Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25 March 27 >

Purge server cache

March 26[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 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Havana Affair[edit]

Delete, blatant vanity page. Originally {{prod}}ded by Ohnoitsjamie, prod tag removed by author Ward k without explanation. Royboycrashfan 23:49, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shokoloff[edit]

Almost certainly hoax. No Google hit on neither English or Russian name (there is unrelated Russian emigre composer Ivan Sokolov, living in France, the Soviet composer of such prominence that he influenced Stravinsky as claimed in [1] would certainly be known at least to the Russian section of Internet. Both book references appear to be bogus abakharev 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax. Thanks Alex for starting this page (I was going to do it later tonight). Zero google, and utterly fails WP:Verifiability. There's no way an obscure Russian composer, just demobilised after WWII, unpublished in the west, could have influenced Babbitt's seminal 1946 work in total serialism (Three Compositions for Piano) -- or been plagiarised by him. Oh, and there is not a single hit on his name in the monumental New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Antandrus (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. I don't know if this is a total hoax, or just a non-notable person whose importance is being inflated. Sometimes there are issues with how Russian names are rendered in English, and it's possible he might show up somewhere under a different spelling. Clearly he's not either of the two notable Ivan Sokolovs, the Russian pianist/composer born 1960 or the Bosnian/Dutch chess master born 1968. Fan1967 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The second reference is an uncorrected cut-and-paste job from the online catalog of the Library of Congress about Russian censorship in the 1860-1870s. I guess somebody has been listening to too much P. D. Q. Bach lately :) Ahasuerus 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{hoax}}  (aeropagitica)  01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible Russian last name, anyway. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just do it. KNewman 09:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin: note that a duplicate of this article also exists at Shokoloff. Tying it to this AfD now. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihau[edit]

Is this a joke? Created by an anonymous user (with quite a bit of past vandalism) about 10 months ago, this article claims to be about a Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame player who hit 741 home runs. I don't know Japanese, but he's not on the list of players in the Hall of Fame, and he's not mentioned in the Japanese Baseball article in my 1995 edition of Total Baseball (which has biographies of twenty or so Japanese greats). I smell a hoax. Andrew Levine 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Key to the Living/The Key to the Dead[edit]

I'm really not sure about this. It sounds believable, but I can't find any reference to any of it anywhere on the internet, which leads me to think it's a hoax. Also, it's the author's only contribution and his/her userpage says "Jest R Wicked is a Frustrated Writer of Dark Children’s Books." I'd like to be proved wrong, but I suspect it's not true. Cherry blossom tree 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On re-evaluation, I am not going to vote either way. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On re-re-evaluation, a keep. Authors often do research into old folk tales that may not be very common. Contact the author perhaps? +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Very interesting to me personally, but not verifiable, no hits on Google, not enough context to persue verifiability. In short, a great piece of work that doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless someone can dig up some backing for it. Dalamori 02:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. SouthernComfort 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No original research. Bucketsofg 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 04:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- clear cut cas of original research. Reyk 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - made up by the author. --Soumyasch 10:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can be sort of a less-known folk tale or similar, which can be found in old books. But I must admit, the story is gripping. --Soumyasch 10:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. David Sneek 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Olorin28 18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verified.Newyorktimescrossword 20:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that this article may come from a piece of contemporary fiction rather then folklore or mythology. Seano1 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is myth=a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings... I don't know if it is verifiable. But has merit for now don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan250 (talk • contribs) Moved from top of the page for organizational purposes by Hexagon1
  • Comment I understand that it's a myth, but I can't find any reference to any of it, anywhere on the internet. I'd love to keep it if there's a way of establishing that it is a real myth, rather than something the user in question has just made up.--Cherry blossom tree 11:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait for a response from the author, if we don't get any then delete it is. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I quite agree. Even if the response comes after this has closed I doubt anyone would object to undeleting it if there were references to add.--Cherry blossom tree 12:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response About ten years ago or so I was working in the secured Unit of and old Long Term Care Hospital and came amazingly upon two sisters whom suffered from Alzheimer’s. They BOTH however told me on separate occasions the story as related to them by their supposed Gypsy Traveler Mother. Their mother had apparently learned of the myth by way of a man claiming to be of the O'Tool linage, and was still carrying the curse of his ancestors. I apologize for not having any verifiable online information to make the story more credible, but it comes to me from more of a verbal history and is such an amazing one that I just had to include it. jestrwicked 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ircrobots[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB and is horribly written. discospinster 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. JeremyA 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cttv[edit]

Article about a non-notable group of friends. Delete JeremyA 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough--it's gone. JeremyA 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netviagens[edit]

Delete as non-notable non-English website; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Only 333 unique ghits. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Wyatt[edit]

First, it is an advertisement. Second, it is non notable Exir Kamalabadi 01:35, 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 redirect to George Chisholm (musician). Mailer Diablo 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Chisholm (actor)[edit]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Sitcom[edit]

This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines. Bwithh 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. 143 unique ghits, which I believe does not pass the test. Royboycrashfan 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per royboycrashfan Where (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, notable documentary that aired on Channel 4 and 2; has an IMDb profile [2]. If this gets deleted, then I guess Britain's Best Sitcom should be deleted as well. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fraiser over Fawlty Towers, Seinfeld and Blackadder, you gotta be kidding me. Delete this blasphamy. Eivindt@c 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per above arguments, except the irrelevant one by Eivind. Reyk 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. MaNeMeBasat 14:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TBC. --Billpg 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's a limit to eveything. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs some work. Newyorktimescrossword 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably seen by huge number of people. Article seems fine to me. -- JJay 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official ratings, the show was watched by an estimated 1.5million viewers when it was first shown. In comparison, the show "Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos... Exposed" on a rival channel in roughly the same time slot attracted 1.3 million viewers.

TV ratings: January 2 3 January 2006, The Guardian TV overnights: Ken Stott was an instant hit in his new role as Edinburgh detective John Rebus last night, with his first outing attracting 8.4 million viewers to ITV1. Rebus got the better of BBC1's terrestrial movie premiere, Catch Me if You Can, which attracted 6.1 million viewers and a 24% audience share between 8.30pm and 10.45pm. On BBC2 from 9pm, Victoria Coren's new factual show about the origin of popular words and phrases, Balderdash & Piffle, made a promising start, drawing 3.2 million viewers and a 12% audience share over 50 minutes. The former ITV director of programmes, David Liddiment, asked Who Killed the British Sitcom? in a Channel 4 documentary between 9pm and 10.15pm, winning 1 million viewers and a 4% audience share. Then for 100 minutes from 10.15pm on Channel 4, list show The Ultimate Sitcom grabbed 1.5 million viewers and a 10% audience share. Channel Five preyed on viewers' concerns about festive excess from 9pm, with documentary Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death consumed by 2.1 million viewers, a 8% audience share. On the same channel between 10pm and 11pm, another topical treat - Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed - drew 1.3 million viewers and a 6% audience share. Critically lauded BBC4 comedy The Thick of It made a steady start on BBC2 last night, attracting 1.6 million viewers and a 7% audience share between 10pm and 10.30pm. Bwithh 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thanks for the ratings that confirmed my feeling that the show was seen by a lot of people. We also have articles on most of those other shows. -- JJay 23:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be copyright problems with having the entire list reproduced since I have heard that lists such as this are copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seano1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Not to mention the potential copyright problems. --Jay(Reply) 23:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilotram[edit]

Delete per WP:WEB, non-notable. Article neglected by anonymous user since October 31. Exhibits:

Royboycrashfan 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Santa Cause: It's a Punk Rock Christmas[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable Christmas album. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 02:19, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strikerworld[edit]

This website is not notable enough to warrent its own article. A google search only ends up with the website itself and Alexa doesn't even have a rating for the website. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:31, 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 COPYVIO. Until permission is dealt with, this AfD is moot. Just because a publication is distributed for free they do not surrender their copyright to their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs)

Statistical Analysis and Design of Integrated Circuits[edit]

This article reads like an abstract to what could be an interesting paper in an IEEE publication. It is more or less copied from a newsletter that reports recent research in the digital design field. [4] As such it contains a very well written intro, but zero development or real encyclopedic content. Furthermore, the topic is so specific and specialized to digital design EE, I can't see it ever being improved into a readily-accessible encyclopedia article. Short summary: unencyclopedic. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 02:49Z

  • Weak delete I understand the nom's concerns, but I am not sure that they are insurmountable. kotepho 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps not insurmountable, but if the article were fleshed out into something complete, I suspect you'd need either a EE degree or digital design experience to even grasp the relevance of the topic. In other words, the topic itself is interesting and relevant for me as a EE, but highly inaccessible to the average reader. (IMHO) -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 03:32Z 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I vehemently disagree with nom's assertion that some things are too confusing or arcane to add articles on, but feel we should delete this particular article anyways. Wikipedia is not the place for statistical analysis; statistical analysis is subjective, not objective. Dalamori 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to above On further examination: While the article does seem to engage in summary reporting of the results of statistical analysis, the article also seems to cover the topic of methods of statistical analysis of integrated circuits, which is relevant, and does not seem to merit deletion. Although, I would support moving that content to an article that was better prepared to handle that content. Dalamori 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and move the title and text of the article is inconsistant with wikipedia standard. Eivindt@c 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite to what? Move to where? Who is going to rewrite it? Isn't this vote option pointless unless you're willing to do it yourself? -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 04:42Z
      • Having read some of the related articles I'm not sure that anything of this article can be salvaged. Change of opinion to No vote Eivindt@c 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs lots of work though. Newyorktimescrossword 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this is an important topic, and we should leave it up so that people can add to it and modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenechow (talk • contribs)
    • As a note, this is Karenechow's third contribution to Wikipedia. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-28 02:00Z
  • Delete per nom; completey inaccessible; little context. Sandstein 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I think the subject of the article is important enough to deserve an article. But it needs considerable work, and a better context, (I support the "expert" template). And it needs to be moved to a more relevant title. --Soumyasch 09:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kos (Persian)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Khoikhoi 03:05, 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 speedily deleted by JesseW as a copyvio. Flowerparty■ 12:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy statements[edit]

Just excerpts from the THIMUN INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE, that could even be copvio, and, no matter what, mere excerpts from something else don't belong in Wikipedia. A massive cleanup come make it work, but I rather doubt that. Cool3 03:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamnadas Nandal[edit]

Hi - this article is on a non-notable person. It has been created by a relative of this person. Although I empathize with this person (made a similar article myself), I must submit it for deletion. Rama's Arrow 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Weak keep - asserts notability, imo and provides sources - it wd be difficult to corroborate though, since the source is a 1975 news article. Not sure if he is a relative of the contributor of the article; if the decision is to delete, it should probably be userfied. --Gurubrahma 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Royboycrashfan 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 04:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO, only 30 Google results [5] --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. --Khoikhoi 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Characterization as 'Haryana's first citizen to have "thouroughly mastered English"' should make him notable; he may be the only one to do so (perhaps in all of India, for that matter, judging from WikiPedia articles—the writer of this article certainly hasn't done so). Gene Nygaard 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Joe 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bearer[edit]

Delete book reveve of nn novel San Saba 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, both novel and author meet notability criteria [6] [7]. But replace the plot summary of this New-Agey historical potboiler with suitable stub for now. Monicasdude 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article reads like high school book report, but still notable enough. Strange that we don't have an article on Donna Gillespie though. Eivindt@c 04:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- dunno of book reviews belong on the 'pedia, but why not? Reyk 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete book reviews doesn't belong on the WP. MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable book. However, needs cleanup as WP is not a place for reviews. --Terence Ong 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Terence Ong. -Dawson 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs work though. wikilink, expansion, etc.Newyorktimescrossword 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write to meet standards. --Jay(Reply) 23:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-28 11:39Z


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Faulkner[edit]

Delete vanity page San Saba 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is info about him (blogs), but nothing verifiable (no news stories I could find) --Macrowiz 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Nigelthefish 14:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant criterion is WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Newton Faulkner performed at the SXSW Festival in Texas and several dates in New York, has had a 15 minute spot on a BBC Radio 2 program from the same event, has been broadcast nationwide (UK) on "The Musicians Channel".. this is not a vanity page, and certainly meets up to the criteria expressed in the link above.
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep not vanity it's a copyvio, which explains the unencyclopedic tone. Barely passes WP:MUSIC. Eivindt@c 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. No entry on Allmusic and only one EP listed (perfunctorily) on Amazon. dbtfztalk 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Gflores Talk 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dbtfz, also copyio. -- Arnzy (Talk) 10:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I de-POVed and I think I took care of the copyvio problem. I found some coverage of him via Nexis and cited the most prominant article. - Jaysus Chris 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no established notablity. Newyorktimescrossword 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Jay(Reply) 23:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say, considering the EP listed on Amazon is released today, it's worth keeping the entry in case it takes off. If it doesn't, then it could be deemed vanity. 06:05am, March 27th 2006—This unsigned comment was added by 212.159.115.16 (talk • contribs) .
    • That's a new one--and a good one. We ought to keep the article just in case the subject becomes notable? Ah, that's classic.  :-) dbtfztalk 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doboszenski Farmstead[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. All Google results are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Royboycrashfan 04:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per San Saba and Royboycrashfan. -- Kjkolb 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but a strong suggestion to merge. Thryduulf 00:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler_G_platform[edit]

Article cites no refrences contrary to WP:V. Doesn't conform to same standards as Chrysler K platform, for example. C3H5N3O92010 04:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
  • Delete, non-existing car, Google shows only 24 results [9], most of which are from Wikipedia or mirror sites --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I can't decide if this is hoaxy or crytal bally. At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter. --Deville (Talk) 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge G, H, P, and Q to the bottom of K, and R with Chrysler B platform. Eivindt@c 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Newyorktimescrossword 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chrysler K platform, where it deserves a slight mention. The G platform was just a stretched-wheelbase version of the K platform, which Chrysler used for damn near all its models from 1980-1993. It was not a separate platform in any meaningful sense. I second Eivind's suggestion, above. ProhibitOnions 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per ProhibitOnions. Some pervious voters don’t seem to understand what a platform is. It’s not a model of car. But is the basic design the car is built on. See Automobile platform. Seano1 23:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Now that I see all these being put up for deletion, I think it would now be wise to merge them with the Chrysler K platform page (but with the Chrysler B platform page in the case of the R-body) and create sub-sections for them on those aforementioned pages. --ApolloBoy 06:07, 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. Sango123 (e) 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Support Script[edit]

Doesn't state notability, possible WP:AUTO. External link to developer is no longer working. Terrible ghit score for a computer related search [10] Eivindt@c 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The software has been around 10 years, and only 241 Ghits? Man, I've got old blog entries that I wish would disappear getting more hits than that...:-) --Deville (Talk) 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no established notablity. Newyorktimescrossword 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:17, 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 Speedy delete, non-notable band. Sockpuppets please go home. Ashibaka tock 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Kills[edit]

Vanity (although well written) about a band that does not pass WP:BAND as of yet. Google turns up a lot of unrelated stuff other than their MySpace page and such. Delete. Grandmasterka 04:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable band. Allmusic shows no relevant results. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, relationshipgonesourcruft --Deville (Talk) 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This band has been a hit on my internet radio show the past month and finally we have information that gives us more of a insight on the band, I would hope that the people at Wikipedia can see this. --User:Davis0506 05:17,26 March 2006 (UTC)
    May one be so bold as to enquire which internet radio show that would be? --Deville (Talk) 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I don't see anything wrong with this profile why be so harsh about it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.94.276 (talk • contribs)
    Comment, for the record, the above is the only edit ever made from 69.37.94.276 --Deville (Talk) 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can tell, this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE This is one of my favorite bands! Please do not delete this page as it is an excellent source of information on the band. Pinkpisces222
  • Do Not Delete, We are fans and followers of this band and stand by the article as a whole. We tried to help edit the article today for the author and if there is something that needs to be change then we have no problems with that but to delete it seems to be a more personal issue with these users and not a fair action. We were to be making donations to this site but if this is how they will handle articles that we find relevant then we must reconsider since we thought this was a site based on information for those that wish to seek it not bias negative feedback from those who don't speak for us or the fans of this band. Fans of CK 05:45, 26 March 2006 No such user; comment actually by User:Controversy Kills.
    • If by "not a fair action" you mean "in accordance with well-established policies like WP:MUSIC and WP:V"... then you're right. Instead of expending energy making baseless accusations, please read Wikipedia policies and make your case accordingly. --Kinu t/c 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (m)(m) why delete it? let it be.
  • Delete, maybe in a few years, it'll be notable :). Gflores Talk 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE I think it's a bit ridiculous that a site that is made to provide information for people would try to delete a band bio page that provides information for it's fans. I have seen other bios on this site and do not see that this bio is any less adequate to be left on the site. Furthermore why would you delete a webpage that provides information about Controversy Kills on the basis that when you "google" them you find no information. It only seem logical that in order to solve that oh so horrible problem that you would need to create pages like this one to provide the informaiton people are looking for. As far as I can tell, the only reason people have wanted this page deleted because they personally don't have a preference for the band. Although I'm sure it seems the world should revolve around their whims and desires, I just don't see that it is valid reasoning for deleting the page of band who is just trying to get their information out their for people to see.LOGIC No such user; comment actually by User:68.220.87.26.
    • Unfortunetly, we can't keep an article that asserts no nobility just for the sake of a few fans. If you really want to post information about your band on the internet, you could always go to MySpace--TBC??? ??? ??? 07:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE, Just because it's not notable to you doesnt mean it's not to us. This doesnt hurt you then why degrade as if it does? It helps the people that are interested in what it has to say to able to access it and to delete shows us that maybe this site isn't as notable as I thought it was since it can't provide information on something we are interested in knowing about. As per the person above that was going to make a donation but was rethinking that now, I side with them, since my family wanted to provide a donation to something that we once consider a vital site, we must know look to see this as a site that only wants to provide information that is of interest to them. I think to have anyone one person that is interested in information about this band is more enough reason to keep it. If this is so then I will make my familys donation. Thank you for your time. WesWill 06:29, 26 March 2006 No such user; comment actually by User:69.37.94.176; second recommendation by this user.
  • DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!! This is a great band, and deleting someone trying to further their career by spreading their image/information is rude and unnecessary. Everyone needs a chance, and how are they supposed to become relevant enough to pass WP:BAND if their profiles are deleted?!(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.253.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not for career promotion. First you get famous, then you get the article, not the other way round. Sandstein 07:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep posting your band comments and we are the ones that worked on it, not the band though we would had loved to get there insight on this article. Do we really need a thousand people to say the samething here? We love the site and we love the fact this article is on here. Why delete something we enjoy that brings no harm to you. If this how your editors work, then maybe they need to understand what is important to the some of the people who use this site and not just their own opinion of what is important. Why fight about this? Can't we just agree that some things are not for everyone but are important enough to have up for those of us who need it can come look at it here? Fans of CK 07:20, 26 March 2006

Don't Delete: Why be so harsh they are a good band trying to get their share of the wealth in this world.

      • Don't delete this band. How are they ever supposed to get ahead if nobody will help them just a little bit? These things take a lot of time and a lot of effort, and deleting this will hurt them a lot more than keeping it will hurt you.***
  • Comment: The sockpuppetry and ignoring of all rules by the anonymous/new editors is not helping their case. It borders on trolling. I hereby petition any administrator to consider early closure per WP:SNOW. --Kinu t/c 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you say our user name doesnt exist? We are fans of CK whats wrong with saying that? This is starting to get crazy. What do you guys have against this band?Fans of CK or to make it clear for the person that finds a reason to "correct" everything we say ,our sign in name is controversy kills
  • Speedy delete per Kinu. dbtfztalk 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your going to delete this no matter what we want and the staff is not being clear with whats really wrong with the article. They choose to try to make us look like fools for liking this band this much. So if thats what you are going to do then I guess it doesnt matter what we say.controversy kills

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Abrogate with prejudice (Bjorn Tipling 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, plain and simple. --lightdarkness (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, it clearly fails WP:MUSIC. The article bleeds with the red ink of non-notable musicians. --Hyperbole 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was tempted to vote delete solely because of the sock puppetry, but decided to read the article and do a Google search for it anyway. I think this band is not notable enough to have an article, and the sock puppetry isn't helping either. JIP | Talk 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable band. if they can't make it in the real world they can't make it here. doktorb | words 08:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article asserts notability namely tours of the US and Europe. However, the only site I could find using "Controversy Kills" tour outside the bands page was reference in the Connecticut Post in a Battle of the Bands competition. This band may well be notable in the future but doesn't meet our standards of notability as yet. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small band with one indie release, yet to gain notable status - WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, also the sock puppetry doesnt help their case either. -- Arnzy (Talk) 10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. User:24.67.253.203's comment perhaps makes the strongest case for deletion, ironically. [11]. Regards —Encephalon 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable ccwaters 13:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not notable. The sockpuppetry here is disgusting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per nn. When will people learn that sockpuppetry doesn't help in an AfD, it just pisses everyone off. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:46, 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. Flowerparty■ 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kudzu Gazette[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information (things this page seem to be.) AfD IS a forum to discuss the merits of articles though. Student publications have been an ambiguous area of notability to me and I would like to see some dicussion about it (so I brought it here instead of prodding the article), but I think this particular one should be deleted as vanity. Grandmasterka 04:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Day of the Birds[edit]

Probably a hoax. If the day exists at all, which it may, I doubt it exists on April 1 (April Fool's Day, of course). On the other hand, Google does show a few results that appear to be reliable - they have different dates, they don't seem to align with what the article says, but an International Day of the Birds may well exist. If it does, though, I don't think it's notable, and it should be deleted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:44, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

Delete Permanent stub about a minor group that lasted for less than ten years. Violates WP:V. Article not updated since May 2005. --metzerly 08:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn and unsourced/unverifiable.--Jersey Devil 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and unverifiable. --Terence Ong 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable (ever tried google?). [12] [13] Secondly, POR(Masas) is by itself not a very large group, but it is a historical inheritor of the original POR, which was one of the largest political parties in Bolivia in its haydays. --Soman 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the article has now been expanded somewhat and references. Also, it appears POR(Masas) is identical to the original POR. --Soman 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the article still fails notability. It was an international group that existed for less than ten years--when the POR was a shell of its former self. Except for POR, none of the groups in this international are notworthy. --metzerly 15:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. notability is something relative. For someone doing research on developments of trotskyist movements in Latin America, its highly relevant to know what happened to POR's international relations. Deleting the article would leave a possible in other articles. Also, ten years is hardly a shorty period in politics. --Soman 18:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CERCI was an important international in Latin America. —Sesel 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Article has been rewritten, in the interest of making the right decision I think this needs further consideration.W.marsh 04:48, 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 MERGEd to Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. -Doc ask? 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Iraq[edit]

Originally {{prod}}ded by Alex Bakharev saying it "does not look like a coherent article", but the author removed it saying they were pressured to finish it. I am now brining it here. Delete as a mere excerpt from an interview and copyvio. Royboycrashfan 04:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged the quote to Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and redirected. I hope it's OK for all. Raphael1 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.E.R.E.S.[edit]

  • Delete seems to fail WP:CORP Dalamori 05:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, I didn't find very many relevant ghits outside Wiki and mirrors. Royboycrashfan 05:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable company, fails WP:CORP --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn Gflores Talk 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crap article. not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 271000 Ghits seems notable enough for me Jcuk 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Jay(Reply) 23:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surprising number of verified hits on google and even on google news. Client list includes some big time clients like Nike and Ford. Would probably pass WP:CORP based on publications; seems like there are tons, but I didn't go back to see which were reprints of press releases. Article should really, really be re-written to look less like crap, per Mr. Crossword. Kuru talk 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should also probably be renamed to just "Ceres (coalition)" as I don't think they ever use the acronym CERES, and certainly not with the periods. Kuru talk 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a very influential group with massive press coverage that got written up as recently as this week in the NY Times [14]. -- JJay 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup, seems notable, though it's almost a substub right now. -Colin Kimbrell 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename (Kuru's suggestion, probably): The news section on their website seems to imply notability. TimBentley (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and edit. Looks notable and somewhat influential (see JJay's NY Times link). KBi 01:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80 members of the parliament who voted against Vichy France[edit]

Unencyclopaedic listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Rory096 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Rory096 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I see that the issue at hand was important, I don't see how knowing which individuals did not vote for it is. Additionally, this could set a dangerous precedent for other, similar lists. --InShaneee 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing them is important, because after the war, "the opposition of these 80 people received an increased recognition" [15]. Those who didn't oppose basically killed their political career afterwards and those who opposed formed of the post-war politics. Tony Bruguier 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But do we really need articles for every issue that was a turnkey for every politician? --InShaneee 18:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Gflores Talk 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the parliamentary record. Sandstein 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. JIP | Talk 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. --Khoikhoi 09:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. The 80 members of the French parliament who voted against the instauration of the Vichy regime have been celebrated as heros in France since WWII. Their action was one of the first open signs of resistance to the German occupiers, coming very shortly after Degaulle's Appel of June 18. Like the resistance fighters, their refusal to rubber stamp Vichy allowed France to save face after the war. I object to this nom that refuses to examine the issues involved and appeal to voters to reconsider. -- JJay 14:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Mackan 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a 'normal' vote, those voting against faced arrest for voting against the establishment of a puppet regime. That doesn't happen every day. Voting to delete this is almost as odd as removing a list of the names of signatories to the US declaration of independence. Average Earthman 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While I agree that "Wikipedia is not the parliamentary record", this is not a regular vote. This law terminated a 70-year old constitution and started a new form of government. As per Avergae Earthman, Wikipedia keeps the list of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. Regarding Rory's WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, students are this in high school in France (see also this) and removing the article would be POV against non-English speaking part of the World's history. I agree there is a threshold to decide, but if wikipedia keeps this one (sorry for the fans), then I think we should have the list. Tony Bruguier 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as the precedent this sets is clear: this article is being kept because it is a vote of historical significance. Not because we want to keep general parliamentary records. --Deville (Talk) 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Wikipedia cannot list the outcomes of routine legislative decisions, a vote that actually changed the form of government for this country cannot be regarded as routine. Due to its historic importance (the French Resistance, postwar politics, etc.) this is actually one of Wikipedia's more important lists. This isn't a paper encyclopedia: let's keep a few electrons busy for serious students of history. Durova 16:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have noted, this was a rather important vote, subjugating France to Germany's will. A2Kafir 17:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important part of European history. Eivindt@c 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable. meets article criteria. Newyorktimescrossword 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above Jcuk 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Deville i.a. Bridesmill 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as above. A very useful list for those who want to find out more about les 80, who are indeed considered French heroes. ProhibitOnions 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely not listcruft. --Jay(Reply) 23:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While we shouldn't have lists of who voted for and against every motion in every parliament, this event is significant enough to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But it could probably be renamed something that might be easier to search against. Peter Grey 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The event is notable, as is the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence; and if this listing is cruft, so is that article's listing of signers. I.e., keep as per Tony Bruguier. SigPig 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above, this is not unlike a list of the signers of the declaration of independence. The act of voting against was very important and had a strong impact, Wikipedia should definitely maintain this list as thoroughly notable and encyclopedic. If we delete this, it will establish a precednt under which I would almost feel obligated to nominate every list in Wikipedia for deletion. Cool3 20:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable, as of the seminal events of French history. Works much better as a list than it would if incorporated into an article. -Colin Kimbrell 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. incog 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, actually. (I Live in France, and couldn't find the information anywhere else!)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Hardness Scale[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, and possibly original research. -- Filliam H Muffman 05:50, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Daze[edit]

nn amateur film. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to IMDB, looks to be a very, very, very low-budget horror film that went straight to video. The same cast and crew have done two others since, "Love & Plutonium" and "Weenie Roast Massacre" (not yet released). Nobody you've ever heard of was involved in any of these projects, and none of these people have ever been involved in anything you've heard of. Fan1967 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn no-budget film. Eivindt@c 09:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 06:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The film seems notable enough, though the article is written in a rather unencyclopedic tone. I've added an IMDB link as well as a {{tone}} tag. dbtfztalk 07:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suppose if it does have an IMDb link, then it is notable. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan. MaNeMeBasat 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I didn't vote. I consider this one right on the borderline. It is an actual film, though the odds of your ever seeing it are pretty slim. Fan1967 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, though I personally think it would be better served by a single article on Loose Change Entertainment, and have mentions for each of their films, release dates, primary contributors, external links, etc. It would serve to establish collective notability, when a straight-to-video release, that most people have never heard of nor will never see, in an article by itself doesn't really do that. It should be noted that the IMDB entries for their movies and actors were written by one of their actor/directors and shouldn't really be considered a truly independent source. -Dawson 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.--Alabamaboy 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Is in the House[edit]

Non-notable defunct blog. Gflores Talk 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've never heard of it either, but "Allah Is in the House" blog does garner 250,000+ Google results, and Allahpundit gets 175,000, in my mind meeting the criteria for notability. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a notable blog; as said above there are quite a few Google results, many of which are relevant --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable blog, I used to read this sometimes when it was still active. Was widely linked to at the time from other major blogs. Sandstein 07:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Arnzy (Talk) 10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, definitely a notable blog, was widely linked to. Allah still contributes to other blogs. ProhibitOnions 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This defunct blog doesn't appear to have met any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If it has, please add proof of that criteria to the article. Esquizombi 23:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added this entry because the website wasn't around anymore, so I didn't know if/when anyone else would. As indicated, most of the content was humorous (as with The Best Page in the Universe), although the website did contribute original research in the Killian documents scandal. I knew that, due to its limited life and the limited scope of its (generally right-wing) audience, someone would try to delete it, so I hope those who vote first look at the links I posted, including those to the National Review Online, Free Republic, InstaPundit, and Andrew Sullivan. Allah Is in the House was important and influential in its time, so much so that it was difficult for me to find a right-wing political weblog whose archives didn't link to it. It would be a shame to see its entry deleted solely due to its now being defunct. Calbaer 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is being linked to today by Michelle Malkin at http://www.michellemalkin.com. Michelle is one of the biggest conversvative bloggers in the world and it is embarrassing that this article is being linked to while it is being considered for deletion. Since there is no consensus here to delete and we're close to the end of the five-day deletion process, I am going to end this AfD and remove the deletion notice.--Alabamaboy 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, the fact that this article is being linked to by Michelle Malkin (who has like 11.3 million Google hits), and that the person who is the subject of the article is guest-editing for her, seems to remove any question of whether or not the subject of the article is notable.--Alabamaboy 16:51, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NinDB[edit]

Non notable website, makes no claims to notability. --Rory096 06:16, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saipacs[edit]

Nominator had made a mess of the nomination. I'm not sure it had even been orphaned. Anyway. Listing now. Also tagged Mail Manager, an associated page. Delete both. Note SaiPACS, which redirects to Mail Manager Proto||type 13:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 06:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Corwon[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS

Bio-stub for a person that does not show up on Google (except as a flower show director); the supplied "sources" are not linked. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As above. Wickethewok 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Declines credit on most productions; instead, typically accepting assignments on a confidential basis." Let's help him out. --Kinu t/c 07:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom--Looper5920 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu --Deville (Talk) 16:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete look up. Newyorktimescrossword 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth Maker[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball, advertisement), WP:SOFTWARE [proposed], WP:VAIN

Software that is said to be "currently in development". Eminently non-notable (with no user-base) and speculative. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks cool but unfortunately it has along way to go before it meets WP:SOFTWARE/notability. The article in its current form is too much of an advertisement as well. --Hetar 07:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this program related to [17]? Probably not, but that appears to be notable, with quite a few plug-ins. - Tangotango 07:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badunk[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:VAIN.

Apparent neologism for a sexual act, no references in the article, no such (or indeed any one) meaning apparent from Google results. Judging from last paragraph, possibly some inept advertising for someone's porn films. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; at the least, unverifiable; likely protologism. --Kinu t/c 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google returns a whopping 0 hits for "badunking." nn neologism. --Hyperbole 08:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others. I do like the "came about in the 1960's in Britain" part. --Deville (Talk) 08:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wailing Jacks[edit]

Band doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Eagletalk 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not the least notable group I've ever seen, but the Student Music Awards aren't sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC, a "national tour of England" doesn't mean anything more than that they're willing to drive, and unverifiable quotes from notable musicians don't seem to help their case much, either. Maybe next year? --Hyperbole 08:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hyperbole --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hyperbole. --Khoikhoi 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario releated things[edit]

Need I even provide a reason? Unencyclopaedic fancruft. Spelled wrong. --Rory096 08:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. --Hyperbole 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Ezeu 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, fancruft, unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  10:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for GameFAQs forums. JIP | Talk 11:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure this qualifies as fancruft. That implies that fans find it interesting or important. Pagrashtak 13:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Useless, not important. M2K 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Look at his talk page & "contributions". Wikipedia is not a gaming forum. Lord Falcon 20:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete worthless article. not needed. Newyorktimescrossword 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list, put the info back in the main article if it's at all important. ProhibitOnions 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pagrashtak. Good one ;-) --Icarus 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genderfuck day[edit]

nonnotable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClearView[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (advertisement), WP:SOFTWARE [proposed], WP:VAIN

Flight simulator software for hobbyists. Unlikely to be notable with a forum of 55 members and 112 posts. Reads like an advertisement from the software's author. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skirtz I am the author of ClearView. This software allows RC entusiasts to create and share virtual rc models and flying fields. The entry is not advertizement and is only factual. The fact that the community is small not a reason to delete the page.

Sorry, but yes, it is a reason to delete the page. See our standard WP:WEB. Sandstein 20:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Optionally recreate as redirect to Clearview if the Wiki software won't automatically recognize it as such. --Kinu t/c 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnet Pub[edit]

Non-notable subject matter, no signficant content. Google returns only Wikipedia and directory listings. *Satis 09:50, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edakupeta[edit]

This is completely irrelevant to the rest of the world... Captain Awesome 10:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, as there's now a unanimous move to do so. Flowerparty■ 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molinology[edit]

Pseudo-definition already at Wiktionary with a little additional information found at Mill BigBlueFish 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep A little obscure, but appears to be an actual field of study. Article should be expanded a bit. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Flowerparty■ 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OhNo. --Hyphen5 13:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's definitely an academic field, or at least an area of interest for some. I have cleaned up the article and stubbed and catted it. --BillC 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add: the individual named in the article as having coined the term seems to have been an academic with some notability in his own right: João Miguel dos Santos Simões --BillC 14:57, 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. 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article admits to speculation (albeit with claimed proof).➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - speculation. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was thought to be GTA: TOkyo, that doesn't mean Tokyo should have had its own article. --Philo 12:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conscripts[edit]

Non-notable band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Claims to be "world famous" so not speediable.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable band. Feezo (Talk) 13:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Where (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really nn, this link seems like it returns some hits, but as far as I can tell "Steve Towson and the Conscripts" are a completely different story. Also, if all they do is "destroy" music scenes, we should get rid of them quick, before they cause more damage! --Deville (Talk) 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i hate band vanity. sigh...Newyorktimescrossword 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ronabop 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blues(Rockman Exe)[edit]

Original research (ie written in the first person). Nonsensical (but not patent). Lacks context to a casual reader, but with time and effort you could work out what it's on about. Just misses speedy criteria on three fronts!➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAjax[edit]

Speedy delete. Redirects to deleted article Sleepyhead 13:22, 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 Speedily Deleted due to pointless replication of information already present in correctly-spelt article.  (aeropagitica)  19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examiniation[edit]

Duplicates material better presented at Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. -- Picapica 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or just redirect. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (redirect is pointless, because the article only exists because of the misspelling of 'Examination')
  • Speedy Delete, no redirect as Examiniation is not a common misspelling of the word Examination --TBC??? ??? ??? 17:49, 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. Flowerparty■ 11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonsite and Kryptonisite[edit]

Both articles are identical. Proposed for deletion, but an anon objected. Article concerns a fansite for Smallville and is essentially unverifiable due to lack of any reliable third-party sources. The website is already linked from Smallville (TV series) and does not need its own article. Delete. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with above. Make sure we get Kryptonisite too if this gets deleted, atm its basically the same article. --Syrthiss 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree both should be deleted as per above. --Scott 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't quite think they meet WP:WEB but they come close. ~10k alexa rank, at least one interview with the cocreator of the show [19]. kotepho 14:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen it. That's not a third-party article about Kryptonsite, that's an interview with Al Gough. It verifies that the site exists and does interviews, and nothing else. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most fansites do not get interviews though. It might qualify as reprinting but I don't think the Hollywood North Report is notable enough. kotepho 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that redirects are cheap, but it seems implausible to me. It's neither phonetically similar nor an obvious typo (at least on a QWERTY keyboard). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty■ 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New Jersey Devils[edit]

redundant copy from New Jersey Devils ccwaters 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nomination is premature at best, someone just created it with edit summary "Moving to separate article, will expand this article and trim main one to move towards FA status". Gene Nygaard 14:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you put it that way, I'm just trying to save us the trouble of a merge request a few days from now. Find me any other sports team that has a standalone History article. ccwaters 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that there's no reason for a separate article. Anything that might be here will obviously be in the Devils article. Bucketsofg 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The editors are trying to break up a large article into constituent parts, and this is a reasonable way to do it. Of course, this is assuming that the duplications which now exist between the two articles will be removed. --Deville (Talk) 16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm the one who made this article, having split it off of the main page. Several teams have a separate history page; Arsenal F.C., New England Patriots and IFK Goteborg are three examples of featured articles that use a separate history page to prevent overcrowding the main article. Since I'm working on moving the Devils to potential FA status, I am using those two team articles that are already featured as templates. I will trim the history on the main article to bring it in line with proper standards; conversely I will expand the history article to include things not noteworthy enough to make the main page. Anthony Hit me up... 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never noticed those before. The word count of the copy in History of the New England Patriots is roughly 8600 and the copy in the related section in New England Patriots#Franchise history is roughly 2000. The Patriots are a 46 yearold team. Compare that to the 1200 word count in the 24 yearold New Jersey Devils history. I could see such an article being warranted for an original six NHL franchise, but not such a relatively young team. ccwaters 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted they are a younger franchise, but they still have an extensive history, having been one of the most dominant and respected team of the last 10-15 years. As Gene Nygaard said above, I just created the article last night, and I haven't even had substantial time to work on either article yet. Please give it some time before AfD is considered. I understand your position, but let me flesh it out. If you still think it's excessive, then AfD it in a few weeks. But don't nip it in the bud before it has a chance to get going. Even if the main Devils article doesn't reach full FA status (for one reason or another), it will still be a vast improvement over what is there now. Anthony Hit me up... 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deville and Anthony Jcuk 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pe above. Although as a Sens fan, my POV vote would have to be 'Delete - nn' ;-) Bridesmill 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anthony, we can re-list on AfD or merge-tage in a while if the content doesn't get trimmed on related pages. Ronabop 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with team's page.Tombride 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough info to warrant its own page. Proto||type 09:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough good information for its own article. --Cúchullain t c 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, although the debate appears to move on towards the end: this is a set of editorial decisions, however. -Splashtalk 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weebl and Bob cartoons[edit]

A flash animation series. Surely one article on Weebl and Bob must be enough? Forty different articles on the episodes seem a bit much

I am also nominating all the indvidual episode entries (listes on the nominated page), that or merging SELECTED parts of them to the main article Weebl and Bob. Mackan 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clear case of animacruft. Is the plan that we have the transcripts of every animation which appears on this website? --Deville (Talk) 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is totally misguided for these reasons:
    • The parent article is the current Macromedia Flash Cartoon Collaboration of the Week. No flash cartoon that isn't noteworthy would get this kind of attention.
    • This is more than just a list. It contains summaries and other information that are not readily available elsewhere.
    • Weebl and Bob are reasonably popular per Google. (Look at the number of search hits returned.)
    • Also, if you are going to delete this WaB list, then you also need to delete List of The Simpsons episodes to be consistent.
Nova SS 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I agree on having an article on Weebl and Bob but having each for every single episode? Basically all they contain are the scripts, if you're that into it, look at the damn cartoon, it's on the web for free and they are really SHORT and simple. Concerning the List of Simpsons episodes, I don't think I'm the only one to realise that's a completely different thing. How well known do you think the average Simpsons episode is compared to a Weebl and Bob episode?? Weebl and Bob gets 40 000 hits, which I think is enough for ONE (1) article, but flash artist Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog gets 47000 hits and he almost didn't get a single entry (see listed AFD). Weebl and Bob are well known and deserve an article but not every single episode does. Also, I appreciate the work of Macromedia Flash Cartoon Collaberation but if they spend all their energy towards writing an episode list for Weebl and Bob I think they are greatly misguided. There are so many famous flash artists not represented in Wikipedia, please write about them instead. And if you do, please use the category "Flash artist" I made recently. But don't waste your time here! Mackan 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD's purpose is not for us to be server administrators. I am not aware of any Wikipedia disk shortage.
The only valid reason to delete these would be non-notability, and and as you seem to agree, Weebl and Bob are notable. Also, there is not a sliding scale of notability. Either it is notable or it isn't. If it is notable, then it is allowed the same privileges of any other notable subject. How deeply it is fleshed out depends entirely on user interest and content volume. Weebl and Bob will never have the level of detail as The Simpsons, but that's mainly because there's just less subject matter. As this example episode shows, there is enough detail to be extracted from individual episodes to justify a separate article.
If it's OK for The Simpsons to have episode lists, then it's OK for WaB to have episode lists.
Nova SS 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There IS a "sliding scale of notability". Just because it's barely big enough to get one entry doesn't mean you can all of a sudden have 40 new about the same subject. Also, if Donkey_(Weebl_and_Bob_episode) is the best example you've got, I feel sorry for you. Besides the script there is one line ("This episode is the origin of Donkey, as well as the origin of the popular phrase "How rare!""). ""The origin of the popular phrase "How rare""??!?Mackan 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is wrongheaded. Votes in favor of deletion are votes in favor of violating the policy laid out in "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" section of the Notability policy.[20] Also, votes in favor of deletion are votes against puppies and kittens. Do you hate puppies and kittens? Nova SS 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy (as explicitly stated on the top of the page, "This is not a policy or guideline"), that's an argument. And if you scroll up just a little bit you'll see there are also Arguments for deleting non-notable articles... which you obviously would know. Please don't throw around false accusations like that. Mackan 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's not a policy. It's a tool, and it is a valid yardstick for this AFD.
If that's not good enough, check out Jimbo Wales's comments on fame that have strong bearing on this AFD. Also check the discussion. As long as it's verifiable, and it is, then notability is unlikely to be a valid argument for deletion.
Again, it is not our job to be sys admins. I promise: Wikipedia has enough disk space, and nobody's asking for our help in reducing disk space by deleting verifiable information.
As to your other point, please tell me which of the arguments for deletion under non-notability apply that wouldn't be fully canceled by the counterarguments.
Nova SS 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it's just two lists of arguments, I don't think they are fully canceled by anything, I don't think that's the nature of what they are saying. They are both just examples of what some editors think (and as it says at the top of the page, not even what most editors think).Mackan 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Nova SS. --Jay(Reply) 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a barely notable web-cartoon/animation, so we should have at least the entry for the cartoon itself. Having details, transcripts, and separate entries for all of the episodes (many less than 2 minutes), however, is a bit much, as is any comprehensive listing of them. This isn't the Simpsons, it's an obscure flash cartoon series. Ronabop 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so obscure that it has its own plush dolls [21][22] and DVD[23] and a whole series has been featured on MTV UK[24]. Nova SS 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These articles are in violation of several of the guidelines defined in [this document] (specified as guidelines: "A consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below. --InShaneee 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"). Example: "Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use." "(elements best avoided:) A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show" The entire procedure defined in "Creating articles on television episodes" has not been followed. Under "Dealing with problem articles" it says short articles should be merged with the main article. It also says TV shows should generally not be listed for AfD; however, why I think some of the guidelines could be used for a flash show as well, it is obvious that a flash show is so much less notable than a TV show.Mackan 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you're proposing, and it makes far more sense than deleting List of Weebl and Bob cartoons. Nova SS 03:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still proposing deleting the list, don't put words into my mouth. Well, I dunno, maybe the list could be kept but the individual episode entries are definately too much. Even the episode list seems so redundant, it seems like not even fans would care much about it.Mackan 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep --James 03:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Bo-Lingua 06:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC) I don't think that we should have the texts of each, but a synopsis and notable bits would be a good idea to keep.[reply]
  • Keep the list plus synopses, Delete individual episode articles --Stevefarrell 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody relist this?
  • Keep. --- Schnee (cheeks clone)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotal Corporation[edit]

Hi - this is a promo article. Rama's Arrow 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above George Wilson
  • Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have you done any notability research on this? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From its website, there doesn't appear anything notable about this firm. Rama's Arrow 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement, non-notable Alexa ranking of 242,777. Green Giant 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subsidiary of a redlinked corporation. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Creator is a good editor woth lots of history, has anyone notified him? Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added this article because a lot of other CRM companies had been added to Wikipedia. The company (no I don't work for them but I have worked for several companies that use their products) is a large company and is quite notable in its chosen field. It is a product that is used quite heavily worldwide by many organisations and I feel that it should remain. True it isn't a product that the public as a whole would be aware of but it is heavily used in customer service organisations and many large companies for CRM functionality. Yes someone has turned this into a promo but I do feel that if the mention of this is removed then there are a lot more companies with articles on Wikipedia with considerably less notability that should be removed. Just read their website and check out how many customers use it, how many worldwide offices it has and the like and then tell me it isn't a notable company. Just because most people haven't heard of it doesn't make it non notable. Ben W Bell 11:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and ad. --Terence Ong 11:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look back to the last edit by myself on the page you will see it wasn't the promo it is now, an anonymous user changed it to what it is today. It can be changed back and not then be a promo. Ben W Bell 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn corp, ad. Deizio 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. Software "to help organizations create superior customer experiences": would you buy anything from a software company that can't come up with a more concrete description of what it did? Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this version. I agree with Ben W Bell, and request all voters here please voice another opinion in light of the information he has provided. Alexa isn't the only test of notability. I was concerned about the non-notability information provided in the initial nomination and now I have done more research it appears to be legitimately notable in it's own way. Unless their website is blatantly lying about the numbers of offices they have set up all round the world. There is obviously still a danger that the article will only be turned into a promo page again. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

The article does needs substantial work. It doesn't state who started Pivotal, when CDC bought them, nor how their products are different than those of competitors, but the answer to that is to flesh out the piece and deglurge it of the puffery, not to delete it. ClairSamoht 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am relisting this because I feel that the new information necessitates a re-examination. Admins, feel free to close this within a day or two if clear consensus begins to emerge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • revert and keep (weakly). Given Ben Bell's comments above, I went through the edit history. The promotional material was mostly added by User:209.17.156.248, and a reverse IP look-up shows that (surprise, surprise) this address comes from 'pivotal.com'. I'm going to revert it to what I think is the best version (one or two after Ben Bell's). That is the version we should decide to delete or not. I'm slightly in favor of keeping it, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Bucketsofg 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how you can say "per nom" at this stage in the discussion? We've already established that a non-promo version of the article exists and I believe we are now voting on that. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This gets over the two-thirds level and the crystal-ballery arguments do seem sound. BorgHunter's comment appears to deal with another article altogether. -Splashtalk 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Riders 2[edit]

(My vote is Delete)The guy only said it might happen. The Game is just as planned as Sonic the Hedgehog Revolution. Ac1983fan 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree And I can give you a few reasons why the article should stay:

  1. Even if it is a rumor, it shouldn't be deleted until someone can bring forth evidence that the game is not being produced. (Right now all evidence points to its creation.) If not it could still be developed as a rumored game that didn't come about, like the Sonic Crackers article, and would improve Wikipedia.
  2. You can't get more definite than "definitely yes".
    [25] Speaking at a press event in London this week, Yuda-san told Eurogamer, "there will be a sequel to Sonic Riders, and it will definitely be on PS3 and Xbox 360". Definitely, we responded, parrot-like to the last? "Yes."
    Besides in the article quoted it was dependent on Sonic Riders being successful, which it has been.
  3. That "the Game is just as planned as Sonic the Hedgehog Revolution" is not concrete rationale because Sonic Riders has actually come out, unlike the PS3 and 360 editions of Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game). (said games are dependent on advertised earlier games so mentioned.)
  4. Unless I'm mistaken, shouldn't this have been discussed on the Sonic Riders 2 talk page before adding {{afd}} like that?

--DavidHOzAu 11:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Now that this is already an article, it makes no sense to delete it only to create one once again in the future. Since Sega started to release Sonic games ever year, this game shouldn't be that far off in the future. Lord Falcon 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This same situation was discussed for the Zelda DS article just a few days ago. The result was to delete. The reasoning is that currently there's just not enough information for these kinds of announcements to warrant their own articles. There's nothing in this article that couldn't just be said in one or two sentences on the Sonic Riders page. Until there's more information other than "it's a game that will probably come out sometime" this article does not fit Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. See: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point, I agree with TheKoG, there is almost no real information on the game other than a mention in the interview; Takashi Yuda only said there'd be a sequel, he didn't even name it, the source article just assumed it'd be "Sonic Riders 2". There's even a list of "confirmed" characters, when no such list was released by Sega, it's speculation. -- VederJuda 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spore (computer game) exists. Why not this? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because there's actually verifiable information about Spore. Read the article, it's not made-up information like the majority of this article. The only thing that's verifiable about Sonic Riders 2 is that the creator said something along the lines of "we're working on it." That is not enough information to base a Wikipedia article on. You might find reading WP:NOT helpful. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only verifiable information is "the creator said this would happen". Not yet enough to justify an article. Deserves a line in Sonic Riders, nothing more. This article is intrinsically original research by virtue of the fact that its very title is a guess. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. The burden of proof that there will be such a game lies with the article. Since it fails to establish its existence, it is a clear delete. Bucketsofg 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is a very clear case of crystal ballism, with a little WP:OR thrown in besides. I quote from the article: This could mean that Sonic Riders 2 may not be going to Nintendo Revolution and there making an entirely new Sonic Riders sequel taking advantage of the unique controller or it could mean something entirely different like a port. Sure, it could mean that. The article itself states that it's not clear this game will ever exist, and in any case the only evidence supporting this is a series of interviews. No established name, no release date, we don't even know for sure which console it will be released for! --Deville (Talk) 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystall ball. We know nothing beyond "the game may exist in some form in the future." As far as "Even if it is a rumor, it shouldn't be deleted until someone can bring forth evidence that the game is not being produced"... no, the article should not be created until someone can bring forth evidence that the game is being produced. --Kinu t/c 17:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All we know is that this game is planed. We have no idea as to when it will be released or what the game will be like. Right know there is not enough hard info to justify a separate article. Seano1 03:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are cancelled games in the Sonic series that are notable and have articles. Heck, who knows if space elevators will ever become real? I hear what all the delete votes are saying, but a large number of keepable articles feature a ton of sourced speculation (such as for one of the very systems the game may come out for.) I think we often forget that. As long as official sources say such a game is being planned, I think it can remain here at least for the time being. Grandmasterka 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One comment from the producer of the original game just isn't enough to base a seperate article on. A section in the Sonic Riders article about a possible sequel already exists, and essentially has the same information. If more concrete info comes out, the article can always be recreated. BryanG 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bryan. --Khoikhoi 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grandmasterka. --real_decimic 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but please remove the unverifiable Yuckfoo 09:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even enough speculation to warrant an article. - Hahnchen 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This game was only rumoured. Yuda was probably talking about a port to next-gen consoles. Like other people said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shadoman 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge into Sonic Riders per BryanG -Mask 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 11:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danglish[edit]

As currently written [26], this appears to be some kind of joke ("correct" versions of phrases are as incorrect as the "incorrect" versions). -- Curps 14:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if it can be cleaned up or expanded like other articles in the category Mixed languages, otherwise delete. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There certainly exist modes of Danish that are heavily infected with English words and idioms, and it is possible to write incomprehensible English by translating Danish syntax or idioms word-by-word. "Danglish" has been used to refer to either phenomenon, but most commonly the former. As written the article attempts to describe the latter, but provides no verifiable encyclopedic information whatsoever. The particular phrases offered as examples do not seem to be informed in particular by Danish (of which I'm a native speaker). Non-salvageable. Henning Makholm 15:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to write a real article on Danish-accented English, they're very welcome to do so. That's got absolutely nothing to do with this one, which is a bad joke. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Makholm. Unencyclopedic. Bucketsofg 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopædic. unfunny joke.  (aeropagitica)  19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unfunny "joke". If there's a Danish equivalent of Denglish, this isn't it. ProhibitOnions 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe a real article can be written on this subject, but the problem isn't that it's a stub. The problem is that it's so silly that anyone trying to write a real article would have to start from scratch regardless of whether or not this "article" remains. --Icarus 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, discounting most of the 'keep' comments. Flowerparty■ 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norgs[edit]

Neologism. Few hits on google for this meaning--most appear to use this word as slang for breasts. Delete, and possibly redirect to Breast. JeremyA 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added "critical mass" [27] and "meetup" [28] if the entries did not already exist. "Norgs" has entered the language in the same way. Many of the blogs cited are read more widely than many printed products. Carl— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.199.102 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Perhaps it's a neologism, but it's a neologism coined to describe a new and evolving phenomenon. In his original post, Will Bunch wrote "Hence, the 'norg.' 'Norg' because we need to lose our old identity with one dying medium, newspapers, and stress our most valuable commodity, the one that we truly own, and that is news . . . without the paper. Thus, we must now be news organizations, or 'norgs.'" Before this entry is deleted as a neologism, I would like to know what term can be adequately substituted in its place. We -- and by "we" I mean a diverse and influential group of established journalists, new media bloggers, and community activists -- are starting a growing conversation about the future of news and the future of newspapers. I agree with Carl that critical mass has been reached, as reflected in the google search linked above. I hope that the quote from Will Bunch shows that this is not, as Deville suggests, "completely restricted to blogs." -- Tattered_Matt 19:39, 26 March 2006

Keep - The meaning of this word is changing by the moment, and elevating to a higher and useful purpose. I would think again before removing it because some Australians have used it childishly. If you insist, keep it singular: Norg. -- Daniel Rubin, the Philadelphia Inquirer/blinq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrubin (talk • contribs)

  • Delete The above two comments describe why it should not be kept. It's a new, evolving, changing word, that is not in widespread use, and what use there is, is inconsistent. Most definitely not encyclopedic. Fan1967 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fan-1967, can you clarify what you mean by "widespread use"? Where is the threshold, and how is "widespread use" measured? Tattered_Matt 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where you'd draw the threshold exactly, but wherever it is, "norgs" is clearly below it. I find less than 1000 google hits, half of which seem to be about breasts. Fan1967 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no measurable threshold, I find it hard to understand how norgs is "clearly" below it. Tattered_Matt 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was no threshold, I said it isn't precise. IMO, a few hundred references doesn't cut remotely qualify as "widespread". Words in common usage get tens (or hundreds) of thousands of hits. This is a new word that hasn't caught on yet, and there isn't even consensus as to what it means. Fan1967 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some have said the meaning of this word is changing by the moment, I would argue there is a solid definition of the word - but its implementation will change as the web changes.

"Norgs are news organizations that support "acts of journalism". This support can sometimes include legal, financial, organizational, and instuctional components in different combinations, regardless of medium. Products may include printed newspapers, websites, forums, wikis, podcasts, blogs, video, or any combination of these. As such, a Norg operates independently of format and medium, a break from how many traditional media organizations view themselves."

I've editted the Wikipedia entry to firm it up a bit - but I think Will Bunch, fairly much defined the term appropriately. It's "newness" or lack of poularity should not be a cause for deletion. Maybe for it to face Wikipedia's community for further editting - yes - as examples and implementations come along - but not deletion. -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.17.32.27 (talk • contribs)

Keep - Concerning the threshold for widespread usage, is this threshold at all influenced by the authority of those making the case for it? In other words, if the term is in heavy use by executives and veterans of the field to which it applies, how relevant is this vague threshold for the Google-ability of the word? Would it be any more legitimate if two million teenagers were using it online as a slang term? If so, maybe some are misunderstanding (or overestimating?) the legitimate purpose of this site. -- Howard Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.174.36 (talk • contribs)

Keep - This term has been used for the last half a year by established people from the main stream media and new media. This conversation has spread from blogs to the corporate boardroom. If credibility is what some are worried about, then what do managing editors, senior writers, an editorial page editor, senior IT people of two established papers in the fifth largest city in the US bring to the table? One of the founders of Entertainment Weekly? The cooperation of an Ivy League school along with the attendence of the Dean of said school? A group of the most involved and widely read bloggers from the community? Representatives from Independent Media from two cities? Among others from across the country who could not make it to the physical unconference due to scheduling conflicts. Yes this is a new term, but as Karl noted, there does exist a solid definition and ideal behind the word. It will be an organic and changing form, but the roots are firmly in place. This term should stay and continue to grow and be edited by the wiki community as the wiki is a part of the essence of the term. Dragonballyee 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a protologism, and we don't keep those here, unless they acquire widespread media attention that this term doesn't have. -Colin Kimbrell 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • protologism is defined as "A newly created word given a definition in the hope that it will be used in that sense." I would argue that what we have here is "A definition given a word by a community of experts in its domain, including members of academia, newspaper publishing, and blogging, except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet." -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kmartino (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Your statement "except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet" is the very heart of protologism. I have to note that just about every "Keep" comment that has been posted here reinforces the fact that this word does not fit Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Fan1967 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why you won't find any article on "protologism" in Wikipedia. (There is currently a redirect from "protologism" to "neologism", being discussed for deletion presently). Henning Makholm 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the entry for "protologism" to which I linked was on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Also note that it was under a subsection for wiki-specific jargon, which was created to help users acclimate themselves to the wiki environment. "Protologism" had an entry on Wikipedia at one time, but it was deleted.[29] -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find me some print media citations (physical media, not blogs), and I might be willing to change my opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Prayer Christian Church[edit]

Church in Georgia. No apparent claims to notability. Delete. DMG413 14:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as the expanded article explains what the church is and why it is notable. --DMG413 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nn. Bucketsofg
  • Keep Can you give me a chance to develop the page please? I'm not sure I understand why it should be deleted. I have a lot of information about this group that I am compiling. Perhaps it's because I'm new to Wikipedia and I am not doing this correctly? Please advise. Hanako
  • Delete per nom, but I'd be happy to change my view if Hanako fills out the article before the close of the AfD. While every article is theoretically "a work in progress" on Wikipedia, it is best to at least have the basic establishment of notability and why it should be included in the encyclopedia, even in a stub, as is, it does not. -Dawson 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep and expand, per Hanako & JJ. -Dawson 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a church as in one building or the people who worship in that building. It's actually a small denomination. See the end of New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc Seano1 00:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Check this out: [30]... 53,000 google hits. It'a appparently quite the striking organization. Ronabop 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change my vote if convinced that this is a notable subject. The Google search seems too wide, though - a search for "House of Prayer Christian Church" pulls up just 153 hits, the first few of which are for a San Antonio church, not the Georgia one. --DMG413 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not just one Church in Georgia, it a denomination with almost 200 Churchs. Seano1 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Tombride 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable. --GorillazFanAdam 04:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --James 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come back when it's Westminster Abbey. Denni ☯ 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc has always experienced a high attrition rate among its ministry and membership, and in 2004 they experienced a sizeable schism when a segment of their ministers withdrew and formed House of Prayer Christian Church which is comprised of military-oriented churches and based in Hinesville, Georgia. As of March 2006, the church had less than 5,000 constituents and not more than 150 churches/preaching points. However, they were ranked as the fifth most active topic thread among hundreds of religious groups on FACTNet, which is a counter-cult Internet bulletin board.
Just as the Catholic Church is not just a building in Room; the House of Prayer Christian Church is actually between 100 and 150 local churches. That’s why Google returns a page about a church in San Antonio. It also means comparing this article to an article on Westminster Abbey is misleading. This subject is not claiming to be notable because it’s a land mark, be because it’s a national organization. Seano1 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the schism and the 100s of Churches involved we obviously need this article. I hope that it is expanded pronto. -- JJay 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded, and more forthcoming. Thank you. Hanako

"Pentacostal" in the intro line needs to be corrected to "Pentecostal." Thank you.

  • Keep please. I am the author of the article on NTCC, HOP's parent church. The numbers cited above apply to NTCC, not HOP. HOP's numbers are roughly 10 to 20 percent of NTCC's. But both groups proselyte aggresively, and so affect much larger numbers of people than those they currently claim as members. Rin3guy
  • Delete 18-month old, nn church. Eusebeus 13:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eusebeus what does nn mean? no-name? These zealots actively solicit on military bases, coming into contact with hundreds of soldiers each week, and chaplains and other military leaders frequently seek for info about this group and its parent church, NTCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rin3guy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep If this were just one church, I would agree that it's non-notable (nn) and would not argue about it being deleted...but this is an entire denomination who happens to have named themselves "House of Prayer Christian Church". I'm sorry if it sounds like it's singular, but it's not. This group is notable because of it's extremist views and tactics. The article is developing...it is sparse thus far because sources are rare when a group shuts themselves off from the outside world, and doesn't allow any form of media to come in or go out. Thank you for your consideration. Hanako 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shindig Me 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the editor who nominated this for deletion has changed his vote, and struck out the the nomination. Thank you. Hanako 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform on the tube[edit]

Contested Prod. Original prod by RHaworth was "badly spelled vanity: http://www.freewebs.com/dincov1 is the website of author user:Unisouth" -- Blue520 15:04, 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 this but Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy remains. W.marsh 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOLDOP[edit]

Basically a link farm and advertising for a dictionary. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overall Alexa rank for www.swif.it, the parent website where this is located, is #2,520,866. Fan1967 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. doesn't appear to come close to WP:WEB. Alexa rank can be deceptive - if we use that as a criteria then all manner spam sites would be listed... Bridesmill 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete it, please it is a stub for a better entry. FOLDOP is the philosophical version of FOLDOC (which is obviously ok), on which it was originally based. Just give enough time to the FOLDOP guys to come up with a better definition. I've already told them to write it following the FOLDOP entry. Floridi 16:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:WEB. The articles of Luciano Floridi, SWIF, IACAP (same author), all the articles of FloridiContrib smell of self promotion. No other contributors found. MaNeMeBasat 06:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, Marcello Di Bello made me realize that the entry is already available at Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy. Shall we transform this into a signpost? PS A quick consideration: smells can be deceiving 8) cheers Floridi 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax. DS 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Charman[edit]

Nominating three articles: Russel Charman, a soccer team Toronto Tigers and a stadium The Tigers Den. None of this can be found on google, seems like a hoax. Can anyone find any of these? There are "Toronto Tigers" but they seem small local clubs of various sports; none seem to be on the USL First Division as claimed. Everything created by one user Charruss (talk | contribs) and defended by a handful of users with no edits outside these articles (except the random vandalism). Weregerbil 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax. According to the USL's own team list, [31] there are no Toronto Tigers in either division. Fan1967 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Toronto Tigers as hoax; Delete Charman as likely hoax and/or vanity. Bucketsofg 16:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment. Primary author for most of these is User:Charruss (talk · contribs), which implies vanity is behind all this Bucketsofg 16:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear vanity hoax (is there a worse kind of hoax?). Team definitely never existed in that league, and no way a 50 year old stadium has no Ghits. --Deville (Talk) 17:10, 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. -Splashtalk 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KenyaTech[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB was created as an attack page since some of the comments on this page were removed from another article Mike (T C) 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per NPOV rewrite, please close. Mike (T C) 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 07:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep & rewrite notable scam artists. 15,000 google hits. Documented on TV news. Quite well-known within its rather dubious field - notorious, even. There's no reason they should escape exposure. This shouldn't be an attack page, but neither should this notable and sketchy business group be allowed to escape all notice just because such businesses prefer to fly under the radar. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your willing to help me rewrite this with a NPOV then lets do it, i'll withdraw the nomination. But we have to be careful, everything must be documented exactly and be 100% proven from legit independent websites (ie kenyatechwatch is not independent of this article and is not a valid resource, but news articles are). Mike (T C) 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, will do. I'll rewrite sometime tonight or tomorrow. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending the possible rewrite. If nothing emerges, other admins should feel free to close this. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per my nom, im withdrawing my withdrawal. nothing has been rewritten. Mike (T C) 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Alternative lifestyle, seems both natural and in line with the discussion following the rewrite. -Splashtalk 18:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Living[edit]

Appears to be ripped directly from a website. Icarus 07:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Nom, Plus not even article. ~Linuxerist L / T 08:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for not really being an article. Wickethewok 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A copy-and-paste job. Burschik 09:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, easy to spot copyvio, this... It's ripped off from the external link mentioned in the page. To admin: don't forget to delete the copyvio image (Image:Veg.JPG) too. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio, as per Kimchi.sg. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to to Alternative living with correct capitilisation, and completly rewrite. Article as it stands is copyvio, but as it is an important concept and frequently used term: 15,000,000 google links. Might be worth merging with Alternative lifestyle. --Salix alba (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now removed copyvio material and replaced with a stub article. --Salix alba (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge stub with Alternative lifestyle. Sandstein 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator changing vote to merge per Sandstein now that article has been totally re-written as a stub. --Icarus 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Article was rewritten late in the AfD --W.marsh 15:44, 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 NO CONSENSUS. This is actually difficult to close as a delete because some reasonable points are made in their defence, including the discovery of a second record. Whether this passes is WP:MUSIC is difficult to say, and Iuchiban doesn't actually offer any justification for his claims. That said, Iuchiban does not show any sign of bad-faith and I am inclined, given the material being debated and the weakness of one deleter and the admission by the nominator that he "guess[es]" it's non-notable, I'd like to see a clearer demonstration of deleteability than this. -Splashtalk 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unashamed[edit]

I'm guessing that this band is non-notable. It is difficult to research. If it's notable, please tell me so. --Fang Aili 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This is a band that had a huge influence on Christian Hardcore though their commercial output may not have been huge they did tour extensively and had a rather large following.--Iuchiban 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-band. --Rory096 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Things have shifted decisively since the analysis by Slowmover. -Splashtalk 18:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Hardware[edit]

This was speedy deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted at an AfD under this title. DRV consensus judged that the recreation was substantially new, and merited undeletion. Relisting for AfD consideration was requested, so here we are. Xoloz 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "fifth largest wholesaling and distribution cooperative in the hardware store industry" seems to meet notability requirement. Neutrally written. -- DS1953 talk 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [See revised vote below]. Might be written by an insider, but it is notable. They are mentioned in the 2005 annual report of the North American Retail Hardware Association, which can be found here [33]. It's on a short list of noted companies in its category and there are only a handful of categories. The article seems to be accurate. Slowmover 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Monicasdude 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not written by an insider. dml 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable corp Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't see evidence that this satisfies WP:CORP presented in the article. Multiple non-trivial published works? No. Listed on ranking indices? No. Used to calculate stock market indices? No. One listing in an industry report doesn't do it, in particular when there's nothing in the article. I'm tempted to remove the "fifth largest" line as unWP:CITEed. - brenneman{L} 01:29, 22 March 2006
  • Comment: Fifth out of how many? Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and revised delete vote. I thought this was a good question, so I took a careful look at the report (all data for 2004). The top 10 companies in the industry represent 53% of sales and 11% of stores. United Hardware is not in the top 10 overall. It's easy to see why. The industry is grouped according to how the stores are organized: (1) publicly held DIY stores, (2) wholesale co-operatives, and (3) wholesaler merchandising groups. Group 1 is by far the largest, with Home Depot respresenting a 30% market share of the entire industry, Lowe's is 15%, and BMHC is a distant 3rd. United is in Group 2. The top 6 listed companies in this sector (Ace, Do-it-Best, True Value, Orgill, Handy Hdwre, United Hdwre) represent only a 4% market share on a combined basis, and the first 4 are MUCH bigger than the last 2. United Hdwre by itself is 1/15th of 1% of the market. So if we looked at the market as a whole, United Hdwre would probably not even get mentioned. It just happens to be 6th from the top in a segment that is only 4% of the market. So, in conclusion, United Hardware is not really notable. I'm changing my vote to a delete, on the basis of this analysis. Slowmover 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out Khoikhoi's accidental second vote above. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per excellent analysis by Slowmover. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the only really informed research. Good stuff Slowmover. Proto||type 14:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Slowmover. Sandstein 12:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have many articles on these types of wholesale cooperatives. Alternatively could be merged to Hardware store. -- JJay 13:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Brodnik[edit]

Non-notable Parudox 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote, His name brings up 25,100 Google results. However these results are mostly in Russian, so I'm not very sure.--TBC??? ??? ??? 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no assertion of notability. Feezo (Talk) 07:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on the external link, he appears to be a nn university professor --Hyperbole 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mathscinet returns 7 hits, in which of 5 he is the primary author. Some of the papers are in promient or semi-prominent journals, but 7 is still much too low a total and none of the papers are particularly notable. JoshuaZ 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) see below. JoshuaZ 07:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Joshua. Of the 7 MathSciNet hits, all but one are in proceedings. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Keep: this guy has 15 publications [34] since 1994, not counting ones DBLP couldn't find. The external link is sort of irrelevant: that's for mathematics geneology, which traces people through advisor/student relationships. His home page is here, but it's pretty out of date. He publishes in Theoretical Computer Science where proceedings are much more acceptable than Jitse Niesen implies. See WP:PROFTEST for some guidelines in development. Note that this article has been around since 2002 and doesn't appear to be a vanity article. I will attempt to improve the article somewhat. Mangojuice 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now improved the article. Mangojuice 20:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointed out, proceedings articles are common for computer science. As for whether the article is vanity, I wouldn't say "vanity" is the first thing that comes to mind. For some reason, Wikipedia tends to accumulate a lot of bios of Slovenians. Some of these bios are of noteworthy individuals, while some are not. Given the general lack of information in these articles, it can be difficult to tell what significance their work has, if any. This article on Brodnik is no different. There are no backlinks from articles explaining some crucial piece of his work, no indication of what his greatest theoretical advances are, etc. Thanks to Mangojuice, we at least have a selected papers section, which presumably highlights his most important papers. On the other hand, it's still a mystery why those are his most important papers or what they are about or what impact they have had. I would be much happier if this gap was fixed. --C S (Talk) 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mango and Chan-ho. JoshuaZ 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To quote the talk page: "why is this person notable?" Septentrionalis 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, or question for an expert in CS: Is Informatica a notable journal in the field? If so, his being on the editorial board might be evidence of notability.--Deville (Talk) 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Mathscinet turns up two journals with that word in the title: one formerly named "Informatica" and now named "Informatica Vilnius." The other is "Acta Informatica" which seems major. The are editorial boards listed here [35] and [36] but I don't see his name on either. JoshuaZ 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The journal's website is at [37] and Brodnik is indeed on the editorial board. I don't see that as being very notable. Parudox 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's been around for about 30 years and it's a regional journal for CS of any type. Their web page says their acceptance rate is 50%, which is not so impressive. I didn't recognize any names on the editorial board. As a CS prof, I'd say this journal is pretty minor in the scheme of things. It may be important to Slovenians though. Mangojuice 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on my opinion rendered above. Having read through the points raised here (sorry for being so dismissive to publications in proceedings, I thought that theoretical CS was like maths and that important results are published in journals, possibly in addition to publication in proceedings), I still don't see what distinguises him from the average academic. My own opinion on notability for academics corresponds roughly to WP:PROFTEST, but in my reading none of the criteria in that proposal applies. However, my opinion is very weak, especially because I think that if the consensus (or the lack thereof) on notability as evidence in AfD discussions on other subjects would be applied to academics, then the article would have been kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 don't understand the original relist: there was already a good participation.) -Splashtalk 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Conference[edit]

nn high school atheltic league.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn and unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable organization--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --BrownHairedGirl 01:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick read of the article demonstrates that it is indeed notable, having produced several state champions in the past few years. It consists of several notable high schools, and includes a number of notable local rivalries. Other than dittoing the nomination, none of those in favor of deletion are offering any factual justification to delete the article based on objective standards. As the article meets criteria for notability for an organization, it should be Kept. Furthermore, there is no place to merge this information into, meaning that deletion removes useful information. Alansohn 13:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Focoe 15:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If high schools are notable (although that particular policy may be revised) a league that has produced some national champions should be notable IMHO. Grandmasterka 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, or alternatively create a List of Wisconsin athletic conferences or something along those lines and merge it into that. BryanG 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to De Pere High School or keep. Bahn Mi 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Grandmasterka. Seano1 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and unencyclopedic. MaNeMeBasat 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Alansohn Wangster 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Also, there is already a category with similar articles (Category: High School sports conferences) Wangster 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the volcano[edit]

Fancruft. Article is based on one scene from the movie You Only Live Twice. And it uses the infobox designed for real military conflict to boot. There's nothing here that can't be discussed in the movie article. 23skidoo 16:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Bondcruft. --Deville (Talk) 17:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A synopsis in the film article would suffice at best. This could set a precedent for articles on set-pieces in any Hollywood film. They can all be mentioned in their respective film articles, if required at all.  (aeropagitica)  19:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how it's any different from the ones in the Fictional battles category. The scene is iconic and well known in film annals being replicated in subsequent films, not just a section on the novel/film page.--Mole Man 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. At first glance most of the battles in that category are military battles (either involving real or fictional military). This is not a military battle - it's spies vs. villain. 23skidoo 22:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respone. Clearly you don't even know the subject matter, don't dabble in things you have no idea about!--4.232.222.48 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette before making statements like that again. That's not the way to gain support for your point of view. 23skidoo 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly to have it's own page. There's nothing there that can't be summed up on You Only Live Twice or isn't already. There isn't even a title for this so called "battle" (it's more like a raid) so that's just made up by the author. K1Bond007 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sufficiently notable to have a separate article, plus the name is neologism. Peter Grey 06:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the tanker[edit]

Fancruft article on one scene from the movie Mad Max 2. There's no need for this to have its own article, and it's using an infobox designed for real-life military conflict to boot. 23skidoo 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The main article doesn't have a scene-by-scene breakdown of the film, so I don't see why this should remain intact. A synopsis would suffice, at most.  (aeropagitica)  19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any reason to have this have it's own article. And the title: "Battle for the tanker"? Come on. K1Bond007 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly disagree. Given the impact of this film upon Western culture, having an article describing the battle is certainly indicated. Furthermore, having the battle described seperately from the more conventional details of the plot serves to elucidate the idea that the film is important not only in terms of the cinematography as discussed in the main article, but also as a tactical lesson for aspiring post-apocalyptic commandos. Certainly, the tanker-scene deserves as much coverage as the Battle of the Bulge or Normandy.

68.100.8.218 20:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]

  • You have got to be joking. I invite you to provide citations and sources to suggest that a fictional road-battle comes anywhere close to the Battle of Normandy! 23skidoo 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really sir, your contention that Normandy is more important than Battle for the Tanker (please refer to it as such) simply doesn't do. For one, your contention likely rests upon the fallacious idea that "reality," which scholarly types are so attached to, is somehow more important than fiction. (1) No less, it is also implicit in another statement by yourself (q.v.) that Normandy is more important than Battle for the Tanker because people were actually killed in Normandy. (2) Your irrational attachment to violent conflicts highlights a misconception that violent acts are more memorable than nonviolent acts, like for example making the contention that Renaissaince Art is less worthy of historical documentation than the Crusades, for the reason that the Crusades involved so many deaths. (3) As such, I shall provide a series of citations, at your own insistance, that not only substantiates my original post, but most clearly erradicates any possibility that you can posit a valid argument that this article be a legitamate candidate for deletion. Truly sir, I can ask only that you listen to reason here. If anything, I should like for you to admit the true reason why you find yourself in such firm disliking of the article, and also please explain why you have invited a bevy of like-minded persons to launch further attacks upon it.

Sources, as requested.

(1) http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/

(2) http://www.friesian.com/existent.htm

(3) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

68.100.8.218 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]

      • ROFLMAO. I asked for sources that indicate explicitly that the Battle for the tanker is more important than the Battle of Normandy and you give me a philosophy lesson. That's rich. Doesn't matter anyway. What my reality is telling me is people seem (at the moment) to agree with my point of view and that's what matters. And if you take the Sartre article as letter of the law, no article should ever be deleted. Good luck trying to sell that to TPTB. 23skidoo 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Skido, I feel very fortunate to have won you over to my side. As far as Those Persons who run this publication, have you any connections to them? Perhaps a few kind words from yourself would be enough to dissuade them from any hasty and regretable actions. Certainly, we are interested in a solution to this dilemna that will produce the best results for all interested parties. I can tell now that you are a man of reason. As for Mssrs. Khoikhoi, Joshua and Grey I am not quite sure what to say. It seems likely that they harbor no good intentions towards the long-term stability of this article, and as such must be regarded with some suspicion. I advise you to please use discretion in any interaction with them!! A few careless words might be all that's necessary to give them the day. In the meantime, I shall undertake to research more, and to devise a strategy of preservation. Might I be so bold as to inquire what our next step shall be?

12.44.12.126 12:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]


I don't see anyone having problems with the Star Wars battle entries, and they use infoboxes designed for real-life military conflicts to boot.--Mole Man 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't gotten around to them yet. 23skidoo 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, some of them are far more popular and well known and deserve their own page. Battle of Hoth, Yavin, Endor. These are pretty notable. I'm not saying all of the Star Wars ones are encyclopedic and deserve their own page, but this "Battle for the tanker" and "Battle for the volcano" certainly don't deserve their own articles. IMHO anyway. Most of the SW ones should probably be merged together as the random ones I looked at were stubs. K1Bond007 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair comment. And my previous statement shouldn't be seen as an intent to AFD Battle of Yavin, for example ... however the Volcano and Tanker battles are not worthy of their own articles and I must confess at being rather offended at the earlier statement that this deserves the same sort of coverage as battles (Normandy, Bulge) in which people actually died. 23skidoo 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JoshuaZ 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Peter Grey 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete argument to keep is nonsense. This does not rise to notability. Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mon. Herbert, You seem to be preocupied with notability. What criterium are you using to make this evaluation? Under the circumstances, it seems likely that you haven't thought this through, since you have not at length done anything to qualify your statement. Why not take a few moments to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines??
    • After you make a careful review of these policies, I am sure you will be better qualified to have a candid discussion with me about article selection and deletion candidacy. Truly, I feel that you have the best interests of Wikipedia's readership at heart. 12.44.12.126 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authority figures in comedy[edit]

Shows no useful information M2K 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand - this article is the result of a merge of individual articles on specific types of authority figures in comedy, mandated by a previous AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy police. BD2412 T 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Xoloz 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research unless good, verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of AfD. We need a source for stock figures of authority characters being a recognized and historic element of comedy. That shouldn't be hard to provided, but it hasn't been provided. And we need sources for the cited examples, e.g. a source that says the teachers in Animal House are, in fact, good examples of the recognized phenomenon of "authority figure in comedy." And please don't say that the works themselves are the sources, since the screenplay of "Animal House" does not say anything about "authority figures in comedy," and different individuals viewing the same movie could well differ in their opinions and interpretations. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give it a few days, the sources are out there and are plentiful, but need to be found and tied together. BD2412 T 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if sources were found, the article would still be a steaming pile of crap. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. It looks like that those who voted "delete" have to learn how to use google. There are tall heaps of material around (google: ["authority figures" + comedy]). No way the article is original research. The topic has been researched thousends of times. Although at the moment the article is kind of crappy, but many think the whole wikipedia is of comparable quality, with rare exceptions. mikka (t) 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the verifiability policy, linked at the bottom of every edit box, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material." If you are an "editor who wishes to include the material," then please put some references to those "heaps of material" into the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the verifiability policy, linked at the bottom of every edit box, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you may delete it or move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}". Obviously some people prefer shoot from the biggest gun available. Well, they have right to. mikka (t) 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete this and no different than many of the 100 articles in category:comedy. Given the 1,000s of articles here on comedic films or actors, it would be helpful for our readers to understand the various aspects of comedy. On a side note, I think Mr./Ms. Brian Crawford Nancy Grace would be better off saving the steaming piles of his/her wit for a blog or some other outlet where it might be acceptable. Wikipedia is not a forum for mindless vulgarities and attacks. -- JJay 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stir[edit]

This was a contested speedy brought to DRV; deleting admin did not oppose relisting. The rational for deletion is a failure of WP:MUSIC. Xoloz 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Eagletalk 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, barely passes WP:Music, has a relevant allmusic profile [38] --TBC??? ??? ??? 17:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per TBC. Though I don't know about cementing in any consciousness. :) -Dawson 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this passes WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC with plenty of media mentions. [39] [40] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with above post. The article is more compliant with NPOV requirements. Band has charted as high as 8 in the US. Krakrjak 04:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Note: This is the author of the article.)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Marskell 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two albums (although only one with a major label) plus a number 8 in mainstream rock chart seems to be notable enough on two counts of WP:MUSIC (okay maybe 1 1/2 :). With references included for charting, crtitical praise, claims, etc, and the "cemented themselves" phrase rewritten, it looks fine to me now. Regards, MartinRe 12:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficiently notable. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- With additional information added regarding international songwriting competition, radio broadcasts, and additional projects by band members (of which one is already an established Wiki page), this should easily meet WP:MUSIC. AMstir 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Note: This is a suspected sockpuppet.)[reply]
  • Keep since it clearly passes WP:MUSIC... (2 albums, ranked #8 on billboard chart, signifgant radio play, etc) ---J.Smith 05:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. Mangojuice 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Train might be notable, Stir aren't as far as I can tell.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bioelectromagnetism by Nimur.  (aeropagitica)  19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectromagnetic[edit]

Subject is covered better in numerous other articles, while this article remains substandard and contains factual errors Nimur 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would work just as well. Nimur 17:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Xoloz --TBC??? ??? ??? 17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milner madness[edit]

Doesn't seem to be about anything, seaching on Google doesn't provide any help. Jbattersby 17:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. By the way, what exactly is a Milner? --TBC??? ??? ??? 17:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a word, I believe it's an archaic form of "milliner", a hatmaker. In this case, I suspect it's the name of one of the author's friends. Fan1967


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It's clear that there is not a consensus to delete, but there seems to be no consensus on what else to do, so I shall do nothing. -Splashtalk 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Halo 2[edit]

This is totally unreasonable for the following reasons:

  • There was widespread deletion support in the last nomination
  • With that said, almost none of the article's problems appeared to have been fixed
  • Article isn't notable enough for worthiness, and almost nobody talks about Halo 2's criticism
  • It is perfectly logical to merge this content with Halo 2 —This unsigned comment was added by NicAgent (talk • contribs) .
  • If it is logical to merge, why not do it? Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Halo 2. Eivindt@c 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Halo 2. This has been tagged for cleanup for a while and I am not sure how it could be rehabilitated. I'm sure lots of people criticized Halo 2 though and it could be sourced. I'm just not sure if we really need it. kotepho 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Halo 2 per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, though the Halo 2 article is already pretty long, but I'm sure the criticisms could be pared down. -Dawson 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Article survived AfD last month. Nom is arguing for a merge, which is not the role of AfD. It is the role of the article talk page and that is where this discussion should be taking place. -- JJay 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: this belongs as part of Halo 2...no good rationale has been provided for keeping it seperate. Hello world, do you know who i am? I am me!!!! 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a legitimate fork to me, the Halo 2 article is awfully long. What's so terribly wrong with having this, and having it separate? Grandmasterka 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Grandmasterka. Seano1 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete*This article has no learning value and it is basically a group of people's opinion of the game. If they didn't like the game then they didn't have to play it. Their is no reason to post an article on an encyclopedia website to display dissatifaction with a videogame. The article has no learning value relating to the topic of Halo 2.
  • Merge per eivind ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. While it does contain some obvious flaws, it could be corrected rather than removed. The person or person(s) criticizing that the article isn't the way it should be in their eyes could simply fix it themselves. Furthermore, there are always two sides to an issue. Games are not perfect and if people have reasonable gripes over certain factual problems then they should be known. Many other articles mention what people didn't like about something, such as critics of a movie. Why should this be any different? I agree with Grandmasterka too. 206.248.71.155 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Kiwi[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The leopoldplatz collective[edit]

Doesn't seem to exist, all redlinks in article A2Kafir 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn group of nn people. At a guess, probably a bunch of starving artists who share some loft space on Leopoldplatz. Fan1967 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have millions of these in Berlin. ProhibitOnions 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google gets 18 hits most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. JoshuaZ 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—nn, vanity --Icarus 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wholly non-notable. Royboycrashfan 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive gathering[edit]

One contributor, who signed the article even. Extremely short, made-up topic. Has been there, unnoticed, since SEPTEMBER TonySt 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first article uses there term to mean a lot more then weeding, and seem to prefer the term Wild-Food Production. The second looks like it's just gathering with an adjective. Seano1 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Looks like an attempted dictdef for a gardening term. ProhibitOnions 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, He's talking about growing weed.
  • Delete dicdef. Ronabop 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a silly world for weeding with no claim that anyone else is using it.Seano1 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seano1 --Icarus 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio8[edit]

advertisement for small business A2Kafir 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advert TonySt 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable small business, no google traffic outside of community sites. Kuru talk 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. —LrdChaos 16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lobb[edit]

This person is not, yet, sufficiently remarkable to qualify for an encyclopedia entry. Shoebert 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this man is a graduate student at Harvard University mathematics department ([41]) who does some teaching (for example [42]). There is no evidence of notability or significance in the article. A Google search is complicated by another Andrew Lobb who is a musician, but does not generate anything of note. Does not pass (proposed) WP:PROFTEST; does not pass WP:BIO . Sliggy 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even close. --Deville (Talk) 21:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Icarus 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to close to close --Nerdydentist 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Christianity[edit]

Unmaintanable list with no clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion. DS 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep There is a list of converts to Islam, which hasn't been deleted. Why shouldn't their be one for converts to Christianity.
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with lack of more specific criteria it is an impossible to ever be completed or accurate list. -Dawson 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending addition of criteria for inclusion. ProhibitOnions 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Prohibit. If List of people by belief, List of Christians, List of Christian thinkers in science, et tons of c. can all exist, then this is also reasonable. Of course, my feeling is religicruft, but it seems that there is a sizable community making these things. --Deville (Talk) 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Deville. Seano1 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as there's a firm rule that anyone on it must be notable in some way. --Icarus 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Create a category instead, such as Converts to Christianity. --Midnighttonight 10:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Create a category, as per above. Radagast83 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Basket[edit]

Non-notable grocery store; additionally, largely POV and unencylopedic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advertising. If the store is notable as an early supermarket, it doesn't say so. ProhibitOnions 21:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete The store is not a mere blip, but rather a piece of history, especially in a society in which independant retailers struggle. To remove it would be to cause shame to Wikipedia, and all it claims to be about. Perhaps a clean up is in order to maintain the factual integrity, but certainly not removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerocdiamond (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. And to answer Yerocdiamond's objection, Wikipedia doesn't claim to be an indiscriminate list of in-jokes by "imaginative, pot-smoking youth". If it did, of course, deleting this article would be against what Wikipedia claims to be about. --Deville (Talk) 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advert, as well as babble. Ronabop 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Comment Once more, the proposal of an article clean up is put forth. In the zeal to add to this article, many of the stores employees may have added to this, perhaps not all of it verifiable. To remove it would be to remove a fact from a compendium of knowledge which claims to be a reference to things that are factual. This storied grocery store has over 100 employees, and is of importance in a town of approx. 200 000 people. This site surely has space for something which so many people know about, especially if there is room for 10 pages of 'The Simpsons' related lists, quotations, which do not have the historical backdrop such a store does. This article is very easily salvageable, and it has a long list of potential contributors which could make it the gem it deserves to be. The wikipedia website makes allowances for local articles, and all of 'Local-interest articles. These are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. There is no consensus about such articles, but some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Photographs add interest. Try to give local-interest articles local colour. Third-party references are good!' has been considered and implemented if possible.(text in quotations taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article)—This unsigned comment was added by Yerocdiamond (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per above. If you think it is a notable grocery store then prove that. --James 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete this page; any traveler acquainted with Markham, Ontario, Canada can verify these facts about the (in)famous Garden Basket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.212.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. If it had real historical/cultural significance, the article would be about that and not about what you're apt to find in the deli section. Cruft at best. --Icarus 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Icarus Sandstein 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Lyons[edit]

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable pornstar. According to the article, this woman's claim to fame is having multiple men ejaculate inside her rectum on video. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep, while there are literally thousands of porn stars out there and we can't possibly catalog them all, Ms. Lyons seems to have a significant body of work (no pun intended) and being that she is in one of the more "extreme" genres, it sort of does make her a standout in her field. The article still says very little, even for a stub, and needs work. -Dawson 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I thought the article told me way more than I wanted to know. ;-) Fan1967 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has acted in numerous films. -- JJay 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per Dawson --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, she seems to have been in 232 adult movies, according to a link in the article. This seems notable enough, although I am admittedly ignorant of what the notability concensus is for pr0n. --Deville (Talk) 00:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About as notable as a camera that's been used on 232 of these "movies". Osomec 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed in AFD and IAFD (IMDB for porn), way more than 50 movies (my personal standard) in the adult industry. Ronabop 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is listed as being in 124 movies at the imdb. [43]Seano1 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --James 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note that being in 124 porn 'movies' usually means a few scenes you've shot have been cut into 124 different porn DVDs. Also note that the biographical information on porn stars is almost always invented, and is unreliable. Proto||type 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto. Sandstein 12:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Legends An Elf's Tale[edit]

Non-notable web comic Nv8200p talk 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Rose Invasion[edit]

Band does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (music) at this time. Denaar 19:50, 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. The rewrite does not seem to have changed anything. -Splashtalk 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Loop (Shopping Center)[edit]

Delete NN retail location. Prod remover said, "arguably notable because growing concept and multiple locations in different regions.. debatable enough that deletion should be through debate process" - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all malls. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Bucketsofg 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as even though the concept may be growing, it's still not notable enough for Wikipedia. We need notablility guidelines for malls and shopping centers if we don't already... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, User:Youngamerican and I are working on such guidelines, and we already have a draft. I just thought I'd put another mall through AfD to test run my ideas against people's rationales. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, Weak keep. There is absolutely nothing innovative about the concept. There must be a dozen of these huge, outdoor, plaza, multi-purpose malls in my city alone with probably another five under construction. The original article was pure marketing crap, and only Hbackman's de-adification makes me think about keeping it. The complete non-notability of the establishment makes me lean towards delete. Is there anything else intersting about it? Kuru talk 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Shopping mall as this seems to be a new take on the concept. -- JJay 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help me understand; how is this a new take? Kuru talk 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims that it is innovative as does press coverage such as this Boston Herald article [45]. I said it seems to be a new take, based on the replacement of an enclosed mall with a Main Street concept with outdoor plazas in a Northern location. Nevertheless, as the Methuen loop is apparently drawing a few million visitors per year, the article should probably be recentered just on that property. -- JJay 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing anything terribly original about the design, except maybe its inclusion in a northern location. The branding concept is interesting, though (starbuckification), as is the fairly significant traffic that location is getting. I'm good with erroring on the side of inclusion. Thanks for the info. Kuru talk 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm not really trying to make a big argument for "uniqueness" as I was basing it strictly on the sources I found. Would be interested in seeing pictures though. -- JJay 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a keep or delete? Also, as we were discussing above, the Loop has been covered extensively in the press, from the planning stages to the present. I have added one reference that was already linked above. Furthermore, would you please explain what you mean by "not encyclopedic"? If we don't know if or why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it-- JJay 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Article has been rewritten to apply only to the one in Methuen Chitchatjf 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The similarities between malls vastly outweigh the differences. You've seen one mall, you've seen them all. Denni ☯ 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual malls must have something unique and special to be notable enough for an encyclopaedia. This does not. Proto||type 09:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am very inclusionist on indoor malls, but this seems to be a few anchored strip malls and not of particular interest. youngamerican (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 12:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFHL[edit]

Non-notable fantasy hockey league. Prod tag was removed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Do you have any idea how many fantasy leagues there are for hockey, baseball, American football, the rest of the world's football, cricket, jai alai, and, for all I know, mah jong? If you let one of them in, where would it stop? Any particular league is automatically non-notable. Fan1967 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Just to be sure, I checked to make sure there were no fantasy mah jong leagues. Kuru talk 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never know, it might be a golden untapped market. Fan1967 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me in. I'll bring the beer. Kuru talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plese don't delete this article, this league is diffrent from many fantasy hockey leagues. This one is highly updated all the time and so many take part in it, other fantasy use simulation programs, but our league is diffrent by far, its just like the NHL but its just fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhah99 (talk • contribs)
  • Can you help us quantify 'so many'? How many users are there? It looks like your message board is geeting about 10 posts a week - is that normal? There are less than one news items posted per month. Please don't think we're trying to shut you out; we simply have fairly strict guidelines on what is and isn't a notable website (look here for details: WP:WEB). You have every right to be proud of the site you and your friends have built - it's very nice, and very creative. We just have a limit as to what we can include here; per Mr. 1967's concerns outlined above. Kuru talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Bucketsofg 20:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is certainly not notable at all. However, I might disagree with Fan1967 slightly, in that I could imagine a case where a rotisserie league of some sort would qualify for inclusion: For example, if there was some Championship Fantasy League, say something analogous to the World Series of Poker, where there was a $10K buyin, and the winner was crowned "World Champ of Fantasy", something like that, I'd consider that notable. Of course, this is not such a case and thus delete with extreme prejudice. --Deville (Talk) 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per nom (although I concur with Deville's assessment that a prospective uber-league may be notable). Joe 21:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, conceivably, theoretically, such a notable fantasy league could exist, though I've never heard of one that would qualify. Regardless, this one isn't it. Fan1967 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agreed. --Deville (Talk) 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are 30 people in this league and we are active trust me, i know the message boards dont show much that's because all 30 of us have AOL messenger and most of us are always on there to talk. The commishioner just got engaged and he has spent less time on the league but he emailed all of us saying he will be back in a week or so with everything up and running smoothly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhah99 (talk • contribs)
    • In a world of over 6,500,000,000 people, 30 people don't seem to be enough to make something notable. Delete --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • whatever if i could make 6,500,000,000 teams i would oh well just delete it, you guys are haters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhah99 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: only because the article is less than 12 hours old, and I'd like to give it a chance to establish notability. (But it's going to need something good.) Peter Grey 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to my belief in extreme inclusion. Wikipedia is not paper, and I would have no problem letting any and all fantasy leagues to be included in Wikipedia. It's an online reference source, plus this inclusikon of this article would not get in the way of any other page. --Nick Dillinger 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a handwritten replacement for Google. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial to the extreme. Besides, I don't want to see Wikipedia drowning in crap. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick Dillinger are u from vancouver? from your profile it says your a vancouver canucks fan..im a huge one. kinda rare to find another fan on wiki

  • Delete, as non-notable as essentially every other fantasy sports league, if not more so per statements above. --Kinu t/c 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Sandstein 12:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 Year Internet Outlook[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculative supposition on the future of the internet. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board, either.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:20, 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 GONE to RfD. -Splashtalk 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kokos[edit]

Aleksandar created this page to redirect to Constantine II of Greece. He was heavily involved in vandalism and then reversion of various pages on the Greek Royal Family and has been warned a number of times. He has performed copy/paste moves to Anne-Marie of Greece due to his POV and this page (Kokos) ought to be deleted. Charles 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that... it is now here. Charles 22:54, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Carelius[edit]

The prod tag was removed, nn per WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I am bundling Stefan Carelius with Aurorra Borrealis in this AfD. A Google search on the band's name returns 0 Ghits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. Seems extremely nn to me. --Deville (Talk) 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both, per nom. At first I was just going to suggest merging Stefan Carelius into the band article, but apparently the band is -really- underground. Maybe someone who is more familiar with the Norwegian music scene can shed some insight - like maybe the band name has a different spelling in Norwegian or something and thats why it can't be found via Google or Amazon? -Dawson 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them as non-notable and possibly vanity; Google only shows 8 results [46], half of which are from Wikipedia and mirror sites --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope is a Chicken[edit]

This webcomic doesn't appear to have a substantial following—it draws fewer than twenty independent Google hits: [47]. Although it has been in existence for a number of years, it is only updated 'most weeks'. For reference, I also provide a link to the 2005 archive: [48]. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:16, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic5[edit]

This seems to me at least to satisfy the criteria for a vanity page. I don't see its relevance or usefulness. JulianDalloway 22:06, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A3. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At First Light[edit]

Only serves to link to a web page that is "under construction" and doesn't exsist yet. Denaar 22:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no content at all except for a single link. Next time try to use the {{db}} tag --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. CSD A3. I have placed a {{nocontext}} template on it.--Blue520 23:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Bucketsofg 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfgruppe Eminem[edit]

Probably a hoax. An anonymous editor has added a note to that effect in the article and is repeatedly trying to "delete" it by blanking, which is then reverted by various editors. No references have been given despite an {{unreferenced}} template being put there a month ago. u p p l a n d 22:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, obvious nonsense and hoax (Eminem is not a German name); only 2 Google results [50] both of which are from Wikipedia --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (quickly!) There seem to be a rash of well-written hoaxes on Wikipedia of late. Nothing bothers me so much as these, as they do nothing but bring Wikipedia's credibility way down. Grandmasterka 23:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 23:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. (Note that this isn't patent nonsense.) --Muchness 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only google hits are from Wikipedia. OverlordChris 00:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francovitch[edit]

"...is a Great Man" the article claims, but he's not a man, he's 16. Seems to have won the awards, [51] but does that make him notable? Eivindt@c 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable and vanity; only 16 google results [52], most of which are from Wikipedia and mirror sites --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He shows promise. Maybe in 15 years he will have a legitimate entry, but not now. JoshuaZ 23:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TBC. --Deville (Talk) 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a weird way to earn a medal... Doesn't seem notable enough, though. I outgoogle him 3 to 1. Grandmasterka 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm an Eagle scout. I've been to Philmont twice. I probably would have qualified for the medal. I'm not notable. kotepho 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Has been rewritten into the topic mentioned by GeorgeBills, but not by him. -Splashtalk 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Abraham[edit]

is this person noteworthy enough for wikipedia? Abeneal 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace (is that even a real "vote"?) There appears to be a notable producer named Josh Abraham, linked to from various articles. It's not the same person as the article is talking about, and 3rd year computer science students just aren't notable. The info in that article needs to replaced by information on Josh Abraham the producer. GeorgeBills 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as now it's a nn-band because no notability is asserted. So tagged. Sandstein 12:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the previous article about the student was equally speediable as {{nn-bio}}. Sandstein 12:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. JJay has made a version which shows his songs being used in some notable movies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to be an important producer. Speedy has been removed. -- JJay 12:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_26&oldid=1116878737"