Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 18

< March 17	March 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

March 18[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian bikini[edit]

Delete or merge into bikini with heavy rewrite. Currently pretty nn advertising, IMO. Definetly not worded encyclopedically. Google test gets a lot of hits, but I don't think it's anywhere near notable or different enough to warrant a seperate article. The merge suggestion was reverted by the article's sole writer without discussion. Staxringold 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I still don't know the difference between a Brazilian bikini and a regular bikini. I did notice, though, that the girl in the picture is showing some ribs, and I think she needs a sammich. Delete unless the article can be rewritten to explain what makes Brazilian bikinis unique. --E lkman - ^(talk) 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. is currently complete spam from a bikini merchant. Could be possible to clean up the article, but I'm still not sure that the difference between the subject and a normal bikini is all that great. Probably worth keeping as a redirect, and insertion of a paragraph's material into the bikini article. Kuru ^talk 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertisement. JIP | Talk 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this advertising. Possibly redirect, though unlikely search term. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, then create a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I marked this up as merge with Bikini but as the author of the article doesn't appear to want to do such a thing and there is not enough notable material about the subject to justify a separate article of its own, delete is the order of the day. (aeropagitica) 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elkman --Pal5017 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is there to merge? Henning Makholm 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Advertising. Not even very good advertising. Peter Grey 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete its image too. JoshuaZ 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Interesting design --Masssiveego 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising! V i r tualSteve 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Out damn spam out! Nigelthefish 15:43, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Playground[edit]

Website for a Cam whore with an allegedly deformed right foot. I contend that it's not encyclopedic, but debate will probably concern whether her appearance in a Playboy Newstand Special makes her notable or not. Brian G. Crawford 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I think all these porn things are UE, this is more notable then most of the others MadCow257 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Madcow, it seems like a popular site, I better sign up to ensure it is encyclopedic however! Mike _{(T C)} 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many other pornography related articles of much less merit that have been kept. Kate has been around for longer than most others serving as her own webmaster for the past few years, for the Playground and numerous other tgp type webpages. The fact that she recently appeared in a Playboy special just makes her more searched, and just allows for extra reason to keep the article. Albeit a person more familiar with her should come through and polish the article to a higher standard. Das Nerd 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant fact in the article is verified (the "model" doesn't even claim the Playboy appearance mentioned in the article, as far as I can tell), and even if she manages to squeak through the notability screen, her website doesn't. Monicasdude 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this site is popular people will want to know more about it here Yuckfoo 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bit notable. I never noticed that her foot was deformed...oops Nobunaga24 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- She doesn't show her feet much in the pictures, and the deformed foot is a rumor based on several blurry pictures. If she does have a foot with two toes on it, she generally hides it very well -- very rarely do you see her feet at all, and if you do they're usually in shoes. Haikupoet 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realize our nom was just being prudent rather than prudish when making this nom, but Ms. Kate has achieved a fair amount of visibility in her chosen profession as demonstrated by an alexa in the 3,700s [1] and crossover work in mainstream mags like Playboy. She is therefore a real up-and-comer who merits inclusion here. I would also indicate that the correct terminology is "internet model" as used in our article. Camwhore is far more derogatory, but perhaps more effective when trying to shock those of the prudish persuasion to slavishly hit the NN button on their keyboards. -- JJay 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally pretty against pornography sites getting articles, but I would personally have no quals with keeping this article at this time. Alexa says ranking of 3765 and 89 inbound links. According to the article, she's appeared in one Playboy special mag. Weak Keep, although I reserve the right to completely change this if this comes up at a later date. -- Saberwyn 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstaining at this point in time. -- Saberwyn 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ZornArmand 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand[reply]
Keep. If I say "Kate has a hoof" every single one of you is going to know exactly who I'm talking about and why I say it. And I don't think she's a camwhore per se -- "amateur model" might be more appropriate. Haikupoet 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very weak keep due to her Playboy appearance. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough in her field. WarpstarRider 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable because of her Playboy appearence. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no value except as advertising. CalJW 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, vanity. Playboy newstand special does not noteworty make and even if it does the website doesn't Dakota ~ ° 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The website isn't notable (even though I'm sure it does get a lot of traffic) and she isn't notable by being in Playboy or possibly having a 'hoof'. kotepho 18:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, sorta-appearance in a Playboy spinoff not quite notable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another porn site. Everythig there is to be known about this subject is already out there is vast and equally unverifiable detail. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeez we keep far crappier articles than this. Jcuk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bring them here, and we'll consider them on their merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for the genre. Wording of the nom is a bit too POV, in my opinion. Has survived previous AFD as well. 23skidoo 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per MadCow. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Porn/Playboy models as well as porn websites are 13 to a dozen. Merely being one is not notable, and the article claims no more than that. Henning Makholm 03:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be interesting. --Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Alexa ranking. Expand to include this bit of evidence of notability so article won't be vulnerable to "doesn't claim to be more than just another porn website" argument. Barno 20:48, 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 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Amy Lee[edit]

Not notable. No entries on any major filmography database. Other than links to pages that review her website, she hardly has any mention anywhere else. Thus Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this three sentence entry on a non-notable prostitute. Brian G. Crawford 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.ZornArmand 03:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prime candidate for PROD. Borderline speedy, too (if only she wasn't a "star"). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy, actually. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Focoe 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per nom. Monicasdude 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhoeble 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stubby, nn pornstar article. Staxringold 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, delete, though bonus points for mentioning centimeters first. ProhibitOnions 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote to keep because, sad to say, I know who she is, and because stubs are a part of wikipedia. We cant delete an article for simply being too short. -- Pal5017 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fill it in more. --Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least for a few months, to see if the lady does any more work of note. If she doesn't do anything to keep her fan base, she will soon be out of wikipedia. -- User:noi_aventurer 0:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, Delete, at least for a few months. If she actually does something notable, she can be put back. Currently, I don't see anything that distinguishes her. Non-notable, dime-a-dozen webmodel. Fan1967 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Nigelthefish 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's worth noting and being present here on wikipedia, I was searching for more information on this actress and was hopeing that I would find it here. I will promptly try to update this entry if i can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.41.214 (talk • contribs)
For what it's worth, a quick check of her website indicates that her name should be spelled Amylee rather than Amy Lee, and the one-word spelling does increase her Google hit count significantly. I'm not generally convinced that porn stars really deserve Wikipedia articles, but there's enough interest in them out there. And given that I'm a gay man, I'm not about to pretend I could assess a het-porn actor's notability on the basis of whether I've heard of her or not. Strictly a point for discussion; I don't really care whether this is kept or not and accordingly won't vote. Bearcat 20:17, 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 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

452nd Engineer Detachment[edit]

Delete - Unit is a detachment, can't find anything about it on the internet at all. No reason given for notability, unit size, mission history, etc not given. Since I can't find anything about this unit at all, I don't think it can be expanded. Detachments are usually about platoon size, not a large formation Nobunaga24 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a former soldier thinks it's not notable, who am I to argue? I'll agree with the expert opinion. Brian G. Crawford 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sir! ProhibitOnions 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote to delete any article that could be written by a member of the unit no matter how notable it is. In fact, just as a general philosophy, if it has'nt already gotten a red link somewhere on wikipedia, I doubt the article should be written at all. For instance, there is no merit to allow me to write an article on my college dorm building. It is simply not notable enough, as is this article. Pal5017 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool3 02:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:19, 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 04:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Nee[edit]

Less than thirty movies. No official website. No citations/awards in field. Nothing notable or newsworthy about this person. Thus delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is notable, the article just needs to be expanded. It'll be hard, but I can do some research...Nobunaga24 01:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep thirty movies is singificant and demonstrates notability. the fact that they are pornographic has no effect on this. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in 17 titles listed on IMDB. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. 30 movies is not as much as you might think, and the fact that it's porn IS important. Do a web search if you need more evidence MadCow257 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jude, IMDB is good enough for me! --light darkness^(talk) 05:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightdarkness --Ugur Basak 10:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Since she has an IMDB page. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even a quick look through the various references makes clear that this article is patent nonsense, combining several different performers who used a variation of a common pseudonym over 25 years into a single, non-existent person. Probably a speedy delete. Monicasdude 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Brian G. Crawford 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as page about a common pseudonym, as above. Obviously something that could use explaining. ProhibitOnions 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as for reasons established above. Also note that having an IMDB article is not a statement of notability - IMDB is a film database, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the first is not a subset of the second. Average Earthman 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real name, no date of birth, no town of birth - lacking the bare minimum of verifiable detail for a biography. Porn films are churned out by the dozen, this is just more porncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until encyclopedic content can be demonstrated. Henning Makholm 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable --Masssiveego 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 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 redirect. -- King of Hearts ^talk 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadianism[edit]

Completely unencyclopedic, and fork article, also WP:V no sources mentioned Kuulman 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahmadi. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep should be verifiable. could be redirected per george stepanek Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, else redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ahmadi, as per GeorgeStepanek. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per GeorgeStepanek. The name chosen by the community themselves is Ahmadi but the terms Qadiani and Ahmadi were used by the Census of Pakistan in 1998 found here [2], and the Constitution of Pakistan in 1974 found here [3]. Green Giant 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ahmadi, which does not contain as much info as this stub about why Ahmadis are sometimes called "Qadians". So it would be useful in the context of the Ahmadi article. Hyphen5 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the merge. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but redirect it to Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community - a redirect to Ahmadiyya would be subtly POV - apparently those who denigrate the Ahmadiyya sect/movement/whatever like to class all Ahmadi as Qadiani, when in reality that those who are termed Qadiani are only one of two groups. I have changed the Ahmadiyya article to better indicate that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are the group known as Qadiani by some (in its current state, it didn't make this quite clear in the opening), and that what they practice is sometimes called Qadianism. Just building on George's merge, I think. I may be wrong about all of this, but it's what I could glean from the existing articles. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Subject is notable in that context, even if this stub is weak, ProhibitOnions 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other cultures is an important part of Wikipedia --Masssiveego 08:00, 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. Flower party■ 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vuela[edit]

Delete - article created by owner of label. A google search reveals few relevant results. Wickethewok 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advert, non-notable. Bucketsofg 03:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nn advert. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in conjunction with Decibel (band). Feezo (Talk) 03:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable label --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Focoe 08:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable, ad, etc. Ifnord 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Notable --Masssiveego 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ummm, Massiveego, rationale? Wickethewok 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect someplace Are any of their bands listed here? If more than one, keep and crosslink. If one, reidrect there. If none, redirect to List of electronic music record labels, which should contain a single link to their official site. JeffBurdges 16:20, 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. Flower party■ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol controversy[edit]

Superfluous. ~~Delete~~ or Merge with American Idol --Zpb52 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my initial suggestion. The information is relevant, but does it deserve its own article? I don't think so. --Zpb52 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a perfectly legitimate fork of American Idol. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 01:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on! it doesnt get any more relevant than this!ZornArmand 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand[reply]

Keep,notable controversy, large enough to deserve its own article--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable fork of a long AI article. However as it stands the article is POV and OR, cites few sources, and largely ignores notable controversies from prior years. Needs expansion, cleanup and NPOV. Thatcher131 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Idol per nom. Nobody is going to search for "American Idol controvery". This information properly belongs in the main article. Hyphen5 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyphen5. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup, citation of sources and remove POV text. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fork of what would otherwise be a mammoth AI article. However, article needs lots of work, especially sourcing. ProhibitOnions 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no merge. Definitely needs its own article just like Microsoft controversy or anything else halfway important. -- JJay 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyphen5 and trim. These are just footnotes in the grand scheme of American Idol things MLA 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted American Idol is hardly an important issue on a larger scale, but I'm all for anything that exposes and discusses how hateful "reality" television is, as allegedly American Idol is "reality" television. -- Andrew Parodi 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With the show bound to last a decade, the controversy is yet to come. Hang onto it!--DodgerOfZion 17:07, 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. JIP | Talk 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Rojas Paúl[edit]

Empty article, should be a part of listKuulman 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. what's your suggestion here? that a clearly notable figure like this be randomly deleted? in this situation a stub is perfectly acceptable since there's absolutely no question of notability or verifiability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. He was a president, for Wikipedia's sake. The article just needs expansion. The sources are crappy but it took me five minutes to add some information. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very speedy keep before any Venezualans see this... GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Clearly meets WP:BIO as the President of a Sovereign State. Possible speedy keep candidate. Capitalistroadster 08:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep afterall it's a president --Ugur Basak 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously inappropriate nomination. Monicasdude 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, presidents of any country are notable by nature without question. This is a bad faith nomination. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:49, 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 merge with American Idol. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol trivia[edit]

Superfluous. No need for a separate article for this information. Merge with American Idol. --Zpb52 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. ---Dana 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia is not part of an encyclopedia MadCow257 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Precedent for trivia has already been established. [4]. Joelito 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joelito. Hyphen5 07:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the precedent linked to by Joelito the article was deleted! In this case: Merge or delete. Punkmorten 10:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joelito. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivias should be part of the main article as they are unencyclopaedic in its own right. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Much of this isn't trivia per se, but relevant descriptions of the show and its procedures. Looks like a misguided fork from the main article. Put it back. ProhibitOnions 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Idol article. Merging all that would bloat the American Idol article with unencyclopedic information. MLA 10:38, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Navarte[edit]

Empty article, should only be part of a list. --Kuulman 01:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a stub now, but there's plenty more that could be written about this guy. President of Venezuela? He's certainly notable enough for wikipedia. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per George Stepanek. Bucketsofg 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep no questions of notability or verifiability. clear keep. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, since there's a Presidents of Venezuela category. Feezo (Talk) 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep along with all other presidents. Yikes. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets WP:BIO as President of Venezuela. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep afterall it's a president Ugur Basak 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Punkmorten 10:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously inappropriate nomination. Monicasdude 14:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith AFD nomination. A president of a country is notable without question. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:46, 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. Flower party■ 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmarmy[edit]

Contested prod. Looks like an ad for amateur fiction masquerading as a dictionary definition. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, with or without the tripod link. Delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joe 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wikt:Smarmy. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough term to merit a redirect. Feezo (Talk) 03:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surely smarmy? ProhibitOnions 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Off hand used term. --Masssiveego 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:21, 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. Flower party■ 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic essentialism[edit]

~~Delete~~. The article is practically intelligible, and doesn't explain what is Strategic Essentialism. Also, it seems to be copied entirely. Lidless Eye 02:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep as a stub, or merge with a relevant article.--Lidless Eye 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. If this is really (as the article argues in first sentence) a key idea in post colonial theory, it is probably notable enough. Yes, it is incomprehensible now, but hopefully someone who knows something about this can clean it up and make it more intelligible. (It is, however, post-colonialism, so it may never be an easy read.) Bucketsofg 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete this seems to be a blatant copyvio from the linked website. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) keep following rewrite. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Keep the new version. Feezo (Talk) 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "strategic essentialism" seems to be in fairly wide use among certain academics (~800 Google Scholar hits; cf. ~900 for "eliminative materialism"). However, I have absolutely no idea what it's supposed to mean, and I don't think any of the current article is salvageable. Therefore, I say ~~delete~~ for now unless someone can quickly turn this into a coherent stub. dbtfz^talk 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep, since it is now a coherent stub. (Nice work, David!) dbtfz ^talk 18:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense - I'm serious, it's just not understandable. Sandstein 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it makes sense. Keep. Sandstein 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 15000 google hits and 800 google scholar hits make it notable & I think I can make an acceptable stub out of it. David Sneek 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tried to give a short definition. Please have a look. But I don't know what kind of stub it should be. David Sneek 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Sneek. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on recent changes. A vast improvement over the original. Kuru ^talk 14:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the improvement is so much better. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Postcolonial theory. Jkelly 18:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is maybe not such a good idea, because it seems the concept also comes up sometimes in queer theory and feminist theory. David Sneek 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved, though still a merge candidate. ProhibitOnions 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sociological theory --Masssiveego 08:04, 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. Flower party■ 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urville (fictional city)[edit]

This is an article about a city someone dreamed up; after it was first nominated for CSD but no criteria applied, I proposed deletion. This was challenged by User:Skysmith. Original research, no notability, WP:NOT for original inventions or personal essays. Harr o5 02:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (what a strange, strange, strange article). Joe 02:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not notable or encyclopedic. It's an imaginary French city created by an autistic man in France, Gilles Trehin, whose article I put up for speedy deletion. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow anyone to put their own imaginary worlds or imaginary friends on Wikipedia. It's bad enough as things stand with all the fandom. For goodness' sake, think of the servers! Think of the poor servers! I guess I should have brought it here instead of trying to get it speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Brian G. Crawford 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that patent nonsense in this case would have been: "We is live in Urville, magical land from FraNCe..." and so on. Basically, absolute jibberish. On another note, the creator of Urville, Gilles Trehin, had an article deleted which is now on deletion review. Harr o5 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article is an extremely strange case. it certainly treats the subject in a way acceptable to wikipedia and seems encyclopedic. nonetheless, i don't think an encyclopedia could at all benefit from a fictional city that someone thought up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weird, weird, weird. Unencyclopedically so. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. autisticruft. youngamerican (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft as mentioned by many others; also so weird as to give me chills. --Deville (Talk) 05:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that Harro5 and everybody else suspects that I am Trehin (which I am not, by the way). Therefore it appears that the case has been already decided and everything I might say would be ignored. You better remove Trehin from savant pages and elsewhere, then. - Skysmith 12:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with its creator. Nothing notable here. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put down the bong and step away from the online encyclopedia. --Chris Buckey 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had imaginary worlds in my head once...when I was about six years old! And besides, if there's not even an article for the goof who made this city up, why should there be an article for something that came out of his head? It would be like having an article on For Whom the Bell Tolls but nothing for Ernest Hemingway. Illogical. Pal5017 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In all fairness there was an article about the goof who made up this city, but it was speedily (and rightfully) deleted by Harro5 under WP:CSD#A7. Just delete the city already, too. Henning Makholm 03:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh gotcha. I was unaware about that. So lets finish the job. --Pal5017 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sociological model --Masssiveego 08:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SMerge to Gilles Trehin. He has a book (ISBN 1843104199). Channel 4 has a short documentary on him available here. He in mentioned in this article form Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. I'm not exactly disagreeing with the SD of the article though, as it did not profess any notability at all. kotepho 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Book has been published about it... but its notability may be lacking. Roodog2k 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:21, 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. Flower party■ 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt shotko[edit]

del nonnotable politician. Only 65 unique google hits mikka (t) 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable candidate with no real evidence of any notability. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks like vanity. also probably nn. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. ProhibitOnions 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Platform is national --Masssiveego 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanity?. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:22, 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 do anything except not keep it in its current form, so I'm being bold and redirecting it to Affix. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

This article is about word endings. It is written very amateurishly, it contains inaccurate information, a lot of irrelevant information too, and most importantly, it doesn't have any content that isn't present already, and better explained, in other articles (suffix, inflection, declension, clitic, etc.). Besides that, "ending" is a very common, general word, unsuitable for an article title, and it's not a linguistics term but at most a shortcut or an elementary college grammar term. I thought about turning it into a disambiguation, but there's nothing to disambiguate to. Given all that, I say delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting, it may be poorly written, so give it time. It was made less then a week ago, so quality isn't a big issue MadCow257 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing my vote per Brian Crawford MadCow257 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Word ending and keep. Looks like a perfectly valid article to me. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disamb to suffix, inflection, declension, clitic, etc. Ending is not an acceptable term for an encyclopidic article about grammar. Eivind ^t ^@^c 10:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Poor writing can be fixed, but this is completely wrong. Renaming and disambiguating as above might work, though. I'll propose something in the talk page. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you posted this while I was writing my questions below. I guess that's an answer to #s 1&2, basically, right? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/questions - These questions are for Pablo or any others who have expertise/knowledge in linguistics (I have none): 1.) According to Morpheme and Affix, the bound inflectional "-s" clitic for the english plural is a morpheme, and thus carries semantic meaning - does that mean that this article is wrong to assert that the "-s" carries no semantic meaning, or is it debatable, or what? 2.) According to Inflection, things like "-ed" to indicate past tense are inflectional morphemes (and thus, according to Morpheme, carry semantic meaning) - is the article wrong to assert that inflectional changes to the end of a word carry no additional semantic meaning, or what? 3.) To what extent is the idea of an inflectional morpheme added to the end of the word (as opposed to a derivational morpheme, which appears to be classed as an affix [?]) covered by the term "desinence"? I mean, is "desinence" synonymous with "ending" as used in this article? 4.) Should "desinence" perhaps have its own article, to which "ending" or "word ending" should redirect? 5.) Should a page be created at "ending or "word ending" that simply offers wikilinks to both "desinence" and "suffix", or something like that? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - 3.) "Desinence", "declension"/"decline" and "conjugation" are basically obsolete terms, but they at least have a more-or-less specific meaning. An affix is (put simply) something you tack onto/into a word, be it a prefix, a suffix, an infix, or a circumfix. Inflectional and derivational morphemes can be affixes of any of those kinds, or not affixes (for example, vowel changes, as in sing - sang - sung, are inflection). If "desinence" has an article, it should redirect to "suffix". "Word ending" should maybe exist because the expression is so common, but it should also redirect to "suffix", or be a disambiguation. "Ending" should not exist; it's too common and misleads editors (too many things have "endings" of some sort). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete per Flores. Thanks for the answers. The "word ending" disambig page could be pretty useful - could include wikilinks to the various linguistic concepts touched on by the subject of word endings, and would be easy to create. "Ending" is indeed pretty useless even as a disambig, unless there are a bunch of pages on various types of ending (in drama, literature, music, etc.) that I'm just unaware of. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have two degrees in classics, and I can tell you that this is not just useless, but wrong. Brian G. Crawford 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Word ending and take out that last paragraph, which is factually incorrect. ProhibitOnions 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete the problem with this page is that it is original research. The idea of an "ending" in linguistics being any kind of declension or conjugation is perfectly valid, but is not a widely accepted terminology. the more accepted terminologies (i.e. declensions, conjugations) already have pages explaining their significance. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research (i.e. not matching standard terminology in linguistics). Henning Makholm 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: I can't decide between deleting content and Redirect to Inflection, or Rename Grammatical ending. It's not scientific and certainly not proper linguistics by any stretch, but it is about grammatical inflection in some languages and it's a notable (albeit simplistic) concept in second language acquisition, and a lot of students learning second language would probably use this terminology. Peter Grey
Redirect to inflection, and merge any useful information there. Inflection by varying endings is a significant feature of Indo-European languages, so that in popular speech, people speak of "word endings" to mean inflections. Suffixing rather than prefixing or vowel gradation or ablaut seems to be somewhat more common among most languages. Smerdis of Tlön 06:21, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Barbe[edit]

A contested speedy CSD A7 candidate, this article about an illustrator doesn't seem to make him particularly notable. Other than "creating" Carmen Sandiego (no hint of verification) this guy hasn't done much that is special. Harr o5 03:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs))`
Comment I don't know how notable he is or not, but you could at least google him. Google gets >500 hits on his name in quotes and the first hit is his own page with a CV and list of works. apparently he was the lead artist on Heavy Gear and a bunch of video games. Not sure if that makes him notable, but at least there's some verification. The carmen sandiego thing seems to be one of his (recent) video games. Night Gyr 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems like a notable behind-the-scenes figure in the industry. Not a celebrity, but a guy whose work has been seen by many people. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable commercial artist/animator/designer whose published work would undeniably meet notability requirements if it were prose. Monicasdude 14:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This guy is surely no Elvis, but his profile fits minimal notability requirement, on that basis alone, I dont see why he should be dismissed. The RPG world is an important subculture with a lot of following. You cant get more mainstream than videogames and TV in which he also worked. I agree with Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. that he remains a behind-the-scenes figure but there can be some interest in knowing things like who designed the cat Sagwa or that-or-that second stringer popculture character. Night Gyr said his name had 500 hits on Google (I tried too and got 511). Heavy Gear alone has 652 000 hits, that gives still a lot of people potentially interested in some of this article's infos. As seen on Dream Pod 9's site (Heavy Gear's publisher), although the state of the RPG industry, they are still releasing new miniatures based the Heavy Gear mechas, so I guess there is still an active fandom. As for the verifiabilty of his working on Carmen Sandiego, in his portfolio (http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/), we can see a version of the Carmen Sandiego and the secret of the Stolen Drums cover without any company logos, titles and such of the cover. I dont know how deep we must go into verifiabilty, but, in all good faith, it seems genuine: http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/pfolio/comix/pages/01cover.htm Also the list of pulbications on which he worked on is quite long: http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/pfolio/pube.htm These have to be seen by a good number of peoples.
Some explanations: I am the author of the Ghislain Barbe and relatively new to Wikipedia. Therefore, I aknowledge not being the best person to judge of its pertinence. It seems to be causing quite a debate and I do apologize for this, as this was clearly not my intent. Before writing this article, as I noted in the Discussion section of the article, I checked some guidelines and the artist seemed to meet the requirements for living people as defined in Wikipedia, : Notability (for people) in the "People still alive" section, states: 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. I take it that artists are authors, as otherwise, no comicbook artist, and basically not commercial artist whatsoever would find its place in the Wikipedia. The same should apply to toy designers, animators and other similar behind-the-scene people. As Barbe has illustrated around a hundred published books and collaborated to several mainstream electronic media contents, either television or videogames, and that there is a reasonnable fandom for Heavy Gear and other franchises he worked on I do think the article is justified. Of course,take this entry here only as a justification of me writing this article. It would be, well, biased, to want to vote on the matter. Cosmicdiadrone 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable games industry figure. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Hardly famous, but someone whose body of work meets notability requirements. ProhibitOnions 20:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough --Masssiveego 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable. Nigelthefish 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghislain Barbe indeed has a great body of work and is a known name in the RPG illustration field. This warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. The article should stay.Vulture99 17:17, 20 March 2006 (ETC)
Keep I say we keep him. He actually is famous, but only in his industry. Jovian Chronicles is a very popular game, and as for the 5000 rule, theres at least a hundred thousand Jovian Chronicles players in the world. Diablo-D3 20:38, 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 was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Jung-En Woo[edit]

i am re-nominating this page for deletion and have received permission to do so from wiki admin. it was nominated for deletion once before and i have read the debate on keep or delete. i found the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing. thus, i submit it for deletion.

dr. meredith jung-en woo is a very good scholar and has authored some very good works, but nothing about her record makes her exceptional in the field of korean studies. her research, while important in its own way, is not commonly thought of as being central to the field. her books are a very fine accomplishment, but among scholars, it is not exceptional. i know of other scholars whose records would warrent a page before her, the late james palais being among them.

specifically, dr. meredith jung-en woo is not, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker. as an example, the koreanist bruce cumings (to whom she is married) has over 20 books. his contributions to the field of korean studies reshaped its issues and assumptions, particularly those surrounding the korean civil war. today, NO SCHOLAR wishing to research the korean civil war would be taken seriously unless they first addressed the arguments raised by bruce cumings. THAT is noteworthy among academics.

next, her accomplishments such as advising the US government and appearing in the new york times are neither exceptionally noteworthy or overly numerous.

i argue that for an academician to appear in wikipedia that person needs to be truely exceptional and to achievements that place him or her far above their peers and colleagues. wikipedia needs to have high standards in this area.

in short, this seems more of a "vanity" page than a page dedicated to an exceptional scholar whose ideas have reworked or reshaped scholarship in their field. as such, i ask that you reopen the debate to delete the page. Hongkyongnae 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. This author has several reputably published books and is clearly regarded by several mainstream media outlets as a person to call on for views in her field. Regardless of her relative position within her field, her accomplishments considered alone are notable enough for Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the authorship of this article is motivated by vanity. By the way, James Palais does have his own article. Rohirok 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Firstly, the most important question one must ask per WP:PROF is this: Is this article on her verifiable? Yes, it is. Secondly, in 1996 she was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Presidential Commission on U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Isn't that a noteworthy job-scope? After looking through the proposed guideline of WP:PROF, I agree that the subject in question has not quite fulfilled the seven criterias. However, her dissertation was awarded the Columbia University's highest distinction. Thus she meets point number 8. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The fact that Hongkyongnae has written such a huge and involved deletion-reason summary that is very long on criticism of the article's subject but very light on actual Wikipedia policy citations, I have to wonder if this is not a bad-faith nomination. wikipediatrix 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable professor. Bradcis 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I get the impression one could easily find this level of notability in any university professor's profile, but there are a few things that stand out. However, I notice that much of the bio is a copy of her University of Michigan faculty profile. That seems like a problem, although I'm not knowledgeable enough in copyright law to know for sure. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding First Nomination The content from the first nomination has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Jung-En Woo (first nomination). -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Siva1979 --- Hong Qi Gong 06:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siva 1979. I don't care if this was nominated in bad faith or not, the subject is well within the bounds of our notability guidelines and no real reason for deletion has been presented. RFerreira 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—In this case the nominator for deletion sets a higher standard for Notability (people), than Wikipedia as a whole does (one need only participate in AfD discussions for a few weeks to recognize that). This is not a nomination for a Nobel Prize, where the standard is best in class. This is a Wikipedia article where a recognized test of notability is whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Although Dr. Meredith Jung-en Woo may not be, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker, she has accumulated a sufficient body of work and a sufficient recognition to warrant inclusion. If Wikipedia required the same standards of notability as the Encyclopædia Britannica, then we’d be the Encyclopædia Britannica; we’re a much wider body of knowledge and data; some of us think that is valuable. Williamborg (Bill) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment—I appreciated Tariqabjotu linking the original debate. I note that although the nominator found "the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing", they were actually about as unanimous and strong as it gets for these AfD debates. I'd encourage the nominator not to proceed with this nomination again (and administrators to avoid wasting our Wikiresources by keeping this debate alive). If there are more worthy candidates for mention, so be it; please write articles about them! Williamborg (Bill) 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:PROF, potential bad faith nomination. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems good faith to me, checked with an admin and everything WP:AGF. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original creator of this page. I did so to complete a dead link at her husband's, Bruce Cumings, Wikipedia page. I do not accept the argument put forward by Hongkyongnae that the page must be deleted because the subject has not made an important contribution in the area of Korean politics. Meredith Jung-En Woo's work extends beyond that narrow definition. Hongkyongnae also oddly conflates the work of a historian (Bruce Cumings) with that of a political scientist. Yes, the original page, now somewhat edited, did borrow heavily on the U Michigan political science page mentioned above. Fair-use and non-commercial use priciples seem to apply sufficiently well here and the authors there do not object to the use here. She is a prominent member of a prominent department whose visibility continues to grow. For all these reasons, this page should remain. Yosemitemac 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Filsinger[edit]

He created Legends of Wrestling Card Game, but is he notable enough? He only gets 592 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he created two notable card games and wrote a few notable books --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His games appear to be highly notable, which makes up for a lack of google hits. -- Vary | Talk 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly an interesting fellow with notable achievements. Gratned, being interesting is not sufficient for inclusion, but bigoraphical info on the creator of something notable is of interest to any reader who is familiar with the creation...and to simply merge it into the article about the notable creation wouldn't really work in this case. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes notable behind-the-scenes creative talent lacks public recognition, despite clear notability; too many Wikipedia articles on animated projects, for example, go into ridiculous details on the fictional miniuniverses and ignore the animators altogether. Game designers should be recognized for similar notability. Monicasdude 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above. ProhibitOnions 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:08, 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 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rudy[edit]

Non-notable character from a comic strip that the creator of the article admits is virtually unknown. A google search on "Dave Rudy" with Afterparty as search terms gets just 4 unique hits. Francs 2000 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and unlikely to become notable at this point. Daniel Case 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From "a virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" (The Afterparty). GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable comic strip --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Brim 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn comic character. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted non-notable comic character. JIP | Talk 18:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all. ProhibitOnions 00:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masssiveego 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i am one of the only people who have probably ever read the comic strip. I enjoyed it's short lived run, unfortunately there aren't any websites on this comic strip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.104.108 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2006
- You being "one of the only people who have probably ever read the comic strip" actually gives us more reason to delete it. Wikipedia is for notable subjects, not for everything that ever existed no matter how small. -- Francs 2000 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can tell you for a fact that Dave Rudy is not a comic character, but a real person, as I know him myself. This is a gag article about him, made by someone from my school. --CrazyLegsKC 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I definately think it should be deleted. gregbee

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golochino[edit]

possibly a real place, but (excluding Wiki mirrors) Google has never heard of it. Hard to work out much about it from the article's broken English, either. Should be kept iff it can be shown to be a real place and considerably tidied. If not, bye-bye. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC) see below.[reply]

Keep. Suburb of a small city in Russia. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... keep as tidied up, but... I note that it's now Golovchino. In which case a move is in order (it also explains the lack of google hits!). Grutness...wha? 04:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So moved. Do you want to withdraw this AFD? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:37, 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 redirect to Metis as plausible misspelling. DS 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mettis[edit]

Would be difficult to find something less notable - though looking at the latest influx of stubs, I may well be proved wrong with that. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because nn club. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete could find dozens of groups like that within miles of my house, so nn MadCow257 05:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable youth club --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ugur Basak 10:48, 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. JIP | Talk 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mordanna[edit]

Lots of google hits, so may be notable enough, but I'd like the opinion of those who know the online community more than I do. Del or keep? Grutness...wha? 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the hits come from other individuals with the same name e.g. http://www.mordanna.com . I'd almost be tempted to say speedy because nn-bio. Online personas tend to be over-represented in Google anyway. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the main reason why I wasn't sure about the notability. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google hits are mostly message boards. Feezo (Talk) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Yet another article on someones RPG character. -- Vary | Talk 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, under WP:SNOW Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, your MMORPG characters are not notable. Really. Kuru ^talk 15:01, 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 04:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motola[edit]

Borderline notability here - an injured elephant with 320 google hits (Motola + Elephant). Personally I'd say below borderline, but it's close. Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it was the first elephant to get a prosthetic or something along those lines MadCow257 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting story that has appeared in a major reputable publication. It's not just wikinews fodder, either. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as participant in widely covered news event. Monicasdude 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap. Accidents, injuries, house fires and car wrecks are better covered by newspapers, not an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 15:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unique situation, unlike a car wreck. That's what makes it notable - that and the fact that it's been covered by established and major news organizations Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest that Mr. Crawford find another way to express his ideas. Motola's story has been told by most major English-language newspapers since 1999. The Newsbank database gives 340 article hits for Motola. Her crippling ties in with important issues such as landmine accidents, the Burmese insurgency and advances in prosthetic devices. Those are all topics that can and should be addressed here and do not deserve condescending dismissal from you as "crap". -- JJay 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable elephant. Dlyons493 Talk 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta admit that as elephants go, this one's pretty notable. Bet you $5 you can't name 5 more famous elephants off the top of your head. This is one of the world's most notable elephants. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Dlyons493 Talk 09:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you win, but, let's face it, most of those are just pets owned by famous people. This is one of the rare elephants to actually be famous in its own right Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Arnzy (Talk) 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude Jcuk 23:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.. -- JJay 01:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 04:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion --Masssiveego 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toughie... delete or expand. haz (user talk)^e 15:10, 19 March 2006
keep as per Bobby Smith Roodog2k 15:46, 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. Harr o5 07:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diohny[edit]

Non-notable person - this content belongs on a userpage, not an article Fabricationary 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Feezo (Talk) 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Here's the thing, he may not be a notable person now, but with the help of wikipedia he will be soon.Diohny 04:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, one cannot user WP to promote a person to notability status. Please wait until this person becomes notable outside of WP if you wish to repost this article. --TML1988 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity and nonsense. Daniel Case 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With your help we can keep crap like this out of wikipedia. Mike _{(T C)} 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Academy[edit]

delete - slander Mela23 04:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not a notable school.
Article is currently blank, but previous versions of the article reveal a pattern of POV statements, ridiculous claims, and general nonsense. I don't think this is salvageable. Delete. --E lkman - ^(talk) 05:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and write a good, serious article to deter future mischief. It's a real school that is notable and merits an article under our school policy. At least leave open for recreation. Daniel Case 05:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel Case --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable real school.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and put it on watchlist. It's a real school, and a proneness to vandalism shouldn't bar it from being documented on wikipedia. I'll keep it on my watchlist and revert all crap edits. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. It's a blank page! Brian G. Crawford 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer blank. If it is deleted, it is sure to be recreated. Bhoeble 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps expanding it from a sub-stub would be a good move if anyone believes it's notable. Average Earthman 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all verifiable schools as per Wiki:Schools Jcuk 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I elaborated a bit on the stub. If getting vandalized repeatedly was a reason for deletion, we'd have a very small encyclopedia. I think it is easily salvagable, the school's information is easily verifyable if a couple serious editors took the time to do it. Though I do question its notability, but standard operating procedure seems to be to add just about every school whether it is really all that notable or not. -Dawson 23:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this school is important to document Yuckfoo 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School obviously notable; article, though brief, has been fixed. ProhibitOnions 00:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article looks fine in its current state. WP:SCH is pretty light on notability standards. Kuru ^talk 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable school. Roodog2k 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 02:12, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of FieldTurf installations[edit]

This seems more like an ad than an article JeffW 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune, the field material used in major sports stadiums is significant, since it's a big deal to athletes and those who follow pro sports closely. The usage of this material on the high school level, not so much. That stuff should be pruned and only the pros and college stadiums kept. Night Gyr 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft or merge it into the FieldTurf article --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page was created because the installation section of the Field Turf page was getting long and those that contributed to it comprimised on a sub page for just installations as the way to go. Everyone prefered this solution so returning all this content to the main page would be counter productive. Basiclly this discusion is re-inventing the wheel.Coz
Keep but restrict to professional stadiums (and NCAA division 1 in the U.S.) Bhoeble 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - makes sense in the context of the main article discussion, and probably useful as it affects play in certain sports, but follow Bhoeble's advice. ProhibitOnions 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly used for some references --Masssiveego 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the first comment says that it's not a big deal regarding the high school level. However, as an avid follower of high school football, it IS a big deal to me and other followers. In fact, I think it should be expanded to include more high school installations. Sam 15:18, 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 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Losers of America[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Previous vote IMHO was to delete. Delete Ardenn 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete nn. --Deville (Talk) 05:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable webpage, has an Alexa ranking of 78,069 --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Staxringold 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Ranks top of an Alexa category. Might have Alexa ranking of 78,069 - how many other articles on Wikipedia have a website about them? Probably over 500,000, most with clearly lower Alexa rankings. This is well above some articles that are kept on Wikipedia. Andymc 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNAA, et al. have pages. --Tokachu 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (Disclosure: I'm the Rob T Firefly mentioned in the article, and make no claim to neutrality in this matter.) - This article survived a deletion attempt exactly four weeks ago. If all five "delete" votes from last month somehow outrank the well-over five distinct keep votes by verifiable users, why was it not deleted as part of the normal deletion process instead of having a new AFD nomination? The administrator, Sjakkalle, concluded that AFD nomination by keeping it. I really doubt it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to completely ignore and discount the administrator's decision from no more than four weeks ago simply because you disagree with it. Rob T Firefly 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't we go through this about a month ago? As far as I know, it survived. --Murd0c516 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - same reasons as before. --Myles Long 18:19, 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 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBC SCI Team[edit]

Unencyclopedic, vanity. Delete Ardenn 04:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Deville (Talk) 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable student peer group and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Staxringold 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. maclean25 00:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting concept --Masssiveego 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:22, 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 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwave[edit]

advertisement Wh e re ^(talk) 04:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, they didn't even try to make it look not like an ad. --Deville (Talk) 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a billboard. --E lkman - ^(talk) 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable spam per nom. Kuru ^talk 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very nn. Staxringold 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It contains the word "solutions". ProhibitOnions 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spam spam Nigelthefish 19:17, 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 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nubient[edit]

Little used neologism. Not Wikipedia material. 320 wikihits for nubient, quite a number of them relating to factors in water-treatment systems. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Feezo (Talk) 07:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird, per nom. Staxringold 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Semi used term --Masssiveego 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 383 hits on Google for the term "Nubient." A search for 'nubient genre' results in 25 hits, 'nubient music' results in 218 hits, and the only article that links to Nubient is Mixmaster Morris with the obvious exception of the related AfD pages. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 12:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 15:43, 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 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day[edit]

Misshapen article about a song which won't be available on someone's upcoming album and speculation about when it might be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Daniel Case 04:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Deville (Talk) 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Brim 06:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Staxringold 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball issue. ProhibitOnions 01:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greedy 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 17:39, 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 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cafe[edit]

One of those I mentioned in an earlier nomination that was vying for the title of least notable subject for a Wikipedia article. A food court at a university is hardly encyclopedic. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they used to serve the Spanjo there. Never mind. Delete. --E lkman - ^(talk) 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Spanjo of University of Michigan (UofM) fame is native to Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Owen Cafe is part of Michigan State University (MSU) located in Lansing. For your info :) Isopropyl 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack page. Daniel Case 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, attack page, everything. Staxringold 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Daniel --Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it - no actual content besides attack. ProhibitOnions 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite article --Masssiveego 08:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per everyone else. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a laugh but delete Nigelthefish 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable attack page. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 02:11, 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 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page 23[edit]

Delete. nn, unencyclopaedic, and generated a "huh?" from me when I first read it. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, omgwtfcruft --Deville (Talk) 05:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable advertising campaign --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Esquizombi 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total cruft. --light darkness^(talk) 05:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. Just another ad scanned from a magazine. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure why this would be interesting... Just pick up a Maxim. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 07:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hehe, pretty strange article. Staxringold 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant Google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. The article lacks a clear indication of why the subject was notable. --Metropolitan90 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One page in one magazine is clearly not notable enough. JIP | Talk 18:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My goodness, this is useless information. ProhibitOnions 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it could establish infamous that would be one thing, but the article doesn't even describe the advert, just where it appeared! Peter Grey 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable publication goof --Masssiveego 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article doesn't say it was a publication goof, and I don't have reason to believe that it was. Could you elaborate? --Metropolitan90 08:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete fnord, would be nice to see the advertisement to make a better judgement, fnord see what fnord they were selling. Or some other source. Otherwise fnord, notability not established Roodog2k 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment in other words, what were they REALLY advertising.... Condom ad in PC POWER PLAY magazine? hmmm.... Roodog2k 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - but seriously this should be deleted. It smacks either of non notablity or a hoax. Roodog2k 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, cruft. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete omg, did you see page 22...er cruft Nigelthefish 16:24, 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. I'll leave it to you guys to do the rename. :) Mailer Diablo 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Hakikat Rai[edit]

Hi - out of context bio-stub which is unsourced, POV and lacks many specific details. Rama's Arrow

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and lacks explanation of notability, only 75 Google hits --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Copy-and-paste job from a Geocities page. Green Giant 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Yes, the stub is useless, but I gather Veer Hakikat Rai was an important Sikh martyr. Needs to be rewritten, though.
Keep could use an expansion --Masssiveego 08:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was also known as Bhai Hakikat Rai, Kaka Hakikat Rai and Shaheed Hakikat Rai. The article should be moved to Hakikat Rai - scope for expansion available as can be seen from [6], [7], [8] and most importantly [9]. I should get to its expansion in a day or two. --Gurubrahma 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gurubrahma's links. Move to Hakikat Rai. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to Hakikat Rai. Veer is just a prefix which means brave. utcursch | talk 03:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DHPOS[edit]

Article seems like an advertisement through and through, does not state notability of software and probably would fail WP:SOFTWARE. Daniel Case 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable software --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not non-notable software, it is used by a lot of businesses every day. I will rewrite to sound less like advertisement 60.229.101.26 07:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst it may not be "notable" by the standards here, DHPOS has become a very important part of many businesses and has an active volunteer community, used by small businesses in approximately 50 countries. The software is not offered for profitable gain and as such - I don't see how the article could be classifed as an "advertisment". I would encourage those who recommend deletion to actually visit the website, and visit the forum to get an actual feel for the software and it's community. Andrew 10:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep not 100% convinced it needs rewriting - just expanding. I mean, this isn't an informercial-style testimonial, it's a statement from the guy who made it about why he made it, which is notable, especially since it's apparently a free product and no one's trying to hawk it. This isn't really Ron Popeil territory. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I expect that a Wikipedia article will include information about what the software does, for one thing. There is nothing to that effect in this article yet, and despite the promise above to make it sound less like an advertisement, which would take about five minutes, it still has the two big pull-quote testimonials, a screenshot infobox and a link plus an exhortation to go to the site and learn more. That walks and quacks like the proverbial duck to me.
  - I have just edited the page to include some features. --bdude 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling returns 2,120 hits ... enough to pass the Google test. I am willing to concede it's notable and withdraw the nomination if the article is properly cleaned up and rewritten to our standards (I would do it myself, but I am not familiar with the software). Daniel Case 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start on that, but I can't finish the job Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did what I could Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: kill the exhortation, cut the testimonials down to a briefer explanation of why the creator did the creating, add a bit about what the software is, do some other bits like removing "completely" from "completely free", fix the link to Point of Sale to Point of sale so as to better integrate this thing into wikipedia, and so on. I'll do some of this right now. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did what I could Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason for the strong keep is that it's notable software - google shows us that people use this and find it helpful. Doesn't have to be made by Microsoft to be notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computer programs come and go. Let this one go. Brian G. Crawford 15:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DHPOS Has Been Around for about 5 years now and has helped lots of people with their stores. It would be nice if the moderators here appriciated the hard work put in by Dale, who strictly doesn't charges for any part of this software. People have, out of their love for this software, donated $5 to Dale to help him test out his software. -Chris
Weak delete - The text makes it clear it's NN: "His POS system is now used by more than a dozen small businesses and other private users." ProhibitOnions 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable --Masssiveego 08:17, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Forword[edit]

Prod noticed placed by User:Doug Bell with reason "Non-notable athlete, possible vanity." My experience tells me international sportspeople typically get kept; I'm bringing it here for wider discussion. No recommendation from me, though given the creator's wide involvement in the area of sport, I'm doubting this is vanity. Jonel | Speak 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, she didn't get in the national team, though she has won a few notable field hockey awards --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She didn't get in the team for the Olympics, but she had made her international debut the year before. Bhoeble 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - google search yields many seemingly relevant results. Wickethewok 05:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the person who put it on prod, it doesn't seem to meet the minimal threshold of notability. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to have missed the team for the olympics but is probably very much on the fringes of selection. Darius Dhlomo, who created this has 10,000+ sport edits, so unless he is the sports agent of every athlete in the world, I don't think it is vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty arcane, as far as I can tell, but I trust the sports judgment of a guy who's apparently made 10,000 sports edits more than I trust my own. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep International team member. Bhoeble 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out the WP:BIO guidelines for determining notability for sportspeople. You decide if this bio meets this threshold:

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.

Of course, "most members of its squad already have articles" is a weak criteria since it doesn't seem to take into consideration that somebody could create articles for every member of a non-notable team and then argue that each bio is justified because everyone else on the team has one. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:00, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 07:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domenicas tuckus[edit]

Google turned up nothing on this. Also, I'm not really sure what its point is. Delete tv316 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, patent nonsense (though just barely.) GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 05:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up for speedy delete as patent nonsense. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:06, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Onez[edit]

Delete - I don't see why they are notable. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 05:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Republic World Media Group, LLC
Republic World Music
Brian Anthony Patrick
The Fornography

Wickethewok 05:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable hiphop group that owns a non-notable media corporation --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to articles, they are working on their debut album. At such time as the album is released, the article can be remade. --Xyzzyplugh 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure looks like vanity. If their album is somewhat successful, put them back. Till then they're NN. ProhibitOnions 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - massiveego, why are they notable? Wickethewok 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting nominations dumped on the top of the page here. -- Saberwyn 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE I did a story on The Forgotten Onez last year and I have been a die hard fan ever since. They were also part of a research paper I did on the impact of young black men in the music industry (I am a media management major). I didn't even know they had a wikipedia page until like five minutes ago when I was called and told that people wanted to delete it. I will just tell you now, they are really loved in and around Chicago and if you delete it someone will always start another one. You can't suppress knowledge and if people want to know about The Forgotten Onez, and they do, then they will always find a way! It is also worth noting that TBC has commented on a musical knowledge when his personal page says he doesnt even listen to music. So tell me, how is he qualified to even be in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyGirl21 (talk • contribs)
- Do not Delete I represent the said parties and they are prominent underground hip hop figures in the United States Midwest. At the young ages of 19 they have moved an impressive number of mixtapes and have done writing and production work on mainstream projects. The artists themselves did not create this entry and before you continue to paint them as unnotable I think it would be to your benefit to tell us all your qualifications to judge what is noteworthy and what isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Forgotten Onez (talk • contribs)
  - Comment to author of articles. See this article WP:MUSIC, it explains wikipedia's notability guidelines for music articles. It doesn't appear that The Forgotten Onez meets these guidelines (yet). --Xyzzyplugh 01:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I forgot what I was going to say... Anyway, I will vote keep if the group makes notability as per WP:MUSIC, which I am not sure they do. Roodog2k 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Also without the album being released this artical is crystalballism. Nigelthefish 17:04, 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. JIP | Talk 10:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh mcroberts[edit]

Not notable (enough) college basketball player. Article's previous prod was removed. At the very least needs to be moved to capitalize the last name properly. Gwernol 05:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, borderline notability. After hearing the arguments below, I've decided to switch my vote to weak keep --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Multiple claims to notability, not the least of which is winning the McDonald's All-America Player of the Year award in 2005. He gets 102,000 hits on google. The article is kinda poor right now, but the notability is there. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but man, that's a poorly written article. needs a lot of work Nobunaga24 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Grandmasterka. And, what Nobunaga said. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep due to high-profile, recognized award. Monicasdude 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - notable enough (does need to be moved to Josh McRoberts, though. --DMG413 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - just notable enough, but that is one messy article. -- Arnzy (Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Josh McRoberts, and write it better. Looks notable enough. ProhibitOnions 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Nigelthefish 20:34, 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. JIP | Talk 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wilfred Mulryne OBE[edit]

DELETE. Vanity page.

Delete - no assertion of notability. Also vanity. Wickethewok 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - will investigate later, but OBE in the title is an assertion of notability. Only a few are awarded every year - a public service honour. The article is useless at the moment however.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep did some googling, and I found this about Mulryne and the OBE: [10]...his name is on there as an honoree. I'm going to say the guy is notable and needs an improved article/stub. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a link more amenable to the verification process: [11] (a gov.uk link of new honorees) Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; an OBE is indeed a British honour, but we award about 500 a year so its not the best guide to notability. Also, I'm concerned that the page was started by Wilfredmulyrne and this is the only contribution by this user. Blatant vanity, I'm afraid. JGF Wilks 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contentless vanity. Note the OBE in the title. ProhibitOnions 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep awarded is enough to be notable --Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the decision is to keep this then the 'OBE' part of the title should be removed. I assume it's part of the Style Manual somewhere that we do not include honours in the page title (except in redirects, such as Sir Harrison Birtwistle). JGF Wilks 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retired headmaster gets an OBE at retirement as a tribute. As JGF Wilks commented, they give out a lot of these (it's not like a knighthood). If he were American he might get a nice resolution of commendation from Congress, and it would mean about as much, Fan1967 00:18, 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 to Effeminacy. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxmosexual[edit]

prodded and deprodded twice. reason was dicdef, already in wiktionaryThatcher131 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Wickethewok 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge with Effeminacy, as this article's text dovetails in many cases with the latter one. If not possible, blank and redirect.--み使い Mitsukai 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effeminacy. youngamerican (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others --Khoikhoi 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to effeminacy. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect w/ slight merge per Mitsukai. If we're just blanking and redirecting, something should be added into the Effeminacy article Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Word made up by two non notable linguists. Wikipedia shouldn't be for made up words by nn people. I could do that on my own. --Pal5017 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Yes, the top Google hit is Urban Dictionary, but there are some more reliable uses aWebMD article, [www.cafepress.com/morphinenation.37639035 the inevitable T-shirt], comment on Gawker post that may be where it was coined, a reference at AskOxrod.com ... I think it's not a neologism. Daniel Case 05:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metrosexual, as it is a similar term.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the article. Mailer Diablo 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a place to list a bunch of DVDs. Any alternatives, such as merging it into a Star Trek episode guide will be kept in mind, otherwise I'll be voting Delete -- Arnzy (Talk) 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untill I get the chance to review the content of the DVDs to see if its notable enough or not, ~~I'll abstain from voting~~, How the neutral authors or DS9 fans see it is their opinion - ~~No Vote~~ -- Arnzy (Talk) 13:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Eivind. Perhaps merge the notable DVD extras into the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. -- Arnzy (Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that Betacommand 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'll change my vote if someone can allow me to review the content of the dvds to see if they are notable enough to be here =) Mike _{(T C)} 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The huge Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page can't contain all the info on DVD releases that would be of interest to readers. A separate page is clearly needed, and the DVD releases of a popular show are notable. Besides, if you piss off the Trek people, they might go on strike; Wikipedia would collapse. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Detailed, verifiable, factual information that somebody might quite reasonably want to look up, and would bloat the "main" article. Monicasdude 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't actually add anything to a discussion of the DVDs or of ST:DS9. You may as well merge the DVD extras in to Deep Space Nine page if they are notable. The remainder of this page is a list of links to episode articles, something that already exists. (aeropagitica) 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Brian -- Oscar Arias 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's basicly the same as List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and Wikipedia isn't amazon.com. Eivind ^t ^@^c 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is it any different to The Simpsons DVDs or South Park DVDs? -- Rebelstrike2005 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Amazon, and does not have to cater to obsessive fans of a TV series. I'd vote delete on the other DVDs as well. 81.96.151.236 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eivind - also delete The Simpsons DVDs --Khoikhoi 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebelstrike2005 Jcuk 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the great reasons above such as Monicasdude. -- JJay 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main DS9 article or the episode article. See List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for an example of how to roll DVD releases into an episode list. 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's DVDs, with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. Nothing remarkable. Borders on advertising. Peter Grey 04:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reference --Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rebelstrike -- pm_shef 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude. If we're going to get uppity about large articles then let's be accommodating about the inevitable overflows. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 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 keep. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Combat Extended[edit]

I prodded this article as non-notable for being about a game mod that "appealed to a small niche of Desert Combat players". The anonymous user who challenged the PROD simply changed "small niche" to "large group". But I still find no convincing indications of notability, or sources. Anyone care to comment? No vote from me. Sandstein 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable game mod --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a whole ton of people didn't play it doesn't mean it's not a noteworthy addition. The original website went down because of internal conflict between the development team and the webspace sponsor as far as i know. DCX was awesome, it deserves to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.28.238 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2006
keep-the original forums had well over 5000 registered users. however the forums were lost meaning that there is no record of this. 07:15, 18 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.89.55 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 March 2006
Delete nn. -- Arnzy (Talk) 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Battlefield 1942 - Feezo had outlined the large amount of google hits, but not really sure if thats notable enough to have its own artcle. Perhaps some of the information from this article can be moved onto the main article of Battlefield 1942. -- Arnzy (Talk) 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable enough — 56000 Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 08:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge into Desert Combat. Either is fine. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into Desert Combat--Zxcvbnm 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you check the Comparisons_of_Battlefield_1942_mods and then consider the fact that DCX was one of the very few mods with a good Single Player base (that therefore didn't get listed on online servers), you'll see that it's very worthy of having it's own page, there's many smaller mods that also have one. AI 212.238.155.158 19:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - seems that the page I referred to was moved, it's now located here: [[12]] AI 212.238.155.158 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhat notable --Masssiveego 08:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Desert Combat MLA 10:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge with Desert Combat. Kraf 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,635 downloads for DCX .9 [13]
Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. I belive that this article is a good article. those who know nothing of the games would ask for it to be removed and those who know nothing of mods would merge it with battlefield 1942. as i said earlyer Keep this article or Merge it with Desert Combat as a "Similar Mod" although thats simply not the case. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,748 downloads for DCX .9 [14]MediaRocker 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with its own section into the main DC article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Latheef[edit]

Delete - does not seem to be notable. Google search returns 2 results. Wickethewok 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable journalist of a non-notable newspaper --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google search returns 2 results, because he is from Maldives a small country, where most of the articles are published in local language so Google may not return with so many pages. And those 2 pages also says he is Foreign News Editor. [email protected] - Haveeru is a notable newspaper and the most leading newspaper in the Maldives. deviathancy 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. Delete as per nom. --Oblivious 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not make a Haveeru article, and put this guy in it? If his only notability comes from his association with the paper, and the paper is notable in the Maldives, why not go that route? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. The news paper is notable in the Maldives. --Oblivious 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per deviathancy. Monicasdude 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep in mind some countries still don't have much computer access. --Masssiveego 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Foreign Editor of a national newspaper infers notability. Humansdorpie 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable editor of a national newspaper. Nigelthefish 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Foreign News Editor of a national news paper, and one of the famous and popular writer among locals. Ayersalisa 11:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nigelthefish. Iyaaz 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable and award wining journalist, and Foreign News editor of a national news paper, a commentator in National TV. Indhira 10:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Foreign Editor of a national news paper. Mohamed Afeef 10:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An award wining and a notable Editor of a national news paper Kalhihaaru 17:14, 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 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtrnl[edit]

This is a "a web series developed by 5Films to be released in late 2006 - early 2007". In other words, non-notable crystal-ballistic vanity. PROD contested by the author. Sandstein 06:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. NO (and I do mean NO) hits on Google whatsoever, so if not a crystal ball issue, possibly one of a hoax.--み使い Mitsukai 06:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable and possibly a hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. My prod removed. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. Feezo (Talk) 07:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as original speedie tag adder. (Article was deleted under db-empty, but was expanded after being recreated). --light darkness^(talk) 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masssiveego 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wh e re ^{(talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife} 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:24, 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 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Battlefield[edit]

Gaming website of no apparent notability (WP:WEB); Alexa rank 3,089,099. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website, fails WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't even need to be merged into GameSpy, really, except possibly as a sentence along the lines of "GameSpy maintains sites relating to a number of popular games, such as..." etc. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Planet * is already mentioned in the GameSpy article. If someone expands this though it is worth keeping. kotepho 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the GameSpy article mentions other Planet*'s but not this one. Wh e re ^{(talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife}
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a Planet Somegame for every major game MLA 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GameSpy or Battlefield, but just a small note of it. Kraf 15:24, 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 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Pillalamarri[edit]

Vanity bio of non-notable student (WP:BIO); his "religion" is also up for deletion. PRODded twice, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:41, 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. Harr o5 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Winans[edit]

Delete nn bio nonsense - author deleted speedy tag Wickethewok 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:40, 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 Speedy delete Harr o5 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Andersen[edit]

Speedy delete - nn nonsense bio - listed here as speedy tag deleted. Wickethewok 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:45, 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 party service; redirect all others thither. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party Services[edit]

Delete - this article has been created in three different places. Not sure why (noobishness? advertising?). Maybe just keep one. Wickethewok 06:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) The related articles are:[reply]

Party service
Party planning
Party planner
Party services

Wickethewok 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one variation--this is a valid topic for an article. It's a (small) industry. Redirect the others to the kept version. Meelar (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Remove the linkspam--Meelar[reply]
redirect It's linkspam. Redirect to Party.

- Comment - author keeps creating these articles. Maybe ban if this keeps up, will add articles as they are written... Wickethewok 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to Party --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all What's not advertisement is so awfully written that I wouldn't wish it on any article. Redirect to Party, though. Sandstein 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Party. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or revise Too much of an advertisement. The Ungovernable Force 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - recommend IP-block for the creator of these articles. This user continues intentionally inserting their advertisements into other articles as well as creating these. Wickethewok 09:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Turn all but one (Party services) into redirects. Per Meelar, this is a valid article topic, and not just part of Party. The Party article should link to the Party services article, which should be about that industry. So, keep Party services, remove the link, possibly give the creator some sort of ban or discipline, rewrite it a bit (stub-ize it), and redirect all the variants. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, and turn the rest to redirects, per Mr. Smith. I'm afraid this is going to be one big, fat spam magnet, but it seems like a valid topic. Kuru ^talk 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. You can't polish turds. Brian G. Crawford 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have heavily edited the Party service article so that it is NPOV, reads decently well, is formatted correctly, contains accurate and working links, and is less confusing overall. If this survives AfD (and, given that it is now a legitimate article about an existing industry, it really should), we can turn "Party services" and so on into redirects to the new Party service article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accompanying image is still an ad, but since it doesn't carry a company name and the external link has been removed, it's basically neutralized. The spelling error makes it rather unencyclopedic, however. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, then redirect all to Party -- Arnzy (Talk) 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the party service industry, though? Shouldn't we have an article about it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Keep as appropriate per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s rewrite Jcuk 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've requested a block on this user, as he/she continues to insert advertisements into articles, even after final warning Wickethewok 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. This is a bad-faith user who is repeatedly violating policy for (rather pathetic) personal gain. I hate that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His IP edits are done as 69.124.140.106 - has been blocked for a day as well. He's doing a lot of inline linking which is really annoying to clean up after other people have made edits to the rest of the page. Kuru ^talk 04:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat useful --Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate of party service. Vegaswikian 06:51, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Davis (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete. Disambiguation page containing only a link to the main Marc Davis article and two redlinks to Berkeley professors of dubious notability. BryanG 07:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn as the articles have been created and appear to be somewhat notable after all. BryanG 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And created by a UC Berkeley student. Unless both the redlinks get keepable articles I say delete. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ pending real articles for other Marc Davises, per Grandmasterka Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given stated intention of author to create those articles. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat notable people --Masssiveego 08:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article. Both the professors are quite notable in their fields and I had planned to start both articles sometime soon. I guess I should start them now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:00, 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 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorthPoint[edit]

Delete Non-notable rock band. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Forbsey 07:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete, no notability asserted. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Not true anymore. No vote. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain, added notability. Acrouch 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Who released their albums? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search on Last.fm yields virtually no results for this band, meaning few listeners for their "nationally released album". Wickethewok 08:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. The albums (self-titled, and just-released "Wildwood Trail" which is available on cdbaby.com next week) are independent, recorded and produced in Portland OR. In terms of search results, the band is listed on cdbaby.com, pdxbands.com, rockband.com, and magic bus (mbus.com). The CD "Wildwood Trail" is actually being solid internationally, in Asia, Europe, and the US. Acrouch 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Imo, being on rockband.com and those other sites (a search on cdbaby.com yielded no results btw), does not mean notability. My vote is still for delete for nn band and vanity. Wickethewok 23:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity article; being mentioned by one local publication is not enough to meet notability criteria. Sorry! Wh e re ^{(talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife} 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail to meet criteria for notable band. Nigelthefish 14:59, 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. Since there's some disagreement on where to merge (Arny makes good points), I've slapped three different merge tags on the article page. You guys can work out a consensus on what to do privately. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cacofiend[edit]

An article about a move ("spell") in a video game. No hint of notability, unlikely to expand. Harr o5 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Baldur's Gate 2 --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created this article not primarily for the spell itself, but for the creature the spell calls, and which is named exactly the same, and inspired by the Cacodemon article. I can simply rearrange the sentences to reflect that if you wish, and Keep the article. BTW, I'm not sure if it should be merged with BG2 article, because there may be other games based on the D&D ruleset which may also use the same spell, but I am unaware of that. If the consensus would be to merge, I'd suggest to Merge it to Cacodemon or Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) whichever seems more appropriate. There are other "fiends" described there, so this one could fit too. Instead of jumping to delete this article, the more constuctive thing would be to give some help with it, wouldn't it? (See also Talk:Cacofiend) I made this a stub because I wasn't sure where to put it. I sure was hoping someone would eventually put that info where it belongs if it doesn't deserve its own article, not erase it completely! Not very nice... --Arny 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TBC Wh e re ^{(talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife} 00:28, 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 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funkysexycool[edit]

Ad page for a minor hotornot.com clone site

Delete as a non-notable web page, fails WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisment. -- Arnzy (Talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam ad per nom. Kuru ^talk 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, spam Bucketsofg 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prefer Crazysexycool :p --Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Duhhhhh Cyde Weys 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, WP:WEB. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam Nigelthefish 17:01, 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 Speedily deleted as hoaxes, creator now blocked, enough time wasted already. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Haruson, Haruson, Praedicatum, The Haruson Gazette, Duke of Britain[edit]

Delete user appears to have created a series of hoax pages. Google doesn't turn up anything to support the claims in the article or linked articles. Appears to be borderline nonsense unless someone can supply better evidence? User has removed previous prod on this page Gwernol 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above adverse notice that was posted on the Clan Haruson page on the 18th of March 2006, the attention of those who would freely edit that page or consider deleting it is drawn to the matter that only the Earl Marshal has the "power to order, judge, and determine all matters touching arms, ensigns of nobility, honour, and chivalry; to make laws, ordinances, and statutes for the good government of the Officers of Arms; to nominate Officers to fill vacancies in the College of Arms; to punish and correct Officers of Arms for misbehaviour in the execution of their places".

As The Prince Haruson is forever sacred and inviolable in law, who makes his assertions under the device of his Coat of Arms (hence these matters 'touch arms') and has exercised his right of direct access to Her Majesty, those who would contest the right of the existence of Clan Haruson under both Scottish Law and English Law should first consult with the Court of the Lord Lyon, and the Royal College of Arms, before considering making adverse comments, or prejudicing The Prince Haruson by making the public suggestion that it could be a hoax

The Prince Haruson considers that anyone who makes adverse judgements against his sacred, heritable rights, without first getting verification of The Prince Haruson's identity and ancient rights, are prejudicial by their very act of acting against the Earl Marshall's own vested right to judge matters that 'touch' Arms of England, which in the jurisdiction of the United Kindom is criminal in its prospect, which in other jurisdiction prejudices native rights

Accordingly, The Prince Haruson holds the Directors and Management of Wikipedia accountable for any prejudice that would be forced against The Prince haruson, such as the deletion of this article prior to Wikipedia approaching The Earl Marshall and seeking the Earl Marshall's judgement.

Wikipedia staff should contact The Prince Haruson via [email protected], or telephone him directly on +61424013804 prior to making any deletions.

Furthermore, that unless H.R.G. The Prince Haruson recieves an apology from user: Gwernol for making judgements of English Coats of Arms that in England come under the authority of The Earl Marshall, that The Prince will be applying for a Court Order to require that user: Gwernol's identity is surrendered so that The Prince can press criminal charges.

And Furthermore, that Wikipedia would have a policy that allows anyone to recommend for deletion matters that come under The Earl Marshall's authority (hence Wikipedia is not protracted a right to make judgements without first approaching the Earl Marshall's Office), then Wikipedia itself becomes publically liable for any offence that is commited against those who rightfully bear their arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruson (talk • contribs)

Delete - I suggest blocking this user from Wikipedia if this continues or until his edits/article creations are cleaned up. He has created a series of hoax articles as well as made a mess of several others. I am in the process of listing all other pages this user has created for group deletion Wickethewok 08:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, seems to be vanity too as the user who started the articles calls himself Haruson --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following articles in conjunction with this one:

Haruson
Praedicatum
The Haruson Gazette
Duke of Britain

I really have no idea what to make of them. Clearly vanity, but perplexing vanity. Also note, much of this user's vandalism to other articles must be undone as well. Wickethewok 08:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion of all articles mentioned here - probably contravene "original research" policy as well as other reasons given. Much of the material would be impossible to substantiate. Possibly part of a personal vision, and not hoax in the usual sense. --HJMG 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince Haruson raised to Wikepedia staff the issue of being ethnicly abused by user Wickethewok.

The following is the email that he just sent to Wikipedia staff:

This document is presented under the device of the author's Coat of Arms and the assertion that the author is forever sacred and inviolable in law (binding the recipient over to the jurisdiction of The Earl Marshall in all matters that 'touch arms' under The Law of Arms) which device is available to be viewed at http://www.haruson.com/images/coa.jpg

From H.R.G. The Prince Haruson

To the Director, Directors, and Shareholders of Wikipedia,

I have today been subject to ethnic (racial) abuse by Wikipedia User Wickethewok, and shall be submitting my report to you next week, as time permits.

Please find below a copy of the email that I have just sent to user Wickethewok, who if not making an apology and withdrawing his claims, I shall be approaching Wikipedia in connection to the prospect of me laying criminal charges against the user.

May I in the first instance request your confirmation of receiving my prelimminary complaint against User Wickethewok, the nature of my complaint being that which is is expounded in the attached email that I sent to that user.

Sincerely,

H.R.G. The Prince Haruson

Body of Email sent to User Wickethewok----------------------------------------

I draw your attention to the matter that you have made assertions, both that my contributions are nonsense, and that they are an act of vandalism.

You shall observe on Wikipedia's entry for Earl Marshall that the prerogative to judge matters that 'touch' arms (of England) is vested with The Earl Marshall and not with you, and that by making judgements of matters that 'touch' (English) arms without first seeking the counsel of The Earl Marshall, that you prejudice both the Earl Marshall (in the matter that the right to judge matters that 'touch' English Arms is vested with he), and you prejudice me in the matter that I assert such (native) rights under the matter that the right to judge them is not vested with you but with the Earl Marshall.

If you take the time to read some of the documents at www.haruson.com you will notice that I am presently engaged in asserting criminal charges against the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the case proceeds to Court next week, that my open strategy in those documents is to hold the Federal Magistrates Court to its obligation of approaching the Earl Marshall so that the Earl Marshall can indeed verify that I am as who I have asserted.

If your assertions are not immediately withdrawn and an aplogy made, you will understand that it is already my prerogative to assert that you have pierced the veil of my forever sacred and inviolable honour, which upon them not being withdrawn I shall be able to raise criminal charges against you that at the minimum, will prevent you from ever travelling freely in the British Commonwealth without criminal charges first being heard against you.

As you have both abused and violated my native ethnicity, I shall in any case be presenting my case to the Wikipedia abuse department.

Sincerely,

His Royal Grace The Prince Haruson

Comment Please keep this page emptier. Please discuss on the talk page Computerjoe 's talk 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as patent crankery and exhort The Prince Haruson to take his medication. I've added AfD tags to these pages and added them to the heading. Sandstein 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Your Grace, please review WP:NLT. You can be blocked for making legal threats against Wikipedia. Sandstein 09:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just fyi, he really did send me that email... 0_o Wickethewok 10:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also made nonsense or suspicious additions to various Britain-related articles; I think I have cleaned them all up. Some of the stuff may even have been true, but that will be for the editors of these articles to decide. Sandstein 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burninate all, per above. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubcat[edit]

This article could never be expanded upon beyond the tiny stub that it is. Completely un-noteworthy Matt 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to be a popular Internet meme --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just see the bluelinks in Internet meme. Feezo (Talk) 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Feezo. Article needs no improvement and documents existing mini-phenomenon. Notable in the way that contagious memes are. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm not sure there is more than you can say than it is a site about a very large cat. --waffle iron 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a stupid joke picture on a few websites. No real notability. Though the expression on the cat's face is pretty funny. Andrew Levine 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oversize felines category. --Masssiveego 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a popular internet meme, per above.Roodog2k 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within the realm of meme, notable. -- Zanimum 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular internet meme. Poor cat. Nigelthefish 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known meme. Is that frikkin' cat smiling or am I imagining it? Jtmichcock 03:32, 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 as copyvio from [15]. Harr o5 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elibrary[edit]

Contested PROD. Blatant spam. Site itself is non-notable per WP:WEB. Can't see a way to speedy this, but do so if possible. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website and advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. Alexa ranking 146,000+. Feezo (Talk) 08:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad for crummy site Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad ad per nom. Will need to clean up all the other pages he's linked to this one assuming delete consensus is reached. Kuru ^talk 15:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website, spam. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Masssiveego 08:31, 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. If/when they become notable, then we include them. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers_with_a_Mission[edit]

Delete This is a charity/group of missionaries at Baylor university. All google references to them are on the baylor.edu website. Non-notable, perhaps could be merged with Baylor_University. Xyzzyplugh 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable organization --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Invoking WP:IAR here to protect a verifiable charitable organization. The article should be improved to de-POV it a bit, and to make the connection to Baylor clear. I'm willing to do that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This really is a tiny group of people, I think, based on their website. http://www3.baylor.edu/EngineerswithaMission/index.htm It appears that they have sent a few teams of students off to help build water pumps or install lighting in christian schools in Kenya and New Guinea, in conjunction with Baylor(a baptist university)'s charitable/missionary work. The question is whether EVERY charitable group/group of missionaries in the world should qualify for a wikipedia article. There must be a million of them, if you include every muslim, buddhist, etc group. As Baylor does lots of missionary work, trains missionaries (see http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/nurse.html), perhaps the content of this article could be retained as part of some sort of overall Baylor Missionary Work article. --Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess we could just merge; it's reasonable if they really are that tiny Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The group is apparently interested in starting new chapters at other college campuses next year, it may become more notable by then. --Schzmo 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. If they become notable, the article can easily be restarted. Henning Makholm 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Masssiveego 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as per Bobby Smith.
Keep, it's a notable organization. It is not tied toa a specific university so it can't be merged. Wh e re ^{(talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife} 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: what makes them notable? --Xyzzyplugh 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another student organization. We shouldn't be biased toward them just because they do charity work. Friday (talk) 15:05, 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 that both this one and Natural 1 have been merged with Role-playing game terms so I'll redirect them now. (Yeah, yeah, I voted here and should probably have recused myself but... Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural_20[edit]

Delete This is a well known term amongst dungeons and dragons gamers, but seems to me to be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Note that I'm also nominating Natural_1 Xyzzyplugh 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this warrants a separate article either, but I think it is a significant enough part of D&D gameplay to warrant merging with Role-playing game terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the term to Role-playing game terms. Wickethewok 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sjakkalle Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Feezo (Talk) 12:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sjakkalle. kotepho 18:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Masssiveego 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Roodog2k 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the likely outcome of this discussion, I've merged the content of Natural_20 into Role-playing game terms. Original article can (presumably) now be deleted or made a redirect by whoever closes this out. --Xyzzyplugh 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Role-playing game terms. — RJH 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge per nom. GRuban 14:41, 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 that both this one and Natural 20 have been merged with Role-playing game terms so I'll redirect them now. (Yeah, yeah, I voted here and should probably have recused myself but...

Natural_1[edit]

Delete Dungeons and dragons related dictionary definition. Note that I also nominated Natural_20. Xyzzyplugh 09:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/ Role-playing game terms per Sjakkalle in the sister AfD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bobby/Sjakkallle. kotepho 18:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above -- 63.226.38.196 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Masssiveego 08:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Roodog2k 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the likely outcome of this discussion, I've merged the content of Natural_1 into Role-playing game terms. Original article can (presumably) now be deleted or made a redirect by whoever closes this out. --Xyzzyplugh 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Role-playing game terms now that it has been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle. — RJH 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above Nigelthefish 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per XP. GRuban 14:40, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dishanker_Rajakulendren[edit]

Just delete this. Dishankr 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dishankr, it's good practice to give a reason for deletion (see WP:NOT for a reference). That said, delete as non-notable (WP:BIO) and possible vanity (WP:VAIN); no Google hits indicating any notability; the article is not about the person but about the name and veers into speculative linguistics (so it's WP:OR too). Sandstein 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that if we can verify this (looks unlikely), it can be reduced to a stub and renamed "Dishankr" or "Dishankar" or something. But, per google, it looks impossible to verify. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like the principal author of a vanity article is asking for deletion. I don't see the problem. Brian G. Crawford 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Language reference --Masssiveego 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, and per author's request. Ifnord 21:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Sonnets Remixed[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable book with no Amazon rank. Sandstein 10:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable. Paul B 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps Nigel Tomm should be considered for deletion as well. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Masssiveego 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Hbackman 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:25, 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 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faciliation[edit]

As per the PROD, which the author deleted: Useless nonsense, redundant with memory. Also original research. Sandstein 10:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Prod.--Blue520 10:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge to memory. Kuru ^talk 15:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful --Masssiveego 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:26, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost_on_PSP[edit]

Seems rather pointless to have a whole article on a release in some specific format. And all the info here is simply a repeat. Tejastheory 10:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unique content with/to Airdates of Lost in a section below DVD releases as PSP release and delete replicated content.--Blue520 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blue520 and delete as unencyclopedic. Feezo (Talk) 12:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information to/with Airdates of Lost as per Blue520. Delete this article as nn. -- Arnzy (Talk) 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any information concerning (notable) Lost merchandise needs to be available to the user on this encyclopedia. This article should rather be Merged than Deleted. Jaded.Mind 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the appropriate changes on Airdates of Lost. I'd also like someone to maybe check the release date? This is what's listed on Amazon, but it's coincidentally the exact same as the DVD release, so I can't be sure. As for this article, delete now?Tejastheory 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --Masssiveego 08:35, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tomm[edit]

Vanity article on a non-notable person (WP:BIO); see also the AfD on his book. Contested PROD, what else. Sandstein 10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely un-notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 12:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely un-notable.Paul B 12:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "un-notable"??? Have you understand the meaning of the word "un-notable" in our wiki-times? new1new2 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how about not notable? --Khoikhoi 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because you don't know who he is doesn't mean he ain't notable. Mostly Rainy 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 04:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masssiveego 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 204 google hits, many wikipedia mirrors and others are similar open editing sites. JoshuaZ 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nigelthefish 14:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is not about "google hits" or "wikipedia mirrors", it is about Real person in a Real world. Or maybe all the knowledge of notability comes from the net? algyjaft 16:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest that everyone (and the closing admin) review the history of this AfD since there seems to be some very odd attempts at sockpuppeting going on. JoshuaZ 15:02, 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. JIP | Talk 10:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Harvey[edit]

Promotion for a NN radio host. Google hits for "Ben Harvey" +radio -Wikipedia are 1790, but most seem unrelated. Punkmorten 10:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 12:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change mind, notable --Masssiveego 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete The television appearances almost make him notable, but not quite. JoshuaZ 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I would never have given rock radio a chance in Philadelphia without him, and I never would have given rock radio a SECOND chance in NYC if it wasn't for Ben. Deckorfin 20:20, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Whelan[edit]

Even for a club as famous as MAnchester United, I don't feel that being a under-12s coach is sufficiently notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep agree with the nom, except he's also a former player [16] and he has written a book [17]. Eivind ^t ^@^c 12:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Former Manchester United player. Bhoeble 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, plenty of notability other than being an under 12s coach. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Played at Manchester United with George Best and Bobby Charlton. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough --Masssiveego 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded it a bit and feel that he is notable enough to stay in. Keresaspa 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have spent a long time editing the Manchester United page on this site and I dont see why my work should be deleted..... Tony is an accomplished coach in our youth academy. He is also an ex-player that was already on the site prior to my intervention as a "Notable player". Consulrjo 18:30, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Birir[edit]

This article was deleted through prod, but I reckon it meets our benchmark for athletes. So I decided to recreate it, expand it and bring it here. My opinion is to keep the article. Punkmorten 11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wrongly deleted. Eivind ^t ^@^c 12:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable int'l athlete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. (talk • contribs)
Keep - less notable athletes have articles. - Runcorn 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Shocking deletion that raises question marks about prod. Are enough people reviewing it? Osomec 00:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep notable --Masssiveego 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable athlete, and Osomec raises a very good point. When athletes who have succeeded at an international level are being deleted, we need to worry. JoshuaZ 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Osomec Nigelthefish 20:16, 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 redirected to Don't ask, don't tell. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DADT[edit]

Delete , this article is vague and inimportant. It is confused with the US military policy. Waste of space. Poorly written. Tinyboy21 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don't ask, don't tell. Sandstein 15:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Sandstein. --Blue520 16:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. — TKD::Talk 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --Masssiveego 08:39, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Romanization of English[edit]

This is one Bulgarian academic's suggestion for a simplified spelling of English. The article cites its source (singular), but I still don't consider the proposal notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. Angr/talk 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion proposal is unsubstantiated; the original allegation that the article was a "nonnotable spelling reform suggestion" is now reduced to "I don't consider the proposal notable". The latter apparently derives from Angr's assessment of the system itself which however should not be a consideration. Far from proposing reforms, the article presents in Wikipedia a comprehensive, self-contained system of Roman spelling of the English language, reviewed and published by a respectable scientific journal. This surely makes it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether one likes the system or not is quite irrelevant -- as is the presumed Bulgarian nationality mentioned above, one hopes. Apcbg 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the person who proposed the system is Bulgarian is indeed irrelevant. This system would be equally nonnotable if it had been made by a person of any other nationality. Angr/talk 13:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one publication does not establish notability. I haf spelink reform idiaz tu, but nobdié lists tu zem. Sandstein 15:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sandstein Bhoeble 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have orthographic rules for English. We don't need an encyclopedia article on a system of spelling that isn't used by native speakers. Brian G. Crawford 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this is more than an illustrative example for a single linguistics article, whose lesson is completely lost for lack of context in this one-sentence article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 15:59 Z
Diyliyt. unremarkable summary of non-notable proposal in obscure venue Bucketsofg 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dilliyt bikooz nn. Pavel Vozenilek 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While English is a mess this proposal isn't notable. Personally I'm rooting for spelling in IPA. kotepho 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has improved a little and our coverage of this subject is sorely lacking. Deleting this article isn't going to help either. It is troubling that I cannot find many references to people actually citing or discussing this particular proposal though. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:25Z
Deeleet, not notibl. Ths lks lyk inr cty slng spk 2 me. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deeleet per Grandmasterka --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't like English spelling? Then make up your own Lingua Franca. Just don't write articles about not notable suggestions. Bobby1011 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Anyone can throw together a list of spelling rules. Now, someone who compiled an entire dictionary, spent money to publish it, and wrote 10 000 articles on a new Wikipedia, then I'd call it notable. Peter Grey 04:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I could see a brief mention of the proposal at the spelling reform page. Smerdis of Tlön 06:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, although I could see why this may be considered NN, does that mean as per above, we'll be deleting all the articles in English spelling reform or Category:English_spelling_reform? Roodog2k 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English spelling reform is a wider term, and far more widely publicized. This is someone's individual idea that may have appeared in one publication. Grand master ka 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're saying. Never mind. I still say delete. Grand master ka 16:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please look at this quote (from Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance#No):

Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. [...] Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.

Although this was about the use of the criterion "fame and importance", I feel this equally applies to notability. This was not thought up by some student in two days, and it is not about your next-door neighbour's dog. The article is not original research, it is verifiable, it gives a reasonably neutral point of view, what else do we need? David Deutsch himself may be famous (at least I'd heard of him) and L.L. Ivanov is not (at least I'd never heard of him), but I don't see how that would be an argument one way or another. I must add that I question the rationales given for some votes, which sound to me like "I don't like this spelling (or, I like another one more), so let's not include this." Lambiam ^Talk 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability in linguistics is based on use, not on sketchy proposals. No matter how much people discuss a particular scheme, it's not 'real' until it's featured in some body of sample text. Peter Grey 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not the merit of the orthographic scheme, but the lack of context. (For starters, we don't actually know that Ivanov didn't write the paper as a student, or in a rush, but it was published, so we can assume it has some merit.)

However, what of the transliteration scheme: was it presented in the paper as a proposed reform? Was this scheme even the topic of an article entitled "On the Romanization of Bulgarian and English", or simply an example to illustrate some linguistics principle? This WP article fails to mention its importance and intent; without finding the paper in a library, or having someone even quote from it, we have no way to judge its purpose or notability. Since it does not seem to be cited or mentioned anywhere else, there seems no reason to judge it as notable. We can't write a WP article about every entity mentioned in in an academic paper. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 19:57 Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozunov formulas[edit]

The article does not make sense to me, and I think with my background I should be able to understand it. I could not find a reference to Bozunov via the usual search tools. So I think the article is not verifiable. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable nonsense, no google hits. Feezo (Talk) 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jitse, whom I trust to understand such stuff. Sandstein 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless verified. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Peter Grey 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. It would take a quite enormous amount of implicitly magical notation to get the formulas to make any sense formally. Also, a linear variety is someting to do with finite fields, which makes it extremely unlikely that any "coriolis formulae" related to them would involve trigonometric functions. Henning Makholm 04:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not proven --Masssiveego 08:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linas 21:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Henning Makholm. Total gibberish. See also this edit, the only other by the creator of the article, which sounds like he/she/it is trying to say something, but doesn't make any sense. Lambiam ^Talk 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Henning Makholm. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I should be able to understand it, also. Perhaps it would make sense with strategic rebalancing of parentheses — but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEVI Cam[edit]

Non-notable; possibly a decent newsletter, but still nothing of particular note. (This is regardless of the article quality which could do with some tidying). Fourohfour 13:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, print equivalent of nn-club tag. Sandstein 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article could do with a lot of tidying, but that still won't make it notable. Wasn't even clear on what it was until halfway through the article. Kuru ^talk 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; needs improving but is nowhere near worth it. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Masssiveego 08:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:27, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gittings and his band, the Naked Apes of Reason[edit]

No-name person and his band, both failing WP:BIO and WP:BAND, respectively. At least, Google doesn't indicate otherwise. Sandstein 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both subjects do not satisfy notability guidelines and both articles are unsourced. PJM 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and delete no sign of notability (but shouldn't we have a separate AfD article for each?)Bucketsofg 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of notability --Masssiveego 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:31, 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 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Morgante[edit]

NN person, article fails to establish notability. Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - worthy of a {{db-bio}} tag. Waggers 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sign of notability Bucketsofg 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unsourced article does make a weak claim, however, the subject clearly doesn't satisfy WP:BIO:[18]. PJM 17:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has a bit more information on Morgante who seems like a nice person and engaged in her community but not necessarily worth her own article according to WP:BIO. Side note, is her son really named Morgante Morgante? BUT, there is a pretty interesting article about her involvement in the Ark of Hope project where she and two other women walked from Vermont to New York on a post 9/11 peace mission of sorts. This could change my vote to expand if someone wanted to do the legwork on establishing notability via this direction. Jessamyn (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of notability --Masssiveego 08:42, 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 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwana Pusser[edit]

I'm sure she is a nice young lady, but she simply isn't notable, despite her (apparently) famous father. Sandstein 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - definitely worthy of a {{db-bio}}. Waggers 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as per Waggers Gwernol 16:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article doesn't make any particular case of notability to me eyes. Fourohfour 16:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn bio Bucketsofg 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly delete per WP:BIO. I prod'ed it, but I didn't think that it was (quite) worthy of a speedy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly keep because it just needs to be improved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.229.32 (talk • contribs)
Clearly delete because Wikipedia is not a blog. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly and speedy delete per Fuhghettaboutit --Khoikhoi 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Maybe worth a sentence or two in her dad's article. ProhibitOnions 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add paragraph to dad's bio (per Mr. Onions). Kuru ^talk 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Masssiveego 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add paragraph per Onions. JoshuaZ 02:01, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarCry (website)[edit]

I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This site has an alexa ranking of about 11,000. That's plenty notable. It just needs to be cleaned up. --BWD^(talk) 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Warcry is highly notable, on the same level as Allakhazam or Stratics: it covers multiple games, highly notable alexa ranking etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BWD. It is quite notable and an important source of information for many MMO gamers. -Dawson 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. This is a far cry (sorry) from a "fan" website. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Masssiveego 08:43, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics[edit]

I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just another fansite. It is a group of sites that cover multiple MMOGs and they have had multiple interviews and such with developers and such from the games. 128174 forum members, major advertisers, ~500,000 hits on google[19], Alexa ranking of 7851 [20], Gamespy reprinted them [21] so they meet 3 of WP:WEB. kotepho 19:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it could do with more information about notability, I think kotepho covers my view neatly above. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is hardly a fan website. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 04:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Masssiveego 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it sometimes is very hard to establish true notability of subculture online phenomena, it is important that they be documented, if only in an historical perspective. This one, actually, with over 500 000 hits on Google, seems worth keeping.Cosmicdiadrone 00:38, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/talk:Meade Skelton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 de-POV. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Chitnis[edit]

This was up for Speedy deletion, but I'm not entirely convinced, although parts of the article are totally irrelevant, some parts hint toward some notability, so I'm letting AFD decide on this matter. -O bli (Talk)^? 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and de-POV - guy seems notable in his country. There've been a number of AfD's lately that involve the Indian tech sector, and I've been consistently voting "keep" - it's a growing area of particular interest to the class of Indians who might use English-language wikipedia. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, apparently notable for the sum of his activities. But I disagree with the apparent notion of Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. that we ought to have "affirmative action" for certain types of articles. Let's hold everybody to the same standard of notability, please. Sandstein 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and clean-up -- I agree with Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.. I think it is important that this article stays, but gets cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards. I have tried helping cleaning up, but am getting harassed in exchange by Atul Chitnis, something I ought to have anticipated ... Therefore, this is the last edit/comment I'm making on this article. Cheers. Zaatar 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-POV - As Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. says, the man is notable. He's been around for years in the BBS and linux communities in India. But the controversies mentioned are also very much there, and large parts of the original article, about his exit from the linux-india mailing lists, the winding down of the bangalore linux user group and the background of the bang!linux and foss.in conferences, were presented with a strong skew towards the person's PoV. The edits you see are the other side of the controversy. De-PoV'ing may not be easy - the various debates, email threads etc that have been linked to are spread over a period of several years.
Keep and de-POV/Rewrite - The Person is notable, but the fact that some of the content has been taken from his website may make it difficult to de-POV it. I suggest a rewrite from scratch or at least remove the POV items as a start. Sid Carter 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Masssiveego 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no de-POV/Rewrite, delete -- a simple reading shows entire sentences which are simply POV. Thenothing 13:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is additional discussion in the Cleanup Task Force page for this article. Please refer to it too. Jace 18:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a voting page, not a campaign page. Stick to the rules, please. Achitnis 19:45, 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 speedy keep --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Screen of Death[edit]

Non-notable. We have not a article about Microsoft Windows start-menu or control panel - so why should Wikipedia have a article about blue screen of death? This is a obvious attack page. A alternative is merging into Microsoft Windows, but i propose deletion. —This unsigned comment was added by 1() (talk • contribs) .

Strong keep - the "blue screen of death" is legendary and a well-known computing term. Unlike the Start menu or control panel, it is not an "official" part of Windows, and is thus more difficult to insert into the main article. Possibly we could NPOV it by inserting something about similar problems in other OS's, but I dunno if that's neccessary. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is that the right capitalization for the article name? No idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Microsoft Windows. --Off! 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that. Fdp 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wandered on to here - why would an encyclopaedia not have an article about the way Windows computers crash? Windows computers crashing have a great impact on the economy. The Golux 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable characteristic of Windows, and explains the difference between the various blue screenas. It's been specifically mocked/referenced in many places. The article could possibly be trimmed a bit, but there's probably too much useful information here for a straight merge into Microsoft Windows. — TKD::Talk 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevent information about the Winodws OS. Could be renamed to remove the possible attack on Windows, however the current name needs to be mentioned somewhere. --Scohoust 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BSOD is well-established in computing circles, and certainly not an unimportant, esoteric phenomenon. Besides, the article is "ecumenical" enough to list similar error screens for other operating systems. --Tachikoma 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that. Excellent. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know about everyone else, but there are lots of occasions when I come to wikipedia for a quick explanation of some phrase or allusion that I've never heard before and don't quite understand. I can see a 'blue screen of death' article being useful to users. And that is the ultimate justification. Bucketsofg 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Blue Screen of Death is certainly in the social consciousness. Certainly as notable as the related concept of Control-Alt-Delete. --waffle iron 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of the above. Should probably be named Blue screen of death, though. -- Egil 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common enough expression whose meaning is not self-evident and shouldn't be reduced to a dicdef. Monicasdude 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. the lack of an article on the specified topics can hardly be used as a basis for the deletion of an article good enough to be a FAC. Firestorm 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This phenomenon is so famous it has created its own verb - "to bluescreen". Calling this an "attack article" is ridiculous and makes the nominator sound like he's working for Microsoft. JIP | Talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per just about everyone. Even the media mentions it by this name [22]. kotepho 19:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep article, strong keep separate; everyone knows about this, and by name at that. Regarding merge into parent, Microsoft Windows is *far* too large a subject area to include every notable fact (of this level of importance) in a single article. If it's an attack point, revert the attacks. I keep reverting the addition of "Digital Restrictions Management" to the "Digital Rights Management" entry in DRM, but that doesn't mean the entry itself is invalid. Same here. Fourohfour 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important and well-known. Punkmorten 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This screen is famous in its own right, and has a very good article.Tinyboy21 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep got two of them ~~bastards~~ today. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all reasons mentioned above. This has been a part of computer culture for ages. This article has been around long enough for two FA nominations. Nominator should also be cautioned about making frivolous nominations. Daniel Case 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the dogpile. Warrens 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I had one today. Keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although since I have a Mac I don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. :p --Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as it's clearly an important meme in society, far more well-known than, say, YTMND or "All your base are belong to us". wikipediatrix 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, nothing more to say here. Dan, the CowMan 01:27, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Anderson[edit]

Biography of a nobody, with questionable claims, i.e. PHd (sic) in comedy. This was initially PRODed, but was removed by User:Monicasdude with an editing summary asking if it would "kill" me to look at the Internet Movie Database link. I looked, and no, it didn't kill me. I'm just not impressed, and I don't think Wikipedia needs an article for every very minor personality in the IMdb. He doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:BIO. Besides, he's number 5 of 12 Craig Andersons on IMDb. Who is this guy? Brian G. Crawford 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BIO --Ed (Edgar181) 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Recurring role in television series, per IMDB. Monicasdude 18:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. WP:NOT a carbon copy of IMDB. Sandstein 18:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He had a recurring role in an Australian TV series that was cancelled after a year. Now he's unemployed after being "tragically struck down by gallstones." So what? Brian G. Crawford 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a "mate" of Craig's wrote it as a joke, mos def nn. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eivind Osomec 22:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Monicasdude. Repeat role on TV equals automatic keep for me . I also object to the use of the word "nobody" by this nom or his singling out a user such as Monicasdude who was trying to prevent possibly important info from getting axed through a prod where this nom did not even bother to provide a reason or edit summary [23]. -- JJay 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Monicasdude and JJay Jcuk 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, he's a no one. Come on, five listed "roles", four of which do not even have articles? And second, it's poorly written. Use periods, do not uppercase words in the middle of the sentence, and explain MC. I don't know what that is. At the very least, someone who cares for this article should clean it up grammatically. --Pal5017 00:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP entry for MC is fairly accurate. "MC" in Australia usually refers to the host ("Master of Ceremonies") at an event. - Synapse 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of Australian newspaper database for Craig Anderson did not come up with much. There was more information about a member of the Australian baseball team who was selected for the World Baseball Classic. I will abstain for now and would vote keep if JJay's claim of an AFI award could be confirmed. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anderson was the writer, director and star of Double the Fist. The show won the AFI award for best TV comedy in 2004. Not too bad for a nobody. -- JJay 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --rogerd 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. kotepho 09:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Harr o5 10:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep - Repeat appearance on Australian TV, winner of AFI awards, that's notable enough. But the article needs real details about his roles and qualifications, not one vague paragraph - Synapse 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snottygobble 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Synapse. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. -- Flibble04 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay Sparsefarce 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay. The article may need cleanup, but the topic itself is worthy of an article.-PlasmaDragon 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know the guys email address, and can update even more information once he's finished his current project, directing something in Adelaide. This fact, along with his suffering of gallstones (which from what I heard didn't cause that much suffering) was told to me a couple of days ago by his close friend and co-star on Double The Fist, Doug Bayne. Kanangra 22:42, 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; merge is technically invalid as GFDL requires us to maintain the article history. Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMSA[edit]

Non notable student organization. Delete and merge with University of Malta. waffle iron 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom. Sandstein 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge per nom --Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy dedlete per WP:CSD#A7. Henning Makholm 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly organised and can be merged.. Maltesedog 08:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:28, 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. Flower party■ 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MADS[edit]

Non notable student organization. Delete and merge with University of Malta. waffle iron 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom. Sandstein 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as campus-cruft. — Mar. 18, '06 [18:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Henning Makholm 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Maltesedog 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge - Student associations belong in an article of their own, linked to in the main article. There are multiple associations per faculty which would make the whole article out of point with say 200 lines on associations and 20 on the university. In addition, incorporating them in the UoM article risks political disputes, especially for parties running for KSU elections. 195.158.70.226 has already provided for having the MADS in the UoM article -- please express an opinion on both deletion and merging - will keep edits till the discussion is finished. _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly what i thought, if every student association had to write a paragraph on the UOM listing it would be a really long listing, but well the MADS listing (which shouldnt have been causing any disturbance to anyone) was nominated, more than once, for deletion. The recommendation was to merge with UOM and that is exactly what i have done i also cut down on details and went straight to the point. If my page will be removed from the deletion category and the general consensus with be to simply provide a link from UOM to the MADS listing then that is exactly what i would do.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. There is no need for you to take care of everything my friend :) When it is decided what to do, it will be done by whoever feels like it. The deletion request has grounds since being a non-notable organization, there are no prospects of ever having a fully-pledged article in place of the current stub. _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 22:25, 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. Flower party■ 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Day Dreaming[edit]

No sources provided, and very few Google hits none of which seem to refer to what's being described here. Seems either original research, or possibly just a made up article. Mdwh 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. --He:ah? 18:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be original research. --Zoz (t) 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as hoax. apparent wordplay on ADD (attention deficit disorder). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per niffweed --Khoikhoi 22:50, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECT. Henning Makholm 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schadenfreuden[edit]

This topic already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneill (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 March 2006

Which is why I redirected it as a common variant spelling of the existing article. I don't understand why you decided to remove the redirect, place an afd template on it, and create this page. -- Francs 2000

18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a redirect to Schadenfreude; this is obviously an erroneous AfD. The article was a stub-fork of Schadenfreude until it was properly redirected thence; then it was inexplicably slapped with an AfD by the creator of the stub-fork. Sandstein 18:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possible misspelling and this isn't RFD anyways. kotepho 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Sandstein ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as redirect. Take a look at the close race in the page history: Moneil had blanked the page before Francs2000 redirected it, so under WP:AGF it would appear that she was researching how to properly request deletion of her misspelled article at that time, and then the redirect got lost when she added the {{subst:afd1}}. She is a new user, may not have seen the redirect syntax before and assumed it was vandalism. Henning Makholm 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and redirect per Francs2000. There is no problem here, or wasn't until it was listed for deletion. --Hyphen5 06:48, 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyena (artist)[edit]

Apparent vanity page (by User:Hyena666) about a musician who does not appear to be notable per WP:BAND. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Not notable enough for article space yet. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 18:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy agree with Grandmasterka. Gwernol 19:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above.--み使い Mitsukai 19:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless author himself request userfication. He has no other edits and may not be interested in maintaining his vanity page in the userspace. After a third-party userfication it may just rot, if author gives up and abandon his account. Henning Makholm 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ignorant. the hyena (artist) line was inserted in the list of breakcore artist by someone, i found it and then created the page just to not let the name points to nowhere...no vanity, if u think its not appropriated you should delete it and i'll point the name on the list to my website.good morning. Hyena666

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual framework[edit]

advertisement Wh e re ^(talk) 18:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement, looks like copy-paste from some managementspeak gloss brochure. Sandstein 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. It's probably a copyvio too. --BWD^(talk) 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bruchure spam.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam --Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really bad ToolSpeak™ - spam per nom. Kuru ^talk 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, spam. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:28, 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 to chimney. Redirects are cheap. Mailer Diablo 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stack (power plant)[edit]

This is an overly-specific synonym for chimney —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 18:47 Z

Delete—this is my request. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 18:48 Z
Keep, because this isn't really the same thing as a chimney. It could use some expansion to mention pollution control devices, scrubbers, and the like. --E lkman - ^(talk) 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I'm removing this vote, based on my poor reading of this article, my poor reading of Chimney, and the fact I wasn't even paying attention. --E lkman - ^(talk) 02:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different? This non-article defines it as a chimney! The list of remarkable chimneys comprises mostly power plant stacks. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 22:17 Z
Delete because it really is the same thing as a chimney. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 05:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there is a difference, it's not mentioned here. ProhibitOnions 10:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to chimney.Roodog2k 15:05, 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 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake and Goodies[edit]

This is a textbook case of something made up in school one day, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. E lkman - ^(talk) 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we BJAODN this? Pretty please? --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more stuff like this will make me a deletionist. ProhibitOnions 10:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:28, 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 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder-D[edit]

Non-notable, per WP:Bio Ckessler 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --BWD^(talk) 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote off the island per nom Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as trivial footnote. Kuru ^talk 05:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:29, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Wrestling Alliance[edit]

Non-notable. 212 Google hits, first is Wikipedia, many are mirrors. Then appears their own website and myspace.com. Ifnord 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two liners about persons non-notable, only being involved with the wrestling club above:

Samson Horn
Kid Karate
Carl Mizzery
Matt Burns
Valiant Kid

Delete as nn. --BWD^(talk) 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the above nominations listed are also pointing to this AfD page. All of those 1 line bios fall under a speedy deletion category and should be listed as such so that we don't waste time with an AfD. Thanks! --BWD^(talk) 19:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the proper way to bundle articles together under an AfD. It saves time rather than voting on them all piece by piece. Ifnord 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Note: speedy deletes on some were removed by admins. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrestler profiles... though i would like to see the British Wrestling Alliance article expanded instead of removed (note: i added the speedy deletes on these articles) --- Paulley 13:55, 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 04:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

76777[edit]

Limited value, anyone could guess that it comes before 76778 and after 76776. Unnecessary. haz _(user talk)^e 19:24, 18 March 2006

Delete, beyond possible usefulness. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Wow, that was quick! haz _(user talk)^e 19:26, 18 March 2006
Delete - doesn't say anything and opens the way to literally millions of pointless articles. - Runcorn 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Obliterate Before it makes me so mad that I do something that'll land me back in prison. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not open up the floodgates unto ∞ . --Fuhghettaboutit 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no need. ⇒ I placed this uSWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Swatjester --Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — clearly new user experimenting; was never meant to be useful. Lambiam ^Talk 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Cool3 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Hyphen5 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. un-encyclopaedic.--Blue520 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. If this a joke, it's missing the punchline. ProhibitOnions 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, there's nothing of extraordinarie about 76777. It's just a number. Unless someone points a reason, the article should be deleted, otherwise we will reach 2,000,000,000 articles in one week. Afonso Silva 14:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linas 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Optionally, first move it to 76777 (number) and then delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 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 baleeted. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

"the oldham bros"[edit]

Deals with the "film company" of two teenagers and a demolition company in the UK. Both are non-notable. Boys, read WP:BAI. Sandstein 19:28, 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 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Lindauer[edit]

One credit, as "young Butch" in Pulp Fiction. Looks like a big stretch to say he is notable.

Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 19:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I remember the scene well, it was Christopher Walken talking to a placemarker kid (could have been any kid). --Fuhghettaboutit 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably retired or has a really bad agent, nn. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not IMDB and I see no need to replicate their information. Anyone who wants to know abou t this actor can look there. Average Earthman 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Averge Earthman --Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody. Might as well start an article about me -- Pal5017 23:20, 18 March 2006
Delete. Pal5017 is a Wikipedian who has no tolerance for articles about actors who have made a single film appearance. This article is a stub. ProhibitOnions 10:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep. The only argument to keep this article is that despite being in just one movie, we all know the scene that this kid was in. Honestly, this can be deleted, but its interesting that this was his apparent 15 minutes. Roodog2k 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:37, 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. JIP | Talk 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Magers[edit]

Moving from speedy-delete here to AfD. As (apparently) a prominant newsreader in a major city, no way is this guy a speedy. Does he meet WP:BIO as a "Widely recognized entertainment personality"? He's a pretty face who reads the news, I suppose. I dunno, he's probably on the bubble. I'm sending this to AfD out of respect for the original speedier, but I'm not gonna vote. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As speedier. Article was one of a group of about 10-12 completely non-notable tv anchors. Original articles didn't make any effort to explain who they were, what station (and location) they were from, or why they were in any way significant to the project. The entries were all 1-2 sentences, with one that topped out at about 4. Get rid of it, when they ahve something useful to add they can come back and re-write it ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, but still, articles shouldn't be speedy deleted if they assert a notability that is reasonably believable, see WP:CSD. Speedy delete of bio articles is for "Joe Smith is the coolest kid at XYZ High" or "Joe Smith is King of the Universe" or whatever. Herostratus
Keep stubhood(?) is not a reason to delete, tv personality from major tv market. good google count [24]. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep much less well known people. Osomec 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep he's on a major network in the #3 Nielsen market. I think he's notable. Roodog2k 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's the main anchor on the ABC station in Chicago. That's probably worth more than channel 57 in Wichita Falls. Sounds reasonably notable. Fan1967 00:24, 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. – Rob ert 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Yanis Theory of Influence[edit]

Delete. There is no such thing as the Yanis theory of influence and the author of the article is probably himself Eric Yanis. Mostafa Hussein 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 0 Google hits. Wikipedia is not for philisophical musing made up in school one day. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(merged from the other entry on this) Sorry Mostafa, I accidentaly voted on this before you finished creating the AFD, and it made two sectons. Merging that one into here.

Delete Non-notable, hoax (comes up with 0 google hits related to the subject). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Mar. 18, '06 [20:00] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete this --Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. I don't want to insult the author, who seems to be a productive member of the community, but have you seen the graph at the bottom? Melchoir 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Melchoir, you nailed it. I saw the graph and thought Time cube. Roodog2k 14:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. linas 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, even if it were not nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 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. Shanel 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of religions that accept homosexuality[edit]

Prod removed by author. This article appears to have no prospects but remaining a short and subjective list, and a breeding ground for controversy. I can't see any encyclopedic function it could ever serve.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Any recreation would need a tight definition: are we talking about religions (Islam Christianity etc) denominations or individual congregations? And what does 'accept' mean: official proouncement? Hopeless as it stands. --Doc ^ask? 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; as Doc suggests, "accept" is too vague to make a simple list meaningful. This list's title and content are better covered by full articles on Religion and sexual orientation and by List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. Nothing to merge and no point to redirect. Melchoir 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doubtful this ever will be NPOV, and the article name is wrong since it lists sects rather than religions. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom + the title is pov. Osomec 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete too strongly pov ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People within sects don't agree on this, let alone religions. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, it lists sects, not religions. Second, you can't establish notability of "religions that accept homosexualitiy" without violating NPOV. Peter Grey 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:30, 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 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Ministries[edit]

Redirect to a deleted page. SirNuke 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be at Redirects for deletion? if not Delete. Eivind^t^@^c 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. My apologies, I didn't know about WP:RFD.--SirNuke 08:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete per WP:CSD#R1. Henning Makholm 05:33, 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 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative hip hop musicians[edit]

This was on prod, but it seems to me to be controversial. User:Urthogie's prod said: "An alternative hip hop musician cannot be defined. Who is alternative? Mainstream rappers often have a live band. Mainstream rappers have talked about politics and personal issues. It's impossible to define alternative." But we have an article on alternative hip hop and a Category:Hip hop musicians. And the article has a decently long history with various contributors and some incoming links. No vote from me as yet. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Alternative hip hop is completely inaccurate in its current state(hence the {{totallydisputed}}). An accurate article would admit that it can't be defined. I defy anyone to give a concrete rule so as to tell if someone is an alternative hip hop musician--Urthogie 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If you can't define it, then you can't list it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ill-defined scope for list MLA 10:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 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 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Krayn[edit]

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ckessler
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:30, 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 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Blitstein[edit]

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ckessler
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:30, 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 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohad Gidon[edit]

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ckessler
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 15:47, 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 Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Humphries[edit]

Hello? What? Absolutely useless nn-bio of a newgrounds Flash animator. Awesome! - Hahnchen 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --DMG413 21:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:39, 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. JIP | Talk 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boaz Aviram[edit]

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ckessler

Delete per nom MLA 10:54, 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. JIP | Talk 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Gidon[edit]

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Ckessler

Delete I don't tend to think that martial arts teachers are notable though the claim for notability here is greater than for the Boaz Aviron AfD MLA 10:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable Nigelthefish 17:51, 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; default to keep. If it is really felt that this article must be merged, AfD is not the place for it. We have this thing called a talk page, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush in popular culture[edit]

A list of references to the band Rush in sundry movies and TV shows, often limited to single appearances of a Rush t-shirt or something. I'm a big Rush fan myself, but despite Wikipedia's systematic bias towards Rush fandom, I think we can all agree this is pure fancruft. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Rush. This is a well-meaning spinoff in support of its current FA nomination. However, I think it's too short to merit a separate article. Daniel Case 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely do not agree with nom. This was just spun-out of main article because of length. The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. -- JJay 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article -- JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Rush (band) makes it perfectly clear that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70's. And I quote: "Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as one of the most intensely loyal fanbases in the history of rock. Rush have also had a profound musical influence on such artists as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Primus, Metallica, Smashing Pumpkins, and fellow Canadian rockers The Barenaked Ladies.", ""Rush has been awarded the Juno Award[1] several times and were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994[2] (For a complete awards list see the "see also" section below). Additionally, Lee, Lifeson, and Peart are all Officers of the Order of Canada.", "As a whole, the band boasts 23 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records making them one of the best selling rock artists in history." In contrast, "Rush in popular culture" includes such enlightening information as: "A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984. In the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed." If you consider *that* vital information about Rush, I don't know what I can say. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article gives cold, hard facts about what TV shows and movies have used their music. Secondly, much of what you quote is unsourced such as the lines regarding their influence. I don't see why the info is not complementary. If they truly had the reach you claim, this article can probably be greatly expanded.-- JJay 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge trivia never deserves an article for itself, because by definition it's nn. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not quite good enough on its own, but not bad enough to be deleted ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is trivia, not an article. Whatever content here is useful can certainly be included in Rush (band). Friday (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rush (band). The group is notable but hardly pervasive enough in popular culture to warrant an entire article on pop culture references to it. 23skidoo 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'merge back into Rush (band). 66.57.87.50 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above MLA 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and keep only 4 or 5 bits. — Deckill e r 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a valid subarticle, containing useful information, and there is no need to clutter the main article with this type of list. Skeezix1000 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid (and useful) sub-article of Rush (band). --maclean25 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Rush (band) and omit insignificant bits Wisdom89 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, else merge. Samaritan 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, merge, merge! Let's preserve this encyclopedia's credibility by not letting it become bloated with unnecessary articles that would be laughed at if they showed up in a print encyclopedia! Proving that a person or group or whatever is relevant to popular culture does not require an exhaustive list of every time they show up - some noteworthy examples that prove the point are sufficient.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun[edit]

No Google hits. Website linked to is under construction; this secret society is apparently so successful at being secret it isn't even verfiable, much less notable. Daniel Case 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoaxy. No Guru 21:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun is a young secret society in Slovakia, some members live in Czechia (Chzech Republic) maybe. Do not delete this page. The Order is really secret. This community do not present the Order and Tarsus, their teaching. I think that this little information about the Order is very important and verification... only time please!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 (talk • contribs)

It is up to you, then, if you want to see this article kept, to offer not only verification but verification that this organization is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. You have the requisite week here, but given that the page the article links to is "under construction," I'm not optimistic that we will see this proof. Daniel Case 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am a student of religionistics only and also new in the Wikipedia. I will try more relevant information about the Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun and about its Conception called Tarsus. And I study terms for writing articles to the Wikipedia more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove the unsigned tags. It is not a demonstration of good faith. Remember to sign your posts. Daniel Case 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Shh...I acn't tell you why, it's a secret. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like hoax unless details can be "de-classified" and some notability established. Otherwise, please feel free to re-add the data when it can be shared. Kuru ^talk 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right out of Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Henning Makholm 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say BJAODN if it were funny. Smacks of a hoax. Roodog2k 14:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it is secret, how can we verify it? And everyone can have a secret organization. Afonso Silva 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Order is a local secret organization. Please do not joke about it. Freemansonry is also secret organization and we kknow about it, also another religious societies. What degree you have that you speak about it? Oh, absolutely dilletantism!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 (talk • contribs)

delete As a hoax....or just a really good seceret. Nigelthefish 15:54, 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; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ommelebommelestien[edit]

I intended to put the cleanup-tag on this, but it is more or less nonsense. Not notable and googlesearch returns nothing Franglais or Spanglish, in the least. I also hope it goes to BJAODN; unlike most of this stuff, it's actually funny, although nonencylo'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 (talk • contribs)

Comment Believe it or not there seems to be a real stone [25] and [26], and a real legend [27]. Is it notable? who knows, maybe the Dutch... Eivind ^t ^@^c 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Delete. Or better yet, add into dutch wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First Google hit: Met informatie over de kennel en de labrador retriever. Feezo (Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in condensed form into Urk#Folktales This is not nonsense, but neither is it notable enough to merit a separate article. Lambiam ^Talk 02:23, 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 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordans Law[edit]

Nothing on Google for this aphorism, which sounds awfully similar to Godwin's Law in any event. Article is unlikely to grow beyond its present size anyway. Daniel Case 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-existant. Any sort of respected law is published in many journals, and this one doesn't even show on google. --Tony St 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete godwins law wannabe ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempted protologism. Bobby1011 00:34, 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; where could we possibly transwiki this?. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love you in various languages[edit]

The latest completion of the popular phrase "Wikipedia is not ..." ... a phrasebook. Just because some variant of this has been floating around the Internet for years does not make this encylopedic. Daniel Case 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would Wikisource, Wiktionary, or Wikiquote be a better home for this material? Smerdis of Tlön 06:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki is has to be appropriate somewhere... it is interesting, would be sad to see it go. Roodog2k 14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wherever this material is appropriate, and create a soft redirect leading there. BD2412 T 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. In High School, I remember one kid who translated "kiss my ass" into 11 different languages. I'd rather not see that listed here. Jtmichcock 03:37, 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 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Brooks[edit]

This has been speedied four times as utterly unverifiable. No IMDB entry for him or the alleged upcoming films, no evidence to support the sundry speculations. Complete bollocks, frankly. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Re-creating a speedied article is also vandalism. --Tony St 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Rob Church 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Craziness. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE This person is a real person and has been in these TV titles, please do not delete this article, as there is not enough data yet.. User:Becky-RE-fan 22:34, 18 March 2006
Dont Delete - i just found some stuff of him on www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders about him as an extra. ~~emtry2004 22:39~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.28.16 (talk • contribs) 22:32, March 18, 2006 (same IP as the above entry signed by article creator and reincarnator Becky-REfan) Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jzg ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do delete per above - and you can't vote twice --Khoikhoi 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (I also removed a second vote by User:Becky-RE-fan, inamsuch as the vote didn't add anything to the discussion; it simply restated the position already expressed above).[reply]
Delete per my reasons at talk:Ainsley Brooks. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V unless sources can be added to the article. — orion eight (talk) 23:22, 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 delete. Shanel 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economisation[edit]

Apparently original research, nothing like the usual definition. User has some history of promoting protologisms. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Feezo (Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It actually says This concept is theoretical at best. Plus it's POV since economic issues are the traditional political/military considerations. Peter Grey 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is at best a protoogism but is more likely to be nonsense MLA 11:02, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68k Macintosh Liberation Army[edit]

Non-notable webforum. Non-encyclopediodic. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion (Vote #1 - Do Not Delete)[edit]

I recommend not deleting this entry. I googled for sites pertaining to old macintosh hardware and software and this is about the only site that is updated regularly and has an active community. Just because a site doesn't have x amount of users doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. Notability is a highly subjective term. Also, there is a similar entry for a group calling themselves Fairlight which has been up for about a year now and no one has deleted it. The Lightning Stalker 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Caso 24:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, first "per nom" means based on the reasoning of the nominator, which was for deletion. Second of all, these edits were made by 162.40.139.40 (if I am reading the history correctly). So what exactly is going on here? JoshuaZ 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those who are voting to Delete, please note: Google has 46,100 results for '68k Macintosh Liberation Army'. It is certainly notable and worthy. — Wackymacs 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, allow for modifications to structure first. /IMac600 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can modify the structure all you want, it's the content that's non-notable, and for the foreseeable future will not be. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, i've seen worse articles here. You documented Uncyclopedia, doesn't that say something? And, before you give us the Google chat, that organisation has more base system than this place does, so if it's not valid then this place 'aint either. I know I placed my Wikipedia membership at risk here, but if it's to uphold the dignity of the 68kMLA then I would put my entire career on the line.

Another thing to note is that a standard click of your provided link (to Google) turned up many links, all of them are different, each from one of the 30 system servers, past and present, of the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army.

Oh, but my response, don't take it personally, as stated by your rules. /IMac600 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Deletion (Vote #1 - Delete Per Nom)[edit]

delete per nom Bucketsofg 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool3 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There isn't an issue of not liking it. Wikipedia has guidelines about Notability and websites which this article does not fit.

Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See "[28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inappropriate use of abbreviation MLA MLA 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MLA has been the abbreviation for Macintosh Liberation Army for many years now, well over 6-7 years. Generally the base of your argument would require the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army forums would also modify its system, and i've said it plenty of times, it 'aint gonna' happen. iMac600
  - Commentt You may want to look at humor. Also, who the heck modified this deletion entry wtih del and don't del sections? A) We have a standard format without these B) votes against deletions are generally labeled keep, not "do not delete". JoshuaZ 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and usefulness aren't the same. I voted to delete a page that I had in my bookmarks. Useful for me; but non-notable in general. --Mmx1 22:17, 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. Shanel 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Afterparty[edit]

"A virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" says not notable to me. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author's assertion of non-notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it says it's NN, it's NN. ProhibitOnions 00:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Why do they even bother making this sort of thing? JoshuaZ 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep you just have to be from the small town of schober to truelly understand the significance of this company and what it means to our community. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.85.104.108 (talk • contribs) .
- Since this isn't a company, I don't understand that comment. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:18, 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. Shanel 04:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mantebury[edit]

Uncited; I suspect this is a hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax along with his book. Feezo (Talk) 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google returns 0 hits to non-Wikipedia mirrors for the author. Amazon.com has never heard of the listed book. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Henning Makholm 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Google shows nothing for the other references as well. Jim McFadden 22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 20:33, 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. Flower party■ 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Prism[edit]

Uncited; I suspect this is a hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax along with its author. Feezo (Talk) 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax - google picks up an entirely different Beyond the Prism MLA 11:06, 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 delete. Shanel 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V ammo[edit]

This is a contested PROD entry. The article goes into great detail, but basically explains how to use a rubber band to flick a piece of paper at someone. This is not encyclopedic. Joyous | Talk 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Feezo (Talk) 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very non-notable mischief cruft. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 06:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn cruft. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename/or Merge I like it. It describes something real, that can really be done. The only unencyclopedic part is perhaps the title, which is probably made up. This isn't Encyclopaedia Britanica for gods sake, don't be so uptight. Consider merging this with Origami, Spit Ball, or Paper Airplane. Tiki God 12:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit It's written as a "How-to", it should be re-done so that article seems more factual. Dom Beaudoin 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Techfan 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no encyclopedic topic here. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No delete This is a real game there are clubs for it across canada so it has the right to be an article and to all the losers that blocked me just a note that i can change my ip so blocking me does nothing so please stop it just makes you look stupid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.63.173 (talk • contribs)
No delete This is a real game. It is played in Ontario, if this isnt what wikipedia is than it does not take the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.63.173 (talk) 00:17, 30 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 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cohen[edit]

Completely non-notable. Very, very, very minor role in Dragonheart and that's it.

Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 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. Flower party■ 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luca DiCorso[edit]

non notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. John Holmes is notable. This guy is a working stiff. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete! Worst article I have ever seen on wikipedia. This isn't even homophobia talking. It's biased, has poor spelling, and was obviously written by a fan. Usually I try to clean up grammatical mistakes and lack of neutrality, but this is so ugly I'm not even foing to bother. --Pal5017 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I couldn't handle the temptation. I just could not let this article embarass us wikipedians anymore. --Pal5017 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, lacks even assertion of notability. Henning Makholm 06:07, 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 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lombby[edit]

non-notable. What is special about this artist? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide evidence of a major international exhibition of their work taking place. Google has nothing to show they even exist. Average Earthman 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Average Earthman. (Google search.)
Delete per above.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly speedy delete since there is no real information in the article. No full real name is given. ~~No nationality~~. No dob. No place of birth. No era, style or list of artworks. It doesn't even say what branch or art he creates (sculptures, painting, etc.). Bobby1011 03:38, 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 Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baines[edit]

Speedy Delete Non-notable. Andymc 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. nn, vanity or hoax. Bucketsofg 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vanihoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Brian G. Crawford 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Quick, non notable , probable attack, without a doubt enencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ ° 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this still blue-linked? --Fuhghettaboutit 23:37, 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, hoax. — Mar. 18, '06 [22:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Freaksaw[edit]

Non-notable, nonsense, created by same user who created Ainsley Brooks, Melissa Brooks. Tony St 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly entirely non-notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete User:Becky-RE-fan 22:51, 18 March 2006
- Comment: Please give a reason why the article in question should not be deleted. --Tony St 22:47, 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. Shanel 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Brooks[edit]

Non-notable, created by same user who created Ainsley Brooks, Freaksaw. Tony St 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, Google doesn't produce hits, can only assume hoax/non-notability. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely the linked IMDB bio is not for this ostensibly fake actress; if it were, she would have started in a Penthouse porno at age five. Joe 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete - if you watch the film she is a young model (child) of the porno mum, melissa in the film is uncredited as she is young, and IMDB has her on data so she is a real person DONT DELETE User:Becky-RE-fan 22:55, 18 March 2006
Comment - I love how User:LP Address:Unknown? and User:Jemma-2006 have zero article contributions. --Tony St 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the sockpuppet votes. Let's not waste more time. Rob Church 23:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V — orion eight (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This screams vanity hoax. As noted above, the stated date of birth and the year of the movies the linked IMDB profile point to do not match up. Besides the penthouse "model" at 5 years of age, the other IMDB listing is as a "coworker" when Ms. Brooks would have been 10 years old. The listings of top of the pop charts conveniently fail to give the particulars so they can be verified. Burden's on you dear. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's like deja-vu all over again. First Ainsley Brooks the unverifiable actor, then Freaksaw the unverifiable films, now Melissa Brooks the unverifiable actress. Warning issued to User:Becky-RE-fan re adding nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish all cases were as clear cut as this. Bobby1011 00:31, 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 merge. Shanel 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah Effect[edit]

nn unsourced neologism. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure Oprah has many effects and effects, but this isn't a dictionary. Brian G. Crawford 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Bobby1011 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tons of sources for this and well-known phenomenon since she started her book club. [29]. -- JJay 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oprah's Book Club. I think if it caused notable, verifiable economic impacts, it might have a place in Wikipedia, otherwise doesn't belong in its own article. Peter Grey 04:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oprah's Book Club. Even if effect may not exist, the claims of it are widespread. Not neologism; has been out there for years. Google for "oprah effect" bestseller will produce many sources. Henning Makholm 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oprah's Book Club. As per Peter and Henning. Jfing ers88 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Nigelthefish 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Royboy crashfan 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I've personally read this many times before in major publications; it isn't an unnotable neologism. Crystallina 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the reasons listed above. CloudNine 10:30, 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. Shanel 02:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun McKernan[edit]

I think somebody's been lying to us - Google only reveals this [30] - looks like a fake.

Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{hoax}}. Not listed on Spotlight, the UK acting directory. Damn, I hate being lied to! (aeropagitica) 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried name and shows together in searches--dud. Someone needs to give all these bored children something to better occupy their time --Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax per aeropagitica. Bucketsofg 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bobby1011 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hoax. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert[edit]

Delete. This stub appears to be non-noteable. Hyphen5 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Google of John Roberts and Moby Dick provides no confirmation, nor does search of John Roberts at IMDB, and "The Systech Story" returns only three google hits, one to a mirror site and the others to nonworking webpages. Probable hoax. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Also, perhaps redirect to John Roberts. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Although the Moby Dick (a one-man play on videotape?) and The Parallel credits appear to be legitimate ([31]), they do not make him very notable (can't anyone produce a movie?). Also, The Systech Story is a probable hoax as it is not registered with the LoC ([32]). By the way, the title is "John Robert" (no "s"). Ardric47 04:09, 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. JIP | Talk 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the drones[edit]

Gamecruft (Command & Conquer mod). Well written, but still a non-notable unofficial mod. Hynca-Hooley 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps pages like this could be transwikied to a wikibook on unofficial mods? Seems like a shame to just delete it. — RJH 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place for unofficial Zero Hour mods? If so ill post it there instead. — IHM 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Mukadderat 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts ^talk 23:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be notable even if it wasn't crystal ball MLA 11:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are other mods on here that have less information that aren't up for deletion, whys that? HaloGen for example? --IHM 21:31, 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 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Hata[edit]

Non-notable person. Not categorized under anything. Moe ε 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-off role in a television programme episode does not make one notable enough for an encyclopedia. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Henning Makholm 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:34, 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 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grassy knoll project[edit]

delete. deprod without reason by person who is subject of article. Radio program on university station - no evidence audience was > 5000. Google search "the grassy knoll project" and radio gives 1 hit.--Porturology 23:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. Bucketsofg 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn and vanity. Wickethewok 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable vainity. Bobby1011 00:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. A google search on the term produces few results, most of which are about a cycling event in California and have nothing to do with the program described in the article. Arkyan 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and vanity Nigelthefish 18:42, 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. Shanel 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Vening[edit]

Non-notable. Only 5 Google hits, none of which are related to the topic of the article. Delete. --Tantalum T e lluride 23:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: nn, vanity(?) Bucketsofg 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn bio. Wickethewok 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Wickethewok. Bobby1011 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nn-bio. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nn-bio Rklawton 19:39, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perales[edit]

Non-notable vanity article, very poorly formatted and not categorized. Engineer Bob 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Bobby1011 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. No assertion of notability I can find. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Clear WP:CSD A7 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 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 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Valintine[edit]

Similar hoax page to that of the already deleted Freaksaw, Melissa Brooks and Ainsley Brooks. Other AfDs already under way for those. Delete tv316 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete devoid of verifiable information. Bobby1011 00:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no hits on google, no assertion of notability. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Henning Makholm 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Nigelthefish 14:28, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escape 2 Earth[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. Cannot find this book on Google or Amazon. Seems likely the author has created this page, looking at the username.. suggest speedy delete? Sammysam 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert. Bobby1011 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. I did not write the book. I was given a chance to read the book before it was published to the masses and I thought it would be a good idea to put on wikipedia. If people still think it's a useless article because the book is not out yet. Is there a possiblity that I can come back in April when the book will be avaliable to everyone? I just thought it was a good enough book in case people wanted to know more about it. If people still want the book to be erased, I'll take it down. I didn't think it would be a big issue.--LovelyLJ 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nobody knows whether future books will be notable, so for now they are non-notable. Henning Makholm 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to LovelyLJ. kotepho 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to LovelyLJ Chairman S. ^Talk 23:09, 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.