, as others would agree. It is in no way an advertisement and nothing more than a mere blurb about the company. Rest assured, however, that we will make this article better and more informative. We therefore kindly request help in doing so since we're inexperienced here on Wikipedia. In time and with your help, we aspire to make this article one that readers enjoy reading. Most importantly, it is not intended as a sales tool and should be understood as such. Again, thank you for the constructive criticism and we most certainly look forward to working with you to make it better in lieu of simply deleting it. Also, we apologize for deleting the previous tag since we were unaware of this discussion page. Thank you for your participation in this matter. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Sanders (talk • contribs) )
Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is being cleaned up. Taylor Lea Thomas has already undergone significant changes and will continue to improve with time. Peter Sanders 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second keep recommendation in this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP, based on the lack of information in the article and from what I can find on it. The website not working is the icing on the cake. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of some very famous people of Modern Times[edit]

This list is incoherent, and can never become coherent and encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 09:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it can include about every other person on Wikipedia from 15th century onwards. So by all means, delete and suggest the creator to use more appropriate means to categorize articles. - Mike Rosoft 11:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally arbitrary list. David | Talk 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Feezo (Talk) 11:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike. Was cut from Modern Times (history), but will probably not be missed there, either. Sandstein 13:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcurft. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubly vague. Gazpacho 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, I "cut from Modern Times (history), but will probably not be missed there." (see above) Paul Martin 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who is "very famous"? Punkmorten 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Useless list. Reyk 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Totally Redundant.Tombride 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add; "Actual Modern Times." Ha. Tombride 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless listcruft. In order to be meaningful, would require thousands of names (19 people hardly covers the 20th century) and would be basically everyone you've ever heard of, and a whole lot you haven't. Fan1967 23:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tombride --Ugur Basak 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. L.I.S.T.C.R.U.F.T. Deizio 01:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete listcruft --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. hopelessly vague - and with its current capitalisation of Modern Times it would list only Charlie Chaplin and Paulette Goddard. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too generic. -- JLaTondre 15:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if taken seriously, it would foster conflict among editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollkotze[edit]

Originally an unregistered user requested deletion of the article as a hoax, and I did so. Now the creator inquired about the deletion and on the second thought the article doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate, so I am bringing it here. Can it be verified that the band exists and meets WP:MUSIC guidelines? (If so, then keep; otherwise, delete.) - Mike Rosoft 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band's homepage indicates that their three releases were limited to 50, 25, and 10, respectively (doesn't look good for WP:MUSIC compliance). Delete unless somebody notably cares for their LEGO animation. Kusma (討論) 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kusma. Sandstein 13:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. --Lockley 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Diamanté[edit]

Delete At this stage of his career, I do not believe that Mr Diamanté is of sufficient importance to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The article fails to establish his current notability and could easily be interpreted as a vanity page. Whilst I wish Mr Diamanté well with his career I do not believe that currently he is of sufficient importance to be featured on wikipedia. If this article is to be interpreted as a biography, then I believe that the article currently fails to demonstrate that Mr Diamanté meets the criteria at WP:BIO The aticle has had few edits since creation (other than housekeeping/maintenance edits), the creator of the article seems to have made little other contribution to Wikipedia and the only article linking to the page is a redirection from a typo page. Politepunk 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the redirect page mentioned above Graeme diamante, which would become vestigial in the event of the deletion of the main article. Politepunk 11:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; very few Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 11:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sandstein 13:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:BIO. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No evidence of a high profile. Osomec 18:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Osomec --Khoikhoi 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity Nigelthefish 17:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect title to Traditionalist Catholic. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic conservatism[edit]

Delete. The overriding reason this page should be deleted is because of its massive POV problem. I will argue that this problem is inherent to the topic, "Roman Catholic conservatism". The only purpose this article could possibly serve is to discredit people with whom the author disagrees. It is not a serious encyclopedia entry, and should therefore be deleted.

First, there is a consensus in Catholic circles that political terms like "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" are inappropriate and not germane to theological questions.

Second, the positions listed as examples of Catholic "conservatism" are very radical, to the point where somebody who believed most of these things probably would belong to a breakaway fringe "Catholic" group rather than subject himself to Rome.

Third, when people think of "conservative" Catholics, they often think of those who simply support the Church's teachings on issues like abortion, birth control, etc. If they came looking for more information to this article on "Roman Catholic conservatism", they would be led to think that those supporers of Church doctrine are much more extreme than they are.

Fourth, some of these are simply disingenuous misrepresentations. Nobody regards Jews as "faithless"; actually, that type of prejudice would be sinful under Catholic teaching! I suspect a lot of these items of "Roman Catholic conservative" ideology were listed and radicalized in order to discredit "Roman Catholic conservatives".

Fifth, equating these outrageously bigoted, non-Catholic, heterodox ideas with perfectly (theologically and morally) acceptable ones like saying the Mass in Latin, emphasizing devotion to Mary and the saints, "justification for war when absolutely necessary", and "abstinence from meat on Fridays", suggests a massive POV problem with this article, and bolsters my suggestion about the authors' motives in the previous point.

Sixth, the idea of "conservatism" implies a tendency to "conserve". In this case, that is precisely the opposite of what this article suggests "Roman Catholic conservatives" want. They supposedly "reject ecumenist policies", "totally avoid interfaith theological dialogue", "deny that Anglicans and Protestants are Christians", demonstrate "no respect for non-Catholics", believe "salvation is for Catholics only", emphasize Tradition over and against Scripture, "avoid handshaking and body prayer" (whatever that is), and believe that sex is for "reproduction only, not pleasure". These positions are contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. They can't be characterized as "conservative" in any meaningful sense.

If this article is about people so radical that they couldn't reasonably be called "Catholic" or "conservative", then I wonder what the purpose of this article is -- other than to discredit both Catholics and conservatives. This is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry, and I urge deletion. Hyphen5 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV can always be edited out of an article, but this entry has been unsourced since October 2005. It violates WP:NOR, as it stands. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic liberalism. PJM 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the whole list to Traditionalist Catholic, of which it's a possible WP:POVFORK. Hyphen5, you can then make your arguments there and remove what's unsourced. Sandstein 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my point is that this article is intellectually unserious. Traditionalist Catholic is a good faith attempt to document a real phenomenon. Roman Catholic conservatism is not, and so I wouldn't necessarily want to fill that article with this one's garbage. Hyphen5 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may well be so, but this is about process. Not being a theologian, I don't know what makes sense here, but the editors of Traditionalist Catholic may. If we merge the list there, and then you delete everything you think is wrong, they will see it and possibly object. That's the point of avoiding WP:POVFORKs. Sandstein 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I could live with that, but shouldn't we also make sure that we apply the same standard to Roman Catholic liberalism -- which is (rightly) headed for deletion? There are, of course, Verifiability violations in this article as well. Hyphen5 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Sandstein. I am persuaded by the suggestion that delete and redirect is the better alternative and support that. Bucketsofg 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Traditionalist Catholic as it is a likely search term but don't merge content for reasons outlined by Hyphen5.Capitalistroadster 23:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go for that. How do I "officially" change my vote to delete and redirect? I'm kind of new to this. Hyphen5 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, on second glance, the laundry list of conservative ideas in the article does look more than a bit spurious. Delete and redirect. There is no "official" way of changing votes; you just did. But you can ~~strikethrough~~ your initial vote if you want to. Sandstein 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. As I understand it, this forum is not, strictly speaking, a vote per se, but a discussion seeking consensus. Indeed, I suggest that the above is very much a model of how AfD discussions should go: a detailed case, some counter-points, other counter-points, with people changing their mind and broadly accepting a certain outcome as the best solution. Bucketsofg 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, describes quite temporary situation, title is highly misleading (what about RC church in 19th century?). Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft. Proto||type 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helena appleton[edit]

No verification of notability; does not Google. Author has resisted speedy deletion. Melchoir 12:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted see deletion log. Author clearly didn't resist effectively enough. MLA 12:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. How do you close these things anyway? Melchoir 12:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like this! See Wikipedia:Deletion process. Proto||type 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bertram Scott[edit]

Delete as biography of non-notable musician (see WP:MUSIC). (Note: I didn't put CSD as its directly not apparent and may be contested. Google search results in just a couple of pages). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. —LrdChaos 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thefreemason[edit]

Spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, it even uses the word WE. If it is to be kept then it needs completely rewritten and needs citation to back up tha claims. Ben W Bell 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. NN and the author keeps removing all Prod/AfD tags without explanation Maustrauser 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, beautiful spam. Sandstein 12:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamvertisement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam advertisment. Unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam ad. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3º Sector[edit]

Untranslated at WP:PNT for more than two weeks. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translated/merged. Kusma (討論) 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese. --Allen3 ^talk 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a global movement of some sort, apparently well sourced, seems worthy of translation. I might work on it later. But why does a Portuguese article cite English books for all its sources? Seems odd. Grandmasterka 10:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Terceiro se(c)tor" or "third sector" is a term used for "civil society" (e.g. the set of non-profit/non-governmental organizations) in Portuguese. (There's the public sector, private sector, and then the "third sector".) Although the pt.wikipedia.org article "Terceiro setor" says the term originated in English, I've heard it used much more in Portuguese than in English (and I work for an organization that falls under this classification...). I would suggest merge into civil society. The use of "3o" (short for "terceiro") would need to changed to "3rd" or "third" in any case... Schoen 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird, I think it's probably copyvio: looks at this google search: [21], and also look at the cached page [22] Kappa 05:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If merge Non-governmental organization would be better. Jameswilson 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original page seems to be from the EU, and probably legal to copy if the source is acknowledged. Kusma (討論) 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, translation time elapsed. Sandstein 12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sector is production - farming, mining, etc. Secondary is manufacturing. Tertiary is services. I remember this from GCSE geography. And I got an A*, so nyah. See Primary sector of industry. Redirect this to Tertiary sector of industry. Proto||type 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Translation time elapsed. incog 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete time's up. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Can we speedy stuff that's in the wrong language if it hasn't been translated promptly? it seems like we should be able to do so. Cool3 01:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Περιεχόμενα[edit]

Untranslated at WP:PNT for more than two weeks. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translation proves it to be worth something. Kusma (討論) 12:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek. I don't speak Greek, so i have no idea what this is. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like original research to me. The capitalized word there is protolanguage, and the article speaks about some properties of letters and words, but using the phrase "I discovered" a few times. Solver 17:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, translation time elapsed. Sandstein 12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ding ding ding delete - two weeks has expired. Proto||type 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two weeks policy. This is Greek and I don't understand the language. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is signed, original research: something about how the writer has discovered the key to all languages because the letters themselves have meaning. Not worth translating. Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, and not very good. I think there's an attempt at a Greek protologism, though my Greek is awfully rusty. Here's a partial, based on a web translation, so you can get the general idea: CONTENT: I search the Greek language and other languages, ancient and new and I have led to the conclusion that I found the end of mystery that is called PROTOLANGUAGE ("ΠΡΩΤΟΓΛΩΣΣΑ" or "PROTOGLOSSA"). I found that the letters, each one, have their own significance, no matter in whatever language they are used. In all the languages, the letters that have the same accent, have also the same meaning and significance. Whatever the place of letters in the word, their meaning does not change. In all languages, words with the same letters, have the same meaning. It doesn't get any better after that. Fan1967 16:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is all Greek to me. kotepho 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent Greek protologism. Why is it in the Help namespace anyway? -- Mithent 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ugur Basak 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Focoe 08:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate. --webkid 12:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundamdriver[edit]

This article is neologisms and gibberish. The first version was simply "It is an internet nickname, which means gundam's pilot", later redirected to Gundam and finally changed to its current form TheFarix (Talk) 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, protofancruft. Sandstein 12:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Feezo (Talk) 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, nothing to do with me. You take that back! :p Delete - crappy, really useless fan trivia. Proto||type 14:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, fancurft. I believe we can start a Neologism Wiktionary or a Wiki. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 04:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fancruft....only not that good. Nigelthefish 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn (band)[edit]

Non-notable band (WP:BAND). Absent any sources, I'm less than impressed by the anonymous de-prodder's crystal-ballish claim that "milburn have just signed a major deal and will probably be as famous as the artic monkeys soon". Sandstein 12:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn as per Jeff's friendly comments. Sandstein 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, {{db-band}} candidate. WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 13:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep OK, the band has had one national tour with the Arctic Monkeys, the UK band du jour and has given an interview to the BBC, with another interview tomorrow on Channel4 in the UK. Their star may well be in the ascendent and it looks like they are working hard but I wouldn't say that they have crossed the notability threshold just yet. Perhaps when they tour to support their album and singles and receive increased media attention? (aeropagitica) 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If nominator took the amount of time they took to click on the external link for the band's homepage, they would have seen press coverage in NME, the Sunday Times, and a full-length BBC interview. It appears they toured the entire UK as a support act for the Arctic Monkeys, the lead singer was on Channel 4 on a show called "Pure T4." Quite notable, poor nomination. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic liberalism[edit]

This article has stood with no sources since October 2005 and violates WP:NOR. PJM 12:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Articles must be sourced. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Proto||type 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is definitely original research and also violates Verifiability. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are POV problem here too. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic conservatism. We should be consistent in what we do for both of these articles. Hyphen5 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 04:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Closed, due to listing in the wrong place. Stifle 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ClevelandLumberjacks95.GIF[edit]

Delete - Image is too small; is not titled correctly (year); had been replaced by larger version at Image:Cleveland_lumberjacks_93-01.jpg GTWeasel 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is articles for deletion. Images for deletion is this way. As it's been replaced by a larger and correctly-titled image, I'll just nomninate this for speedy deletion. Proto||type 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elective surgery (male-to-female)[edit]

Horrible title, and mentions nothing that is not already mentioned on other transsexualism related articles. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, you're right, it's horribly titled. But I think it's just a minor symptom of a problem with how the whole subject is organized, or rather, not organized. As with so many complex topics, different articles have been created and updated at different times by different people, and the choice of what to put where ends up looking kind of random. Just based on a quick glance through the various links from transexuality and transgender, information ends up all over the place. On the specific topic of surgery, there's a non-specific article on sexual reassignment surgery, and separate articles for M-to-F and F-to-M, concentrating on genital surgery. For M-to-F, there's another article on facial feminization, then this one, which is basically "other" (breasts, trachea, voice). Deleting this article won't help with the overall need to organize the topic. Fan1967 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sex reassignment surgery male-to-female. D e nni ☯ 02:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Denni. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Blanco[edit]

vanity page, impossible to verify. I looked pretty carefully, and found that Carlos Blanco has a website (in Spanish) [www.carlosblanco.es] and he appears to have a couple of articles on egyptologia.com in the "Amigos de la Egyptologia" section, but I could find no external mention of him apart from WP mirrors. The page was created by User:Carlos Blanco, and the same user added Carlos Blanco to List of child prodigies. The only editor on Carlos Blanco besides him was User:Jondel, who has been wikifying it; I asked him but he does not condone/endorse the content. userfy and delete. (see below) Mangojuice 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete per nom. --TM 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Blanco was very famous in Spain between 1998 and 2000 as a child prodigy who could read Egyptian hieroglyphs and Arabic, aside from different ancient languages. He was appointed lecturer at the Egyptian Museum of Barcelona when he was 12, in 1998, and he got a "matrícula de honor" (highest grade) in Egyptian language at the Spanish Association of Egyptology in 1998. He then got a scholarship and went for one year to Westminster School, London, and later to the University of Navarra. All data are true, basically taken from his web page, but it is not difficult to check the data revising what newspapers like "El Mundo" (one of the most important ones in Spain) told of him in 1998: * El Mundo, 17-V-1998, Madrid, 24: "Un niño de 12 años de Coslada, el egiptólogo más joven de Europa". You can see this in http://www.arrakis.es/~seha/1998.htm#MY with the headlines of 1998, 17th May. And you can check that he had his own section in "Crónicas Marcianas", the magazine with the highest share in Spain by then, in different webpages or writing to the Spanish channel (Telecinco) where it was emitted when he was collaborating (1999 and 2000). You can also check that he is a member of the International Association of Egyptologists: Blanco Pérez, Carlos Alberto (see web page http://www.iae.lmu.de/) So, I see no reason to delete the page, because it gives information on a person who has objectively been well known in his country as a child prodigy and a "superdotado". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.237.12.82 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to look for an editor with better Spanish than me to investigate this further. I will attempt to be neutral in my solicitation. Mangojuice 18:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice just asked me (I'm a native speaker). The kid seems to have bona fide credentials; he is listed as a member of the Egyptology Association, there is indeed an Oriental Institute at the U of Chicago, and and I have no reason to doubt that El Mundo's headline is right too (I tried to check in the newspaper's online archives but it was not webbified in 1998). A lot of information is confirmed by a recent (Feb 2006) blog interview on an independent online newspaper (Periodista Digital), where Blanco also speaks of current affairs. It certainly doesn't look like a hoax or an exaggeration. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pablo-flores. Given this, my opinion is this page should still be userfied and deleted but without prejudice: I feel this article could be recreated at any time by anyone else, as long as it includes verifiable information. WP:AUTO is my only problem with this article. (I know this isn't actually changing my vote, but I felt it was worth saying, in case someone looks for this debate after it is concluded.) Mangojuice 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Pablo Flores (a native speaker) has said, there are good credentials and information seems to be true. It would be interesting to write to the channel "Telecinco" to see if Carlos Blanco worked in "Crónicas Marcianas" as a "superdotado" (gifted child) when he was so young, because if it is true, then he was really famous in Spain because of his intelligence and it would be interesting to have an article on him in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.237.12.82 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfi tuesday[edit]

Ad for a student union happy hour. --W(t) 15:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was teaching at a University that offered a 12-hour long "happy hour" on Tuesdays, I would schedule all my exams on Wednesdays. Delete Thatcher131 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Come on now Deizio 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lampara[edit]

Vanity user page, unverifiable. Part of a walled garden with Civilexit and some other related pages by User:Lampara, previously prod'ed. userfy and delete Mangojuice 15:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Civilexit was just speedily deleted. Mangojuice 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect also with Civilexit and the all other associated articles created by this user. Wickethewok 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would suggest a ban of some sort based on Lampara's repeat offenses for vanity articles after warnings and his repeated removal of AFD tags, which constitutes vandalism. Wickethewok 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VanityCruft per nom, support whatever measures necessary on this and related pages. Deizio 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity band. Ifnord 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit West[edit]

Immediately Delete. You have removed this tag. I ask of you to not remove this tag. If you choose to remove this once again, then you could be blocked. This article is nominated for deletion due to the article lacks sources, and uncomfirmed facts. The article is based on fan rumors and false information. Nothing is mention of G-Unit West through 50 Cent website or through Interscope official statement. There is talk about having a label established under G-Unit. But as of today, there is no official G-Unit West. Thanks LILVOKA.

Delete currently junk, maybe a redirect to G-Unit --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I guess. Stifle 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen College Hockey Club[edit]

Delete - NN, hagiographic article with what looks like a couple of in-jokes. Is it necessary to list every single university sports club here? Heycos 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination convinces me. Politepunk 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn (and it is not a university team at Oxford, but that of one of its 35 colleges); there is also some patent nonsense ("founded in the year 1493 by legendary sports philosopher Johan van t'Smutt"). Bucketsofg 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clean up and merge with Magdalen College Jcuk 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Osomec 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should we have a St Hugh's College Football Club or a St John's College Rugby club? There's nothing notable about this. Cursive 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude/template/Power[edit]

There is an Orders of magnitude (power) and this is a very old template for it. It hasn't been edited for ages, so I think it should be deleted

Speedy delete as unused subpage tempate. Tagged as such. Proto||type 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Proto. Bucketsofg 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was iDelete. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Midget[edit]

Even the maker of the page agrees that this page should be deleted. It also may infringe on Apple's copyright of "iPod" ASG1022 23:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested {{prod}} --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE This article contains many contriversial subject matter in it:

    1. Most pictures made of the Midget HAD TO HAVE COME FROM APPLE ADS, they were pre-construction idea pictures.
    2. Everyone seems to think Apple is considering this product, which they are really not. It has only come to their attention through multiple letters. 
    3. Verifiability and citation is impossible, as Alegoo92 previously stated.

Speedy delete Product is proposed to Apple by anonymous blogger, no evidence Apple is considering building it. Fails verifiability and crystal ball. Thatcher131 16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that I've read Wikipedia:Verifiability the article fails under the "verifiability, not truth" clause. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Save the content on your hard drive locally and repost it should apple announce they're going to produce it Alegoo92. --W(t) 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is no crystal ball (see WP:NOT). Secondly as rumour/speculation it automatically has problems with verifiability (see WP:V).--Blue520 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Apple never considers outside proposals for products like this. This user is kidding himself if he believes otherwise (I'm an former Apple employee). Apple will not produce this product. This article is clear nonsense, non-notable and non-verifiable. Gwernol 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All his images are copy-vio Apple advertising for existing iPod products (mainly the Nano). No information is given in the article about his alleged "proposed improvements" to existing Apple products. The only content of this article is paranoid ramblings by ASG and his sockpuppet. Gwernol 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is an extension of some blogger's fantasies, and it needs to be cleaned up way too much. --Walter Görlitz 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal-ballism. Bucketsofg 17:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete is there a WP:Complete crystal bollocks? Eivind ^t ^@^c 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "This product can be considered 'imaginary', because it has yet to be invented! " ... that's some funny stuff. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If only there was an option faster than speedy delete... AlistairMcMillan 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this goes beyond crystal ballism. I don't think Apple would call a product the 'Midget' anyway. -- Mithent 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~Delete UV unfortunately, it doesn't meet the speedy criteria, so just plain delete --rogerd 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. However, the classification of patent nonsense in WP:CSD requires the article to be unintelligible. I nominated it as a Prod. I vote to delete as unverifiable original research. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is WP:NOT a crystal ball. Mike _{(T C)} 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE - This is an attempt to hijack wikipedia for the purpose of reinforcing a potential future lawsuit. Apple will at some point produce a smaller ipod. At that point 'ASG' will claim the idea & design are his, and sue Apple. The article could then be used as potential evidence of his activities in submitting his ideas and designs to Apple. Delete and block any recreation. exolon 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of comment. Deizio 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being delusional and unverifable. Much speculation, some of it probably defamatory towards Apple. --Midnighttonight 02:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adios. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. --Hyphen5 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block user per Exolon/Djbrianuk - Paulus89 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball...or a magic 8 ball for that matter. Nigelthefish 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The survivors of the mahabharatha[edit]

Hi - this article is totally unnecessary and cannot really be expanded beyond present level. The topic and data are sufficiently covered in the main Mahabharata and Kurukshetra War articles. Also, the name is not per WP:MOS. Rama's Arrow 15:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 15:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Green Giant 07:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt and that[edit]

Blog, no evidence of notability given. --W(t) 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read it? There are a couple items of notability about this site. --Hawkeye216 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. An Alexa rank over a million doesn't support "massive popularity". There are millions of blogs on the web. This is one of them. Fan1967 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming Alexa is a great way of ranking website popularity? Go read the Wikipedia Alexa page to further educate yourself. Additionally, if you don't like that single line about popularity, then remove it. It shouldn't count against the overall validity of the article. -- Hawkeye216 12:09, 17 March 2006 (EST)

delete not-notable. Bucketsofg 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Keep this site. I too have found original content on this site. Definitely notable. Crumbles 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this user's only contributions are to this AfD. JoshuaZ 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JoshuaZ has no life. Just a comment. Crumbles 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I vote to keep this site as well. Hawkeye216 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Hawkeye216 is the creator of the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. JoshuaZ 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep keep. Anonymous 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above comment was posted by 63.239.87.98 (talk · contribs), who also posted the insult to JoshuaZ above that was signed as "Crumbles" at 18:25. Looks like the sockpuppets are out. Fan1967 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye216 It is not acceptable to edit or remove anyone else's comments in an AfD discussion. Fan1967 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains two reference links to outside sources about the website/blog, what more are you looking for? - Hawkeye216 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance, notability.--TM 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and socks. --TM 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unless a web page was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, it isn't "notable" enough for you guys. Jesus. --Hawkeye216 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah. Delete, nn blog. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some outside sources, they may not meet our verifiability criteria. A Google search for "Matt and that" comes up with people using the phrase "Matt and that" rather than references to this blog at least on the front page see [23].

Google News comes up with the same phenomenon. This fails our website notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per all non-sock votes above. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, just deal with it. Deizio 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "mattandthat" Einstein. [24]--Hawkeye216 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity. Eivind ^t ^@^c 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

õ

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 UNDER A7. Harr o5 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. louis diamond baseball[edit]

Too insignificant. Fails the google test, and is only an under-14s youth squad. Agent Blightsoot 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Bucketsofg 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the nom on the article, CSD A7. Harr o5 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7 Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Political Society[edit]

Non-notable club. --W(t) 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 16:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial irrelevance -- Simon Cursitor 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom.--Blue520 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deb 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (non-notable, quasi-vanity) Bucketsofg 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}, so tagged. Sandstein 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, wonder why I didn't think of that. --W(t) 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucksweep.com[edit]

Non-notable website. --W(t) 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (can it be merged with some football entry?) Bucketsofg 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Promotional nature probably precludes merging. Kuru ^talk 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Moved to RFD: [25]. PJM 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmarked Houses (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Old redirect page without links pointing to it and that really has no reason to remain Maggu 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastich (slang)[edit]

Comic book profanity dicdef. As noted by the original prodder, doesn't seem too notable outside of Lobo (comics), where it's already covered. Unlikely redirect, so delete. Sandstein 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JoshuaZ 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. PJM 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as per original PROD (by me). WP:WINAD regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's extremely notable outside of comics. Just do a simple websearch. Your opinions are simply based on assumptions. Honestly, I've seen far worse pages and articles. Ace Class Shadow 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Just tidied up Ace Class Shadow's opinion. As for me? No Vote Lolasan 0:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jack Cain 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon mantell[edit]

Delete - the subject is non-notable ... discospinster 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Deb — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Moore[edit]

Ad. --W(t) 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick[edit]

Delete - company self promovation Niels Ø 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a copyvio. Weak Delete They been around a while but I can't find anything that makes them meet WP:CORP. Eivind ^t ^@^c 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 04:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Fucka[edit]

Not notable enough outside of the context of South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. This article was made a redirect to the movie on 30 June of last year, but was changed back within a day and thus should get its week in AfD. Brian G. Crawford 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect JoshuaZ 18:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to keep per JJay. JoshuaZ 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. youngamerican (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect and protect sounds sensible...and catchy. PJM 18:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable songs from notable movies. I don't think this is absurd to have an article of on its own. Wasn't it nominated for an MTV award? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have to agree with badlydrawnjeff here. According to the article the song won some kind of MTV award. Why on earth if a song is that prominent would we want to delete, let alone going so far as to protect the page? I have to wonder if this is not some kind of prudishness at work since many of the South Park songs have articles here and if South Park is not your bag we also have a ton of articles on songs from musicals at category:Songs from musicals. Isn't Uncle Fucka just as good as Glitter and Be Gay or Seventy-Six Trombones? At the very least, shouldn't we be talking about merging this somewhere? -- JJay 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, I think that this song is funny, and I really enjoy South Park, but I don't think that this song needs its own article, even if it did win some MTV award. I'm not being prudish, I'm being prudent in nominating this for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but is it really prudent to nominate an award winning song? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's OK to be prudent I guess and my remarks were not addressed to you per se. I just think it's kind of strange that we have lots of articles on songs that my grandparents are probably grooving to in heaven (classics I know, but maybe Uncle Fucka is a future classic), but songs that everyone was talking about on earth not too long ago and that seem to google well [26] people want to protect. I could maybe understand it if the page was a joke or a vandal page but it looks like a serious little effort. Anyway that's my two cents. -- JJay 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How often is a profanity-laced musical-style song and dance number in an animated movie nominated for a major award? That's right: Never. Except for this one. In other words, it's notable enough for its own article. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC/SONG - having won an award. Agree also with the fact that such a ridiculously vulgar song could even get nominated let alone win such an award makes it a notable song. Cursive 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable song. There was another song from the album nominated for an Oscar too if memory serves. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For some reason I have to agree with Cursive. The song deserves it's own page. Nigelthefish 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so we default to keep. However, please feel free to merge and redirect this to other articles -- this is a decision which does not require AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Cafe and Alternative Bookstore[edit]

Keep Linked from the parecon article. This article gives a good example to readers of Parecon on how a business can be run using this form of labour organization. I have fixed all vanity and POV issues in my "major cleanup" edits ChrisErb

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of four businesses in Canada run using the Participatory Economics model.--N(t) 14:28, 17 March 2006 (AST)

Delete start up vanity. "We are a..." etc. Eivind ^t ^@^c 09:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pare down enormously and merge/redirect to Charlotte Street Arts Centre, which I'll be happy to create if nobody else does. Samaritan 10:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect per Samaritan. Does not meet WP:CORP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is one of only four businesses in Canada that's run on the parecon economic model, and it's a cultural landmark in Fredericton, organizing various sorts of events, and being pretty much ingrained into the New Brunswick music scene. This article definitely needs some cleanup, and it needs to be wikified, obviously, (something I'd do gladly) but the Underground is an important site in Fredericton, and in greater New Brunswick, and in the greater region of the Maritimes. Soviet Dolphin 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bay of islands, new zealand[edit]

All info already in Bay of Islands. This article probably created as a test by an anonymous user - they have no other edits. -- MightyWarrior 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- MightyWarrior 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bay of Islands. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is possibly a plausible search term but hopefully people are astute enough to use capital letters for geographic names. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever read Geogre's law? :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have created the correctly capitalised Bay of Islands, New Zealand as a redirect to Bay of Islands, which should help future searchers.-gadfium 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zoe. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. W.marsh 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@mm[edit]

Seems best to me just to delete this. Does anyone feel it's worth renaming (and if so to what?).

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Computer virus, possibly with a discussion of other virus naming standards. --E lkman - ^(talk) 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Elkman or delete in favor of a real article about virus naming standards. Not sufficient for an article in itself. Anyone care to write one? Slowmover 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now Merged as per above - so I presume everyone's happy to delete? Dlyons493 Talk 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Scott Hackmann[edit]

Vanity entry, looks like a user page. No google matches, etc. etc. Just how many more vanity entries are out there?

Strong Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 19:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Right now. Vanity articles will be the sure-fire death of Wikipedia. D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 19:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Walmart cashiers are generally non-notable . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd suggest userfying, but it's unclear where exactly it'd go. Surely this can't be the only copy the author has? :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that. But we don't if this guy is an actual user or not. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say turn into user page but it appears that Mr Hackmann edits WP from an IP address, rather than creating a user account. This is a non-encyclopædic, non-notable biography, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:Vanity all refer. (aeropagitica) 20:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Golfcam 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Doesn't Know (Song)[edit]

PRODed, but tag was removed. It's the theme song for the teen movie Eurotrip and is more properly covered under the article for the movie. This song needs the context of the article to be meaningful. Does not meet notability criteria under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs Brian G. Crawford 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn song, unlikely search term for a redirect. I just created Scotty Doesn't Know as a redirect to Eurotrip for those that are concerned that someone may search for the song. youngamerican (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed the prod because it's a notable song from a notable movie by a notable band, Lustra. The article is better off expanded than deleted. Furthermore, the Songs "guidelines" are not guidelines at all yet, the proposal is still being discussed, and would probably fit under #10 anyway, as it should apply to movies as well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unfortunately I saw this movie and I can testify that this particularly irritating song is one of the few things about it you will remember two years later. David Sneek 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I would support a move to Scotty Doesn't Know, since the (song) part of this article is likely unneccesary. youngamerican (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand based on arguments above and shenanigans with the redirect. -- JJay 12:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Eurotrip. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Eurotrip, it makes much more sense to give it a section in that article. Don't get me wrong, I love Eurotrip and this song, and often sing it with friends when we're drunk. But it is inexorably attached to Eurotrip, and doesn't make much sense outside of the context of that movie, despite the fact that it's very memorable and a rather catchy song. -Eisnel 08:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Scotty Doesn't Know is certainly a well known song and important part of the movie Eurotrip. It has 255000 google hits, and is by a notable band Lustra. It is also perhaps their most famous song, at least according to the band page. The notability is, in my opinion, beyond question. However, the question arises as to whether there is enough content to justify an article independent from Lustra and Eurotrip. Still, I repeat, this song is absolutely notable, period. If the article is expanded a bit, I'll vote super ultra strong keep, but I can't do that until the content is a wee bit better. Cool3 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eurotrip. JoshuaZ 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Robert Mark Arthur Fitzroy MC RM , Earl of Grafton[edit]

Basically, this guy doesn't exist. An editor faked up the page for the Earl of Euston to make it look like he had a second son [27], and then this page appeared. I have Burke's Peerage in front of me - there is no "Earl of Grafton", there is no "Robert Mark Arthur Fitzroy" related to the Earl of Euston or the Duke of Grafton, he wouldn't be a member of the Royal Family... and the rest seems to be wankery of the "I'm a Navy SEAL too!" variety. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. But, FYI, there are portraits here [28]) of Henry Fitzroy, the 1st Duke of Grafton, from the 17th century, who became Earl of Grafton in 1675. There's also a fictional Earl of Grafton in this book [29], if anyone cares. Slowmover 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is the odd thing. There's a Duke of Grafton (he's claimed as this guy's grandfather), who also has the title Earl of Euston. The NPG page appears to be in error - Henry Fitzroy was created Duke of Grafton in 1675, not Earl - according to Burke's, that title never existed. Shimgray | talk | 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and likely hoax. Bucketsofg 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. The Earl of Euston on has one son and four daughters according to Paul Theroff's on-line Gotha. A younger son of a courtesy tile holder wouln't have a title of higher precendence than his older brother (Viscount Ipswich. No new Earls have been created since the 1960's in the UK. There is no such title as the Earl of Grafton. A British Naval Services officer (Royal Marines) wouldn't receive a Military cross (Army decoration) they would receive a Distinguished Service Cross...... thelist goes on....PapaLee 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There certainly hasn't been an Earl of Grafton since the Dukedom of Grafton was created because it would not be in accordance with the way peerage titles are managed. Osomec 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax. New Progressive 15:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Timez[edit]

Contested PROD. Reason for prod in the original: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Add to that: Google searches bring up a grand total of 128 hits, dropped to 50 when qualifying it with film. Nothing in IMDB. Lastly, it reads like an ad blurb. Recommend deletion ~~and a redirect to Los Angeles Times as a misspelling/typo~~み使い Mitsukai 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom this is non-notable, crystal ball and not verifiable. Gwernol 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Demonte Morton is just writing about a movie he wishes to produce one day. Delete as utterly made-up. Wikipedia is not your imagination. Also, Do Not Redirect to Los Angeles Times, just delete it. Nobody is going to spell it that way, at least not looking for a big US newspaper, they're not. Mike H. That's hot 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point.--み使い Mitsukai 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Tony St 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball and likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown to be verifiable. I couldn't verify it on google however. [30] ---J.Smith 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until this becomes verifiable for reasons already given. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Ray Joel[edit]

Article fails to assert notability, except for "the daughter of"... This nomination was by User:JackO'Lantern whose vote appears immediately below. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 19:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. No matter whose daughter she is, she's currently on a national tour, therefore meeting an applicable notability criterion for musicians. So fix it. Monicasdude 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added information to the article to explain that she is a musician herself. --Metropolitan90 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 240 unique entries on google. Most are Billy Joel biographies. [31] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per monicasdude SECProto 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitrip[edit]

Self-referential. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 19:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTrip was not included and not meant to be seen as a dictionary entry. It is a term that is quickly gaining coinage in Brooklyn NY among people who spend too much time on Wikipedia. It is no different than documenting the history of any other slang term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisibrown (talk • contribs)

I've heard the phrase used and have used it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.160.202 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Neologism, non-notable. Please read WP:NOT. I restored nominator's text, which was deleted by Lewisibrown. Commentators please sign your edits with 4 tildes (~) and don't delete other editors entries! Slowmover 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eivind ^t ^@^c 09:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Xyzzyplugh 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, self-referential dicdef protologism. I'm also disappointed that it refers to taking a trip on a Wiki rather than a wiki making you trip. Esquizombi 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a particularly good neologism. Pengo 13:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moot, speedy deleted by admin already. Ifnord 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilexit[edit]

Non-notable band. I proposed as speedy but author removed tag so listing here for delete. Ifnord 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable and making no claim to notability. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civilexit is a band from Vuela Music and led by Lampara. They have one single out in iTunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampara (talk • contribs)
- Someone ought to do a notability check there too. Punkmorten 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect, along with Lampara and Inverno Samba - a single on iTunes is not notable. Also vanity. Wickethewok 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Road (Mississauga)[edit]

non-notable road, WP is not an atlas RJFJR 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable road, this is not an atlas --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's notable about it? Only thing I can see is that it's so close to the airport that I wouldn't want to live there. RJFJR 05:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been assigned a regional road number, for one. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's a regional road number? (May be a regional term, because I don't think we have them in Connecticut.) RJFJR 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a signed number like a county road. It gets shields showing the number. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this rare in some way? The current article describes where the road is, is there something that can be added? Why would a person look in an encyclopedia for this road? Is it somehow historic? RJFJR 12:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dixie Road is as notable as any one of the other 10,000 roads that have articles on Wikipedia. Skeezix1000 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skeezix1000. --Ardenn 01:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm all for major (and even minor) highways, and have even been known to create articles about them, but this seems very non-notable. I would probably vote "keep" if there were some reference about the road itself (not just an address or directions), but I didn't find one with a quick Google search. Ardric47 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an atlas or GIS program (...yet). I'm willing to change vote if it can be shown this road is historically, socially, or culturally significant. If being a piece of an infrastructure system (Regional road) is its biggest claim to fame, then give that system an article with this context (of its importance). --maclean25 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SYSS Mouse 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can show the road itself to have significance (historical, social, cultural, etc.) over and above its existence as part of a regional road infrastructure. Sliggy 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Organic expansion will prove notability (I believe confidently, being quite familiar with the area but not enough with its history, myself, to expound on the highway without research...) Samaritan 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sexual Records[edit]

I don't want to vote conclusively on this, but I'm unsure whether this page fits criteria. Can't hurt to bring it up here to question? Mithent 20:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Talk about your vandal magnets. Perhaps a rename to "Vandalise this article" would be in order. Beyond, that, verification. Does anyone know who really has the biggest schlong?

Strong Keep Hi, i'm afraid i don't understand your vandalise argument, as for who has the longest 'scholong' it may not be definitive but it is the best record maintained all information is factual though. By the way whilst you posted the notice i was unable to save the changes which were quite substantial, i was wondering if there would be anyway of getting them back?

Use the 'back' button on your browser > cut and paste the edits > cancel editing the page > 'edit this page' > paste the edits back in > save the page. You can also sign your comments by using four unseparated tildes ~ ~ ~ ~. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random "essay". Osomec 00:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a mirror or possibly speedy delete as a copyvio CSD A8 of sexualrecords.com. Not word for word, but a close paraphrase that is uncredited. E.g. http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRphysiology.html#largest_penis . There are already articles on at least some of these subjects, e.g. Human penis size. Esquizombi 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- If it is not word for word, and by quite a margin, it is someones work therefore it is not in breach f copyright. Therefore your argumen has fallen. Clearly it is merely a reference of key information which marks the boundary. This article just needs some work to bring it up to a standard suitable for wikipedia, and possibly make it more definate in its staements. Otherwise I think it is a very useful, helpful, factual and unique article. 86.137.0.202 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with the above statement!!! Let me work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingstonjr (talk • contribs)

- Comment I do believe an uncredited paraphrase as a derived work is in fact a copyright violation. With proper sources this could be merged to Human penis size and Breast#Size, shape and composition but I have a problem with the way this was added without reference to its obvious source. Better to simply delete this and add the rewritten and sourced information to those articles. Esquizombi 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's no encyclopedic reason to conflate these items (as done by the referenced website). Put the penis records under Penis and the breast records under Breast. These articles already discuss the issue of size, etc. Slowmover 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with penis and breast Nigelthefish 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak merge; these aren't even "Sexual Records" they are more like "anatomical records" Carlossuarez46 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete not many comments but it's been almost 10 days and I feel this is heading for a delete if relisted. W.marsh 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidiot[edit]

Dicdef-ish slang entry, borderline cruft. Punkmorten 20:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Osomec 00:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rice[edit]

Mike Rice is not a Jockey. All text/images are really of Frankie Dettori. Frankie Dettori has a seperate article already. Thrakkerzog 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Dettori has his own page already. This one is garbage. There are other articles which link to this one, but they are not related to horse racing in any way. Thrakkerzog 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page was created by an anon; simply lifted from the Frankie Dettori page: the only thing different is the title (plus subsequent revisions, apparently from blind people.) Mangojuice 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Gray-Cassadei[edit]

Delete. People of certain interest may appear in the main pages of Wikipedia. Mike, please open your own user page : User:Mike_Gray-Cassadei DLL 21:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy a7 & tagged as such the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. +7/-1 =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Raja[edit]

Obviously non-notable. Maybe it would be notable if he'd set the world record, but even then I doubt it. Probable vanity and I would reccomend a speedy, but it does have some sources. Still, super-strong delete vote Garfunkel4life 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del. Nothing spectacular. 8,784 digits only. World record today is 42,195. Not even in Top Ten. mikka (t) 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mikka. Feezo (Talk) 00:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Regardless of whether it's the record or not, the feat did gain substantial press coverage. It was the top story on Yahoo News, and Raja appeared on the Today Show. Also, Raja's young age makes the event notable. ErnestIsTheMan 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. World record is far, far higher. The huge gulf between him and the world record shows either he is well down the rankings, or that memorising pi is still a very minor thing. As for press coverage, I simply do not believe he was the top story on Yahoo News, because a search of Yahoo News doesn't find any article at all [32]. Average Earthman 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Yahoo search doesn't turn up the correct result, becuase Yahoo merely linked to the Roanoke Times article that is the second hit on a Yahoo News search [33]. The first hit a report on his appearance on the Today Show. If the national news media finds that Raja is notable, I think we should do the same. ErnestIsTheMan 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Raja was also featured on CNN on Thursday, March 16 and in their week in review. ErnestIsTheMan 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are millions of people reatured in various media without being reasonably notable beyond a news flash. mikka (t) 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When he breaks the record he can be added. Nigelthefish 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hembra[edit]

del a Spanish language dicdef ("woman" or "bitch") with a trivia about Microsoft ignorance. mikka (t) 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mikka. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like not expandable. Mukadderat 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nigelthefish 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was erroneous nomination mikka (t) 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Charlotte of Hanover[edit]

Keep: Errr...no, this is a completely different person. Craigy (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Sorry error checking. This was a mistake. I removed the deletion tag from the page. Gnosis 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep . The chicks lived in different centuries. mikka (t) 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Graham (historian)[edit]

Unreferenced, and badly written, such as "he is thought of as a crackpot" and "where it wobbles on it's axis". Google search gives results unrelated to the person described in this article. "his theory on the earth's magnetic poles flipping and essentially the end of human life." - the theory of magnetic poles flipping is widely known and certainly not "his" theory. Robert Graham (anarchist historian) should probably be moved here instead. -- infinity0 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- infinity0 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no evidence of notability. Feezo (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 06:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mom and pop[edit]

DictDef. Maybe should be transwikied to Wictionary? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Mithent 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nothing to transwiki. The correct terms would be "Mom and pop business", or "mom and pop store", etc., which may be created as redirects to "Small business". Mukadderat 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was disambig moved on top of Bright. The original content was moved to Bright (philosophy), which now redirects to Brights movement. Do note that the decision to move the original content is not binding, and may be undone if necessary or consensus wills it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bright[edit]

Delete contested prod. Admitted neologism whose author wishes to promote.The Brights movement appears notable and it may be that this neologism is gaining traction so AFD discussion is worthwhile --Porturology 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ It's a protologism by Richard Dawkins, and a protologism that has by itself been the focus of substantial media coverage, eg in the Guardian. This in itself might make the word notable. Otherwise, redirect to Dawkins. Sandstein 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict after nomination was expanded) Then by all means redirect to Brights movement. Sandstein 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Sandstein. This term has gained some traction and is a likely search term (where brights movement is less likely) so redirect to the main article. Gwernol 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It stops being a neologism when it's in common use, and Dawkins has enough people using it that it probably qualifies. I agree that the parent article about the movement seems to be the correct place for this to get linked to and there don't need to be two separate articles. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per above.. JoshuaZ 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per GrahamN. JoshuaZ 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As someone who might be considered almost a "bright", I actually find the term somewhat offensive and presumptuous, and I think a lot of "brights" have backed off the use of the term for that reason. That said, it is a somewhat notable term. Haikupoet 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how finding a term offensive is a reason not to have an article on the topic? (or to have an article only on the movement)? Mikker ^... 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Esquizombi 01:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Users arguing against my proposal to move brights movement (or bright (movement) as it was then called) to bright pointed out, correctly, that "the article is about the movement for the word "bright", not about the concept it describes". So where is the article about the concept it describes? You can't have it both ways. It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other. If you lot are really determined for some obscure reason to prevent an article about the concept of "bright" from existing under the title "bright", then how about moving it to bright (person) something like that? Whatever the result of this vote, the need remains for two separate articles about the two separate subjects, bright (the concept) and brights movement (the lobbying organisation). It makes as much sense to redirect bright to brights movement as to redirect gay to Stonewall. GrahamN 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So where is the article about the concept it describes?" - Naturalism (philosophy). This article, bright, is the definition of redundant.

Please cite a source for your assertion. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other." - Is "nonsense" the new word for "common sense"? The term and the movement are intimately linked. They should be merged into a single article covering both the movement and the neologism the movement seeks to propagate (an agenda Wikipedia editors are attempting to further with this unnecessary page-division).

This argument would be reasonable if The Brights restricted themselves to promoting the use of the word "bright". But they don't. They have launched lobbying campaigns on quite a variety of tangential "rights" issues. I wish they wouldn't. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"as to redirect gay to Stonewall." - Faulty analogy. Stonewall (UK) neither invented nor popularized the term "gay". "Gay" is not a neologism being propagated by an organization called "the Gays". If it was, "gay" and the organization based on it would certainly merit a single article together until "gay" became noteworthy enough for its own article. Even this analogy, however, is problematic because "gay" sometimes means "male homosexual", making it a non-exact synonym for homosexuality. Bright is thus much closer to naturalism (philosophy) than "gay" is to its earlier synonyms. -Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. Well, that, or redirect philosophy to Plato, Christianity to Jesus Christ and Islam to Muhammad. Note also: Daniel Dennett uses "bright" (in the sense of the concept bright) prominently in his recent book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" (Amazon.com Sales Rank of 96 in Books [34]). Mikker ^... 19:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally false analogies, much worse than the one provided by Graham above. The example of the term being used in a recent book establishes enough notability for there to be one article on the matter (as opposed to none whatsoever), not for there to be two. The concept/word "bright" is to the movement "Bright" as the concept/word "Christianity" is to the movement "Christianity". Arguing that "bright" is to "Bright" as "Christianity" is to "Jesus" is patently absurd, both in the figurative and literal sense. In the literal sense, Bright is not a person. In the figurative sense, Bright and bright are not clearly-distinct (they're only distinguished by a technicality) nor clearly-noteworthy (both are very borderline). Your examples are rhetoric, not reason. -Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to JoshuaZ's suggestion that bright be redirected to Richard Dawkins. And, ummm, the correct analogy is: bright is to bright (movement) as Christianity is to organisations that promote Christianity (e.g. churches of various types, missionary organisations etc.). So if you insist on being positively Talmudic, I'll rephrase: "Keep Obviously. Well, that, or turn Christianity into a disamb page linking to (among other things) Roman Catholic, Protestantism etc." The facts are these: there is an organisation that promotes the use of the term "bright". We should have an article on that. Then there is the CONCEPT of being a bright (which, despite your unsourced assertion) DOESN'T simply mean naturalism (philosophy). We should have an article about this as well. Whether we name the article bright (philosophy) and turn bright into a disambig or keep the status quo, I don't care. Mikker ^... 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your latter suggestion is the best. Rather than keep bright as it is, in it's confusing state as to what "bright" really describes, we should rename the current "Bright" article to become a bright (philosophy) and make bright a disambiguation. At that instance, it would compromise by ensuring an article about both the movement and actual philosophy, but still be able to differentiate between it and other forms of bright. I think Silence makes a pretty good justification why the word "bright" needs to be the front disambiguation page below. Would there be any objections to this? Oscabat 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a disambiguation page: Bright (disambiguation) should be moved to Bright because there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word (the only real candidate, brightness, is already at a different page, so just moving the disambig page to the default is what will probably benefit the vast majority of readers the most). In lieu of that, strong delete and merge into bright movement. The concept of bright is not noteworthy because it's a neologism (no appearance in any established dictionaries, and barely any in reputable news organizations or publications) synonym of philosophical naturalism; at best, it merits a subsection or paragraph of the aforementioned more established term. The movement or organization of Brights, however, which is pretty much solely responsible for propagating the usage of "bright" as a self-identification, is noteworthy. The admin who closes this vote should keep in mind that most, if not all, of the users supporting the division between the movement "Bright" and the concept "bright" are self-identified brights themselves. A split like this would be a kin to atheists splitting the atheism article into one for the "lack-of-theism" definition and another for the "rejection/denial-of-theism" definition, rather than doing what they should (and are) and treating the topic in a single article. And atheism is much more noteworthy (and complex, spanning dozens of pages) than bright (which is only a page or two long, even merged), so a split is even less justified for this concept/movement (and the distinction between the two isn't always obvious) than it would be for atheism. (Note that the previous example was not meant to suggest that atheists are brights, or even vice versa; it was just an example.) Having two articles in this case is beyond unacceptable: it's an example of Wikipedia's corrosive systemic bias towards recent subcultures with a significant Internet base. -Silence 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you can cite a respectable source that says that in the source's opinion bright is just a synonym for naturalism (philosophy), then please add that interesting snippet to one or both articles. You say "there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word". Frankly, that's just wishful thinking on your part. No serious user of an encyclopaedia looks up things they already know about, (such as bright in the sense of "light" or "clever"). People use an encyclopaedia to look things up that they haven't come across before. Some very influential thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins have taken recently to using the word "bright" in this sense, and it is extremely likely that people, when they come accross this unfamiliar term, will come to wikipedia to look it up. I've asked on Talk:brights movement for suggestions of realistic scenarios where a serious user of this encyclopaedia would type "bright" into the search box, when they were looking for an article about anything other than the philosophical outlook (or the band). Nobody's been able to come up with even one. I also asked for an example of an occasion when it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). Again, nobody's come up with even one. Sorry if it doesn't suit your agenda, but what you are saying is just plain wrong. GrahamN 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly what I did - I searched "bright" in Wikipedia because Dennett use it. A.I.K. 24 March 2006

Replace with disambiguation per above. Royboy crashfan 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with disambiguation. This is an ambiguous word, as Bright (disambiguation) proves. A disambiguation page will not confuse anyone and will not violate any Wikipedia guideline or policy that I'm aware of. What a disambiguation page will do is allow the debates and refinements about new uses of bright to continue, because those are clearly important discussions to some of the Wikipedia user base. But in the mean time, searching for "bright" will leave all articles about old and new meanings of bright immediately visible to all. --Ds13 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambig page This is a notable phenomenon, but there's no way it's the primary meaning of the word "bright". ~~Merge any non-redundant content into Brights movement, which of course should be listed on the bright dab page.~~ --Trovatore 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually maybe better would be to redirect bright to brightness, which is its primary meaning, and put a line at the top of the latter saying "Bright redirects here" and pointing to the dab page. That would be more in line with standard WP policies. --Trovatore 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Modify my remarks I hadn't appreciated how much of the debate was about keeping the current content at bright separate from brights movement. I have no strong objection to them being separate articles; it's OK with me if the current bright is moved to, say, bright (philosophy) or whatever. But it shouldn't stay at bright; that strikes me as a blatant attempt to use WP to push a linguistic change. --Trovatore 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya's Mid-East Dance and Music Productions[edit]

This article is non-notable. It reads like an advert (as noted by Mel Etitis), and come on: any random user with a BA in cultural anthropology does not satisfy the "professor" test. Provides no links for any "professional, internationally acclaimed" status, nor any links to notablity. Oh, and the whole thing is auto biographical. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Well, it claims some notability, in terms of the performances, and the Web site (among a lot of what's clearly puffery) indicates enough to make her encyclopædic I think. The article should, though, be moved to Soraya (dancer), as it's clearly about the person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator has just left me a message explaining that she is Soraya. That changes matters, of course; nevertheless, I still think that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and if the result of this AfD is "delete" because the aryticle is self-promotion, I'd be happy to create an article myself (at Soraya (dancer)) based on material I can find on the Web, including her Web site. Would that be acceptable? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one, Soraya (dancer) is a totally different and good idea. Mukadderat 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless WP:CORP is met, which I seriously doubt. As for Soraya (dancer): information should be from independent sources. If the only info you can get is from her own web page, I doubt she's notable. Anyone can put up a web page about themselves. See WP:V. Mangojuice 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 06:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business conference[edit]

I cannot think of a single thing that could be added to this article to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is perhaps a dictionary definition but I doubt it would even qualify for that. 2006BC 04:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Conference page into which this is to be merged is nothing more than a disambiguation page of links. Business conferences are very popular, so this page should remain so it can be expanded. --WikiCats 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. JoshuaZ 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with WikiCats. Disambiguation is needed. This page can be expanded to include well known and large conference organisers, major business conferences, etc. --S Masters 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa (synopsis)[edit]

This page is pretty redundant, considering that it is a pretty big breach from protocol (as I understand it) to have a second page discussing the plot of a movie while a first page discusses other aspects. While it's a good summary, it's a bit long and intensive for an encyclopedia. I understand why it was made a separate article, because its inclusion in the main article would make the it far too long. But rather than make a second article, the better thing to do would be to shorten the synopsis--if people want a complete blow-by-blow, they can go to a fansite. -Mance 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Non-encyclopedic detailed synopsys. Mukadderat 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sean WI 05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete See above. Nigelthefish 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hugh Peter Deasy[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Unremarkable. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the misleading claims about Rolls Royce. If he wrote a book that is available from Amazon after more than a hundred years he's probably more notable than half the contemporary writers Wikipedia has articles about. He probably took part in Francis Younghusband's invasion of Tibet, which was an important historic event, so I'd like to know more about him. Golfcam 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Mukadderat 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The motor company he founded is actually a blue link (Siddeley-Deasy), which makes it an easy Keep. --kingboyk 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Nigelthefish 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I nominated the page for deletion, I feel obliged to explain my thinking. The person is listed with three claims to notoriety. 1. Being an author of an exploration book. 2. (As stated on the original page) Being important in founding Rolls-Royce. 3. Being the cousin of Agnes Mary Clerke.

On the first point. A google search gives a very small number of hits of the book written by a person of this name. The listing on Amazon comes for a review written by a person claiming to be his nephew Hugh Deasy

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00086AKJ2/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/102-1816042-8112154?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

As can be seen from the listing, there are no copies in print & no sales listed, and it is not available as User:Golfcam claims. It only has the review, the contents of which is:-

"A Google search for Hugh Deasy throws up me or Henry Hugh. So we are the only two famous people rejoicing in this combination of names. My own book, "Grannies and Time Machines", has a totally different subject matter."

An antique book seller is also listed on Yahoo as having a copy:-

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~kaivalya/deasy.htm

This doen't really seem to fit the wikipedia guidelines on authors. Also the reference by User:Golfcam above to Francis Younghusband's invasion of Tibet can be ignored. The book was published in 1901, the invasion of Tibet was in 1903.

On the second point. A person of this name formed a motor company in 1906 called the Deasy Motor Company, but this person had servered all ties with the company by 1909, which was when John Siddeley joined the company (changing the name to Siddeley-Deasy), therefore the later success of this company cannot be in any way attributed to Henry Deasy. The only point that indicates that these where the same person is the desciption of Henry Deasy on John Davenport Siddeley's autobiography on the Rolls-Royce web site (link below) i.e. "A company founded by former Cavalry Officer & Explorer, Henry Deasy".

http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/heritage/offices/coventry_evo1.jsp

Again this doesn't seem to fit any description of real notoriety.

On the third point of being the cousin of Agnes Clerke. Being somebody's cousin has no relervance here. Furhter to this, there is no evidence on any site about this women (who is well documented) that she was related to this person.The Pedant 09:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added as much detail to the page as I could find. I still think it doesn't really note a wikipedia entry. The Pedant 11:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, even taking into account improperly signed comments. W.marsh 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juggalo[edit]

unecessary article that could be added to the Insane Clown Posse page Fyrre 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDoes that mean you are going to mark every single album and fan page that is in Wikipedia that juggalos have set up? Go ahead and look through ICP's page and note that they have seperate articles for everything. Those should be deleted. But juggalos have taken off and become more than just losers whole follow ICP. That is the only reason I think the article should stay. But be cleaned up --pahsons 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahsons (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 March 2006
It's a musical groups fanbase with zero social significance whatsoever add a blurb to the "ICP" page.Fyrre
Comment This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obnoxious as it may be, "juggalo" gets 911k Google hits, had recent mention inthe Patriot-Ledger based on a recent violence situation, and is a common descriptor for fans of the Insane Clown Posse. I'm sure someone with LexusNexus abilities could probably dig up more news articles based around the term. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable, if often disdained, quasihipster subculture. Haikupoet 04:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Though strongly tied to the Insane Clown Posse, Juagglos have become a sub-culture that spans world wide and is not unknown. MJoe 08:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdeorus Joe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 March 2006
Delete — unencyclopædic subject that spawns an article that's a constant source of bickering and edit-warring. The only people editing it seem to be self-professed subjects of the article, so there's also a vanity aspect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many articles that contain bickering, but that doesn't make it a reason for its deletion. The article is edited by more then Juggalos, i.e. Pahsons, thus is why there is bickering as the subject of Juggalo is obviously controveral. Not to mention there is in fact a social impact from Juggalos as politicians and people have put blame upon Juggalos and their music to juvenile delinquency and other social problems. Also Juggalos span all the way from America to palces such as Europe and Australia, thus I feel it's international notability is reason for it to be worthy of encyclopedia entry. Even sub-cultures such as punk and goth have an article, which are music group breed as well. MJoe 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC) User:Murdeorus_Joe
Keep -- I can only speak from experience: a few minutes ago, I read a bulletin on Myspace.com which mentioned 'juggalos'. Having completely forgotten what the word meant, I entered it into the Google toolbar, and a Wikipedia article popped up like a beacon among the Juggalo Tattoos and the Juggalo Championsh!t Wrestling. Why take away such an illusion of authority? LeboviciAB84 07:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact left by 194.80.135.86 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 13:58, 25 March 2006. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MidnightBox.com, Inc.[edit]

Self-advertisement by non-notable corporation. Poster removed prod and advert tags. Henning Makholm 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know to not remove the tag. Quick read said it was 'ok to edit', I assumed full article. Future edits will leave 'discussion' tag in place. What can be done to make article more NPOV? Thanks! MidnightBox.com, Inc. 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was OK to remove the {{prod}} tag; that just mean that we'll have to go through this slightly more formal process to get the article deleted. The problem is not POV, it is (1) your company is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, (2) even if it was, you should not create it yourself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, which should apply mutatis mutandis to writing about busineses that one is the founder or manager of. Henning Makholm 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Midnightbox.com. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Both are self-adverts from same company, but the contents (before Midnightbox.com was changed to redirect here) was more blantantly spam than the current page. Not sure whether votes to delete the latter should automatically be taken to apply to the former. Henning Makholm 13:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every and anything related to this site. Having seen both histories, this is definitely a case of WP:VSCA.--み使い Mitsukai 14:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Mea culpa. Don't know how I forgot to list it. Henning Makholm 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mitsukai. Feezo (Talk) 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising Paul 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all stated reasons. Even if this were noteworthy, all the content has been contributed by the company and they originated the article as well.--Trypsin 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion from a non-notable company that just manages to get by on their stolen business model. Manfrin 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, since when did deleting an Article become personal? - that just manages to get by on their stolen business model ?? - isnt that a little biased? Good thing Google.com came up with that whole Search the Internet idea themselves. I understand its non-notable company to date, that will change in time. There are also plenty of companies who started their own wikipedia article themselves. MidnightBox, Inc. will be back when the time is right. Midnightbox,_Inc. 00:59, 23 March 2006

Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 06:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prerequisite[edit]

Delete as dictionary defintion that has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. —LrdChaos 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Feezo (Talk) 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Triage 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reidun Reklame[edit]

Looks like spam or a vanity article about an otherwise unnotable firm.Mikereichold 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable small business per nom. Kuru ^talk 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — reads like an advertisement, no assertion of notability. Feezo (Talk) 23:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad agency, you'd think they would write a better ad. Eivind ^t ^@^c 10:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemen's Grocery, Krissi Christainson, Some Call it Magic, The Household[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for upcoming Disney shows, especially if they have no Google hits. Likely hoaxes. Sandstein 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: Most of the author's, User:MCcoupe7's recent edits appear to consist of hoax additions to Disney and musicians' pages. See also similar previous AfD. Any admin care to stop this? Sandstein 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put the Prod tags on these articles. I could find no evidence, via a google search or on the Disney channel's website, of the upcoming existence of any of them. --Xyzzyplugh 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball Nigelthefish 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JoshuaZ 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no meaningful content related to title mikka (t) 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BadDay[edit]

It just isn't an encyclopaedia article. Cherry blossom tree 22:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy: no meaningful content related to title. mikka (t) 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel (band)[edit]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Also vanity. User Lampara has made many vanity pages and repeatedly removes afd tags from them. See also Lampara, Inverno Samba, and Civilexit. Wickethewok 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:BAND. Feezo (Talk) 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:BAND. Punkmorten 10:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity band. Ifnord 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 applies. Mangojuice 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Angel[edit]

Unencyclopaedic, I think. I can't see anything salvageable in this article, and I don't think this subject is very notable. Text of article resembles a porn mag, possible copyvio perhaps (although, likely original fan drooling). Anyway, I think this article largely speaks for itself. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMO, current content is unsalvageable, although a NPOV, sourced recreation with all new content would probably be OK. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a copyvio. Golfcam 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — confirmed copyvio. Feezo (Talk) 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feezo, and possibly not notable anyway. There does seem to be a lot of Czech porn stars working in the US though. Haikupoet 04:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and reads more like a porn novel. Triage 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although maybe if re-done completely it would make an acceptable article. Just not by some testosterone crazed teenage boy, for whom I would suggest a career in erotic literature. --Pal5017 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be done as a real Wikipedia article but it really doesn't make sense to try and salvage it now. There well-written and well-focused pornography articles around, so the expertise and the willingness exist. Evillan 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Leaguers Who Played for Penn State[edit]

There is nothing notable about Major League Baseball Players who played for Penn State. It is essentially a pointless list of links. joturner 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. joturner 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not notable until someone has to do a research paper or something and comes here looking for information. As the author of this page, I think it should be kept. --Alex 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. (Are there per-school categories/lists for notable alumni in general? If so, these should be added to that/on there.) And no one writing a serious research paper should be using Wikipedia as a primary source. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good list and not any different than the lists of famous alumni that we have for almost every school on the site. If this is pointless than so is every one of those lists. At worst we should be talking merge, but since the Penn State Pro football list is huge, baseball probably should stay as is. -- JJay 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but add the blue links to List of Pennsylvania State University people. This is exactly what that sort of list is for. -- Grev 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same essential result could probably be achieved by categorizing those players under something like Category:Penn State baseball players (that might not be the best name; I'm not familiar with category conventions). Ardric47 03:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A useful piece of information. Trivial lists of this type will plague wikipedia until it will be upgraded with database capabilities. Mukadderat 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is encyclopedic and useful in a way that categories aren't: it can provide information about dates/years/who played with whom at Penn State, etc. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia[edit]

Vanity, NN. Delete Ardenn 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unlike The Black Hand, the EUS is an official and significant organization at UBC and I think a page is justified. I've certainly seen pages on less substantial topics. Unfortunately the page doesn't seem very focused on what the EUS itself and more on Engineering traditions in Canada... TastyCakes 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. JoshuaZ 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The EUS has traditionally had a prominent (and often controversial) presence on the UBC campus. Their annual stunts during Engineering Week have attained [local], [national], and even [international] attention . I agree that the page needs substantial revisions - there are several sections here that would fit well into one or more separate articles about engineering. This particular article should be rewritten to better focus on the EUS itself. Ckatz 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails to establish why anyone outside of UBC would care about that, though. Ardenn 03:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were just about a typical student society, I might tend to agree with that assertion. And, to be fair, the article (in its current form) does little to establish a "reason to care". What is needed is a rewrite to focus on the aspects of the EUS that ARE noteworthy to readers outside of the UBC community. I think it is fair to say that the UBC EUS has established a certain international notoriety for itself over the years. Successfully planning, coordinating, and executing schemes to hijack the Rose Bowl trophy and hang Volkswagen Beetles from numerous locations including the Lions Gate Bridge (Vancouver) and the Golden Gate Bridge is, I think, worthy of an article. Ckatz 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They are somewhat notable in Vancouver for their stunts (they occasionally hang cars or car frames from bridges), but you wouldn't know that from this article. This article discusses Rudyard Kipling and pre-war Canadian engineering pioneers. --maclean25 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. 95% of the article says not a word why the society would be notable. Mukadderat 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important society that is notable. Give the article a chance. --Mysterious UBC Student 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ckatz. The section on 'the cheeze factory' needs a major overhaul, but at this stage that wouldn't appear to be reason to delete. Mostlyharmless 02:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may require upgrading, but EUS is a big part of UBC, and UBC is an important university in Canada. EUS is fairly large and remains influential in many UBC matters. Deleting the article would neglect the importance of student organizations.Shambles
Keep It is one of the largest and influential societies, that has done stunts that are as notable worldwide at their time as an internet meme is now. Being one of the largest Canadian University, with way more students than Harvard, should be able to have its notable and important societies listed on Wikipedia. It's at least as notable as a residence of Harvard. Allowing Harvard Glee Clubs and Residence Halls but not organisations with thousands of members at the major Western Canadian University would show systematic bias, which Wikipedia should avoid. --Nick Dillinger 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holly David[edit]

Delete - Unimportant page Dunstan 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7 non-notable. Blatant. Kuru ^talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Kuru. A love letter from some random 16-year-old boy to his girlfriend? Please don't let me ever have to read something like that again. Fan1967 00:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just never been in loooooooove... :) Kuru ^talk 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even when I was 16, I don't think I could have come up with this saccharine bilge. Unless, of course, I thought it might get me some.... Fan1967 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7, notability not asserted. As much as it isn't a page about the topic so much it is to her, I'd say speedy is still appropriate, and WP:SNOW would probably back me up on that. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I don't expect this to be uncontroversial. However, there are no sources for this game's existance. None. Seqsea and others have clearly demonstrated this. That, along with the majority of keep comments come from new or unregistered users, and that th e arguments for deletion vastly outweigh the arguments for keeping, lead this to be deleted.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

Note: Contrary to the title, this is actually the 3rd nomination

del original cruft around "Don't think about pink elephant, and you'll get a cookie", not covered in reputable sources. The previous nomination was heavily ridden with anon astroturf. 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) .

This is actually the third nomination. Links to previous nominations: September 2004 and December 2005. Both nominations included keep votes from established users, new users, and anons, and the closing admins have stood behind their decisions to keep. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with editing) It should just be edited so that it doesnt contain original information and then kept. —This unsigned comment was added by Autophile (talk • contribs) 03:45, March 22, 2006 (UTC).

Keep It's a fun game, lots of people I know like it and it is a phenomenon that such thing is widespread like this. One may call it stupid or dislike it, but it is still a game, with consistent rules. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about a game being stupid or not. If you don't like, forget about it and don't play. —This unsigned comment was added by 201.19.27.186 (talk • contribs) 01:12, March 22, 2006 (UTC).
Weak Keep As much as I'd like to see this deleted, the previous AfD result seemed valid and the subject does seem notable, although I'm not sure how verifiable the notability is. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed my mind. The article is seemingly never going to get sourced, and that means it shouldn't be here. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, made up in school. This seems like a good opportunity to finally delete a troublesome article. Brian G. Crawford 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - alas, I've been trying to make some headway in the article, but at this point I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the {{original_research}} tag. As one editor said, "We have become the foremost source for information about The Game,"[35] and that's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. --phh 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and limit to barebones information about the rules. It is an extant game that has players and has somehow spread beyond just the original people who made it up in school. Most of the information in there is OR or just plain guessing (strategies, origins, criticisms/comparisons, thoughts on rule #2), but axe that and you have a nice introduction for people who heard someone talking about it and want more information. The article will never be Monopoly (game), but it's not the collective hallucination of its contributors, either. —Seqsea (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just spent a couple of hours scouring LexisNexus, ProQuest, InfoWeb, and Google for anything related to the game. Only Google returns results and they are all blogs or forums. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is just a guideline): "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. [...] Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." From WP:Verifiability (which is a policy): "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. [...] For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. [...] And just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Wikipedia." While this article represents a unique case, continuing to allow it without any hope for sources is in direct violation of both guideline and official policy. I still stand by what I wrote above—the game does exist and is played—but that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Until it becomes popular enough to have more than a handful of hits on Google, it should remain the province of college dorms, high school homerooms, and blogs. —Seqsea (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with PHenry's concerns. The only way I've heard of this is by people pointing me to the Wikipedia article, so it does seem like we've become the primary source here. However, it's minorly notable so I don't feel confident to vote full-out delete. -- Mithent 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only was to keep this game notable is to delete it so we can forget about it, what a bunch of hog wash. Mike _{(T C)} 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A common if stupid game. JoshuaZ 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is widespread, no matter how much you dislike it. (and damn it you made me lose). --Midnighttonight 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, double jeopardy. Haikupoet 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: something made up in school one day; sock supported. Jonathunder 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you must be referring to one of the previous AfDs with "sock supported": Please do not use "sock" as an epithet for "newbie". Anon votes were properly discounted in previous AfDs anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This game is complete bollocks, but that's not really a reason for deletion (though it is a reason to pray for the future of our planet). If it's so widespread, transwiki the rules to Wikibooks. This article is basically nothing without them, so delete as {{db-empty}} --Rory0 96 05:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is frequently linked to from outside Wikipedia, including its URL appearing in an ad in MacAddict (for some reason). We'd be lacking in our coverage if we didn't have it. I'm okay with shortening the article to remove guessing and speculation, though. By the way, the title of this AfD is wrong: this is the 3rd nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get this, WHAT does an article have to do to be kept around here? This is the third time already without any significant changes in the article's status. I'm not going to even bother coming up with reasons, there's plenty of discussion in the other two AfDs. AceMyth 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want the article deleted, I want it referenced. Can it be so hard to find a reputable source mentioning the phenomena (if it exists)? / Fred-Chess 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although someone needs to find an old media reference, would make the article a lot more credible --MilkMiruku 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is 'the Game'. That's it: wiki is about knowledge, not about the Game being or not just a little stupid game. —This unsigned comment was added by 87.7.161.81 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep This is a genuine internet phenomonon that, by it's very nature, won't have an awful lot written about it. —This unsigned comment was added by 212.159.119.232 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I play and I refer people to this page for new players. Keep it. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.170.119.106 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May have been non-notable originally, but has grown into a genuine social phenomenon. Mister Five 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the game does exist, I don't see this article ever being verifiable. It would be nice if we could document this social phenomenon, but I don't currently see an encyclopedic way of doing that. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable/nonverifiable. Mukadderat 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. There are at least two major websites which detail the game, and many more which reference it. Anyone voting delete needs to do their research.
http://www.losethegame.com/
http://www.forgetthegame.co.uk/

--Liface 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of these "major websites" is virtually empty (e.g., its list of "known players" consists in its entirety of "Dan"), and the other belongs to Kernow (talk · contribs), who is using it to lobby for votes in this AfD. --phh 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment While verifiability is certainly an issue, it is notable. It is mentioned on many personal webpages such as here:http://imago.hitherby.com/archives/000862.php and as observed earlier was oddly referenced in an add. JoshuaZ 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One of those major websites has an alexa ranking of 1,892,011 while the other has no alexa ranking. --Xyzzyplugh 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It does not matter what the Alexa ranking of the sites are, it matters only that they exist. --Liface 23:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, per comments below WP:UCS the game is notable, since everyone seems agree that it exists as a known phenomenon. So the above go to verifiability, and as others observed on gets that also from googling the phrase "I just lost the game." JoshuaZ 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to keep this game by this point. No question The Game is inane, however it is now an established social grace to admit loss. When one says "I lost" half the room -no matter what the social setting- understands and confesses losing as well. To delete this game would be par with deleting hopscotch (an equally pointless but renowned game). 70.226.183.238 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Nathaniel[reply]

Keep - It's been nominated many times, and kept then. I've encounted many people, from diverse backgrounds, who play the game. It's a widespread social phenomenon which deserves to be documented. --CannedLizard 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've defended the notability of this article through both of the previous A/VfDs, and on both occasions it was conditional that a lot of the crap be trimmed out of the article. Successive rewrites and re-rewrites have alternately removed and replaced a lot of it, and it's reached a point where there is no chance of ever salvaging it into a sensible article. I fully accept that the above argument is probably a case for cleanup rather than deletion, but a recent RFC attempt got nowhere. I just can't see this ever becoming viable. Right now, the article represents almost everything that is bad about Wikipedia; POV-pushing by both sides, massive piles of cruft flooding the article, chronic unverifiability (the very concept of the article means that a Google Test is meaningless) and breaches of almost any policy you could care to name. Weak Delete (only weak because despite the aforementioned flaws, The Game is a real phenomenon) unless all sides can come up with a solution before this AfD closes; which, sadly, seems increasingly unlikely. Kinitawowi 11:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Note that additional sources have been mentioned above. Also, we can clean it up and then add a protect or semi-protect. I for one pledge to add it to my watchlist if it gets kept. JoshuaZ 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Additional sources"? I presume you're referring to those two websites. One of them is the website of User:Kernow, and guess what? It's now got a big message on the front that says "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons". 'Nuff said. Kinitawowi 18:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Sockpuppeting and votestacking attempts are not relevant as to whether the article should be deleted. That merely means that those votes should be discounted. JoshuaZ 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should such votes be discounted? I have put up this link to make visitors to my site aware of the AfD. A significant number of those voting Delete include The Game's lack of notability as a reason. Every vote for Keep, no matter where from, or what reasons they give, automatically dispute such claims of non-notability. There are almost 1000 players in the Cambridge Facebook group alone. Over 400 people have filled in their details on The Game Tree.

If voters that have come here from my site can provide good reasons as to why The Game article should be kept, then such views are just as valuable as anyone elses. As it says in the Attention box above, it is the reasons given, not the number of votes that counts. Kernow 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people consider calling "help" with an AfD an act of bad faith. This is why I placed the {{afdanons}} notice at the top of this AfD. You have to admit, "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons." Certainly sounds like an attempt to vote-stack. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an attempt to get more reasons for keeping this article. Kernow 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I voted to keep and it seems like votestacking to me. JoshuaZ 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you voted is irrelevant. As it clearly says in the Attention box above "ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff". I am merely trying to get as many opinions about The Game as possible, so that the best decision regarding this article can be made. Kernow 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to court the opinions of people to vote Keep, not to get lots of wonderful new reasons that nobody has thought of for why this article should be kept. Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you do not trust my motives for adding the link I will remove it immediately. Kernow 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it appears a joke and lacks seriousness it is clearly a notable game. It's worldwide spread is reason enough to keep it. Maybe edit to the most notable information rather than the current extended version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAlec (talk • contribs)
Ultra Mild Keep How much time is going to be spent dragging this to AFD. This article does have an external reference on it, which already makes it more referenced then 50% of the last 10 articles I hit using Random. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Game is a very interesting concept and is played by an increasing number of people all over the world. The only valid argument against this article is its verifiability. However, the unverified/unsourced tag was added less than 3 weeks ago. This article has to be kept, with a clear tag telling people that it is currently unsourced, for enough time for a source to be found. Kernow 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And how long is "enough time"? This is the third AfD run in 18 months, and these criticisms were around for the first. 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Kinitawowi

My point is that the tag has been around for a very short amount of time. Without this, readers are unaware that the article requires a source, and this will significantly increase the time it takes to find one. Kernow 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that people have already been looking for information for eighteen months, without success. Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Let me make this clear: I don't want this article to be deleted. I would like to see this article filled with accurate, authoritative, verifiable information from a better source than a single fanpage somebody made about the Game. The problem is that no such source exists. As has been discussed, the leading source on the internet for information about the Game is precisely this article. As such, it violates WP:NOR and will always continue to do so. Nobody knows who invented The Game; I don't, you don't, and from the anecdote of Mike Codling or whatever his name is, he doesn't either. There is no verifiable rule set; that means that the article is going to be filled with every minor rule variation that can be thought of. That, and that alone, is my reason for voting for deleting it; not because it's non-notable, or even that it's unverifiable, but because it's so unauthoritative that it's always going to be a crap magnet. Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, while rather stupid, a popular phenomenon and one that is increasingly well known. --El Zilcho 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reputable references, please. mikka (t) 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say keep. If the question is just whether the game exists and is played by enough people to make it significant, then a simple google search for the phrase "I just lost the game" (with quotation marks) reveals how widespread it is. In fact, such a search reveals that by far the most common occurence of that phrase on the internet is in relation to The Game as described in this article. By nature of this game and the way it has spread, it's very unlikely that a 'source' in the usual sense is going to be found. Obviously this game has no historical roots that will be dug up. Even if someone were to step up claiming they invented the game, I very much doubt this would make a difference. Possibly if a prominent journalist wrote a news article about it then perhaps this would qualify, I don't know, but really I would argue that this is one topic that just won't have a 'source'. It is fairly obvious that this article has aided in the spread of The Game. Does that mean it should be removed? Absolutely not! It's irrelevant how it has spread, the point is that it does exist as the phenomenon described in this article. People have claimed that they used this entry as a reference when explaining The Game to others. Isn't that fulfilling its purpose as an encyclopedic entry? If someone asks for an explanation of a phenomenon or entity, pointing them to an encyclopedia entry or suggesting they 'look it up in an encyclopedia' is not an uncommon thing to do. 86.139.10.162 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A game that is well-known, not something made up at school one day, undoubtedly notable. Where in the policy is there grounds for deletion? Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but put a "lacking sources" template on it. I just spent a 5 hour drive with a bunch of college students where "I just lost the game" was said every 30 minutes. The game exists and it's interesting enough to write about. That said, the article has some dubious information. Until recently it claimed that in Brazil it was called "El Juego", but that's Spanish; in Portuguese it would be "O Jogo". – Andyluciano 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the 8th of February, User:Brabblebrex added the following "A link to this article has been displayed in an advertisement for OmniGraffle in MacAddict publications. [36]" [37] . On the 9th, IP 4.246.105.71 added "The Game is also mentioned in the same add in the March 2006 Macworld, page 8" [38]. Can anyone verify this information, and if so, does this count as a published source? Kernow 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it doesn't; the advert isn't the source. The source is still the Wikipedia article. Nice try... Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Wikipedia Verifiability page does not discuss this seemingly unique situation whereby the only source refers to the article itself. The Game is refered to in a "reliable, published source" and this appears to be all Wikipedia requires as regards verification. Even if this is not the case, its appearance in two publications would definately weaken the "non-notable" argument given by a significant number of Delete voters. Kernow 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ad does not mention the game; it mentions the existence of the WP article, just as User:Brabblebrex said. Here is an image of the ad. It's not the best, but you can see that it's a magazine, and that there is no context whatsoever for the link. As far as I'm concerned, citing this as a reason for keeping the article is the same as citing other articles on WP—it shouldn't and can't be done. We're back to having no reliable published sources. (Also, even if the advertisement did mention the game, I would have trouble calling an advertisement a reliable source.) —Seqsea (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it highly prophetic that the advert features the article as a redlink. ;-) Kinitawowi 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ad does mention The Game. The fact it is within a link to Wikipedia is simply a way of telling people (that don't already play) about the rules. According to WP:V an article "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher". I assume MacWorld/MacAddict count as reputable publishers. I can't find any advice in the Wikipedia policies on what to do if the only published source refers to the article. This is a unique case and I feel your interpretation of Wikipedia policies is hasty. Kernow 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, By the definition of "The Game", it exists because people believe it does. Therefore, there should be no reason to delete something about something that exists. Eddie 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Using that logic I can create an article on anything I want, as long as I add the clause that the thing in question exists because I believe it does, and therefore the references to the 'Other Game' that appeared in the article should be reinstated. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (This user's 2nd edit.) The games existence is not being disputed. But there are other reasons, which are discussed above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What about WP:UCS? We've lost track of Wikipedia's ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's existence, then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing any information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Wikipedia's true goal. Now, I understand that verfiability via citation of authoritative sources is a perfectly legitimate guideline most of the time, but obviously this is a special case. For one, I believe that given the circumstances, [39] would be a perfectly acceptable citation. --AceMyth 04:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I diagree. I am certainly happy to say that the game exists and a google search is a good citation of that. However, almost all of the information on this page remains (and will probabily continue to remian) unverifiable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this entry. I've come across this in multiple communities, in multiple cities. Although I'm sure a print encyclopedia doesn't have room for games of such triviality, it does exist in forms a significant number of people may come across, and so there's no good argument for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.122 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 March 2006

This user's first edit.[40] --phh 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe this to be a noteable topic and a useful article. I believe improving the article is a far better solution than deleting it. (And if it makes you feel better this is far from my first contribution/edit [41].) Feelingscarfy 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - it's been nominated for deletion before, and was kept. Why will it be any different this time? There's more evidence to support its existence than before. Granted, Wikipedia may be the singular major source of information on it, but that is perhaps because of The Game's nature to be spread by word of mouth rather than through online means. I feel that IAR applies in this article's case because of common sense. There seems to be consensus among those who DO want the article to exist that the rules are accurate and correct. If the article's contents are, in fact, precise, then why should verifiability be an issue with such a minor article? I could understand verifiability being crucial with more complex topics, but this is much more trivial than the proverbial rocket science. brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV / Neutral Seeing as there seem to be a lot of new people putting their 2¢ in (including me), a quick summary:
- Existance: "The Game" exists, seems to be the general concensus, though some would rather it not.
- Accuracy: Is the content of the article correct, or is it (either wholly or in-part) hear-say and/or fabrication? Some of the content, while it may be accurate, reads like fiction or a good idea the author thought up/was told (Example: T-shirts with "The Game" on them), and are unverified by any of the references.
- Suitability: This is the main point at issue; How suitable is it as content?
  - Does it meet the criteria of What Wikipedia Is and The 5 Pillars?
  - Are the sources verifiable? (and if so, are they reliable?) This links in tightly to No Original Research, as it is fallacious to have the Wikipedia article as it's own main source of information. Some feel that while there are external sites with information, they are tenuous. However, from the nature of The Game, it may be impossible to prove the validity of the content.
  - Is the article written from a Neutral point of view? Is it written representing The Game as either a good or bad thing?
  - Just because something exists and is widely "known", this in itself may be insuffient if it is Not Notable. For this we need to address what impact has The Game had as a memes and on other games, plus evidence of that impact.

Personally, while I find "The Game" irritating and do not play it, I do not doubt it exists. However, I do have doubts that has enough source credibility and accuracy. Overall? Neutral - I'll let the more experienced folk on here guide me in this. -Crocos 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this game is simply real!! it is real dammit!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick01424 (talk • contribs)
- (This user's only edit.) Yes, we are aware of that. What about the other objections above? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable. I definitely heard about it quite some time ago. Ironwolf 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and can only be verified from hearsay and a few blogs, which means the article is creating a primary source, which is not allowed under WP:NOR. Robin Johnson 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This whole thing reminds me of one of those sci-fi situations where a person goes back in time to stop some disaster, and once he gets there, he takes some action accidentally causing it himself. He went back in time because the disaster had happened, but then he was the cause of it. If he hadn't gone back in time, it never would have happened. The disaster caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster which caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster.
We seem to be involved in a similar loop here. Of the 22,000 google hits on "I just lost the game", 13,000 of them also contain the word "wikipedia". People keep looking for sources for this topic. Of course we can't find any decent sources; we ARE the source. This topic became notable because of the wikipedia article, it is notable because of the wikipedia article, and now we must keep the article because the topic is notable. If we deleted the article, likely the topic would stop being notable, but we can't delete it because the topic is notable.
There are two major methods of deciding whether an article should stay, Notability and Reliable sources. Usually they go together, this time they don't. Half the people here are saying that we must keep this because it's notable, the other half that we have to get rid of it because we'll never get a reliable source. Looks like a stalemate. The loop continues. --Xyzzyplugh 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why Wikipedia shouldn't create primary sources, which is why I say delete it. If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then. Robin Johnson 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed for well over a year, I personally have been playing since 2002. I have been contacted by a number of people that have been playing since 1998. Kernow 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's saying it doesn't exist. It does. They're saying no reliable sources documenting it exist. They don't. Robin Johnson 10:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the lack of sources. I was refering to your comment "If anyone still remembers it in a year, maybe it'll count as notable then". Many people will still be losing The Game in a year and it is notable now. Kernow 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very nature of the game makes it hard to document. It's a special case, and is clearly a social phenomenom, and thus, should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.41.111 (talk • contribs)
Delete -- patent nonsense. John Reid 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is it nonsense? People do in fact play the game and the page explains the rules. JoshuaZ 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I, too, would like to hear your reasoning. brabblebrex 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and therefore there is no reason to delete an article that (accurately) describes a meme that is seen by many across the whole world, especially in the UK and USA. The fact that many people have not heard of it does not make it untrue/unreal/false/worthless - thousands of people seek Wikipedia for an explanation to this "game", and as an encyclopedia it is imperative that such an explanation is provided. Deletion of this article defies the entire purpose of Wikipedia, which (as I understand it) is to achieve an encyclopedia providing a detailed source of knowledge encompassing as many parts of existance as possible. The fact that this many newbies care enough to participate is testimony to how important this article is as a reference - does anyone honestly think people would bother to create an account on wikipedia just to vote in one article just because a friend told them to do so? Of course not. The fact that so many newbies have participated is, in my eyes, an indication of what Wikipedia is all about - a source of information to countless anonymous users who want nothing more than a source of reliable information about things that affect them. Do not take that away. DJR (Talk) 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - people create an account, at the urging of their friends, just to vote on one article all the time. They're called Meatpuppets. --Xyzzyplugh 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're also called newbies, and they might become good Wikipedia contributors if you don't call them disparaging names. Do you realize how many new editors get introduced to the editing side of Wikipedia through AfD? I think that every use of the M-word, unless it's a case of clear malice, is an instance of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is stated above that this page is designed to gage general opinion of Wikipedia users, regarding the article. As such, I feel that it is notable that not a single person (below the age of 21) that I know does not play "The Game". This is the case with the wide majority of my peers, and through them my extended network of aquaintances quite easily spans the majority of Nottingham City. As such, I believe that it is quite clear that the article fulfils the notoriety requirements of Wikipedia. Previous posters have said such things as "If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then" when the article clearly states that the game has existed since 1993, and I personally have been playing since 2003, as have most of my peers. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.7.19.84 (talk • contribs) .
Keep- Why delete this? It's a notable internet meme and is an actual game played throughout the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.26.198 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Certainly references in TV shows and the like, popular meme not only on the net but in "real life". Last time I explained the rules to someone, several passers-by expressed annoyance at losing it :) I guess if you really want proof of notability, try shouting "You just lost the game!" in a crowded place. ZoFreX 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought about it long and hard, but decided my original decision was wrong. The game is notable yes, and it definitely exists - but we have no sources, it's therefore clearly against policy, and as others have pointed out Wikipedia is fast becoming a primary source for this, which is a bad idea (we delete other games made up in school to stop Wikipedia being used as a platform for spreading memes, which is exactly what is happening here!). With respect to the large number of users voting keep, (and of course welcome to those new to Wikipedia!), many of you do not seem to understand the reasons for deleting - nobody, or almost nobody, is claiming that The Game does not exist, however it is against the policies of this encyclopedia to document as fact something that we cannot back up. Also, as far as I'm aware the fact it has survived before is not grounds by itself to keep the article. ZoFreX 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As above.ShaunES 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it survived twice before, however, it should definitely be cleaned up, and unsourced material should be deleted. Kind of difficult to find sources for it, but they should exist. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I've encountered this before; there are a few die-hard fans of this spamming teh Game all over teh Intarnets (and our articles, like Meme, I might add). Their actions, and the subject matter convince me this is a remarkably idiotic subject matter and the current article an attempt at advertising. --maru (talk) contribs 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By that specious logic, then the articles on leetspeak or pwned, etc. should be deleted. brabblebrex 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Except that leetspeak and the etymology of words like pwned is, for the most part, well documented elsewhere with plenty of sources. ZoFreX 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The documentation is irrelevant. I was referring to the fact that such nomenclature is often used by persons whose actions are often construed as idiocy (like spamming pages on Wikipedia). According to Marudubshinki's logic, that would override verified scrutiny. brabblebrex 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to previous statement - much of the article is not verifiable, so if kept, I'd say get rid of almost everything except the 3 core rules, until we have sources for the rest. (And I assure the above poster that while this article may be unsourced, and may have problems enough to be deleted, it is not just a few die hard people advertising it, but is incredibly widespread). ZoFreX 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's such a popular game, why shouldn't we list it? 193.13.57.88 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless proper sources can be citted, then it shouldn't be kept. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've been playing the game for about two years and never came across an article online to help explain it. it's really an amazing mind game - the article's part on its effects on the mind is correct. I don't understand why the article would be deleted if it isn't anywhere else on the internet. that doesn't seem fair. as for it not being credible, the article states itself that the origins are unknown and the theory it provides is labled as such- a theory. this article is very helful to send new players too also, just so the know how big it is and how to play, how many lives are affected by it. Keep! [Unsigned comment by 24.151.23.140. Please sign edits to talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~]
- If, in two years, you've never come across an article that explains it, that is a reason not to include the article. Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep I lost now, dammit! -- PinkDeoxys 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ignore all rules presides over No Original Research on this one by common sense. It is widespread, it is not internet-confined, as I have experienced several times myself. Nobody is going to write anything authoritative about it but there is enough acquired knowledge about it to write good undisputed prose about it, so it should stay. If you've never heard of it, tough, don't edit the article. BigBlueFish 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IAR is a pseudo-guideline; WP:SENSE is not even that. WP:NOR is a fundamental content-guiding policy; it can't be simply over-ruled in the manner you suggest. Kinitawowi 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I lose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.69.134.250 (talk • contribs)
keep Im not sure how helpful this is but most universities include a "game" group in their facebook listings, as such lots of references exist on the net but are unaccessable to people outside of the education system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuberant (talk • contribs)
- (This user's only contribution.) I really don't understand what you mean. Even if we could acsess this, how it is a reference? It might prove the game exists, as many other links above, but it still wouldn't provide a source for the content of the article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A significant number of delete votes claim The Game is non-notable or nonsense. This probably explains why a lot of people are still arguing that it is notable. Kernow 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could well be right. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikipedia is meant to be informative and useful and learning about The Game falls into both catagories. Just because something sounds daft to some people doesn't mean it should go. Trainspotting might sound daft to some but is there an article on that? Yes. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.97.35 (talk • contribs)
Comment Voters should look at the current draft of the article which is much better done and is sourced. JoshuaZ 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There still isn't sources for the rules, or the description of what The Game actually is. These sources should be reliable, not "fan sites" or blogs. Something like a respected media outlet would be ideal. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would you consider the minimum in reliable sources? 68.221.74.38 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason that there are not many websites about the game is because the upkeepers of those websites would lose whenever they keep them up to date. The best way to win the game is to pretend it doesn't exist. This article must be kept! By the way, can't we just use people as sources? --Liface 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seqsea's diligent research above (way above) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it is notable is not the issue to me. It is simply unverified -- and, much worse, unverifiable -- by the terms of WP:V and WP:RS. If it's not verifiable from reliable sources, it shouldn't be here. User:Seqsea spent considerable time trying to find reliable sources. I have a lot of respect for Seqsea when it comes to conscientious referencing, and if he says he can't find reliable sources for something, then it starts to look very shaky indeed. The websites people are citing here on AfD as sources do not qualify on WP:RS. WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources says it quite clearly: "personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website". This article has gone through two AfDs already, amid heated debate and promises to improve the article, and has had an RFC request which resulted in attention from non-involved editors. If, after all that, these are still the best attempts sources that can be found, it doesn't matter how notable the thing is (or isn't). The article can not be reliably referenced, will never be reliably referenced, and should not be on Wikipedia. Telsa (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely as soon as a reference to The Game is published somewhere it will become verifiable. As with the argument for hide and seek, no one knows where it originated, but it has since been refered to in published material. The same will eventually happen with The Game. Kernow 21:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that at that time we can create an article for it. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have run into people i don teven know who play this game, seams like it should stayZath42 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"". The game is a widespread social phenomenon-- not an innnocuous schoolyard-type fad. Of course the game is unverified-- there is no central authority or any official sanctioning body that administrates game playing around the world. However, we do know that people, independantly, take part in the game; it is a relatively well-perpetuated phenomenon which this site, in fact, would only continue to propagate in popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.142.210 (talk • contribs)
Keep THERE ARE NO ORGINAL SOURCES FOR THE GAME 'HIDE AND SEEK' SO CLEARLY ITS ENTRY SHOULD BE DELETED TOO??? How can anyone possibly expect verifiable sources for the game to ever be found? It was MADE UP by people, just like everything else, but because its a silly game, there is no article in the New York Times about it. Come ON guys think properly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Zen (talk • contribs)
- (This user's 2nd edit.) Just because Hide and Seek isn't referenced doesn't mean this article should be kept. It means someone should go reference it. It will easy to find reliable references for Hide and Seek compared to what it has been trying to find some for The Game. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hide and Seek is in the OED with a first reference of 1724—two years later, it's in Gulliver's Travels. LexisNexising returns 57 results in major newspapers for the phrase "hide and go seek". Thank you for alerting me to the sad state of Hide and Seek, though. It's on my list of things to fix up now :) Also, please be civil. —Seqsea (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a Deus ex Machina is needed to sort this one out. brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's looking like this could be one of the most critical AfDs in the history of Wikipedia; determining whether an article on a meme should be kept because lots of people know about it, or deleted because the strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy states that it's unverifiable. I truly hope that whatever admin ends up making the call on this is able to assess this article independently of their own opinions on the Game, because that's what I can see this boiling down to. Kinitawowi 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provides sources. Computerjoe's talk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But this source isn't much good per WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor pop society fad. Not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is "record what the human race has learned", not "node what you know" like Everything2. silsor 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given what a mess this AfD is, I recommend to the admin that it be given an outcome of no consensus. JoshuaZ 22:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that would be the worst decision that could be made, particularly considering that this is the third nomination for the article. The decision should be either keep or delete; a no consensus is likely to result in another AfD nomination within a couple of months. Kinitawowi 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well then this should definitely be a keep since when in doubt one is supposed to keep. I think the above in any event with WP:UCS says keep pretty strongly, but apparently there is a lot of disagreement. JoshuaZ 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure WP:V and WP:NOR overules common sense. To quote them, [These] policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But we have verification, see the article which has a link, and I'd like to see what in the current version is OR. JoshuaZ 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That source is self-published. WP:V#Self-published_sources says they are not acceptable as sources with very few exceptions. The article stands as OR without reliable sources. (See also User:Seqsea's vote above which explains in more detail.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment But WP:RS which determines sourcing reliability is a guideline, not a rule, and WP:V does say "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The use of "largely" in there indicates that it is not an ironclad rule, so WP:UCS overrides. JoshuaZ 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you continue reading the policy after that sentence, it's goes on to list the exceptions. The current reference doesn't even come close. WP:UCS isn't even a guideline, it can't overule a fundamental policy. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. The current version is better, but still has original research. Anything that is not the three rules is, at this point, original research, and even the rules have verifiability problems in the traditional sense. We do not have verification: We have one website that suffers from credibility. We cannot WP:UCS about this... the goal is not to document fun games or social memes; the goal is to produce an encyclopedia based on verifiable information. —Seqsea (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many of the reasons above. YashaBK 00:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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