Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 26 March 28 >

Purge server cache

March 27[edit]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP KnowledgeOfSelf 05:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Kapoor[edit]

Moved from Prod to AfD Tintin (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain Tintin (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a legitimate actor and model; quite well known in the 1980s. IMDB link: [1]. I am expanding the article. Definitely notable. DevanJedi 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Jcuk 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No reason given for this nom. IMDB page with many films listed. Why is this here? -- JJay 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand, that's why is here. --MaNeMeBasat 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Gurubrahma 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as notable as any other actor.--Adam (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep upon checking, this actor seems somewhat notable --Krich (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 01:53, 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, cleanup and remove copyvio pschemp | talk 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naadi[edit]

Pulled here from Prod, mainly to see if someone would be willing be improve it. There is another article on the same subject Nadi Jodhidam which went through an Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadi Jodhidam Tintin (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. Tintin (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Reason for {{prod}} was "FAQ, {{tone}}, WP:NOT, {{unref}}, appears to be {{advert}} for a book (chapter list/table of contents)". I tend to agree. It would be nice if someone could improve the article, as I am not familiar at all with the subject. We can reevaluate in a couple days. Isopropyl 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. I had thought that {{prod}} looked a little familiar. It seems I prodded this article and then forgot that it happened. Oh well...Isopropyl 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Doesn't look like an advert or nn institution. Appears to be an antient practice of South India (mainly Tamilnadu). --ΜιĿːtalk 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first part of the text is a copyvio from [2], with the list of chapters from [3]. Redirect to one of these which I think are the same thing: Nadi Josiyam (Astrology with palmleaflets), Nadi astrology, Nadi (yoga) (which may need to be merged too) -- Astrokey44|talk 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Makes sense, Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. utcursch | talk 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and wikify. --MaNeMeBasat 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Astrokey, we must remove the copyvio.--Adam (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 01:54, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I've merged it myself and created a redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Forums[edit]

Non-notable forum OverlordChris 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Though the statistics aren't promising, the forum for distros like this are a primary method of support and so notable in that context. Perhaps merge to Ubuntu Linux --Mmx1 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ubuntu Linux Gflores Talk 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Ronabop 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Royboycrashfan 00:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's definitely a notable subject, but there isn't enough information to possible occupy a whole article, merge it into Ubuntu and if at some point it overflows a section there (which, i highly doubt could ever happen) move it to it's own article. AdamJacobMuller 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per all above. --Deville (Talk) 02:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The forums have 79,000 registered members and is the number 1 place for ubuntu help. It is not offically affilated with Ubuntu's parent company. If there are other forums that have Wikipedia articles, then this should stay. (Bjorn Tipling 08:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge' to Ubuntu Linux. --Terence Ong 10:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all above. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Cynical 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the user count. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib} 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Moe ε 01:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Masssiveego 04:57, 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) 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Namek (website)[edit]

  • Keep although maybe the direction needs to be changed a little. Planet Namek had huge reprecussions in the field of Anime in the west, both towards acceptability and the true understanding of the original Japanese script. Unfortunate that the Wiki article talks about the forum as opposed to the site. nessthemess 0:14, 31 March 2006

Non-notable forum that hasn't existed for four years. OverlordChris 23:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""keep"" it was an immensely popular website. Many websites less popular than Planet Namek was have their own Wikipedia articles. It also was a phase in the history of anime fandom on the internet.
  • Weak keep as it was a notable site during its time. It has over 66,400 Google results, most of which are relevant [4] --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only 631 unique hits. Also, the first page has several Wikipedia results. I say weak delete. Royboycrashfan 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- smallish, personally run website, fancruft, and article practically asserts it's nn Ronabop 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nonnotable fancruft. Reyk 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft AdamJacobMuller 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn defunct website. TKE 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft.--Jersey Devil 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forum, further emphasised by its defunctness. JIP | Talk 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forum. --Terence Ong 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, WP:NG Avi 17:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum CPR Instructor 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. Nigelthefish 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn, forum, etc. etc. etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 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 Keep pschemp | talk 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

Kristi Yamaoka is nn, and that is even more evident since no substantial biographical improvements have been made to the article in any fashion since the last AfD on March 9 - not even a birthdate. There are also no news articles directly about her in Google News dating after the 11th of March. This article furthermore fails all of the standard and alternative tests in WP:BIO for living people. MSJapan 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's last month's news. I doubt anyone is going to devote much effort to improving the article now. What you see is what there is, and is likely to be. Fan1967 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with that? Isn't Wikipedia littered with "last month's news"? Grandmasterka 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per TBC. That's a good point. --Deville (Talk) 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that Wikapedia is not paper I don’t see why we can’t keep her article. Seano1 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It needs a lot of work, but sometimes DOBs and other concrete info are hard to find.TKE 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the result of the recent first AFD, and no reason given this time (that wasn't rejected last time). Even without a prior AFD, I would vote keep, given the coverage, and the effect of the event. --Rob 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:However, this is not an event article, this is a bio stub. Evereyone keeps conflating the event with the person: while the event may be notable, the person is not, which is a valid reason, and what I was trying to show the last time too. MSJapan 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could discuss making it an event article on the talk page, as a solution if you wish (e.g. a name change). I'm not recommending it, but it's a valid option, worth discussion. Deletion, as an option, has already been ruled out. We can not allow noms who fail, to simply keep trying until they get what they want. When you're point is "...what I was trying to show the last time too.", you're admitting you're just repeating yourself. What is the practical purpose of arguing the same thing, all over again? --Rob 06:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's still valid - the article still fails the tests; it did three days after the fact, and it does now two weeks later. The basic issue with this not being AfDed is that people are (and were) confusing short-term popular consciousness (fifteen minutes of fame) with long-term notability (enough to be in an encyclopedia for all time, as it were). The claim before was that it would be expanded, but this has not happened in over two weeks, as evidenced by the history, and therefore is not likely to be expanded in future. The excuse that WP is not paper is not a blanket justification to include any old thing that comes to mind - if policies were meant to be exercised in a vacuum, there would be 47 million articles on absilutely anything on here, and there aren't. It was apparent then and it is apparent now that Kristi Yamaoka is only notable for falling on her head on video and waving her arms, not for any individual accomplishments. If nationwide news were a prerequisite, every disaster on record would need to be here on WP, which is why WP is neither a current events log nor a newspaper. MSJapan 17:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of clarification, the previous AfD was not closed as "Keep". It was closed as "No consensus" which has, I believe, somewhat less weight. Fan1967 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of article creation has shown that once a legit article is created, exapansion follows. I'm watching for sixty days. TKE 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan (my cat, who is named "Saluki", will be mad, though). Joe 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, barely notable enough. Maybe everything that will ever be written on her is already there, and that's just fine with me. Grandmasterka 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, asserts a bit of notability. --Terence Ong 10:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic in the extreme. Marskell 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Article survived an AfD nom by the same user just 12 days ago. Obsessively renominating the same articles is highly disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The massive media attention to Ms. Yamaoka's injuries led to changes in the great sport of cheerleading. That's why we need this article. -- JJay 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nominator cares enough, set a reminder to bring this back in July and I predict you will get a total of four to six votes, all to delete or merge. This is obviously unencyclopedic ephemera, but the bias for including recent news events on WP under the guise of encyclopedic content is simply too strong to allow for rational consensus to form while the item is still relatively fresh. The conflation of news coverage with notability is regrettable but understandable. Cf the Saugeen Stripper, which was roundly declared to be of immense encyclopedic value (ok that's an exaggeration) until the meme wore off and AFD was able happily to merge it back to obscurity where it belongs. Hasta julio. Eusebeus 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is false. The SS AfDs resulted in No Consensus. The merge set off a very nasty edit war. I hope that is not what you are suggesting. -- JJay 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are welcome to disagree with my personal view of course and you don't have to be sorry. But re the SS, by WP edit war standards it was more like a minor skirmish, the issue was resolved through a merge which stands as of now, and the 46-20 AfD vote to strip (sorry) the SS of a separate article was generally resolved, so my language may be flippant but the point is germane. And that was when the material was still rather fresh. By July, no-one will care and this can be dealt with without the interference of news-established notability obscuring the issue (which is not to say it would necessarily be deleted - that's just my prediction). Eusebeus 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to belabor the point, but the AfD you keep referring to closed as no consensus- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. Hence, there was no vote to strip, delete or merge anything. I also don't believe that anything was resolved. Furthermore, the comparison with SS is not even germane given the massive difference in news coverage. To my knowledge, the Saugeen Stripper, unlike Ms. Yamaoka, was never a guest on the Today show or featured on primetime news or the recipient of a call from President Bush. The SS also did not have an impact on organized sports. Instead of clouding the issue or playing with crystal balls, you should thus recognize that the keep voters here are perfectly "rational". -- JJay 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if there were a 3rd nomination, by a previously involved party, that would have to be seen as being intentionally disruptive to Wikipedia. --Rob 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, could you clarify? Which article are we talking about now? -- JJay 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to Kristi Yamaoka. Eusebeus suggested that the nom should wait till July, and renominate, to get a more favorable voter turn-out. I feel that type of approach would be disruptive. --Rob 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. My feelings on that were expressed with my initial comment. A failed prod followed by a failed AfD and now a second failed AfD should be an indication that it is time to move on. -- JJay 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's keep some perspective here. I think editors could well make a case that this is not a major event or a major subject, but given the tools typically used to determine relevance, the items listed by jjay to establish notability can distort encycopedic value. That is not to say that arguments for keeping this article are unfounded, but what I do think is somewhat irrational is using conflated google counts spawned by massive reproduction of a few wire stories to show encyclopedic value. Hence, in July, when those have disappeared, the issue can be addressed without this distortion. Per the point about disruption, I don't think renominating this for deletion when some distance has been established can be considered disruptive - that is simply acknowledging the bias of WP inclusion choices. We can disagree on this, surely, without deciding that one or another course of action is simply disruptive. Eusebeus 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that a handful of wire stories being replicated across a number of media outlets is an irrational basis for notability is, I think, missing the point. Each media outlet, from your local newspaper through to the biggest names in the business, make editorial decisions on what news items to run of the dizzying array of articles that come down over the wire every day. Every one of the media outlets that ran articles on Kristi Yamaoka thought it was newsworthy enough to be in their particular media outlet's output. It doesn't matter if it is a replica of a news wire article. The fact of the matter is hundreds of media outlets found the incident and the outcomes of it to be sufficiently news worthy. Trying to minimize the impact of this by saying the articles are replicates of each other entirely misses the point. Should we never include notable events in Wikipedia when such events only have one reporter handy to write a story first hand? --Durin 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TBC Maxamegalon2000 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Keep per Jay. RGTraynor 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of keep for this notable victim of cheerleading. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not so much for her herself, but because what directly resulted in what happened to her. Stev0 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that it made the news means it has already been "noted". —Pengo 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She fell on her head, she showed school spirit, the end. Her fifteen minutes of fame are long gone, and this isn't the Short-Attention-Span Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This survived AfD less than two weeks before it was renominated!?! Jcuk 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a no consensus vote, and a look at the history shows no substantial changes to the article since the 9th, which is almost three weeks ago. The issue is not when it wasa AfDed, but when this bcame non-notable. MSJapan 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This individual quintessentially embodies a concept of continuing to do one's job under adversity beyond all expectations. Is there any better example of this concept to date in western culture? This could serve as the ultimate example of this phenomenon for generations to come. At this time, the correct decision is the one already made, which is to keep. WP is the place people should expect to be able to come and find information about transformative events and people such as this. cmsb705 28 March 2006
  • Keep: WP:BIO clearly states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Given all of the press attention, appearance on a number of TV shows, a call from the President of the United States, and ONGOING press coverage, the article clearly passes this requirement. The above statement that there is no news of her since March 11th is false as she's been mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times and The Independent and been on the Ellen Degeneres Show of late. This article passes WP:BIO. If it doesn't, then a broad range of articles will need to be put up for AfD. For a sampling, see Kenneth Pinyan, Carlie Brucia, Brian Wells, Kayla Rolland, Mathias Rust, Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim), Randal McCloy, Roger Olian, Jason McElwain, Karen Louise Ellis, Pamela Rogers Turner. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Limitations_on_renomination states in its first sentence that an article should not be immediately renominated unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds. The last AfD on this was 6 delete to 7 keep. In the 12 days since then, there's not anything to make this bio less notable, in fact rather the opposite. Currently, this AfD is 5 delete to 18 keep. --Durin 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suppose we have one "temporarily famous" person like this a week. That’s only 52 articles a year. In ten years there would be 520 people added to Wikipedia. There are 80286 entries in the Living people category. If every “person of the week” had been added to Wikipedia since its inception they would constitute less then .5% of the articles on living contemporary people. Ms. Yamaoka is probably closer to a person of the month on top of that. Seano1 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably person of the year or decade for cheerleaders. She is certainly one of my heros. -- JJay 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worth keeping back then, still worth it now. Quick re-nomination suggests bad faith. -Colin Kimbrell 21:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - people will search for this. Maybe deletable in a couple of years when/if it becomes clear that she has been forgotten, but right now this is a notable personality/event in U.S. college athletics. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cheerleader#Safety and delete. Thatcher131 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Famous but no contribution to mankind. --Masssiveego 04:56, 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. My count of valid votes is 38 to delete (including 5 delete of merge, 4 delete and merge and 1 delete or transwiki to Wikiquote), 18 keep (inlcuding 1 merge or keep), and 18 merge (including the 'merge ands' and 'merge ors'). As the "merge and/or delete" votes can be taken as saying there shouldn't be a seperate article about this, and the transwiki vote saying that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then this is a consensus to delete. Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough. Thryduulf 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie_Sheen_and_Alex_Jones_interviews[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apparently added due to the fact that consensus was that this interview was just a blip in the actor's bio; Striver created this fork to present the interview in its entirety. Individual interviews aren't notable of mention. This is not about the content; which is already on wiki. It's about how significant an actor's opinion is in the grand scheme of things. What's covered in this article?

  • Charlie Sheen is a member of the 9/11 truth movment, as stated in an interview with Alex Jones
    • fine, belongs on his page and 9-11 truth movment page.
  • Content of interview and arguments regarding 9-11.
    • definitely non-notable. The same arguments have been put forth in 9-11 conspiracy article. No reason to reproduce them just because an actor repeats them.
  • Media reaction
    • non-notable. We don't see Jennifer Wilbanks categorizing every media response to the incident, and a handful of media references is far from a media frenzy.

Gee, looking at the "rules" listed on the Articles_for_deletion page and I fail to see the "Only count people with over 10 edits" rule. For the record I've made edits before (regarding the Oberon programming language) but I didn't bother with an account at that time. Anyway, did it ever occur to you that people with an interest in the subject simply ran accross the Charlie Sheen article via Google or Wikipedia search, saw that it had been listed for "deletion" then decided to say something about that? I hope the "powers that be" stick to the rules as stated, and not with the ones some people seem intent on making up as they go along. Nakedtruth 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes(discounting anon and users with <10 edits: Keep=17, Merge=10, Delete=37' - implicit that nom supports delete. Mmx1 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, it's not a vote, just a picture of the opinion among established editors. Excluding new users avoids the bias from newly created accounts and sock/meatpuppets. I'm doing nothing that I haven't already seen "the powers that be" do, and I'm setting a lower threshold than they did.--Mmx1 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not accepted policy to discount the votes of users with low edit counts. Also, accepted policy is that an article should be deleted when a rough consensus to delete has been reached (usually 75%, Not a simple majority), otherwise the article should remain. Seabhcán 15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is intended not as a vote but as a summary of the body position(AfD isn't a vote to begin with, anyway). I'm not saying Delete/Keep because vote <> some percentage; just giving a summary of a very long vote/discussion page. I'm confounded somewhat that it's official policy that this is not a voting process, but still on the admin pages there was talk over stats of the vote tally for closing admins. Moreover, I've seen it used in practice by closing admins to exclude posters with low edit counts; particularly when there is indication of meat/sockpuppetry. Considering we got an influx of anons from the 911 eyewitness AfD just a few days ago, it's not unreasonable that there are still some socks around. The 75% you cite is one editor's opinion on that talk page; it's left up to editor's discretion and tends to be a wee bit lower in practice. --Mmx1 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Seabhcán 15:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Has widespread support from others who before had never appeared to publicly support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Sure, there have been other figures to come out and questioned 9/11, including a former member of Bush's own cabinent, but few interviews have garnered as much interest in as short a period of time. There is too much information on that one page to realistically merge it into Charlie Sheen's page, besides, as someone else pointed out, it's an interview between Sheen AND Jones. Does the "merge" group think it should be "merged" into both pages? Also one has to wonder why we're even having this debate. Is wikipedia running out of hard disk space? Nakedtruth 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's only contribution to wikipedia --Mmx1 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy said it best: "No, its creating a breakout article about a event that would dominate the main article, exactly what Wikpedia Policies command in this kind of situations. --Striver 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) "
{unsigned|222.154.13.125}
(anon comment made not by striver --Striver 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedie Keep historical event, first time Hollywood actor goes mainstream regarding 9/11. --Striver 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, will we do the same thing the first time someone from another profession goes on the record? What's so special about actors? jacoplane 17:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per POV fork and per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Not encyclopedic, there are thousands of interviews given between more notable figures everyday. Furthermore, the interview is already mentioned in the Charlie Sheen page.--Jersey Devil 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedie Keep Or you must be advocating adding all of this to Charlie Sheen's page/article? There seems to be a great deal of non-redundant, well-cited material here. Plus it does seem noteworthy; this is making an impression whatever you want to believe about 9/11.(Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • While citability is a necessary criteria for inclusion, it's not a sufficient one. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, he said he's a member of the 9-11 truth movement. That's about as notable as this event gets. You don't need an article discussing the very salient points he's making, especially when there are more intelligent people making those points. Man, don't you realize fame is usually inversely proportional to intelligence and that he's just parroting what he's heard. You might as well go right to the source and quote Alex Jones. Ya'll are aware that the political opinion of actors isn't very notable to begin with, right? First civil engineer to doubt 9-11 theories - notable. First actor - who cares? Since when did actors become authorities of truth?--Mmx1 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • considering Hannity and Colmes bothered to talk about it, and even inviting guest to talk about it, and CNN having three (3!) shows about it, going so far as inviting Alex Jones himself, i have a problem seeing how this is not notable.--Striver 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This can be discussed in other relevant articles, but is not notable enough to merit its own article. dbtfztalk 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver. Royboycrashfan 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, or merge to relevant articles --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Good info here should fit on Mr. Sheen's page. - N1h1l 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & JerseyDevil's note above. --mtz206 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Striver seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT by creating/editing other articles in order to include links to this one: Showbiz Tonight, A.J. Hammer, Ellis Henican, --mtz206 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a problem because? And exactly how is that POINT? --Striver 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamJacobMuller 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge material to any of the many existing articles. Tom Harrison Talk 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is notable into Sheen's page. Bucketsofg 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe merge a very abbreviated summary to relevant pages. A Hollywood actor espousing a theory does not move it out of the crackpot column, and a Hollywood actor expressing their opinion about anything other than acting is most assuredly not an "historical event". This is not nearly notable enough. --Deville (Talk) 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Antelope In Search Of Truth. Seano1 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mention of the the interview on Charlie Sheen and 9/11 Truth Movement is more than enough. The article is to "forkish" to survive on its own. Eivindt@c 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mention in the Sheen article and the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is more than sufficient. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is basically a platform for conspiracy theorists to push their beliefs: the "references" section mostly consists of links to Alex Jones pages which are not related to Sheen. It is not a proper reference section at all. Anything useful here can be merged to Alex Jones. Rhobite 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cources are to Alexs Jones site, since it is there Charlie Sheen gave the intervies and they share conclusions and information, Charlie Sheen returned to Alex Jones to talk more about it. Remberer the articlename? "Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews"--Striver 11:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, soapboxery Sandstein 04:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article is a recent event about a set of theories that claim possible 'conspiracy' which in and of itself is not illegitimate for that. Conspiracy is by definition when a group gets together to commit an act. Like Lincoln's assassination and JFK's which more and more evidence indicates was a conspiracy by others. Alex Jone's does not just come up with quack conspiracy's but has massive documentation behind them. I do not agree with all his assertions but he is well sourced. Charlie Sheen is well known and this article fits wikipedia. He is not the only one who questions the official version of 9-11. Indeed it is not wrong to question, it is wrong to blindly follow anything the government says...Freemen are not Yes men, and Democracy encourages legitimate questions. Some in Academia are beginning to question 9-11 on the evidence alone. --Northmeister 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have changed my vote to merge with 9/11 conspiracy theory, as the best alternative for this article in lieu of discussion with Mmx1 and reconsideration of material's place. I would advocate that other's consider this idea, including Striver. --Northmeister 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My resonse: [6]--Striver 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver makes legitimate points above at my talk page as well. My vote is 'merge', with the addition that if it comes down to the wire over deleting (which I oppose), then it is a Keep. --Northmeister 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's fifth contrib to wiki. --Mmx1 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trim and add important info back to Sheen's article. Crumbsucker 08:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info was originaly at Sheens article, but people did not want to see it, since it dominated the article: Talk:Charlie Sheen. The only way to cover the article fully and fairly is to give it its own article. --Striver 12:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the event is now bigger than just Charlie Sheen, it has been covered on CNN, FOX News, Prisonplanet, Rense, and mutliple other places. We cant have a duplicated of the event on all those articles.--Striver 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and Fox News do not agree, see the video: [[deprecated source?] First show], [[deprecated source?] second show], [[deprecated source?] Hannity & Colmes].--Striver 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what...Fox news shows every stupid car chase in California too...does each one of those deserve an article? Striver wasn't allowed to put this where he wanted so once again as usual, he misuses Wikipedia to spam our pages with his POV and creates POV fork articles after concensus disallows this junk in every other location. Striver tried to put this in several other articles, but was reverted everywhere he went. This ongoing and incessant misuse of Wikipedia resources is near to exhausting the communities patience.--MONGO 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and smerge back to either the actor or the conspiracy. This is neither the first nor the last cause a Hollywood actor has been involved in. In fact there is hardly a weird cause that doesn't have an actor supporting it, from PETA to the NRA to Earth First. We can't have a separate article for each of the cross product of "actors" x "causes" - squeeze it into one of them. GRuban 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the causes you mentioned are this controversial, in fact, everyone of the causes you mentioned are perfectly mainstream. What makes this even unique is that it is the first time ever that American mainstream media covers someone from Hollywood who staunchly insists that the buildings where brought down by explosives: This has never been done before!--Striver 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, even the controversy doesn't make it worthy of an article in and of itself. If Pope John XXIII endorsed the Flat Earth Society it would be a valuable addition to each or both of those articles, but not call for a Pope John XXIII endorses the Flat Earth Society. GRuban 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - a interview on a lame consipracy theory is not encyclopaedic. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on Wikiquote, so perhaps consider, um, transwikificationalorgarating to there. I don't know what the adverb is, so I made one up. It's already mentioned in the Charlie Sheen article, so no need to splurge any of this back into there. Proto||type 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote? That is a new one, squizing three CNN coverages and a FOX News coverage to Wikiquote... --Striver 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then just delete. And GRuban makes a good point. If George Bush drove a Buick, would we have a George Bush drives a Buick article? No. At best, it would be mentioned in the two individual articles. Proto||type 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it was covered in 3 CNN shows, and a FOX News show, and Rense.com and people all over his view called him a hero for that, yes we would. Want proof? See: You forgot Poland and Human-animal hybrid. --Striver 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's only contribution to wiki
  • Merge into the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. And for god's sake, clean it up. Nedlum 17:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, merge. A conspiracy theory espoused by an average actor (or even a good one), is still just a conspiracy theory. Should we have a separate page on Tom_Cruise_Meets_Scientology? tharsaile 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So there's a factoid involved; great, put in the main articles. Considerably more notable information goes into most Playboy Interviews; do we really need seperate articles for the last five hundred or so of those as well? RGTraynor 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I volunteer to do the research for that --Mmx1 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A series of interviews is notable enough for its own article. We have articles on a telegram, a memo, and some letters, so why not an interview?-PlasmaDragon 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its own way, yes and maybe. Luckily, there is lots of space on wikipedia and we don't need to await the judgement of history before begining an article. I see no reason to delete this article. Seabhcán 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's sixth contribution to wiki
  • Merge, to a mention on the conspiracy theory and actor pages; many actor pages include excerpts from their wacky opining without forking. Doesn't really need its own article, and I think that an external link to the interview's transcript would be more effective than a running commentary rife with typos. -Dawson 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If necessary, merge onto 9/11 Truth Movement. But it doesn't make sense to merge onto 9/11 CTs because it would be redundant with a lot of the info -- what is most relevant is the event of him saying it and the public and media response. I would prefer that it were not merged, however, because it is a unique historical event and is already well covered here on it's own. Bov 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup. This needs to be placed on the Charlie Sheen page, but clean it up as well. It doesn't seem fit for Wikipedia in it's current state. ♠ SG →Talk 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A separate article? Why, because an actor "dared" to talk about theories that have long existed? --Rishiboy 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interviews? an Interview? Because Charlie Sheen spoke? no, not worth an article. If the editors at Charlie Sheen didn't like the box, hey, remove the box. Don't push it into fork-ville. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a notable current event by Wikipedia's standards. Whether we like it or not, celebrities make news by doing things that wouldn't make news if non-celebrities did them. And when that happens, Wikipedia tends to find it notable and fair game for an article. --Hyperbole 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it notable. captbananas 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there a separate Wikipedia article about the occasion when Tara Reid's dress fell off? The Rob Lowe sex tape? Each of Courtney Love's train-wreck television appearances? The difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper is that the encyclopedia reduces any number of "notable" events to summary form and places them in context within a narrative. Most biographies refer to any number of notable events; it's not appropriate to create discrete articles on everything mentioned in every article. Otherwise, I look forward to pages for each of Eisenhower's heart attacks, the Grateful Dead's concerts, Muhammed Ali's bouts, and George W. Bush's lies. Monicasdude 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else Sheen will hunt us all down and force us to watch..."Men at Work"!--KrossTalk 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is bigger than Sheen and should be kept. If you think the government couldn't be involved in something like this, then please Google "Operation Northwoods" and "The PNAC Document - Rebuilding America's Defenses".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhb fighter (talk • contribs)
  • This is the editor's first edit--Mmx1 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lots of red links and new users voting keep. That is all I have to say.--Jersey Devil 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe since the event has created lots of attention? 50'000 votes on the CNN poll, and people wikisearch it, only to find it afd'd?--Striver 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like someone is resorting to sockpuppetry, which is unfortunate. Still, there are a good number of established users, myself included, who think this article stands better in its current incarnation than merged into Charlie Sheen or 9/11 Truth Movement or whatnot. In other words, the Keep votes are certainly not entirely the result of sockpuppetry. --Hyperbole 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that is why i dont think there is any suckpupetry. I mean, im the creator and basicly the only guy that have writen anyting, so i have a hard time figuring out who the sockuppeter whould be, i dont think anyone else but me cares enough for the article to do such a thing. I also linked to the article from a swedish site, so a least a few of the anon or new votes are explained from that. Feel free to think its me suckpuppeting when i know its not even necesary, if it makes anyone happier.--Striver 00:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More likely it's meatpuppets from the 911 Eyewitness/Rick Sigel site who dropped in for that AfD and decided to stay. --Mmx1 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More attempts at PR for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Walled Garden. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup, The story is allover multiple websites, polls, blogs, major news media (TV and online), etc. The story is big and has given sites millions of hits, like what Drudge did to PrisonPlanet when they briefly linked it for example, it should qualify for notability. And also, it's a developing story as we speak, so it's liable to increase in notability. LOL some of the reasons for Deletion are ridiculous. Don't like the actor? Don't like the theory and think it's crackpot? That's okay if you think that way, but those are irrelevant reasons for deletion. FistOfFury 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Notable, but not for a separate article. GfloresTalk 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable indeed, the story has been in Politiken (one of the three biggest newspapers) even here in Denmark where it was the top most read article of the week. EyesAllMine 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: a summary into a section about Sheen's other crackpot ideas and actions. This should fit nicely next to his prostitute-stalking mentions. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Good info but belongs on the Charlie Sheen page Nigelthefish 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and the Alex Jones page, and the Hannity and Colmes article, and the Showbiz Tonight article, and the Rense.com article, and the Prisonplanet.com article, and the A.J. Hammer article, and the...--Striver 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:D, exactly! EyesAllMine 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entry on the Charlie Sheen page should be something like 1 sentence, saying "on such and such a date, Sheen endorsed the Alex Jones 9-11 conspiracy theory on such and such a show." That's it. The Jones article details his views sufficiently, the Sheen article should just refer to them. The Rense and Prisonplanet and Hannity & Colmes shouldn't even mention it; to them, it's just another interview out of thousands. GRuban 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P0wned!!!!. A great multitude of unencyclopedic articles about 9-11 conspiracy theories shall now be created. Most shall be listed in Articles for Deletion. Nary a handful shall be deleted; a glorious number shall be concluded no consensus, keep. For every delete there shall be a matching keep, looks good to me. This has now been organized; our meats are well guilded and our socks are growing strong in numbers and are gaining small edits to avoid your laughable "this user's only edit" accusations. Your puny "official truth" shall be marginalized by the glorious flood of articles singing the praises of our mighty source of all wisdom, Alex Jones (pbuh). Hundreds of barely notable people's articles shall end up as conspiracycruft through some vacuous connection to someone who once said something in an interview. We know your policies and we have learned how to work them. Resistance is futile, prepare to be cruftspammed! — Rainy Day Parade 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) You bet this is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia.[reply]
  • Delete I can't for the life of me understand how this is notable. Most of this information is already on the 9/11 conspiracies article. jacoplane 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why this is less fitt to have its own article than 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson. --Striver 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polls ended with over 50 000 people voting [[deprecated source?] and people call this non-notable? --Striver 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would vote to have the information merged with the Michael Jackson article, so I agree with you that i is not very different. Regarding the polls, I think there are tons of polls held every day that don't warrent their own Wikipedia article. I mean, do you think that slashdot users voting on their favorite Monty Python skit warrants an entry? Over 50 000 people voted. jacoplane 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is not presented to show that it deserves its own article, it is presented to show that this article is notable by wikpedia standards. --Striver 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, Monty Python has its own article, and you just showed that they both have a poll that was used by a equal amount of people. --Striver 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones (journalist), and the 9/11 Truth Movement also have articles. I'm not disputing that those articles are notable. It's just that I find the article about this interview should not have it's own article. jacoplane 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a reasonably full page, and Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones (journalist) would be dominated by this information. Although I think this article itself is overloaded and needs trimming, even properly trimmed, I think it will still be too big for any of those three pages. --Hyperbole 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The event just expanded to include Ed Asner, should we give him also a copy of the merge? And everybody else that are waiting in line to support Sheen? --Striver 23:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is hardly notable. There are hundreds of interviews every day, and dozens of ones which are in some way controversal, not only that, but the theories are mentioned quite a few other places as well. Anyway, even if the event is notable, it's only notable enough to mention within his own personal article. Radagast83 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, read about the latest devlopments, the information dam is breaching, more and more people are getting out of the closet! --Striver 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non-notable. Deltabeignet 03:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; merge top-level stuff into appropriate articles. A2Kafir 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


List of people included as active (not only mentioned) in the article:

Other people mentioned include:

Now, could you again explain to me why this is less notable than 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson?--Striver 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson article is currently undergoing votes for merger with the main Jackson article. Early voting seems to favor Merge, although the Jackson article is already large and can better warrant forks. The Jackson baby at the Berlin balcony article experienced a media frenzy and world wide coverage. By comparison, the Sheen interview is a non-event. Even without the comparison, the Sheen interview is a non-event to everyone but his fans. Your analogy undermines your argument. Ande B 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into 9/11 truth movement. Or into Charlie Sheen. This deserves a two or three line mention at most. Why are we hyperbolizing minor issues? Must be laundry day. It explains the socks. And the soap -- Samir (the scope) 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Samir (The Scope) --rogerd 04:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Striver has conveniently neglected to mention that Showbiz Tonight airs on Headline News, not CNN. It's an important distinction, and I don't doubt that this is an intentional distortion. Striver is the same user who billed Morgan Reynolds as George W. Bush's chief economist, when he was actually the Department of Labor's chief economist. Rhobite 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, i did not know there was a difference, i dont appreciate the personal attack on my motives.--Striver 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never did anything of the kind, bring the proof if you are truthfull! --Striver 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, come on. This is Wikipedia, so every edit is public. I tend to think that anything you did in the past is not really relevant to this AfD discussion, but just try to be reasonable. jacoplane 06:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The commision is formed as a United States Congress hearing.", NOT "The commision is a United States Congress hearing.". A big difference. Any more proof for the baseless accusation?--Striver 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, as Striver isn't American, he doesn't have the familiarity with American systems and the AJ bullshit doesn't ring on his bullshit detection as it does ours. However, a few points for you:
  • Congressional hearing implies Congress as a body heard the issue. In reality, one congresswomen held a hearing.
  • Showbiz tonight....well, you may not realize it wasn't on CNN, but just from title of the show? This isn't a hard-hitting investigative news show like Chris Matthews or 60 Minutes. They typically cover who's sleeping with who and who's snorting coke this week. Do we have an article on the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston breakup? (actually never mind, we probably do :-( ). How about the nth time Gary Busey checks into the Betty Ford clinic? (a drug rehab clinic)
  • Similarly for Robert Bowman and Morgan Reynolds's claims.
Striver, you might want to consider how credible these people are if they're exaggerating and misrepresenting the significance of things like these. People have been fired for less significant misrepresentations than Bowman and Reynolds are guilty of.
--Mmx1 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Charlie Sheen/Alex Jones interview isn't notable because it was reported on Showbiz Tonight? Seabhcán 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not phrasingly it so black and white, I'm just pointing out that it's not as earth-shatteringly large as it's been presented. It didn't appear on CNN as part of International news, it appeared as part of a fluff show on celebrity gossip. ::::::::--Mmx1 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me that doesn't reach the threshold of 'non-notable'. There are plenty of things on wikipedia that have never been in the news at all, never mind on CNN international news. Should we delete them all? Seabhcán 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: [7] --Striver 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolute Delete - What about all the interviews of Michael Parkinson, heck, what about Jonathan Ross?! Just because he's part of some fringe 911 conspiracy theories doesn't mean it should get its own article. - Hahnchen 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets Wiki's standards for inclusion. Lots of work done here, too. --Shindig Me 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is by any measure more notable than the abundance of other articles in Wikipedia pertaining to more or less globally obscure subjects. Additionally, I believe the incidents described in the article is significant in context with the atmosphere sorrounding 9/11 and it is as such warranted. Celcius 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge, how agains is this notable? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Clean Up and Merge This compilation of quasi-quotes and talk-media response to the interview is a mess and not notable for purposes of being a separate article. If there were substantial clean-up efforts, parts could be merged either into the 9/11 Truth Movement or into the Charlie Sheen article. As it is, it looks like an archive of a pseudo-transcript. As a celebrity news current event article it has some validity, though not in its current form. My only question is this: How long do "current event" articles maintain that status? Ande B. 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP*--Isisnosiris 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) There are not enough voices for this growing theory. What are people so afraid of?[reply]
Could the above use please tell why this is his first edit? How did he found out about this afd? --Striver 11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isisnosiris, Attributing motivation to others is seldom useful for producing anything other than offense. I don't see any "fear" among these comments, only people who put more emphasis on notability and others who emphasize the content or political context of the article. These are just interests that sometimes coincide and at other times compete with one another. Please avoid the pop psychologizing. Thanks. Ande B 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this fullfill the criteria of a POV fork? Its not trivia if people call out for a "Demonstration of Gratitude". It was covered in the sheen article, but voices was raised since it dominated the article, so in accordance to Wikipedia:How to break up a page, it is given its own page. make sure you read that before you cry out "pov fork", and also read about what POV forking is not.--Striver 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge into Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and 9/11_Truth_Movement. If a single interview between a whackjob conspiracy theorist and a whackjob washed-up actor is the criterion for notability, then I'm Marie of Romania. GWO
  • Delete per Monicasdude and Samir; although I am afraid Rainy Day Parade (talk · contribs) is on to something. Thatcher131 19:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge relevant info to appropriate articles per Gareth and others. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; just because someone has a few interviews with someone it warrants an article? Please. --Zimbabweed 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete certainly non-notable interview at this time; perhaps if Sheen takes it somewhere bigger, but for now, merge whatever information there is into the Sheen article and itehrs, and delete this --Krich (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 01:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Masssiveego 04:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not a fork Yuckfoo 18:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another one praising him as a hero: "Last week Charlie Sheen became a legend." [9]--Striver 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Margana 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough and given the size of the sheen article would excessively dominate the article. The fact that he may or may not be a whackjob doesn't mean we should delete it Nil Einne 16:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this information into all appropriate articles. FloNight talk 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable would dominate sheen material. I am a sheen fan. --SilverTongueDevil 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As of my comment, this editor has two edits...the first one being on this Afd....--MONGO 19:38, 2 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  (aeropagitica)  06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile oil[edit]

This page returns only about 250 hits on google, and seems to have been created to add credibility to the Repcillin article topynate 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. Royboycrashfan 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable AdamJacobMuller 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few entries found by Google is a reason more why we need it here. It is factual, real information and should remain. Rare doesn't mean not useful and instructive. FireWire 16:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep subject to verification. Frankly, it sounds like snake oil to me, but that too is notable. Verifiability issues are not in themselves grounds for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds like snake oil, but seems to be a real product. —Pengo 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indirect advertising for nn product (Repcillin). dbtfztalk 04:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs to be verified and sourced. Nigelthefish 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it was covered on BBC. Wiwaxia 00:10, 2 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 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later that day[edit]

Another non-notable web comic. Can't find anything relevant on Alexa or Google. --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:26, 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 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bankovic[edit]

Total hoax. See Google results.[10]

Comment Some quick searches make Lindsay Mackay and Nadia Tan, also authored by Sassaffraz (talk · contribs) look awfully suspect. All three of these articles quote these three praising each other's work. Based on Google, Tan looks like a film student who's made an 11-minute short. Can't find anything reliable on Mackay at all. Fan1967 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominate them for deletion. Believe me, I'll vote yes. JackO'Lantern 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, why people don't check snopes before they propagate this stuff baffles me AdamJacobMuller 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax. Bucketsofg 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant hoax. --Deville (Talk) 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, it's not even a funny hoax. TKE 03:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RazzleDazzle Delete - Directed Chicago? First rule of Hoax Club, don't tie yourself into easily debunkable claims. Sheesh! MikeWazowski 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. James 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've been trying to do some searching on Bankovic and her three friends. Best I can figure out, they're a bunch of young film students at York University in Toronto. All have listed ages under 25. All except Tan can be found in the student directory. A few (very few) of the titles actually seem to exist as 10-minute short films with no distribution. A few of the moderately notable names mentioned, John Greyson and Antonin Lhotsky, are on the faculty. Marcos Arriaga was associated with the school; he graduated there in 2003. Fan1967 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Slowmover 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. MaNeMeBasat 06:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:01, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flies Inside The Sun[edit]

Non-notable (and speedy-deletable) per WP:BAND, but db-band and prod contested. Notability in a very limited context is not notability in general. dcandeto 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability asserted, fails Keep per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This band were a prominent part of a 1990s experimental music movement in New Zealand. The movement, sometimes labelled 'free-noise', was well known in experimental music circles around the world, and was a distinctive sub-genre. A Google search for "Flies Inside The Sun" reveals that this band's releases are stocked by numerous notable suppliers (such as Forced Exposure, Volcanic Tongue, Southern) and have been reviewed in numerous notable magazines (both online and print) (including Dusted, Pitchfork, Arthur etc). Cnwb 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user is the creator of the article. dcandeto 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Which doesn't make his vote any less valid. Cnwb 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No results for reviews or news in Pitchfork, contrary to submitter's claim. TKE 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't find any mention either. This is a concern - can someone provide specific checkable references? Ziggurat 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Sorry, that was my fault. I quickly scanned through the Google results in my flury of article-defence, amd mis-read the results. I should have been more thorough. I have amended my comments. Cnwb 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 's okay, I'm a Pitchforkaholic ;) TKE 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to vote here, as it's not necessary, but I would keep since the band is on Kranky, one of the top indie lables. But as noted above, they don't appear on Pitchforkmedia.com. TKE 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cnwb; also, the band does have an allmusic profile [11]--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies verifiability requirements. Not a speedy candidate, as it has an assertion of notability, and not a delete candidate, as it has a CD published by Kranky. Needs some references from magazine reviews, however. Ziggurat 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Band is notable for its time period. Whether that means it is still notable, I don't know. No tracks in the Nature's Best series (a Y2K release of the "top 100" NZ songs of all time), but that doesn't mean non-notable. --Midnighttonight 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cnwb.-gadfium 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allmusic.com considers that they are notable so they are verifiable and seem notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. James 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and edit AFTER discussion. This afd is testament to the ability for wiki process to be subverted, there is to be discussion PRIOR to afd. check the talk page, there are only 2 entries. come on, show your comittment to doin the right thing here, moza 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If talk-page discussion is required, as you claim, that should be written somewhere prominent on the main AfD page. Please don't claim that things are required if they aren't. dcandeto 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is clearly no need for , and there should not be an afd page, apart from an absurd notion of how to pervert the course of justice on wikipedia. Why did anyone do it? Lets have it in the open.moza 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not perverting anything. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF before continuing down this path. dcandeto 11:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith? is prod and afd (without prior discussion) ever done in good faith? is saying that musicians are not notable when they have published recordings not a personal attack? I'm simply insisting that you practice what you preach, justice, nothing personal, I have no idea who you are, so ts impossible. I see that you are back working on your own article so thats good. Good faith says to discuss PRIOR to force deletion debate. NPA applies to the subjects of the articles as well, when they are real and named people, not hiding behind a mask. Paul Moss. moza 13:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for usage of your and you, I accept that it could be misconstrued. I altered them to what they should have been. "perverting the course of justice" is a standard legal term in western society, and it is my POV that it applies to many afd sagas, and especially this one here. Now, how about an apology to the musicians named in the article, that have been attacked?moza 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination to delete is not a personal attack and should never be construed as such. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, because it discusses this. There is nothing in WP:AFD or WP:AGF that insists on using the talk page before a deletion nomination, but there is something about "Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold." Please don't scold, Paul, because the nomination was an honest mistake. Ziggurat 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well now thats the point, you also believe that there is nothing to indicate disussion first. How could a well meaning person make such a mistake if they followed the clear policy of discussion first? oh my finger slipped on the afd button? afd should never be a mistake. A nominate to delete a group of persons MUST be an attack on those persons, not the wiki community, lets not confuse that here. This is not about a wiki person, this is about a process, hurting real people out there, not in here. Lets stop getting sidetracked! you can quote all you like about deletion policy references, and it will be about just that, deletion. I'm trying to discuss discussion policy to prevent deletion, thats just a tad different. My point is that these very smoke screens often prevent justice.moza 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination to delete a Wikipedia article about a group of people is not an attack on those people or an attempt to delete them - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is very clear about that. You are construing it as such, but it is not. An AFD merely indicates "I do not believe that this article is of the necessary standard to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia." The reason that there is a discussion on AfD is that sometimes mistakes are made. And about getting sidetracked - a deletion discussion is not the appropriate forum to talk about these things. If you feel that Wikipedia policy is inappropriate, propose a change and discuss it on the talk page of the policy in question or at the Village Pump. Ziggurat 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am happy with deletion policy, this is about pre-deletion policy. Its not the policy that is under attacke, but the use of it. There is a difference. This discussion is more about mental set and setting. What better place to discuss injustice, than where it is happening? And why not debate the pre-deletion policy (discussion, assistance, good faith) rather than again sidetarcking it to deletion policy?moza 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the nominator has clearly stated that such discussion is to take place here.moza 04:03, 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 consensus to not delete, no consensus between keep and merge. Thryduulf 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Daily News[edit]

Non-notable local newspaper. Only 353 unique Google results [12] --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating The Reidsville Review, a similar article created by the same user who started Eden Daily News --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article to nominate: Mount Airy News, created by the same user. Royboycrashfan 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, perhaps Speedy A1 for lack of context. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, don't think it can be speedy deleted for lack of context, as the policy states that "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion". The article can be expanded, though I'm not sure if local newspapers are notable enough for Wikipedia --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that it can be expanded beyond a stub. Royboycrashfan 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable all AdamJacobMuller 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Eden, North Carolina. Seano1 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Seano1 Bridesmill 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with their respective communities unless expanded. I think local newspapers are so important to their local community that the subject would warrant separate articles but one-liner articles are not all that useful on their own. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no concern for a one-liner like this. But, I am very concerned if anybody is voting to delete based on the noms reasoning about the "unique" google hits. This search had only 333 "unique" hits. That's less than the 353 cited by the nom as reason for deletion. --Rob 06:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know I'm bucking the deletionist trend here, but last I knew, most newspapers still are read in paper forms, not on Google portals. RGTraynor 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, or at the very least merge per Sjakkalle. Not all newspapers, especially local ones, are going to have a strong Internet presence, so the Google test really shouldn't apply here. BryanG 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The smallest local newspaper is still more important than the avalanche of Star Trek/Star Wars crap in Wikipedia. --Centauri 05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep small towns and their press aren't so non-notable that they don't deserve encyclopedic mention --Krich (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:03, 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 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heist[edit]

Appears to be a self-made film, a bunch of film enthusiasts experimenting witha camera? The google hits all relate to other big films with the same name.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicphoto Website[edit]

nn website on freewebs of a nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is ok you can delete this if you want. I will stay with the user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicphoto (talk • contribs)

  • If you say so, we can speedy delete it under WP:CSD criteria G7. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicphoto: Yes I give you permission to delete this about my site. But don't delete the user page that is about me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicphoto (talk • contribs)

Ok thanks for the info. Sonicphoto


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EV's Youth Centre[edit]

Advertising, not notable,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs expanding. This is arguably the most important music venue in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. It has a long history of hosting all-age gigs featuring local and international bands (including Fugazi, Fear Factory, NOFX, You Am I, Pavement, Spiderbait, Magic Dirt etc). It is a prominant part of youth culture in the area. Website here [13]. Cnwb 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have rewritten the article to reflect its importance. Cnwb 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A a venue that seems to be able to book some notable bands. Nigelthefish 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Croydon, Victoria. It's government-owned and operated, so I think that's kosher. -Colin Kimbrell 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I grew up in and around the city and its music scene and I've never heard of this place, so it can't be that notable. Ambi 08:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was quite notable in the early 1990s. I would say anyone in their mid 20s to mid 30s from that area, who had an interest in live music, would know of the place, and probably have fond memories of it. Of course this isn't an argument for keeping it, I'm just responding to Ambi's comment. Cnwb 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:03, 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 Merge, so I have tagged it so. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to the Dirty Sanchez[edit]

Pure garbage, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 01:20, 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 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get The Girl[edit]

I'm not quite sure this band qualifies under WP:MUSIC; there are persons involved with the band that have become more, but possibly still not notable (which would therefore be the main issue), but I believe the band itself is overall not notable; first mention on Google while searching for "Get The Girl" shows up on page four. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not assert notability under WP:MUSIC, and most Google results are irrelevant. Royboycrashfan 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band, allmusic shows no relevant results --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her current side project is notable perhaps, but not this defunct one. TKE 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One minor independent release isn't enough to satisfy WP:Music criteria.  (aeropagitica)  15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Plus-44 are notable for having members of Blink-182, therefor as she is a member of a notable band, doesnt that make this band notable under wiki:music? Jcuk 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No listing on allmusic. Nigelthefish 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:05, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Hall Group[edit]

Non-notable, '"Beaver Hall Group" montreal' on google results in 517 results. →AzaToth 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many art organisations are not pervaisive in the media on purpose. This article should not be deleted simply on the argument of quantifiable google searches. Vanessa kelly 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, red link farm. Royboycrashfan 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the article originator was blocked as a sockpuppet. Kukini 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meets not notabilty or WP:WEB critera. JohnnyBGood 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The swing factor for me was notability in context; it's a small scene. Otherwise I agree with notability. TKE 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell does this have to do with WP:WEB? You haven't even read the article. Good job! Adam Bishop 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to do with WEB, it's just my personal decision on notability. I read the article, there are too many red links and that bothers me, but it's an artistic social circle which may or may not prove relevant, and we're not a crystal ball. However, many such art communes have ended up making lasting contributions to culture; that's my extended resoning. TKE 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the adress is to the delete vote, I apologize. But I like my expansion for reasoning, sorry for the confusion. TKE 05:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, that was addressed to JohnnyBGood. However, you should re-read the article as well - this group existed in the 1920s. Adam Bishop 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might have died off and lost notabilitiy; or maybe they're part of the Cabal :) TKE 07:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraflexure[edit]

Appears to be a DicDef. Contested prod, so here for all to see... Deizio 01:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw happily given response. Look forward to seeing this expanded. Deizio 15:06, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Carolyn Brereton[edit]

Comment an anon editor keeps removing the {{Afd}} -- Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor of some papers that don't seem to have articles on WP... 36 google hits (which is odd, I know a local newspaper reporter who gets zillions of google hits because her name gets repeated so much in by-lines). I say Delete as non-notable. --W.marsh 22:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this person very well. She might not have enough google hits... but her name is not common. for example, John Smith could be the editor, and no duh it would have a lot of google hits. Are you aware she really was an editor. She represented New Edinburgh. Check the Wikipedia article on that. If you read the article on her, she did more than be an editor. She also got nomminated for ottawa's women award. Isn't that a big achievement? So keep the article, so more people can learn about someone local to Ottawa.
    • I hate to say this anon user, but there are tons of article on folks from Ottawa who deserve them. Your person isn't encyclopedic. Besides, anon users don't get a vote. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No-one gets a vote on Votes Articles for Deletion. :-) Even then, there's no rule that prevents closers from taking comments left from anons into account. Wikipedia encourages people to create accounts but doesn't require it. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; appears to be an average successful reporter/editor, but not widely known or discussed. MCB 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and per MCB. -feydey 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing in the article that could meet WP:BIO is her editorships (being nominated for, but not winning, an award is below the radar, particularly for local awards). Anyone know the circulation figures for the New Edinburgh News and Manor Park Chronicle? They're both community papers. I happen to have the Kitchissippi Times (Hintonburg/Westboro) here, with a circulation of 16,700, so assuming that that's not exceptional for an Ottawa community paper I have to say keep. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not following your logic to keep this article, especially since it sounds like you meant to vote delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was kind of ugly, wasn't it? I mean: Ok, per WP:BIO, the only possibility is her editorships. Assuming her neighbourhood papers have circulation like the neighbourhood paper of my neighbourhood, then she meets that, so keep. WP:BIO sets a low bar, but it sets a bar. — mendel ☎ 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The circulation for the "New Edinburgh News" is really high. The newspaper goes to some local embassies and goes to the Governor General and Prime Minister. Any other community papers that go to high power figures? Will in world
    • It doesn't mean they read it. And that would only make the paper notable, remotely, not this person. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the paper might deserve an article with a circulation figure like that, but that doesn't extend to its editor unless she's done more than just edit a community newspaper...like, has she been a columnist in the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen? (Tangentially, I'm personally curious to know if she's at all related to k-os, but that knowledge wouldn't actually change my vote.) Bearcat 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe she is not known across Canada, but a majority of people know her in Ottawa. READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! There is more than just an editor. Will in world
    • She fails the 100 year test, which means in 100 years, will anyone want to read about her? I'd say not. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --JAranda | watz sup 23:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in 100 years, there will be many editors of this paper and they need to be remembered. There are so many people that are only known to about 1,000 people and get the smae credit as someone who is known by 1 billion. She also started the newspaper layout electronically. She was a diplomat, mother, newspaper editor, activist. Does she need more than that? Will in world
  • Delete. A majority of Ottawans do not know about her. I doubt a majority of New Edinburghians do either. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and condense considerably (1 paragraph max.). Editor of two neighborhood newspapers, wife of Canadian Consul-General in Buffalo, met in Havana. Perfect Who's Who entry which will be read 100 years from now, but very occasionally. --Tremont30 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tremont30 is not a sock puppit of me. Just to clarify that. Keep this article for one of the other reasons why... She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. Can you name anyone else? Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. If you keep this article, more people can learn about her. A lot of musicians weren't known until they died. Just keep that into consideration. Will in world
  1. She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. If she'd been the first newspaper editor in the world to ever use electronic layout, you'd have a point, but being the first one at a specific local community paper simply isn't encyclopedia-worthy.
  2. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. Lots of people have interviewed Adrienne Clarkson over the years; it's not a feat that automatically makes someone deserving of their own article.
  3. Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. This is not a criterion that makes her notable to anyone outside of New Edinburgh. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of New Edinburgh.
Bottom line: nothing you've said makes her notable enough to be on here. Bearcat 02:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe she was the first on to start the layout electronically. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know.A lot of people who interview Adrienne Clarkson are mainly people who work for big papers, but is it really often for a person working for a community paper? Can you answer me that? Maybe she is not known, but maybe in the future she will be known. Her husband works for the Canadian Foreign Service, maybe their will be an article on him, and might need one on his wife. So instead of looking at the present, think about the future. There are a lot of articles on wives of famous people. Also, (i know i told you this), but read the article. She is a diplomat, mother, activist, defender and newspaper editor. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Tell me. I really want to know.

Will in world

  1. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know. Um, I personally worked at a newspaper that was using electronic layout in 1994. And, ironically enough, it was in Ottawa, which means Carolyn's paper wasn't even the local leader in that regard, let alone a worldwide one. It wasn't even a particularly radical new approach when we did it.
  2. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Yes, she does have to do more than that; she has to be notable, for one. Bearcat 23:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE NOW!!! I don't want this article up any more. You can delete now. Will in world

I don't want the article up anymore. Im the editor. Just delete the article. Do you know how? just let me know. Will in world


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty■ 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Edinburgh News[edit]

non-notable paper with a non-notable article featuring non-notable editors authored pretty much by the same person. Also note that one of the two editors had a bio Carolyn Brereton that was successfully AfD'd and then improperly recreated. Speedy delete? Rklawton 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local newspaper --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stev0 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Printed newspapers publishing real content of general interest, at press for thirteen years and running, are notable. Samaritan 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor of a local community newspaper was a perfectly legitimate deletion; it's hard to make a claim that such people are notable enough for articles. However, for the publications themselves, the baseline criterion for inclusion is (or at least was, at one time — I can't seem to find the media criteria at the moment) a circulation of 5,000 copies or more, which this one certainly meets. Keep. Bearcat 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major Ottawa neighbourhood, and this is its community paper. Skeezix1000 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The neighborhood may be notable, but the newspaper hasn't got any verifyable presence other than some of its stories being copied to the community website. We can't reliably independently verify its existence, much less circulation numbers, content, etc. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but someone has to find the sources. Scanning in the circulation description from one of the recent editions (if Canadian postal regulations require one like US do) would probably be good enough, if someone can do that. Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the postal regulations, they don't. However, circulation information would certainly be helpful. Samaritan 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such information would be useful, so I e-mailed them a couple of days ago asking about circulation and advertising rates. I received no reply. Maybe it's a non-profit paper. Or maybe it's somebody's hobby. Rklawton 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. --Someones life 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. --D'Iberville 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough circulation for a community paper to meet notability guidelines --Krich (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find it. I've even e-mailed them without response. What exactly is this paper's circulation? Rklawton 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lindenlea: this article makes it clear that the New Edinburgh News isn't a commercial newspaper at all. It is produced by the Edinburgh community association. Rklawton 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable paper with a notable article featuring notable editors in a notable encyclopedia. It should be noted that notability is notably dependent on POV. Wikipedia as a notable encyclopedia serving the notable, less notable and not at all notable (not that this includes any of my notable colleagues who are notably here today), should notably strive to present notably unbiased information by ignoring our notably POV tainted notability censors and gendarmes. -- JJay 21:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you verify, in any way, the paper? Verifyability is the other cornerstone for WP. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reread the nomination a few times and this nom has not in any way claimed that this paper does not exist or that there are verifiability issues with its two lines of text. Are you claiming that this is a hoax? That would be most troubling. Of course, the fact that it is listed in Ottawa newspaper lists [14] and [15] would seem to prove its existence. -- JJay 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are plenty of suggestive links around. I am not proposing that it doesn't in any form exist. I don't even think that. What I am saying is that we don't have enough info to verify that it's big enough or covers notable enough subjects to be a notable paper. I could start publishing a quarterly pamphlet out of my home, about events on my block, and set up as much web coverage and presence that NEN has, within 24 hours. We need some verifyable evidence that this isn't a vanity publication... like, circulation information, article information, etc. Anything... And so far we have nothing. For the love of god, someone who lives in Ottowa, please find a copy and scan it in or something. We need more than a few links and a Wikipedia page to base this decision on. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I respect your point of view, but you seem to be drifting back to that notability thing again, even going so far as to use the word "notable" twice in the second sentence of your response. I feel like I adequately expressed my feelings on that in my initial comment above. Since we both believe to the depths of our beings that this rag exists, there would seem to be little matter for debate between us, although I would tend to agree that further expansion from the article's modest beginnings may require additional information. -- JJay 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's back up a bit. You repeatedly say this is a notable newspaper. How can I verify that. What evidence (verifyable evidence) can you put forwards to justify the claim that it's notable? Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to have missed the sense of what I was trying to say. I suggest you read the deletion nomination for this page. Then read my comment. -- JJay 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not missing the point. We're both aikido-throwing each other. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy on articles requires notability, defined in a verifyable manner, and not simple existential philosophical arguments as to whether particular things are measurable or not and whether there's any indepentent poitn of view to be found. You can keep going, but you aren't fulfiling the Wikipedia requirement to keep the article, and it's going to get nuked. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please point me to that policy page. Also, since you have already determined that this article is going to "get nuked", why did you ask me a question in the first place? -- JJay 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • [[Wikipedia:Verifiability] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And you are mistaking the tense of the nuking comment: failing to support the article's notability and verifyability will lead to its deletion, which will happen because you're engaging in word games rather than providing verifyable sources on the NEN (and nobody else has, either). You can, in fact, change that outcome... by finding and providing adequate references. Georgewilliamherbert 02:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am perfectly satisfied that the paper exists as indicated by the two links I have provided. You have admitted as much yourself. The article itself is two lines long and makes no claims beyond its existence. Note, as well, that this nomination is based solely on "non-notability". The nom has made no effort to explain what is meant by that and has offered no evidence to back up the claim. That does not work for me, because to spell things out in plain language and for the last time, notability does not enter into my thinking. I do not believe in that tattered POV concept since its definition varies from individual to individual. What is "notable" for you is not "notable" to me, etc. etc. Thus, it has no bearing on me when considering a school, newspaper, book, film or numerous other categories of articles. I will not now, or in the future, make a vain attempt to support this article on that basis. If we have a guideline page for weekly newspapers that lists certain criteria that should be met, I would be perfectly happy to see New Edinburgh News judged accordingly. Since to my knowledge we do not have this guideline, and we have no real policy on "notability", I choose to apply my personal criteria, which is that all newspapers should have pages here, including community newspapers, school newspapers, pennysavers, whatever. If these are word games that lead to the "nuking" of this article, depriving our readers now and in the future, of any knowledge of New Edinburgh News, then I stand accused.-- JJay 03:00, 2 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 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Domin[edit]

Actress - uncredited role in feature film "Cry Wolf". Role was "waitress" in a not-released independent film. That's all. See [16].


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow and pedantic[edit]

A random phrase from a random episode of Family Guy. Are we going to have an article for every combination of adjectives that's been used somewhere? Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. A combination of two adjectives only becomes notable if Fox News attempts to copyright it. Fan1967 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, total garbage. Brian G. Crawford 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless neologism. Royboycrashfan 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, familyguycruft --Deville (Talk) 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep why should we delete it? only good can come out of having it listed. no reason to delete it.
  • Keep, googling the phrase gets 10,000+ hits, most of which relate the post-familyguy usage boom, and most do not reference FG. It's a persistent language meme, and people will inevitably search for the meaning and origin of the phrase when they see it used, and they don't understand it. You can't look it up in a dictionary, and Wikipedia exists in part to answer peoples questions. Compare with Cowabunga, D'oh!, I've fallen and I can't get up and Great Scott. -- MickWest 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft, and that phrase was used long nefore familyguy. & as per Kirill.Bridesmill 03:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Long before, like here. "Servile and impertinent, shallow and pedantic, a bigot and sot" - Thomas Macaulay c. 1831, describing James Boswell. Fan1967 03:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --James 03:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN cruft, bad precedent. Marskell 11:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crift, nn. --Terence Ong 14:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MickWest. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft for sure. I would be ok with a redirect to Petarded after deletion, though. youngamerican (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN cruft Nigelthefish 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save S. Foulkes all knowledge is useful in some way.
  • Strong Keep This will turn out to be another thing that people will see online (it's everywhere now). They'll come to Wikipedia to find out where it's from, only to see that some deletionist destroyed its entry. Wikipedia's not paper, people. Sparsefarce 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep why should we delete it? what harm is it doing? Joeyramoney 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-direct to internet phenomenon or Petarded or something similiar. --Hamiltonian 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I love Family Guy and I love the phrase but it's still cruft. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 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. Thryduulf 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On-screen clichés[edit]

Original research, and for what it's worth, Jimbo Wales called it "absolute crap." Brian G. Crawford 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Also see the previous related AfD here. --Alan Au 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though calling it absolute crap is a bit harsh --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is original research it isn't the bad kind. kotepho 03:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As just another list. As for Jimbo's response, it may not be civil. However, Jimbo's not known for being polite on talk pages so that has no influence on my vote. Short of hitting the article on random, I'd say NN. Besides, isn't it an honor if he comments on any page of that you are involved in? ;) TKE 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't even a list? There are at least two books that cover the subject (ISBN 0836282892 and ISBN 1852274743) and I would not be suprised if a course discussing film would at least mention this. There are also multiple media references [18] [19] [20] I believe you would be hard pressed to call this not notable. kotepho 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my vote based on the references above, and I am now neutral. It's a coin flip, I'm leaving it to experience. TKE 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' This is both factual and notable. All it needs is sourcing. JoshuaZ 04:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it can be verified. JIP | Talk 07:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. needs sources and to be expanded. But it is a notable topic. And cliches really piss me off. --Midnighttonight 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cliché, and put a few of the more notable examples in there, ensuring that they are suitly emphazid with references. Proto||type 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable technology. Needs some sources. --Terence Ong 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'Notable technology' ... huh? A concept is not a technology. Proto||type 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't even a list of movie clichés. Even if it was, it would still be unencyclopædic. Better off on its own website.  (aeropagitica)  15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with List of film clichés by genre Stev0 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terry Ong. Film technology, plot techniques- It's all good. I don't see any OR and this seems to be an important part of our coverage of film analysis and the lead-in to our cliché lists. Could certainly be expanded, for example to the porn genre. I hope Mr. Wales contributes...-- JJay 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cliché -- Astrokey44|talk 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with cliché Nigelthefish 14:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the header of List of film clichés by genre, it'll make a good intro. FreeMorpheme 16:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable concept. It does not matter what adjective Jimbo used to describe this article. {{sofixit}} Silensor 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Moe ε 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has been much improved. Wiwaxia 00:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:01, 2 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 all. Mailer Diablo 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Mackay, Nadia Tan, Chuck Taylor (filmmaker)[edit]

Appears to be hoax. Part of a series by Sassaffraz (talk · contribs), also including Maya Bankovic. Fan1967 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have merged the three AfDs. The other AfD, for Bankovic, has been out for several hours. Fan1967 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. Only 343 unique Google results [21], none of which seem to be relevant. By the way, I suggest you merge all these AfD nominations. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to seem ignorant, but how do you do that? Fan1967 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the discussions into one and redirect them to the page chosen for discussion. Royboycrashfan 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Bucketsofg 02:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoaxes all. --Deville (Talk) 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adios. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deville. Ardenn 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either {{hoax}} articles or non-notable biographies, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  15:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even good hoaxes. MikeWazowski 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else JackO'Lantern 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all are a hoax. --Terence Ong 14:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've been trying to do some searching on all four. Best I can figure out, they're a bunch of young film students at York University in Toronto. All have listed ages under 25. All except Tan can be found in the student directory. A few (very few) of the titles actually seem to exist as 10-minute short films with no distribution. A few of the moderately notable names mentioned, John Greyson and Antonin Lhotsky, are on the faculty. Marcos Arriaga was associated with the school; he graduated there in 2003. Fan1967 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Sanctions against User:Sassaffraz warmly welcomed. Slowmover 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable.JohnnyBGood 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RomeoVoid 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I previously raised this bunch for discussion at the Canadian notice board as to whether any of them were actually notable, and got nothing. I've also more than once had to revert several of them from the list of notable directors at Cinema of Canada; none of them, at this point, have ever made a film which qualifies as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Bearcat 07:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some sort of weird vanity/hoax. Nigelthefish 14:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I did not include Sanguedolce or Arriaga in this AfD. From what I can tell, they may have some marginal claim to notability. The others have none at all, and are basically hoaxes. I believe these two should be AfD'ed separately. Fan1967 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting the other two out into separate AfD's. Fan1967 18:20, 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 MeanDelete. Mailer Diablo 06:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MeanPeople.com[edit]

Vanity page Stev0 02:29, 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 06:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Jones[edit]

Hoax or self-promotion. Google matches between "Joseph W. Jones" and, say, "Sonata", turn up basically nothing.[23]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dingle[edit]

Appears to be a slanderous bio or a hoax, as no references are given for the article. Kukini 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Attack page. The website of the school [24] shows Tim Dingle is still the headmaster. I suspect he's ticked off a few students. Fan1967 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Whoops. I found a news story which seems to confirm at least some of this: [25]. However. reports are he's on leave during an investigation, not fled to South America. Fan1967 03:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, definite slander bio. Makes me wonder what would've happened in Wikipedia existed when I was in high school. --Deville (Talk) 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, wow, look at that. Well, still not notable, but at least now it's true.  :-) --Deville (Talk) 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems some people consider it notable. They've collected all the stories on timdingle.com [26]. Fan1967 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A current event.TKE 04:07, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kieden[edit]

Advertisement; no evidence that company meets WP:CORP; prod tag removed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was not aware of WP:CORP or WP:VSCA. Although there are hundreds of pages describing small internet-based companies on Wikipedia that appear to be WP:VSCA kswensrud
Comment That's true, and they should also be tagged for deletion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edited page, removed sections that could be considered advertising. Edited copy to include relevancy to other notable and important topics. kswensrud


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Perly[edit]

Non-notable. His IMDB credits are basically producing one independent film that has not been given any kind of legitimate release. All the awards listed on the page are not mentioned in the IMDB.[27]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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■ 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diminished Gluteal Syndrome[edit]

non-notable fancruft, does not need it's own article AdamJacobMuller 03:57, 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. Thryduulf 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defend Colorado Now[edit]

afd per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and probably for violating NPOV, hundreds of ballot initiatives are proposed, the number that even make it to the ballot is tiny, the number that actually get passed is even smaller, to include every posited ballot initiative on wikipedia would be ridiculious AdamJacobMuller 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per. However, I think that once state-level civil-rights related initiatives actually make it to the ballot, whether or not they are passed, rate an article - after voting has closed. Rklawton 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following Comment was moved from the top of this article AdamJacobMuller 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a Wikipedia article for the Proposition 200 initiative in Arizona, so the Defend Colorado Now entry could be viewed as a similar article. This initiative is particularly important as it is a current event related to the very topical illegal immigration debate that is occuring this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angner (talk • contribs) 2006-03-27 00:39:25 EST (UTC)
      • Can you please link us to this article, it does not show up as Proposition 200 initiative or Proposition 200 or any other permeutations of that that I tried AdamJacobMuller 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak Keep The article is here: Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) There is also an article for California Proposition 187 (1994). Certainly, if this issue makes the ballot, it will be pretty notable. While its true that many initiatives don't get on the ballot, this does have the backing of a former Democratic governor of the state and one of the state's Republican congressmen. If it doesn't get on (it didn't get on in 2004), then I would say bring back the AfD. Montco 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with this phantom Proposition 200 article. And if none exists, then create it with this and any other info someone can find. --Midnighttonight 09:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Or something in that vain. --Midnighttonight 09:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If DCN supporters collect the required number of voter-registered signatures", then we'll recreate it. Meantime, delete - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it qualifies for the ballot. -Will Beback 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the Arizona and CA ones have articles. Nigelthefish 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Moe ε 02:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parabuild Server[edit]

Advert for non-notable software; prod tag was contested. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles at WP with similar content:Anthill Build Server and PMEase QuickBuild. Why is my entry not allowed?—This unsigned comment was added by Imeshev (talk • contribs) .

Those have been tagged for deletion as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement for a non-notable software; fails WP:SOFTWARE --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --James 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly adcopy cut & pasted from the company's website. No WP:SOFTWARE or any claims noted. Kuru talk 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way to address the concern? Imeshev 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please look over the list at WP:SOFTWARE and ennumerate which criteria your product meets. Assuming it does, the article would probably benefit from a more encyclopedic re-write (i.e. a little more neutral - without so much adspeak). Hope this helps. Kuru talk 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already reduced it to a factual feature list, could you please check it? Imeshev 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment novell something I cannot say I know much about the field as I've mostly used in-house developed ones. All of them get at least a decent number of googles. kotepho 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is also a reference at RedHat. Imeshev 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Moe ε 02:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Votto[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, etc. See Google matches.[30]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - unreferenced neologism. -- RHaworth 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROO![edit]

Neologism. Delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actual cult phenomenon.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud_Jmmanuel_Logia[edit]

This page is redundant with Talmud_Jmmanuel and is intended to re-introduce controversial material under discussion at Billy_Meier. Phiwum 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you do not you use your intelligence and read BOTH books? Read first the TJ and then read the FAKE/FALSIFICATED retranslation I am Sananda? You are the one putting controversial and lies here. This world is in the disgraceful situation it is now because of people like you who is trying to maintain the status quo of this evul planet mate. Read the TJ first and then read this trash here: http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/and_they_called_his_name_immanuel.htm

Use intelligence guy!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Saalam ibn Shalom (talk • contribs)

  • Delete -- the page as is (14:19BST) contains unsustainable "attack" material and exhbits sustained POV. Other paerts of it read either as copyvio or as advertising copy. What there is no this page which is not on Billy_Meier page could probably be translocated there, with a redirect left there. -- Simon Cursitor 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wtfcruft. I'm still extremely hazy on what this article is trying to say, the "See Also"s are completely out of wack. I guess an article which says something like "there's this dude in Suisse who claims to know all this junk about aliens, and here are two links to his pages" would be more appropriate, or maybe nothing at all.--Deville (Talk) 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Sheesh, AfD is becoming a strange attractor. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RJH 16:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Actually, I quite liked it when he mistakenly put this long rant in the "XvsXP" deletion article by mistake. Some folks are just passionate about their OS wars, huh? Phiwum 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent crankery. Brian G. Crawford 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess the "whole world will learn how dumb [I am]", because this should clearly be deleted per nom, Deville, RJ, and Brian. Joe 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
  • Comment — Well, the world would know if you signed your vote, anyway! Phiwum 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might not be Joe's fault; perhaps he was educated stupid. Oh, and Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a pulpit; AfD is not dumping ground. Bucketsofg 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a crank, acts like a crank, probably is a crank. Average Earthman 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely intelligible, probably OR, dubious claims to notability. Doesn't belong here. --Hyperbole 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crank that violates soapbox rules. JohnnyBGood 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another dumb vote. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously a vandal target, sloppy, and it doesnt even make sense.I guess Im dumb. --Pal5017 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - need i say more?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Went to the website - couldn't ask for more patently fake photography if I put out an all-call. Denni ☯ 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - saying "DO NOT DELETE" 20 times isn't going to help. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the single most ridiculous sockpuppet show of the 21st century or so. Also a boring article which, after a cleanup, probably reveals a nn-bio. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Actually there already is a bio for Billy Meier. The Talmud Jmmanuel Logia was created as I tried to re-write parts of the Meier page to bring it up to standards. (The re-write is not done, but I think the page is improved. Feel free to pitch in at Billy Meier!) Meier seems notable to me and I certainly don't advocate deleting that page, even though some of his advocates have missed the point of Wikipedia. Phiwum 05:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign)[reply]
Please sign your contributions with ~~~~. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, didn't see that first. Okay, assuming the other article is okay and notable and all, then we're talking of a duplicate article / pov fork (or "insane fork", actually), and an incomprehensible one at that. I still say delete and failing that, a redirect with ye-gods-please-don't-merge. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow...just wow... Nigelthefish 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge back to Billy Meier - if Meier is notable and his UFO work is notable, then keep it there. This stuff.. sorry, the article right now looks like schizophrenic ranting. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Punkmorten 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:13, 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 no consensus. Thryduulf 15:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XvsXP[edit]

Non notable website fails WP:WEB Bige1977 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it doesn't meet WP:WEB as it meets the requirement "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as it has been sourced by Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/applescript/news/ and http://www.apple.com/applescript/resources/ Paul Cyr 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alexa of 188,519; forum has 888 registered members. Does not seem notable in that whole debate. --Kinu t/c 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...having gone up 100,642 places in the past 3 months. Paul Cyr 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Vote changed in light of the references and discussion cited below. I still don't think it's notable enough for an article - most of the references cited are very short one-off mentions of the site, rather than a proper review/commentary on it. If it's increasing in use as rapidly as suggested, it may well be worthy of an article soon, but not yet. Kcordina Talk 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and comment Paul Cyr 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website meets WP:WEB as it meets the requirement "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as it has been sourced by Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/applescript/news/ and http://www.apple.com/applescript/resources/
  • According to WP:GT nearly 16,000 websites contain the term "xvsxp.com".
  • According to WP:GT Alexa ranks XvsXP.com at 188,519, having gone up 100,642 places in the past 3 months. A very strong change.
  • As well, although not exactly the best support, I have had Apple representatives at my work mentioning XvsXP.com. Obviously this shows the site is well known.
  • The following Wikipedia articles reference XvsXP: Operating system advocacy, Apple typography.
EDIT: How's this for notability?
  • Delete. Not notable, original research; it seems to me it fails WP:WEB (despite article author's assertions to the contrary): Apple is not an online newspaper, magazine, publisher or broadcaster. Bucketsofg 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is what the sentance means. The footnote says "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion." I beleive that it is saying that online media is inclusive to the criteria, not a condition. Otherwise, how is a site such as Neowin permitted? It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB yet it is permitted. As well, how is it original research? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, but it does have articles on sites that conduct original research. Take Gartner for example. Paul Cyr 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a link from Apple's cite, or any web magazine, etc., would not meet this criteria. I take this guideline to imply that any significant article in a significant venue about a web-site is evidence of its notability. The fact that Apple provides a simple link to the site's comparison of Apple scripting to XP scripting does not establish notability. Secondly, the question of original research pertains to your article. How do you know any of the stuff that you write in the article? Cite your sources. There are none? Why, because it is stuff you know from your involvement with the site: that's original research. I want to emphasize that none of this is a criticism of the site, which may be very good, or of your article. It's just in my opinion this is not what wikipedia is about. Bucketsofg 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points, which is why I did not vote a strong keep, and I realise the article is borderline non-notable, however, I do feel that it is in the end a notable website. Of course, this is why we are voting, as my opinion may not be the consensus of the community. However, I still do not see any original research from what I've added (there have been multiple contributors to the article, FYI). The overview is pretty much right from the website introduction. A web archive lookup will show the original page by the founder stating the original criteria of the site. The critisism is the only part that may be known from those involved with the site, but I refer to Slashdot trolling phenomena as an example of first-hand knowledge that is almost entirely unsourced. Unless someone were to make a list of external links showing a trend of trolling on Slashdot, are you claiming that it should not be mentioned in the article? And believe me, after being on a site such as XvsXP for as long as I have, I completely understand that although you disagree with my opinions, it is not an issue with myself or the site. :) Paul Cyr 19:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you have spent a great amount of time on that site and are passionate about promoting it, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Please see WP:WEB note 4. Bige1977 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies on what is eligable to have an article. If I didn't honestly feel that the site met WP:WEB, I wouldn't have created the article. Please don't confuse a good-faith attempt to create an article with petty self-promotion (self in this case being the website I am a member of). Also, I would appriciate if you would respond to the points I raised on your vote before commenting in discussions about other votes. Paul Cyr 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: In light of more evidence, I have changed my vote to strong keep for the reasons mentioned in my original vote. Paul Cyr 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Sorry, Paul, but I still don't think this is sufficient. If every website that gets a two-line write up and/or link gets an entry at wikipedia, it would soon become a web directory. Or, let's put it another way. Here is a full-blown news story about my blog, which is in my opinion not wiki-worthy. To get my vote, you need several stories like that, in similar venues (CTV is the second largest Canadian TV network), preferably over a period of time. Bucketsofg 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:14, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Matewish & Joanne Fabro, Caitlin Matewish and Joanne Fabro[edit]

NN bios, see also Caitlin Matewish & Joanne Fabro, google only returns 15 hits for "Caitlin Matewish" Dismas|(talk) 06:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual articles for these two girls, both NN bios:
  • Delete all Two fifteen-year-old girls active in school productions and local theatre. Most definitely non-notable. Fan1967 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: No IMDb entries for any of these, delete per above. --Hetar 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 all of them. I see no real assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 07:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all as CSD A7.--Blue520 07:36, 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. Flowerparty■ 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doupine Arts[edit]

  • Delete: blatant advertisement for nn company. --Hetar 06:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Spamvertising. Stev0 08:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikispam. —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of notability. Bucketsofg 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per a canned meat product. Nigelthefish 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:14, 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 Speedily deleted as patent nonsense about a non-notable person.  (aeropagitica)  15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Army[edit]

Looks like vanity/hoax. Couldn't find anything on Google about this person. JackO'Lantern 06:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JackO'Lantern 06:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, blatant and implausible vanity hoax. "born in 1990 feb 28"... yeah, that sealed it for me. --Kinu t/c 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense about a non-notable person (WP:CSD A7). Politepunk 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per above. McPhail 13:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7, hoax aswell. Google search for "Jamie Army" + "EWA" turns up a whole 2 results, and both of them are from Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:44, 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 --SPUI (talk - RFC) 08:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp and Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp1[edit]

Something strange going on here. These two temp files are both similar to, but not the same as, Comparative military ranks of World War II. Some serious merging needs to go on (or merge/split into two articles), followed by a couple of deletions. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Have you talked to the people editing the page to find out why they're doing a re-write? Thanks. — RJH 16:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RJH. Looks like they're trying to add a new column for Free French, removing one of the missing participants as shown at the top of the table. As it stands, it's not really in the main article space anyway, so AfD is premature if needed at all. Slowmover 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:15, 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. Thryduulf 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q. Nguyen[edit]

So now every high school student with a few thousand hours of community service on their resume and a few newspaper cites deserves a WP article. Tried a speedy delete on Michael Nguyen, admin deleted it then the article was moved here. Subsequent speedy delete was not even contested, just removed by the two adamant editors. I think its pretty much clear that this does not meet WP notability. --User208.251.153.9 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) NOTE: User's first edit to Wikipedia.[reply]

Unclosing AFD - previously closed and speedied by me [32] after a misunderstanding of the note left in thie history of Michael Nguyen, so restoring all the relevant pages for a proper AfD discussion. My fullest apologies. --HappyCamper 00:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Took out comments, made by user - withdrawn> 69.227.174.34 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Removed previous discussion comment made by myself> SallyD1265 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to User208.251.153.9 above, I disagree. Although I have tried to improve the article to make it become more of WikiPedia's standards, the article itself could be further improved. I don't believe admin deleted this particular article (only the redirect move from SallyD1265.) Although I have only restructured how the information was presented originally by author SallyD1265, and have read/heard bits of information on Michael from several people through making my contribution, the speedy deletion was always contested and the original speedy deletion was deleted upon changing the article. I stuck to WP's standards. To settle this dispute, the subject of the context, Michael Nguyen, should be contacted in order to state whether he may want his information disclosed like this. KhoiFish 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Not every high school student can achieve a high number of hours such as this. 1,000 hours is equivalent to approximately 47 days without rest (working 24 hours a day), therefore making it significant. A typical (non-homeschooled) student on average spends approx. 8 hours a day on education, I believe (from time spent at school.) This article seeks to inspire others to follow his example and state that despite going to school, one can also achieve in other things as well. KhoiFish 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to produce a not worthy WP article, however this subject has caught my attention as a figure who has potential to develop himself. His work that he's done for others should speak for itself. KhoiFish 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Doing charity work and being involved in minor up-and-coming political work is not sufficient. As for academic awards at high school, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Khoo.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blnguyen. Youth council, volunteer work, has appeared as the "spotlight kid" on the local news a couple of times, won some minor awards... not sufficient per WP:BIO. Perhaps someday he will be encyclopedically notable, but after reading the article, I see nothing that is at this point. --Kinu t/c 07:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. —Whouk (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SallyD1265. (moved decision) - after withdrawn old ruling. More: Just would like to comment on user Denaar's comments - Orange County, California and Los Angeles County, California is one of the most industrialized and populous areas. Newspapers and media from around the area mainly focus on crime and improvements, not only student achievement. To surpass and make the headlines in the region is something that must be distinguished and not "just another kid" who does charity work. In addition, Denaar stated that kids "work" more than 11.5 hours a week - is this voluntary or paid? As stated in the article, Michael's work has all been UNPAID. - Hard to live in Orange County, California (per homes/territorial costs) with an unpaid position, if you ask me. This shows unselfishness, dedication, and his good quality work to be a great asset to the community. Not many people work without a salary or no monetary gain for themselves. End. 69.227.174.34 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which is relevant to inclusion standards. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" and "persons being featured in the paper" are, to me, two completely different things. Why should we have an article on him and not about every other person mentioned in the links provided (for example, here)? No one is denying that this student is doing good things, and I certainly wish him the best in the future, but at the same time, I'm hard pressed to find, even among all of the keep recommendations, any indication of meeting WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinu (talk • contribs)
    • Wait, wait. Volenteer work helps with admission into hard-to-get-into Colleges and Universities. Are you telling me he won't benefit from this? Its great for his resume, he will definately benefit, as he has obvious political aspirations. Nothing he has done meets the WP:BIO inclusion standards. Therefore it doesn't belong here. I also would be shocked to find a newspaper that does NOT have human interest stories, even the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times have human interest stories. Denaar 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is true that volunteer work helps with admission into hard-to-get-into colleges and universities, however, excessive volunteer service and low academic marks does not merit or suffice getting an acceptance. Colleges are looking for well rounded students who are lucid and demonstrate excellence in both academics and extracurriculars. It doesn't state exactly anywhere in the article Mr. Nguyen's GPA and/or test scores, however it does state that he's in the Troy Tech and International Baccalaureate Programs and Troy High School is the 21st Ranked HS in the Nation, that does have some say in that he's not just another person, but at least a bright kid. I remember back in my high school years I didn't have that much community service or awards to talk about. 69.227.174.34 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MORE: It seem as if the "CHOC" linked article back to the Orange County Register, plus look at the date (2004, Sept. 25) -doesn't state how many hours or specific achievements; it only speaks about one aspect about [those] respective individuals. It only serves as a summary of one activity. The focus should be on the work done in other accomplishments that are notable, such as (for example, [33]) Still, there are probably more places on the net, however not yet posted in the article's external links. 69.227.174.34 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ADDITION: As per meeting WP:BIO The following statement(s) are present: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Those bullet points do not make a complete listing of what should be put on or off Wikipedia, only as a guideline. If the person has influenced many people, isn't that go towards the public liking him? (i.e. if he does good work, not bad.) I agree with user Kinu that not everyone should merit an article on WikiPedia, however those who exemplify something that surpasses the overall population should be taken into consideration as well. Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales has called it "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." and through this the more significant articles that they have the better. This is one of them. My perception is that hoax articles and "trashy" written ones who present one-time non-notable achievements should be put away and speedy deleted. This article, is different in that it is different in consistency and with progressing achievements. It has a good chance of being expanded in the future, as Michael goes on to continue his work with this pace. 69.227.174.34 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Kinu. Denaar 12:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) More: 1800 hours in 3 years is 11 hours a week. Many high school kids have jobs that are more than 11.5 hours a week, I know I did. I was on the front cover of my local newspaper 4 times in Jr High/High School, I'm certainly not notable (enough for Wiki ^o^). Local news coverage, local awards, student seat on a local government? This is all "15 minutes of fame." Looks like a vanity article to help the future career of this student. Denaar 17:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KinuALR 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu JeffBurdges 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bln and Kinu. Joe 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a good guy but delete Nigelthefish 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KhoiFish. Michael Nguyen has recently been recognized by the latino-dominated culture of the City of Santa Ana for presenting "the volunteerism experience" to school district board members and was featured on Adelphia Communication's Southern California News, in three appearances. Although media is limited, it is rare for a high school student to be featured numerous times during their time in school as well. SallyD1265 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC) NOTE: User has already recommended "keep" above.[reply]
    • Comment - If being in the newspaper twice wis good enough, then I am entitled to a WP page also??`Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Um, in response to your comment, a person would have to know more about your life in order to render such a decision of either to be on WikiPedia or not. Specifically, being on the paper doesn't mean much, only the things accomplished that really matter. This young man out of the hundreds of thousands of teens in the region where he lives HAS made a difference and benefitted others from the things that he does. The role of the Media serves to depict him to others who he has not had a chance to come in contact with about his life. 69.227.174.34 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Exactly. I'm not notable. Student politicians are not notable (I didn't get in the paper because of politics though). That's what Youth Councils are - youth members of political parties join them.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - On your statement above: "student politicians are not notable" - are you discriminating/stereotyping everyone to never be notable. This is outrageous. What you're saying is that if you're a student, you basically are worthless and haven't accomplished anything. It is a bit prejudicial. 69.227.174.34 01:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - In the context of what we are talking about, " student politicians are not notable " - means that they are not notable, unless they do something more with it, that it is not a sufficient baseline criteria. "Not notable" also means not sufficient to be included for WP, this does not mean that they are useless.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason why? --Kinu t/c 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moe. Seems like a good person. Accomplishments appear to be justified according to achievements. Rare to see kids do good than bad nowadays. 66.166.1.237 04:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC) IP's first edit to Wikipedia.[reply]
  • Keep per Moe and SallyD1265. User's first edit to Wikipedia. Please add note: I know that I am a new WikiPedia user, however I did not receive any outside intervention or recommendation to partake in the deletion discussion for this article. The reason that I believe for this article to be noteworthy is because I have witnessed myself the leadership ability of Michael, by knowing him indirectly through school organizations. He is a unique - or if not - freakish individual when it comes to Community Service. As by WikiPedia standards, I know that everyone has a say and I am in no way trying to violate this policy by asserting my opinion. TroyStud777 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (moved signature location to bottom)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manurewa Central School[edit]

Non notable school with nearly 0 information about it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete as empty, but someone had to know some wiki to make the template. Looking for expansion within a few days. TKE 07:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has info in it, but it is still a stub. Keep given WP:SCHOOL (even if you disagree (as I do) with it you still should follow it here and then argue against the rule). --Midnighttonight 10:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per uniform outcome of past school nominations. Monicasdude 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, isn't it preferable to merge non-notable schools into groups by district? JeffBurdges 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd agree with you but most people who still bother commenting on schools for deletion don't agree. Average Earthman 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found official website and added it to article while considering this afd. We have many schools with their own articles. This is a stub of this school, but still worthy its own article. Kukini 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in good shape now. Osomec 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd dissent with your definition of "good shape". I'd personally suggest this level of information would be better off merged either with the local geographic area or local schools. Average Earthman 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a school.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Osomec. Arbusto 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a pathetic excuse for an article, about a subject of marginal relevance at best. This article demonstrates precisely why elementary schools should not have carte blanche at the Wikipedia dining table. Denni ☯ 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider completing your own articles properly before insulting the work of others. --Rob 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jcuk 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice start to the article and should expand significantly in the future. Probably just as meaningful and already as long as Kapoot Clown Theater, not that I would ever call that a pathetic excuse for an article. -- JJay 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP thats my old school —This unsigned comment was added by 222.153.42.186 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep based on well established precedent. --Rob 03:11, 2 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. Flowerparty■ 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Kurosaki[edit]

I don't think that nailists are notable(similar to hairdressers, etc).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as bio and spam. TKE 07:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable nailist, possible vanity. JIP | Talk 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. —Whouk (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly knew this occupation existed, but the fact that nailists in general are not notable doesn't mean that a particular one could not be; there are, after all, celebrity hairdressers. Eriko Kurosaki has an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. A search for the Japanese name (黒崎えり子) gives 130,000 Google hits, with the first few hits coming from the Japanese editions of Amazon and ELLE Magazine. I am willing to give this particular nailist the benefit of the doubt but would like to see somebody who knows Japanese take a look at the Google hits. Weak keep for now. u p p l a n d 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per u p p l a n d. Monicasdude 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from English Wikipedia, keep in Japanese Wikipedia. Stev0 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you, presumably, think this person not to be notable enough for an entry here, why do you think the Japanese Wikipedia should have an article on her? u p p l a n d 20:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland and the Japanese article. Ashibaka tock 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:16, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party entertainment[edit]

Contested prod. Original prod by Blnguyen was "dicdef". Blue520 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Top half dicdef per Blnguyen. Bottom half advertisement.--Blue520 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with User:Blue520, this is an advertisement disguised as a dictdef. JIP | Talk 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As dicdef; article seems to have been creating for the purposes of advertising; see author's contributions. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikispam in disguise. —Whouk (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm going to try to assume good faith here and suggest that the author misunderstood the purposes of Wikipedia - delete as inappropriate advertising hook/dicdef. Politepunk 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a dictdef but an advertisment isn't required.  (aeropagitica)  15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an ad. Nigelthefish 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:19, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Faulks[edit]

Subject is not sufficiently notable to justify an entire article. Appeared only after Vanity material was removed from Lewis Masonic

From Martin Faulks

I am just a man who sells books for a living. If you keep this article anyone could justify an entry.

  • Delete nn person. Kcordina Talk 09:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on what I find, [34], the subject does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also, the article is unsourced. PJM 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given that it was me that raised this in the firssst placeALR 14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. MSJapan 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewriteThe article should stay. I thought the BBC programme was a landmark - it is about time someone blew the cobwebs from Masonry and stopped the ignorance that surrounds it. It is ignorance that breeds all the conspiracy theories and prejudice about Freemasons. Power to the young masons I say! The artice however is too boastful.
  • Delete Moe ε 02:20, 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■ 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genomeceutical[edit]

Does not belong on Wikipedia: newly coined word that lacks importance. Appears to be in use by only one person. The article has remained unedited for six months with a "lacks importance" tag and is linked to by one page (a list). The content is not verifiable. The example of glucosamine does not make sense as it was developed 30 years ago and is sold as a pharmaceutical in Europe. Prithason 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Proto||type 10:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 293 hits from Google. Gflores Talk 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article might have been created purely to promote a naturopathic treatment for autism. And the term might be a neologism coined by commercial interests. BUT: (1) Previous failed AfD vote is here Articles_for_deletion/Genomeceutical. And there is a scholarly reference here [35] with references of its own, so the term appears to be in use by the academic community. The article may be of inferior quality, but I don't think that's a reason to delete. Slowmover 20:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term does not appear to be in use by any academic community. The reference cited above is to an article written by an undergraduate student, and cites a paper by Mark Brudnak in a journal called "Medical Hypotheses"; he appears to have coined the word and is the only user of the word that I could find in journal articles. Outside of the academic community, a few pages cite him and his definition, but not many (Google test results above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithason (talk • contribs)
      • Fair enough. Not changing my vote yet, though. Slowmover 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I'm changing my vote on the basis of the information from Thatcher131 below. Slowmover 19:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the previous AfD had only 2 comments plus the nom, one of which was from a banned sock with a history of editing autism articles.Thatcher131 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is found in Medline/Pubmed only in articles written by Mark Brudnak, VP of MAK Wood, a manufacturer of dietary supplements. The only use in the medical literature (by Brudnak) is towards the benefits of creatine, and there are no uses of the term as it relates to autism. Removing the unsourced material would leave a stub defining a neologism; the term itself is probably worthless as a medical term as "naturally occurring compounds, which are able to affect gene expression" applies to thousands of drugs from aspirin to zeomycin. If the term becomes generally accepted a new article could be created. Thatcher131 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:20, 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. Thryduulf 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art.Net[edit]

Page was originally nominated for a speedy and then changed to a prod by Samuel Blanning. Was then deprodded by 71.141.135.76 claiming that it met notability because of awards listed at http://www.art.net/about/awards.html. However, all of these awards date back to 1996, a time when the internet was in a much more infantile stage, and awards had much less significance. Furthermore, all of these awards appear to be of dubious significance, none of them are listed in Category:Awards and some of them are vague such as "Top 5% of all Web Sites"

When the article was originally created I assumed good faith in that it could be cleaned up and kept regardless of its notability, however it's creator Art.net and other anonymous users (whom I suspect are the same) continue to remove {{fact}} tags (without citing anything), insert numerous links to the website into the article, and make other changes that turn the article into nothing more than a blatant advertisement. --Hetar 08:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that {{fact}} and {{citation needed}}, which replaced the deleted fact tag are the same? --James S. 10:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those two tags are simillar, but edits like [36] where the fact tag was replaced with an edit summary of "its true" are what I was talking about. --Hetar 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the requested citations are provided. --James S. 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per my statements above. --Hetar 08:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website. Alexa ranks of about 77,000. Majority of sites that reference art.net seem to be artists on the site. As per hetar - may have been notable 10 years ago, it isn't now. Kcordina Talk 09:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Meets notability criteria: audience of more than 5,000 per day (about 3X), shares philosophy with wikis, and independently notable as art history of the world wide web. I know the site maintainer, who asked me to help address the concerns. The article is better with in-line links, at least until Noncommercial is written. --James S. 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the award list in the article, the website does seem to meet, or at least comes close to meeting point 2 of WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Monicasdude 14:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website. Stev0 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep . art.net's page is worth keeping for at least two reasons.

1) It's history as one of the earliest art sites, one of the earliest cooperative sites on the Internet, and a site that has encouraged people who are not artists to produce art, and post it on the WWW.

2) More importantly, it's courageous participation with the ACLU in defending freedom of speech on the Internet. These are acts of public citizenship of the highest order and should be cited in wikipedia. As acts within and from the Internet community, they are one of the earliest examples of a web site doing so. These acts are similar to those of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the League for Programming Freedom, the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, among others.

Wikipedia promotes itself on each of it's pages. And explicitly asks for donations in TWO places on most pages. How is this different then what little self-promotion there is in this art.net page?

I suggest wikipedia err on the side of inclusivity, and delete pages rarely.

Who I am: I've been involved with the Internet and it's predecessors for four decades. I remember what the ARPAnet was like when it was less then 255 sites (and the transitions to larger address spaces). And many of the disputes that have occurred along the way. What mailing lists should be allowed. What USENET newsgroups should be allowed. Working with rabbit, chuq, et al in defining what USENET netiquette should be. Etc. Reviewing and improving RFCs who numbers had only three digits in them, and the 100th (3 digits ;-) web site, and seeing both efforts grow. Etc.

BTW, I helped rms write the GNU Free Documentation License (which wikipedia uses) as well as the GPL, GLPL, etc. as a Director of the Free Software Foundation from it's start for a decade plus [37] [38].

Disclaimer: I've supported art.net since it's earliest days. And am one of the creative software shapers it encouraged to also be an artist. As an Internet activist, I encouraged it's work with the ACLU.

best -len Lentower 09:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- User's first edit
  • keep Notable website. Nigelthefish 15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hetar (Note that an Alexa rating of 77,000 does not equate to an audience of over 5,000 uniques per day in my experience, let alone 14,000 as claimed in the article - is this fact verified? Should probably have {{fact}} added to tht claim) §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 09:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Art.Net runs Apache which generates nightly logs that show the number of unique hosts visiting the site on the previous day as well as the number of full HTML pages viewed during that same period. The numbers quoted in the article were dated the day before this article was first created on wikipedia.org. Am not sure how we would post the results as proof on the page... Do you really want logs on article pages? We can do it if needed to prove the point... Art.net 01:34, 29 March 2006 (PST)
Followup to Note above The access reports for Art.Net just came in for yesterday (Mar 28 2006) and show that on that day Art.Net received a total of 64,540 html page views made by 9272 unique hosts. The total number of accesses (minus errors) was 187,732 which were made by 15,610 unique hosts. These numbers are pretty consistant on weekdays. Art.net 03:22, 29 March 2006 (PST)
Alexa is somewhat biased towards IE users in the US willing to install snoopware, and that may explain the discrepancy with this site's users' typical freedom-oriented international privacy advocate stance. --James S. 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Sjakkalle, now that the article is cleaned up. The CDA battle was a very big deal for internet freedom at the time. Disclosure: I also know the folks who run this site. Phr 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Art.Net has been a vital part of extending the fight for Internet liberty both to the arts community and beyond the borders of the United States. John Perry Barlow
Note: Users only edit. Kcordina Talk 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that if this user is in fact who he claims to be, John Perry Barlow, his opinion is strong, substantive, and independent evidence of notability, not just a "vote" here. Monicasdude 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Art.net is one of the oldest, if not the oldest art web sites on the internet. Given that fictional characters from video games seem to merit their own pages on wikipedia, I can hardly see any problem with an entry for a non-commercial site of such historical significance. Edward A. Falk, 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
ETA: I see a conflict in the objections to the web page. Some people complain about too many links into art.net (I've asked Lile to tone this down), but others complain about lack of citations. How should this be resolved?
  • Keep The above arguments for the relevance of free-speech history are quite persuasive. Also, 450 artists in one place seems noteworthy. Quoting from Wikipedia policy: If in doubt, don't delete. And with regard to the comment above, suggesting that the anonymous contributors are the same person as Art.net: Remember to please always assume good faith. Disclosure: I know art.net's webmaster. Cphoenix 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Art.net represents all the good things that the Internet aspires to be – freedom, community, mutual support and most of all social entrepreneurship. Art.net is a NOT-for-profit entity, which helps artists show their work. As such, it is essential that Wikipedia, a new source of knowledge and cultural history, recognize the value of art communities like Art.net...Lile Elam, the founder of Art.net, is a recognized leader in the realm of civil rights, cyberspace and a social entrepreneurship. She has donated her time and energy to supporting ACLU struggles to protect freedom. She has turned her technical and creative acumen into an online gallery for artists around the world. Her story and the story of Art.net deserve to be documented. --Tamara Colby 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The free-speech and legal history make this site notable, and it was a very early site in the history of the web. I don't see that it's worth fighting about. It does no harm, and doesn't misrepresent itself. --Bill Woodcock
  • Keep. --Don Lindsay
Note:Users first edit.
  • Keep. Agree with most of the positive statements above. Art.net is a part of the web. It belongs in wikipedia. --FenLabalme 08:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As an artist, I feel that Art.Net is an important and notable site on the Internet and WWWeb. It is a place where artists can share freely, without fear. It is a place where artists can take a stand and say,
    "Yes, I believe in the freedom of choice, the freedom to be free, and the freedom to share!"
    It is a site that deserves to be known and shared.
    It is a place where freedom can be born, to blossom and grow. It is a ship, a water shead, a safe harbor, a place of hope... a shining light in the dark night guiding us to new and better ways of being. May we always shine bright and be here to light a candle for all of those who are in the dark! Forever and ever and always... Blessed Be! --lile 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:WEB. Historical website with 10+ year history. Also I believe this is a bad-faith nom. If Hetar believed that the article should exist "regardless of notability", then they seem to be bringing it to WP:AFD as "punishment" for the fact that they do not like the POV or other editing conflicts going on, rather than talking those out and improving the article. KWH 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published Testimony for Art.Net

Declaration of Lile Elam in ALA v. Pataki (3/19/1997) In this published testimony, an explaination is given as to why Art.Net was concerned about being prosecuted by New York's CDA law. --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art.Net Statement in ACLU v. Johnson: The Challenge to New Mexico's Online Censorship Law (June 1998) --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art.Net's Complaint in ACLU v. Johnson Concerning Online Censorship in New Mexico (4/22/1998) --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony of Rudolf Kinsky (note: poorly formated and dificult to read) An artist member of Art.Net, Kinsky was living in New York City when the NY-CDA law was passed. Kinsky removed art from his Art.Net studio because of fear of persecution. He said he had come to America from Europe because freedom of speech was protected here and he could create and share his art without fear. In his homeland, such freedoms do not always exist. Because of the passage of this law, Kinsky felt that this freedom no lnoger existed for him in NY.--Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Exhibit of Art Subject to Censorship when Internet censorship laws are enacted. While this exhibit is hosted on Art.Net, it contains personal works of art that were voluntarilly contributed by member artists of Art.Net who thought that these works might be censored by such laws. --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Art.Net. --James S. 19:40, 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 merge pschemp | talk 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Hill[edit]

It's a hill. On a hiking trail. You can see a resevoir from the top. Unless there's a whole heck of a lot more the article isn't telling us, there's nothing notable about it. Icarus 09:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Wilson Trail. --Bduke 09:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bduke Kcordina Talk 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the article is weak and requires expansion, however there are many such similarly weak articles that start from List of mountains, peaks and hills in Hong Kong. Should they all be deleted? Should they all be merged into some other Hiking trails. IMO these hills should have their own pages and expanded as needed. TonyB 10:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a hill in a major city state. That makes it much more notable than a hill in the wilderness. Osomec 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wilson Trail. Unless there is much more notable information about this hill in particular, the only information in this article is the height of the hill. Surely the Wilson Trail article could stand to grow by 4 bytes. --Deville (Talk) 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Request, more notable information has been added TonyB 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above. Nigelthefish 15:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Moe ε 02:22, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen-fears[edit]

The article describes unverifiable events and was originally written by a user named "Stolenfears." It shows every sign of being a fictitious vanity page written by an individual who fancies himself a vigilante. Mary Read 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible vanity hoax. Also delete the redirect Stolenfears. --Canley 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. On the odd chance this isn't a hoax, would reconsider. Marskell 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Canley 10:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and seems like a hoax. PJM 12:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable - "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material" WP:V.--Blue520 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Gwernol 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Also, the article claims that the authorities are looking for this guy. I think we found him. --Deville (Talk) 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Spidey-sense says this is a hoax. Nigelthefish 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:23, 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 speedily deleted by Geogre. Flowerparty■ 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunce[edit]

Prod tag removed by vandal - article is something made up in school one day.

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

The result of the debate was delete. I've moved the river back from Gunt (river) to Gunt, but haven't move-protected it. Flowerparty■ 23:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunt[edit]

Neologism, dictdef. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary.

By the way, isn't the proper term, "Mound of Venus"? --MacRusgail 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
River Gunt? - sorry, that made me laugh (so did your screen name!) --MacRusgail 04:46, 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 the current article; I'm moving content to Valley Fair Shopping Center, and doing some editing so that the article is about the early mall, not the short-lived one. - Liberatore(T) 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Futures Valley Fair Mall[edit]

A dead shopping mall is, in itself questionably notable (with most of the AfDs getting no consensus). The Valley Fair Shopping Centre is indeed possibly notable by the standards being established thus far. It was founded in 1954 and was one of the US's first covered malls, and as disused heaps of bricks go, is faintly encyclopaedic. However, the Youth Futures Valley Fair Mall was created in 2002 using the skeleton of the Valey Fair Shopping Centre as a 'community of commercial and nonprofit endeavors geared to the needs and interests of youth in the Fox River Valley'.

In March 2006, after a whole 3 1/2 years in operation, this community of commercial and nonprofit endeavors geared to the needs and interests of youth in the Fox River Valley was sold to developers. It's now closed, and scheduled to be demolished. I'm not convinced that a community project that ran for three years is enough to justify an article. Note that the only source for this article is a dead URL, but a trip to the Internet Archive hunting for www.mallonamission.org provides the info. The blogsite deadmalls.com hasn't even been used to "reference" this mall. Proto||type 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It would take a lot less for me to vote delete here. If it's not the Mall of America or something similar in magnitude, I don't want to see it on WP. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move To Valley Fair Shopping Centre, which is a notable early mall as a socio-economic center for regional commerce and one of the earliest examples of an enclosed shopping mall. That article should focus on the enclosed structure of yesteryear, not the failed social experiment of today. youngamerican (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Maybe, but if an article is to be created at Valley Fair Shopping Center (not Centre, as it is - was - a US place darn my Anglocentric spelling), I think it might be better served just being stubbed from info elsewhere, rather than moving this across, as it would take some heavy duty editing - more so than just creating from scratch. Doesn't mean I'm right, of course. Proto||type 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not notable enough. Nigelthefish 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Given the fabulous history as the site of one of the first malls in the US this is an obvious keeper. Of course, as one would expect, there are many sources available for expanding the article. [39]. -- JJay 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming the mall has been closed, move to Valley Fair Shopping Center, since that is the historic and well-known name. --BaronLarf 21:40, 3 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 as nonsense - Liberatore(T) 13:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lil' Fizz[edit]

Page is full of fancruft nonsense. Notice I am ONLY discussing the Talk page. The article itself, while very flat, is on a notable subject Antares33712 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When I say delete, just whipe the talk page clean. The people who spam Wikipedia need a life. TheOneCalledA1 04:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:23, 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 speedy delete. "attempt to communicate", WP is not a free host as well as the reasons below apply. -- RHaworth 11:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey is the Reward[edit]

I proposed this article for deletion yesterday, a anonymous editor has decided remove the prod (without providing a reason), so now it gets to come to AfD. The context of the article is not very clear, as far as can be established it is an essay to inspire/motivate HSC students (students in the last two years of high school in New South Wales, Australia). Blue520 12:23, 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 speedy delete. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIG crew[edit]

Self promotion. Non-notable Bio. Seriocomic 13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VAIN

  • Speedy Delete as CSD A7.--Blue520 13:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NS RPG[edit]

Delete as non notable vaporware. The article describes a fan-made game that has not yet reached demo stage, and the only reference cited for which doesn't seem to talk about it much. Even if it had been made, odds are it would be obscure, but as it is, it isn't even obscure, it's non-existent. If the WP isn't for things made up in school one day, then it should doubly not be for things not yet made up in school. I had thought a WP:PROD would be sufficient, but I guess not. GRuban 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also the claim from the article that "The makers of Natural Selection... are anxious to see what the makers of the NS RPG have to offer" is extremely dubious without verifiable sources to back it up and could be legally problematic if untrue. Gwernol 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --MaNeMeBasat 07:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:26, 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 closed as nomination withdrawn, all views otherwise state keep. --Alf melmac 11:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General John Jacob[edit]

unverifiable, source comes from a geocities site, original poster shares name of topic ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Please do not use the word "unverifiable" in AFD nominations unless you have actually made an effort to verify the content. This person has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Other than that, the author of this bio is presumably identical wth the author of the website, and his relationship with somebody who died in 1858 is not a big deal (just make sure the article is and remains NPOV.) u p p l a n d 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone in the DNB should have a wikipedia article. Osomec 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a Jacob's Horse ([40]) and a Jacob's Rifles ([41]) in the British Indian Army. His entry in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is located here [42]. Should be wikified and moved to John Jacob (soldier). SoLando (Talk) 23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rescind my nomination for deletion then. I got in touch with the original poster and cleared everything out ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:31, 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 keep (which does not preclude a move by normal means) --SPUI (talk - RFC) 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wilbanks[edit]

You can see the first nomination here

The last time we AFD'd this article a bunch of people said 'she is probably notable, but we should do this again in a ~year'. Well, it's been a year and we need to reevaluate this person. Is she notable? No. She is a nobody. Nothing about her is unique or special (lots of people runaway, apparently). You could argue that the "media circus" around her was notable, but then the article should be called the "Runaway Bride incident". However, just because this person received media coverage does not mean she or the coverage is notable. No. Basically, the media made a mistake. Why should we be forced to cover their mistake? One rule of thumb that I use is "Keep the article if it can be featured", but this article is unfeatureable. There is just not enough to say about such a unimportant person. BrokenSegue 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally don't care about her one way or another. But given that bobbleheads of her are now being marketed, it seems premature to delete the article. There still seems to be at least a trashy kind of notability associated with her.Bjones 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trashy indeed. Let's not get the dirt on ourselves. BrokenSegue 14:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she's notable via major media coverage. Whatever we think about her or the story ("trashy" definitely sums it up) it is notable and should be covered, IMHO. Gwernol 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still notable, alas. youngamerican (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Runaway Bride incident per nom. The media circus is notable, but not the person. Eivindt@c 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The news channels have forgotten her, why can't we? Brian G. Crawford 16:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A chronicle of media circuses from prior years becomes more valuable, not less, as they fade from popular memory. Smerdis of Tlön 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Runaway Bride incident. 10 years from now, people will still remember "the story of that runaway bride", even if they don't remember her name. Stev0 18:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Runaway Bride incident --Mmx1 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not understand the rationale of "why can't we forget her?". Why not happily forget her on a page just like the many many articles on forgettable TV series, Pokemon cards and other trivia. When and if some incident comes up and somebody reacalls the Willbank's fiasco for the sake of parallels, then the Wikipedia article will be a useful source of information on that, at the time, notable incident. The information is verifiable, it was sufficiently notable and may be called on again.--A Y Arktos 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she ran away, is this notable? Stupid media beatup. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is renamed, United States and 2005 should probably be in the name too, "Runaway Bride Incident" is very vague. Esquizombi 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we delete everything we'd rather forget about, will we be deleting any reference to the OJ Simpson trial and the whole Monica Lewinsky affair, too? Also, if you say "That Runaway Bride" to someone (at least in the U.S., and probably other countries where U.S. news is common), they'll know exactly who and what you are talking about. Stev0 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Runaway Bride incident. It was a historical event in American popular culture. This article would also be useful to someone researching topics such as news values. Accurizer 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AYArktos. He has a point. She is at least as notable as some obscure Pokemon card or other fancruft. What, are we low on disk space? --rogerd 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not that she deserves to be notable, or that the incident was notable. She's well on her way to being a stock figure in urban/media folklore, or popular culture, or whatever. Nobody ought to care about Nicky Hilton, either, but that's not the issue. Monicasdude 23:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Wish it weren't so. --Allen 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability doens't disappear. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability does disappear. 15 minutes... --MacRusgail 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not rename, major media coverage at the time and continues a pop-culture figure. Create a redirect from "Runaway bride incident" to this article if you must. Crypticfirefly 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the event was a big enough media storm to reach pop culture status leading to the marketing of Bobbleheds and the like, and involved the FBI and Georgia Bureau of Investigation. -- Longhair 05:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I vote to keep the page just like it is. People voting to delete it obviously care enough to take their time to comment here. I personally love that dummy. Keep her here!
  • Delete, I don't think it is notable enough. — mark ✎ 09:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenot the first bride to run away and this is just a comtempory nothingness that has already been forgotten by the media.--MONGO 12:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to vote delete, but since deletion seems an unlikely possibility, I suppose I will case my vote for rename as above or merge into missing white woman (or perhaps we could add her and all the others to a list of missing white women or some such thing). Failing that, let's try doing another afd in ten years.-PlasmaDragon 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Who cares if the "media made a mistake"? She is notable by many standards. I mean, lots of kids fall down holes, but does that mean that we should consider deleting the Baby Jessica article because she wasn't special enough? That article is even more passé than this one! No, both were media darlings for a time, and both have name recognition worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dick Clark 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not rename per some suggestions; create redirects as necessary. Why would we throw away good content which has been online over 1 year? Ridiculous. KWH 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not limited for space and so we can provide articles that record past media frenzies. Keeping only the instances where the media were right and deleting those where they got wrong is hardly NPOV. I've got no opinion either way on the rename suggestions. Thryduulf 16:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jon Harald Søby 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough that no one voting asks who she is. A prototypical example of Missing white woman syndrome. Jtmichcock 03:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has entered history as one of those cultural oddities that will show up forever on "This Year in History" type shows and lists - notable. --Krich (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep P-unit 23:07, 2 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  (aeropagitica)  06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Zero names and references[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted. Not because the information isn't useful, but because the information hasn't been updated and the thesis doesn't qualify as an article. The information is noteworthy, and should be kept, but I would suggest an merge into the respective articles they convey (such as List of Neo Arcadian boss characters). Also I believe it would be helpful that if this deletion succeeds, the document be copied into userspace for furthur reference (I'll do it). This information is encyclopediac, it just doesn't warrent an article, especially in its current format. ZeroTalk 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pursuant to Zero's accurate statement that the "information is encyclopedic, [but] doesn't warrant an article". Joe 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any important information to whatever article is relevant --TBC??? ??? ??? 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 14:28, 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 Keep pschemp | talk 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose, Louisiana[edit]

Page about a Fictional town from a rather forgetable film, I can't see how this can be notable ever. Irishpunktom\talk 14:45, 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. DS 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurrock Paranormal[edit]

  • Delete - This page is spam and is not written to an encyclopaedic level Solar 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and suggest considering adding spammed links to black list. JoshuaZ 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also suspect this page is a hoax at least in aspects, such as its link to Thurrock Museum. Gwernol 15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure vanity spam, nonsense, pointless, nonnotable, just totally pathetic all around. DreamGuy 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur. -- Ec5618 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page could use some work, but ample references are provided so that I doubt it is a hoax, nor would I call it totally non-notable. Arundhati bakshi 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is Not a hoax. I take no pleasure in creating fake articles because if you knew what I do for a living you would understand. This is a hobby and we are the work of a non profit and non charging organisation. The references to Thurrock Museum are real and we do a lot of work through them. If my entry is pure spam and vanity then I would like to bring to your attention Spirit Searchers whos entry is basically an advert and Most Haunted who are extremely controversial. Spirit Searchers have placed links on other related pages and nothing has been done to them. We have researched a considerable amount of history for the area and have wikified it back to the thurrock and essex pages. I have wikified words for links on my article back to their entrys and placed a link on related pages as like other similar sites have done to no consequence. I take offence to being classed as "totally pathetic all around" the subject of paranormal may be pathetic to some but it is of major interest to a considerable number of people. The area we study has long reaching history and has been a part of many battles and historic relevant times such as the "Tilbury Fort Speech" Anne Boleyn and Wat Tyler. I have wikified many parts of the article to other totally relevant pages that contain considerable information about the area we study. It took a lot of work writing the article and I am prepared to re-structure should you wish it to stay. I have been working closely with a Wikipedia team member who has been a great help in making sure that this article meets the requirements. It is developing all the time. The team member has made sure that it changed from an advert which I now know was wrong. I have now included historical references to Thurrock's past and there is a lot more to come. I would like to add finally, that if you do decide to delete my links or my article please take a look at other articles/links which have done the same, to which I have followed suit. This is my first article written for Wikipedia and I have been given great help by members of your team who have been kind and understanding. Thank you for your consideration Pchurch 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your position I am presently trying to bring the areas of parapsychology and the paranormal to a higher standard on wikipedia. It is an area I am very familiar with and very positive about, but I am still neutral towards articles in this area. My decision to nominate your page for deletion was not personal and I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia beyond your own organisation if your page is deleted. It has simply come to my attention that many groups have been using this site as a promotion tool, including UKSPI who were recently deleted.
Wikipedia policy is: "Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing their own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as vanity pages and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them."
Please also take a look at these common arguments or strawmen:
Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed.
  • "But you have links to commercial sites in the list."
    • Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not.
  • "But you have links to other sites that people have added for self-promotion."
    • Those need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site.
  • "But you have a link to site Y, and my site is just like that."
    • We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criteria. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category. (See also the comments about linking to web directories instead, so that Wikipedia does not become a web directory.)
  • "But these links have been here for a long time."
    • There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.
  • "My link is very unique."
    • It is more likely that the link they have added has no more information than the Wikipedia article itself.
As per above I will be looking into other sites such as Spirit Searchers, the work I am doing in this area will be fair and neutral. I have already removed many links from paranormal pages that do not live up to encyclopaedic standards. - Solar 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found this article very informative and it has helped me with a future project i will be doing.Rachywachydooda 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your constructive comments. I was very offended by DreamGuys comments as there was no need for comments like that. I am new to this type of article writing and he has "bitten the hand" of someone new! I am willing and prepared to work with you to make this area of interest to you and me more positive for inclusion to Wikipedia. I wanted to change this article name to "Thurrocks Paranormal History" and write about that but unfortunately the name of the article had stuck and couldn't be changed. Pchurch 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar I am shocked that now I'm being accused of "Sock puppeting" This is not a multiple user ID to boost the vote, if you are concerned about the dashes above the comments made by .Rachywachydooda then I put those in to tidy up this. If someone has been using the article and has seen this then surely they can vote if they register to do so? Please can you check IP then it'll prove it Pchurch 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pchurch, I do not wish to upset you, but when new users appear simply to vote is it highly suspicious. ShaneR is clearly a meatpuppet as he has identified himself as the founder of your group. I note that you were warned by Arundhati bakshi not to use this tactic as it would undermine your position.
What is a meatpuppet? "A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues. While less overtly deceptive than sock puppetry, the effect of meat puppetry and sock puppetry on the community as a whole may be similar."

Please stop this tactic to avoid disrupting the process. - Solar 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Solar I have no control over what people on other computers have written. I have seen ShaneR's input and he has his right to add his comments. I have not instructed them to do this and I am insulted that you believe that I have used this tactic. People use this Wikipedia all the time and it is possible, just possible that ShaneR has seen the delete notification and went to take a look at what was being said and added his own. Pchurch 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This is not spam or a hoax, feel free to contact thurrock museum and ask about us, They help me with the history of the location and after the report is done a copy is sent to the museum. They also tell us of location they know that paranormal events have been reported in, Some times will also ask us toinvestigate locations that might soon be pulled down so a record can be made of it.

I have spent many years setting up Thurrock Paranormal and a great deal of my own money, the site and investigation is done for the love of the subject and not for any profit. you are also free to call any of the locations on the site to ask them about us. The reports that i do pull all the history form the local area into one report someting that has not ben done before. I try to get a good blend of local history and local myths, Thurrock is a very old place and is full of history and for years i have felt that not much has been put onto paper about the history and the strange events that have been reported. shane ralph, Thurrock Paranormal FounderShaneR 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold text In fact i run Thurrock paranormal and if you took the time to even look at the website you find that what you are saying has no grounds

My name is SHANE RALPH, you can look me up on the main website or if you do call the location they will all know me, i find you comments very childish when all you have to do is tolook at our main site to see how we are. SHANE RALPH, THURROCK PARANORMAL FOUNDERShaneR 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I informed the witer of the article that any use of sock puppets would likely be detrimental to his cause, and do not think that he is using them. Check his IP address to be sure if you can. I think the criticism "Pure vanity spam, nonsense, pointless, nonnotable, just totally pathetic all around" by DreamGuy is really beyond the bounds of good taste and good faith. It would be nice if more civility could be used when critiquing an article. The user has put in a lot of work since the beginning of this article to ensure that it became steadily more encyclopedic. The notability requirement seems to check out, it passes the google test, at any rate and has been mentioned in a number of publications. The only problem I see now is that some people either may dislike the article because a member of the troupe wrote it (usually a bad idea, but if someone else were to have created more or less the same article, would it then be on AfD?), or that some people just dislike the topic because of its controversial nature. Remember this is this fellow's first post here, and if we delete the page, we need a good reason, not merely a dislike of the topic. Arundhati bakshi 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an IP scan to prove that I have not used "Sock Puppets" please. I believe I have the right to defend myself on here and prove a point. Thank you! Pchurch 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" For a site that deals in the Paranormal and isnt a commercial venture, I suggest people commenting here actually take a look at the site and the reports. The locations mentioned are of historical value in the Thurrock area, see The Royal Hotel. For this to be up for deletion, but entries made in Wikipedia as per The Metro newspaper a few weeks back being allowed, though they were proved to be totally inaccurate at the time, this seems more like a witch hunt, pardon the pun than an administrative attempt at keeping wikipedia free of spamming. Can a truly plausible reason be given for why this site is up for deletion as spam?

On behalf of those being called Sock Puppets etc. If you know of an entry being deleted but beleive it to be totally unfair due to it being of value to readers (not all readers as not all people are interested in the Paranormal), you should expect some comments in defence of the entry. Does this not also show that those meatpuppets etc are also pleased to see such entry appear in Wikipedia and not see Wikipedia as a waste of cyberspace?

This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not a Sock or Meat puppet, but yes has no other contributions since prior to this little debate they were wuite happy with the way things were. I find the terms an insulting name for someone who is issuing their first post on a topic they chose to contribute too. should there be a name for those that dislike a topic for no apparent valid reason? Yours politely, Bigmumma

  • Keep This article is one the best written by a newbie.!! and i dont understand wheres the spam in the article... Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike Michigan Dawn to Dusk Paranormal Group, which was actually written up in an AP story in October, 2005, Thurrock Paranormal and Shane Ralph both have zero coverage in Lexis/Nexis European news sources. Fails verifiability and notability. Most of the article is about alleged paranormal activity in Thurrock, and could be merged to List of haunted locations if properly sourced. Thatcher131 19:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many other sources in this entire encyclopedia are found in Lexis/Nexis European News Sources??? In fact I searched their website for "Paranormal" and it came back with "zero" results. I am shocked that you expect one source to be used as a quotation and reference point for notability for this entire site!

Quite frankly I have had enough of the way I have been treated on here! There are only two persons on here who can show pride in what they do and that's Arundhati bakshi and Solar I have been scorned and slated for writing something I am passionate in! Turning a part of where I live into a historical report on alleged paranormal activity and there was more to come. Just because it is controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted! And as for accuracy and quoting Lexis Nexis etc.... The "Dolly the Sheep" article which was so full of errors it had to be pulled and made the national papers claiming this site to be fatally flawed, makes me so angry! This feels like a witch hunt against all "newbies" as I've been reading most newbie articles and there you all are ganging up on them! Some of the comments I have received on here have been totally out of order! Yet I stand there politely fighting my corner against all odds and I don't get one single apology about what was said!

Delete the article for all I care! I will not be posting or writing any more articles on here for fear of ridicule and abuse. I will not be visiting the site anymore and after seeing the numerous news articles from the bbc etc I know I'm making the right choice. I will also make sure I highly recommend no one else I know uses this site or attempts to write any article for this site as I certainly don't want them to be subject to abuse or highly one sided and inaccurate information! Arundhati bakshi and Solar I thank you for all of your help and support in helping me write and edit the article and to Jayant, thanks for helping me up when I was down.

Pchurch 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel put upon. One of the guidelines for inclusion is verifiability. The fact that there have been problems in the past is not a good reason to ignore the guideline now. Another guideline is notability or importance, which goes hand in hand with verifiability; if some independent sources have written about a subject, that is a good indication that it is both notable and verifiable. Regarding Lexis/Nexis, it is a tool I use to try and determine whether a subject has received independent news coverage. Many people use Google hits or Alexa rankings to influence their opinions regarding articles nominated for deletion. I choose to use Lexis/Nexis, partly because it is a specific indicator of coverage in "mainstream media" and partly because it is a subscription site that few other Wikipedians have ready access to, so it adds information to the discussion. I have never pretended it is some kind of ultimate authority. In fact L/N lists 129 articles in the past year with the words "paranormal" and "investigation" in the European press alone.
Regarding your article, it really is two separate articles. The information about haunted places in Thurrock could certainly be included in the article List of haunted locations if you can include soure citations, and I recommend you use in-line links or footnotes, and be specific (for instance, if a magazine discusses a place, give the date and page number of the issue, not just the magazine title). You could even try to create List of haunted places in Thurrock, England if you think there is enough specific information to justify a separate article. Be aware of the policy of No original research though; you need to point to independent 3rd party information. The other part of the article, about your own investigations, will generally not be supported here unless there is evidence that you have attracted independent attention (from magazines, newspapers, TV shows, etc.) Thatcher131 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add, I strongly encourage you to add the Thurrock haunting sites to List of haunted locations or to start a new article about Thurrock hauntings which you can link to List of haunted locations and also to Thurrock. Although I strongly urge you to use specific footnotes wherever possible and to avoid including anything that might be characterized as original research or personal experience. Thatcher131 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity non-notable ghostcruft- The logo looking like it was drawn by a 12 year old who just discovered WordArt really says it all for notability. -Mask 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You know i dont care if you get rid of the page now, as far as i see it the members on here apart from a few just try to make it look like they have power in the real world when most of the time they are at home all alone with no life,The members of Thurrock Paranormal will carry on doing our investigation no matter what, we are seen as of of the best investigation team around, why have we not been on tv and radio??? well i have turned them down,Shows like Ghost town that i helped out are a joke with no fact based information, and when the do get it they just paas it on the derek so he looks good on tv, as for MICHIGAN'S DAWN TO DUSK PARANORMAL GROUP, they should not be on here as they are making money out of what they do ....see below

Certificate from our affliated sponsor, GPRC Test are for: APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATION-Individual: $35.00, Couples: $60.00 JOURNEYMAN CERTIFICATION- Individual:$35.00, Couples: $60.00 ShaneR 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


M Has just proved my point about abusive users on here! "drawn by a 12 year old who just discovered word art!" How dare you! Not all of us are skilled in the art of graphic design and AS WE ARE A NON PROFIT NON CHARGING ORGANISATION we cannot afford it!!! "Non notable ghostcruft" Well you are in Alaska and we are in England. All we are trying to do is place an article about the areas alleged paranormal activity for those that may have an interest or live in the area. THIS HAS TURNED PERSONAL!! THESE ARE PERSONAL ATTACKS (which is a breach of this sites rules!) AND IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. If this is what Wikipedia is about then to hell with it! Pchurch 10:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]


A personal attack like that makes that user look like an immature 12 year old. Maybe lots of people are not interested in Thurrock paranormal but if it helps a few then surely it is worth keeping as it will help make this encyclopedia the best one around. Rachywachydooda 11:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

you asked for some verifiability; if some independent sources have written about a subject. well find the book THURROCKS PAST(ECHOES OF THE PAST) by Alan Leyin you will finda lot of our locations there and the reported ghosts. in fact Daiel Defoe in 1724 (a tour of the whole island of great britain) talks about mucking,tilbury and then resd The mirror of the sea by Joseph Conrad( lived in thurrock for some time) and then read, 

and more Ghost information can be found in  The peoples history of Essex by D.W Coller 1861

and tend read Alice of fobbibg :or the times of jack straw and wat tyley by Rerv.w.e. heygate 1860 and then readHeart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad 1902 but you must read LIFE AND RECOLLECTIONS by Hon Grantly Berkely 1866 , there is great pice on the Ghost of Belhus. you said you need so pages well here are some A Essex ghost hiunters guide to essex page 83, langdon hills, pg,119 muckingpg, 120,124 corringham, 114,117,124,134 fobbing once you have read this then i feel you will see i know what i am talking about.ShaneR 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


oh must add somthing, about our logo, yep thanks i did do it and it was done on photo shop, yes i have just started using it but i tell you what its much better than MICHIGAN'S DAWN TO DUSK PARANORMAL cartoon lol, if you think they are better than you should lok at the paranormal photo on MICHIGAN'S site, hmm orb's dont think so, tattoo ghost dont think so, its a face on a tv screen and you dont need to be a paranormal investigator to work that one out.ShaneR 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShaneR, (blank)cruft is the standard phrase used here for an article that appeals only to someone who is interested in whatever (blank) is. The generalization fancruft was the initial usage, and blogcruft is the most common by my count. It's not insulting. As for your notability claims: all those do is assert that the locations you have investigated are notable, not that you are. You need sources that mention Thurrock Paranormal, not paranormal places in thurrock. Calm down, chief, you're making yourself look foolish. -Mask 17:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i feel that we are being told to sell out(turn to the media) if we did this every time we investigated a location we would be expected to say it was haunted, somthing we dont do, there are loads of location that I have been asked to visit and when i got there all it turned out to be was damp or the heating coming on in the night making doors pop open. As i state on the website we are link no other investigation team, we do not book location and charge £35 per person to go on a investigation and make loads of money out of it. If you take this page down so be it , i will go to the media when i feel it is right and i will not be pushed into saying things just to keep them happyShaneR 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShaneR, if you were notable, you would not go to the media, they come to you. At the very least a local newspaper would write a story about you. I went to college for journalism. If somebody comes to us asking for a story about them, we turn them down. We write stories, not propaganda. This is further proof it is a small-time group unworthy of an entry. -Mask 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so would you like me to send you all the emails i have from tv companies asking help, wou;d you also the phone number of the company that make Ghost Towns, you can ask them why i did not take part in the show, it would be funny to hear what they would say.all this i can give, Just let me know were to send it. but i will only send it if you are going to do itShaneR 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill the cable guy does not constitute a reliable source. see WP:V -Mask 18:27, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Adam[edit]

fails WP:BAND --M@rēino 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable band --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ♠PMC♠ 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author asserts that they meet WP:MUSIC requirements. However, the article still needs to be improved to demonstrate that this is true. No opinion on deletion yet. Friday (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, does not meet established WP:MUSIC guidelines in its current state. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal band fame audit test:
  • Comment: The claim to fame seems to revolve around their music being used in various animes and in some upcoming movies from Troma. They're not a pretend band or garage band like we so often get articles about, but I'm not sure they meet WP:MUSIC either. Friday (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Evil Adam is also extensively found on Last.fm Nth Man 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go ahead and say keep on this one now, even though I was the original one who prodded it. They've been quite successful on mp3.com, and their music being used in various dvd and movies. We could maybe argue all day long about whether they exactly meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, but to me they seem like they're reasonably in the right ballpark. Friday (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: PS. People looking at this should be aware that the article has expanded and changed quite a bit since some of the early votes. Friday (talk) 16:31, 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 15:29, 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 pschemp | talk 02:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal management of electronic devices and systems[edit]

This article is the main article linked to from Electronics#Heat dissipation and thermal management. I don't believe it covers enough material to merit its own article, and everything in it is described in more detail on numerous other pages. I believe that it deserves a proper paragraph in the Electronics article with inline links to those articles, such as Aircooling, CPU cooling, and Computer cooling. ~MDD4696 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I disagree with deleting this article. Where else will you put stuff on heatsinking and fan cooling of electronic equpt etc. If you can come up with an alternative page title, I'm willing to listen . Otherwise, please leave this page alone.--Light current 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (copied from this article's talk page)[reply]
  • Perhaps the previous poster is unfamiliar with the concept of merge back to Electronics? Alba 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the one hand, merging it back makes a lot of sense. However, Light current made the point on my talk page that the Electronics article is already gigantic. I think there's room for just a paragraph on this subject there, but he also stated that this article could be significantly expanded. I'm somewhat less sure about deleting this article now, however I'd like the AfD to remain active so as to gather others' opinions. ~MDD4696 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I'd advise re-splitting with more sections after merging back. I would agree that Electronics is too big, but you can't pull material out one paragraph at a time. Alba 13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a substantial topic. While the current article is written rather poorly as of now I believe that this is the sort of topic that is easily improved. There are many articles in the literature devoted to this topic. I think this article will be improved over time if allowed to stay.
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Heat management is an important issue in its own right and Electronics is too large already. The article isn't terrible, although it could stand to be further expanded and sourced. Gwernol 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol JeffBurdges 16:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but could have better title. --MacRusgail 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Much more can be said relating to power consumption of an electronic device (watts), heat generated, and means of dissipating this heat. The current article seems to focus mainly on computers and CPU cooling (although it does not specifically say this). There is much to be said on this topic as it related specifically to electrical engineering and physical design of a device. Zman97211 05:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:27, 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. JIP | Talk 08:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Peacock (music)[edit]

Not notable band that fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. Previous AfD for an article on this band showed a consensus that the band did not merit inclusion and the namespace was redirect to Are You Being Served?. There is no evidence that this band has become notable in the past 3 months and no need for a similar redirect this time around. Delete. youngamerican (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yet again notability of the band is not asserted by the article. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please note discussion on article's main page. I, the creator of the page, am collecting information to promote the band's signifigance. I will accept that we cannot have the main Captain Peacock page yet. However, in the future expect the band to warrant such a page. Finally, please note that this is a biased and personal grudge against the band from previous arguments over the main Captain Peacock page. User:BodyHeat 01:35 p.m. CST, 27 March 2006 (CST)
I have found plenty of examples of notability meeting Wikipedia's standards, and I will be removing the tag. Thank you. User:BodyHeat 01:40 CST, 27 March 2006 (CST)
Do not remove the AfD tag until this discussion has been closed by an admin. You would do better by pointing out how this band deserves inclusion rather than assuming bad faith of other editors and ignoring wikipedia processes. youngamerican (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Note that the only requirement for selling your book on amazon is sending in one or two copies and having an ISBN. I assume the requirements for music are the similar. --W(t) 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youngamerican, please refrain from telling me what I would, "do better," by.
Furthermore, you are and have violated Wikiquette many times, especially: Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
Finally, the band, Captain Peacock (music) contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such; and, a member has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources.
User:BodyHeat 01:54 CST, 27 March 2006 (CST)
Please don't be accusatory. You were very polite with me, so I know that you can make a calm argument about this.
Could you cite your sources for the member who was once a part of a notable band? Singing with Norah Jones in college doesn't quite cut it, I think, because she is an independent singer, not a band. Also, the requirement is, I believe, that the band has gone on a international/national concert tour, not just one member. Sorry.
Hbackman 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can assure you that I harbor no ill feelings towards you or the band. Thusfar, however, the band has not yet done anything to merit inclusion YET. They seem to be on the right track, however and will likely soon be notable enough for wikipedia. When they do meet one of the notability guidelines for a band, I will gladly support the inclusion of their article and contribute by way of copyediting, syntax, etc. Until then, they are just not ready. youngamerican (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say a band with only one EP out qualifies as not notable. Stev0 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't matter how many EP's, they fulfill plenty of the requirements, including the band owns the U.S. trademark and copyright to the name. This is logic people. User:BodyHeat
    • Comment. Something being copyrighted in the US is not a notability guideline at Wikipedia. If you think it should be, you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Village Pump. youngamerican (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If a band that doesn't even have an album out is "notable", how WOULD you define a non-notable band? Stev0 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band is presently not notable. Asserts forthcoming record and tour but WP is not a crystal ball. I suggest the creator userfy the content to facilitate recreation if and when the band actually goes on tour. Thatcher131 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a bad idea. The user is new, and, if deleted, may require help in userfying from one of us or the closing admin. youngamerican (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. Userfication might encourage premature recreation, as wikipedia is not a crystal ball (while they seem to be on the right track, there is no sure promise that this band will become notable soon or ever). youngamerican (talk) 15:18, 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 Deleted at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of Sol[edit]

A summary of a book that's yet to be published, eh? Let's not turn Wikipedia into a poor man's publicist. I call this one unencyclopedic, vanity, etc, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bobak (talk • contribs) Bobak 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign the first time)[reply]

  • Delete, not verifiable until it's published.Bjones 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpublished first book from a non-notable not-yet-an-author.  (aeropagitica)  16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My mistake, vanity article. Sorry. 63.239.69.1 16:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above was me, just not signed in. Please Delete ASAP. Esantipapa 16:49, 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 Deleted at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in which the word "Jehovah" has appeared[edit]

Article is a long list and unencyclopedic; it is 90% redlinks, unverifiable WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT#Soapbox, & WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I created the article as a temporary place for the list away from Jehovah, but it does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. It is a waste of bandwidth.  - C. dentata 16:31, 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 pschemp | talk 02:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Brazier[edit]

The subject of this article is a Z-List celebrity and thus contributes very little - if anything at all - to the 'pedia - hardly worthy of existence. ^pirate 16:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently, he's famous for walking around in his underwear with an erection. Brian G. Crawford 16:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—No love is lost between me and nonebrities, but he is a publicly-known footballer and television presenter. Whatever your views on his relationships or media courtship, these are notable professions. Anyway, the name Jeff Brazier is almost definitely more well known than some MPs who have articles. -Erolos 17:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia covers people like this. Osomec 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this guy isn't notable, what chance have mere mortals? Frankly, if I had realized walking around in underwear with an erection would make me famous, I would have done it. But that's what separates genius from wannabes like me. (Seriously, seems notable enough for our shallow, celebrity-obsessed world.)Phiwum 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, keep. I despise all he stands for, but I'm afraid he is "notable" and does merit an entry in an encyclopaedia that also includes thousands of other "celebrities". Gnusmas 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, under the Air Force Amy standard. Monicasdude 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:29, 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 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Boggle[edit]

This is clearly made up. The final section contradicts itself and there's no Google/Yahoo/anything mention. Probably some creative version of a vanity page, like author Harlan Ellison's own book-jacket bios.

  • Nominated and Delete ---- Bobak 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC) +[reply]
  • Delete "...as his parents were destroyed in a bi-plane crash before he was born..." {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) + R.I.P Jimmy Boggle[reply]
I'll have to remember that hoax template, thanks! Bobak 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some new user just deleted the entire discussion. I have reverted Bobak 18:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(not from creator of article)I honestly am outraged that people honestly do not think the once living legend jimmy boggle is real . It really is an awful shame that people can't accept what may sound un-true. The man was real and has a place in my heart for good !

R.I.P Jimmy Boggle

  • Creators Notes:I am serverely sorry for my reckless actions when compiling this article - it is a mere collaberation of sources from other sites; many of them foreign, and translated badly. I have reacted in response to your corrections, I have corrected the errors and hope for the best in the prevension for deletion of this article. This is the second time I have written in response to you - someone has already written back in response to your attempt for deletion. Thanks Alot..
kotepho 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
contribs) .[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki - Liberatore(T) 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Atlas Shrugged[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of information, including noting where characters changed trains.

  • Delete Nominator vote. (Please do not vote merge and delete; it's meaningless.) A redirect to Atlas Shrugged would be harmless; and the few encyclopedic details about the novel can be salvaged before deletion (if not already mentioned elsewhere. Septentrionalis 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not need an AfD to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is consensus on a redirect, I will join it; but the article should not be recreated. Septentrionalis 18:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki as per nom and previous AfD of other subpage. -- infinity0 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who says Objectivism isn't cultish?! --MacRusgail 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the setting of Atlas Shrugged is more or less the real world, there is really not much to say on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: this is actually some pieces of an early attempt at a wikibook of commentary on Atlas Shrugged. Please see that it is transwikied to wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged, which has other pieces. Septentrionalis 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. The amount of minute detail available with regard to Atlas Shrugged is astounding. Is there an article on Places in the Bible? -- Nikodemos 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki or merge (or whatever is the most mininalist economical proposal. I think Rand would be pleased, in fact!!)--Lacatosias 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or merge per above. Where would it end - Clothes in Atlas Shrugged ?! Uh-oh, probably given someone an idea... Cheers, Ian Rose 15:34, 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 moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 02:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cunnah[edit]

Semi-pro footballer (thus does not meet WP:BIO criteria), unless I am misunderstanding what is considered semi-pro in football (soccer). Prod tag was removed without explanation. OhNoitsJamieTalk

Reni's Drums

Article moved into the team he plays for. Thank you.

Author of article is requesting Speedy merge OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:50, 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. Flowerparty■ 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moustached footballers[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 delete. Flowerparty■ 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic renaissance[edit]

Did a google search and the only results were for the band's MySpace account and a PureVolume sampling. Doesn't meet notability standards. Delete tv316 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

The group has met standards as far as placing in a music competition. See in first paragraph of the Acoustic Renaissance page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy (LOL) keep, no rationale for deletion given - Liberatore(T) 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hamilton, 1st Marquess of Hamilton[edit]

This person should be retained. PatGallacher 10:27, 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■ 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Ali[edit]

Seems to be borderline notability and was created by the subject. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep maybe a bit marginal and could do with some editing. Dlyons493 Talk 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strictly on the basis of NN. Clearly it looks like a vanity page. Basically, it's a resumé, it's autobiographical, and the assertion of notability is weak. On the other hand, he isn't a nobody. There is some interesting stuff about him here [43]. I'm voting to delete because there doesn't seem to be anything here to distinguish him from tens of thousands of other university professors. They all have nice resumes, they all have something published, they all attend conferences and work on projects. It's not enough. Slowmover 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as published author of nontrivial scholary book. If Wikipedia has articles on every professor out there with degrees from Tufts, Yale, and MIT, and who serve on UN advisory boards, it might require nearly as much space as is currently devoted to the activities of Jack Thompson, Esq., but I expect Jimbo would be ready to cough up the small change needed if additional server space is really required. Monicasdude 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:30, 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 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Veuleman[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Mark 2000 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vanity page. Aaron Veuleman is an unremarkable Philosophy Ph.D. student with no major theories or advancements to his name. The page is mostly maintained by Aaron himself. If this page is allowed to stay then anyone with an advanced degree will have to right to advertise themselves. This sort of thing is more appropriate for an individual's talk section.

  • Strong delete, extremely non-notable. Also, have we started calling people with Masters in education philosophers? --Deville (Talk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn biocruft. WP is not MySpace. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CVs don't belong here--MacRusgail 03:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Cool3 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --James 22:06, 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 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirapoint[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a company. The username of the user who created the article is identical to the name of the article, which is identical to the name of the company being advertised in the article. Takeel 18:49, 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 speedily deleted by Marudubshinki as nonsense . Proto||type 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Hanna: The Scourge of the lands[edit]

Seems to be a short story, not an encyclopedia article. WP:V--Nagle 18:52, 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 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issamar ginzberg[edit]

Delete Almost certainly a vanity article, totally NN, unencylopedic. Had been listed for prod for 4 days, but was contested. pm_shef 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Modified Since Votes

  • Comment Substantive content of the article remains the same, vanity, nn. pm_shef 23:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:34, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merfin[edit]

False information, unkowingly added by me at the behest of another OutInNashville 19:03, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain SNES[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

This sprite comic has had two previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain SNES: The Game Masta and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Captain SNES. Both resulted in a consensus to delete. It's also been speedily deleted at least twice. I considered speedying it again under CSD G4, but the content isn't identical and it was created by a different contributor. In any case, it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB, and I can't think of any other compelling reason that would make it notable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - as above - Hahnchen 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before, and for the same reasons. Salt the earth this time. Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve This comic is notable, with a decent-sized fanbase and a relatively unique plotline. The article needs cleanup and expansion, but CSNES is something important enough to have an article on Wikipedia.Jayofnameless 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perserve For reasons above. Wutasumi 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve, with the condition that it has to be cleaned up soon It's important enough for an article, but this article isn't all that good.64.72.87.113
  • Preserve Same reasons as above. The comic has gained both readership and chapters since the last time the article was deleted, and now meets (or exceeds) the requirements for inclusion, unless those have changed or the person mentioning them on the comic's forums got them wrong. It meets criteria (3) at minimum: TopWebComics (I believe) lists the comic. The proof1 is in the "Vote" link, both on the main page and in several forumites' signatures.

1Fixed typo. Sorry if this note violates some rule, if it does, just delete it. OmegaX123 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moe ε 02:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doe snot appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are going to directly refute a statement made just two spaces above you, you really should say why that is. OmegaX123 stated that from what he can see, it meets requirement three. If you believe that this is not the case, you really should give your reasoning. Also, checking the TopWebComics listings, I found that Captain SNES currently holds slot 47, placing it above Two Lumps in slot 48. 64.72.87.113 03:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Generally, topsites don't count at all when looking for verifiability or as indicators of notability. The reason being, is that rabid fans spam votes, and that actual popular sites ignore them. You can have a look at WP:RS at some guidelines refering to sources if you're interested. - Hahnchen 14:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you 64.72.etc. This is true, on all counts. OmegaX123 08:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captain SNES is a long runing comic with high production values and a long, well thought out plot. to delete it (again.) would be a waste. if Bob and George can have a page, then a much superior comic like Captain SNES certainly deserves one. Omniredmage 05:53 1 April 2006
  • Comment The various "top 100 comic" style lists are not generally considered evidence of notability because they are too vulnerable to ballot stuffing. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Look at the article again. At least two of the sites in the links are not topsites (don't know about the third), and have reviewed CSNES. Just like OmniRedmage said, might I add? OmegaX123 20:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel that Topwebcomics, the top site list that Captain SNES is on, has taken measures to prevent ballot stuffing. I voted today, as I am a fan of Captain SNES, then cleared my cookies and any other evidence that I could that I had voted, then tried to vote again. It did not let me, because the site logs individual IP addresses for ballot stuffing, thus preventing rabid fans from boosting their own sites to the top.--Experimentmonty 01:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve I feel that this article should be kept provided that the article be expanded upon. It is not up to the high standards expected here yet, but it has not been given much time to reach these high standards. This is a high quality comic, and given the chance, this article can be benificial.--Experimentmonty 01:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are comics like Zebra Girl notable while this is not? I don't get the standards here. This comic has more refrences, and could be kept as fan fiction if nothing else. Spriteless 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Zebra Girl is part of Keenspot, it's apparently good enough that people have to pay for it. Have you taken a look at the "references"? They're not references at all, they're topsites and webcomic databases, which each contain links to thousands of webcomics. This isn't a notable website. - Hahnchen 14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- Since when do you have to pay for Keenspot? The readers certainly don't, and I've never payed for anything on KeenSpot OR KeenSpace. Are you implying that the more money you spend, the more likely you are to keep a wikipedia article? Who should I pay, you? or should I make the check out to Wiki? Omniredmage 09:23 PM 4 April 2006
        • Comment - Keenspot pays the comic for exclusive rights on the internet. They offer a Keenspot Premium service in which you pay for a better service. You don't choose to be on Keenspot, they choose you. And it's not like I personally think Zebra Girl is notable either, but the community seems to think that anything that has ever apeared Keenspot is inherently notable. Keenspace on the other hand is just a free geocities style host. - Hahnchen 08:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- I'd like to point out that CSNES.com is being hosted on it's own servers at it's own cost. Without use of free hosting from keenspace. Salamando 09:45 PM 4 April 2006
  • Strong Delete per nom, non notable, previous votes, (is this a joke?) Tony Bruguier 13:07, 5 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 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Road[edit]

No sources cited, original research. Also non-notable roadcruft. Has no encyclopedic merit. JohnnyBGood 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete main claim to notability seems to be that its two sides are different. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously since I nominated it.JohnnyBGood 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MacRusgail 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrackYourTruck.com Vehicle Tracking Services[edit]

Spam PopUpPirate 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment:

This page is entered not by bot, but real person www.tarasul.com. Yes this is one of the first pages I made. This page is attempt to inform about real company with real services using real software I've architected.

Per my opinion it not differ much from following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rannoch_Aircraft_and_Vehicle_Tracking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirScene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbotics_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation

except sure style, richness of tags etc. I dispute deletion and welcome your notes. What I think might be more correct is to merge this page with another page I've entered TrackYourTruck.com Devices Please let me know your suggestion for making this page better.

  • delete spam and admitted vanity (per above). --Bachrach44 14:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Front243 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrackYourTruck.com Devices[edit]

Spam PopUpPirate 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Montco 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom.tarasul (Author)

Author comment:

This page is entered not by bot, but real person www.tarasul.com. Yes this is one of the first pages I made. This page is attempt to inform about real company with real services using real software I've architected.

Per my opinion it not differ much from following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rannoch_Aircraft_and_Vehicle_Tracking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirScene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbotics_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation

except sure style, richness of tags etc. I dispute deletion and welcome your notes. What I think might be more correct is to merge this page with another page I've entered TrackYourTruck.com Vehicle Tracking Services Please let me know your suggestion for making this page better.


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as adcruft, spamcruft, and previously-deleted-cruft. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatness Guide[edit]

WP:V Appears to be puff piece for book posted by publisher. Repeat violation. Nagle 19:26, 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 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdcore[edit]

558 Google hits; seems to be a non-notable neologism. AdamAtlas 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "There is no general rule about what weirdcore is..." Poor attempt to describe the sound of one band in Finland. Even if this were crystal-clear then it would merely be a neologism and WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, someone's personal creation. Punkmorten 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:36, 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 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Kent[edit]

More vanity/non-notablity madness. A search for "Bryan Kent" with "Pulse", for example, gets this.[44] There is also another Bryan Kent out there - a middle aged model, not this one.

There are two bryan kents out there. One is this one, an actor who is 18 (but goes by bryan michael kent) and there is another bryan kent who is middle-aged and a model. KEEP IT! —This unsigned comment was added by Jbug12 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Barbour[edit]

Questionable notability, does not google but book verifies at bn.com, prod'ed, removed, then speedy deletion tag placed but removed by anonymous contributor without comment. Needs to be decided by larger community. Accurizer 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Striking my reference to bn.com, I cannot locate it a second time. I must have been mistaken. Sorry for the error. Accurizer 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Accurizer 20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many Sanquhar residents google, it's a very rural place with little computers. The people of Sanquhar would know Grant straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.196.16 (talk • contribs)
  • What makes a person "important"? does wiki only accept movie stars and "flavours of the month" as important people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obbster (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The guy is published and probably well known in his locality. Let's leave it be for now. If he's sold on Barnes and Noble this is a good place for people to research his bio. He may be a obscure, but obscurity should not trump achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark 2000 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 20:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except his internationally sold booklet. --Mark 2000 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the circulation of any of his books has reached 5,000 or more, it would satisfy WP:BIO for "people still alive". If anyone is able to provide this information it would be helpful. Accurizer 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you have my word.
  • Without a verifiable source of information that clearly meets WP:BIO I might suspect that this person had done nothing very notable, published no booklets (or a thesis) and liked to post inaccurate information in internet encyclopedias... I hope my caution is proven wrong. Until then, delete. Sliggy 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. This comment added after the discussion was closed, but just so you know, the article was Complete bollocks. The anon was right - the residents of Sanquhar would certainly know Grant had he done any of the things mentioned. They have never heard of him. DJ Clayworth 03:44, 12 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. JIP | Talk 08:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalks (software)[edit]

The development of this software is discontinued. Additionally it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for software notability due to it being incomplete and thus being unused. Philipp Kern 18:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Edward Kurtz[edit]

Non-notable parish priest.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is identified as the Bishop of Knoxville, seems notable. "Category:Roman Catholic bishops" currently has 197 articles for Bishops. Accurizer 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Accurizer. Eivindt@c 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed with above, as a Bishop he has some notability - this needs some expansion if it's going to stay, though --Krich (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:38, 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing the Great Firewall of China[edit]

The article should be deleted because it is a software "how-to" guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information --G0zer 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Isn't wikipedia still blocked anyways? This seems like a big catch-22. Also, we aren't a howto guide. kotepho 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I admire people in commie land who do utilize these measures (censorship is wrong espcially when it's state sponsored), we're not a how too guide and are blocked anyway.JohnnyBGood 21:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I totally agree with the above reasoning, but since the only problem is that the article is instructional in nature, do you think a transwiki to Wikibooks would be appropriate here? –Sommers (Talk) 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An excellent plan. Is wikibooks also blocked? --G0zer 22:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't the problem more how this information is accessed the first time? Sliggy 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (don't get me wrong, I too think information should be disseminated as freely as the air we breathe - that's why we're here after all. I was just trying to be practical). Sliggy 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure someone running Debian in the first place doesn't need this artcle. I have no problem with transwiki to wikibooks if they want it. kotepho 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Internet censorship in mainland China, I think Wikibooks is blocked, but if we want this information to be available, it makes sense to place it there anyway. That way, it's available to whoever wants to see it and can access it, and it increases the likelihood of the information finding its way to whoever wants it in China. –Sommers (Talk) 10:07, 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 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petutske[edit]

Dic-def. Neologism.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:21, 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) 14:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Votto[edit]

Non-notable or hoax. For example, "Michael Votto" and "Suburban Sluts" turn up exactly this on Google.[45]

      • The author of this article has provided several sources that will verify that this is not a hoax. I think we can take this article out of the deletion bin. The sources however may need to be edited. Thanks! --Shawn 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nod JackO'Lantern 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax - Eagletalk 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Michael Votto is actually legitimate. He has regional fame in the Metropolitan Milwaukee area. I would say that this is worthy. --Shawn
    • Do you have a source for this claim? JackO'Lantern 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I don't, but he does have published films and was published in a few area newspapers. But there is a difference between a lack of sources and a hoax. I have been trying to find some sources, but haven't found anything to use yet. However, I think it would be too prudent to delete this article, though i understand the concerns about the truthfullness. --Shawn 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I left a message on the creator's talk page asking to supply some sources for the article. I would hope this article does get verified. Thanks a lot! --Shawn 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Michael Votto was a senior at my high school last year. He is a real person and directs/stars in porn Jessie
    • Again, do you have a source for his notability? JackO'Lantern 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged as {{verify}} in order to allow for the opportunity of sources and citations for the notability of this porn star to be brought forth.  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete porn can bring notability - however, other than this article, I can't find anything on the guy. --Krich (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:39, 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 The result of this debate was Speedy deletion by Doc glasgow. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission agencies[edit]

Advertisement. And Wikipedia is not a bulletin board.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete per nom. Had I not ended up in an edit conflict with you it would have een marked for speedy deletion under {{db-contact}}--Acebrock 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wives[edit]

Article does not assert importance or significance --Mattbrundage 20:40, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wives

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, even after minus-ing sockpuppet voting. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) on hold pending sockpuppet check. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) now referred to deletion review. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, and AN/I for details). - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of TRACS members[edit]

Pointless list the author created to link Christian schools. The links were removed, but the list lacks importance. TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information. This is a POV fork after the list was removed several times. Arbusto 20:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Wiki4Christ (operated by banned user Jason Gastrich) is stated to have emailed an appeal to save this article. This may explain the large number of editors whose only previous activity was in response to Wiki4Christ's previous mailings - which is part of what got Gastrich banned in the first place. No_Jobs (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for attacks, tendentious editing and as a suspected sock of a banned user. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for further details.
  • Delete, a category is fine. This is just listcruft. Stifle 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stifle. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Nomination was a bit disingenuous, since a prime reason was that "the list was removed several times" on the TRACS entry by Arbustoo. This list is informative and good and resembles other, such lists. Definitely keep. --Doe, John (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Currently blocked[reply]
  • Keep Arbusto is repeatedly seeking to delete Christian articles. Why doesn't he do that for any other religion? I can understand only adding to the stock of articles about one religion - a person may not be particularly interested in all the religions, but deleting all articles of one religion has got to put a question mark over someone's neutrality. Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wtf is it with you people and deleting articles all the time? Itake (talk · contribs) 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this since we have an article on TRACS and these schools apparently exist. I also note that this nom tried to have this list speedied as patent nonsense [46], which looks like bad faith to me. Furthermore, the so called POV fork seems to have resulted from this nom's edit warring to remove the list. Lastly, what difference does it make that these are Christian schools? For all I care, they could be Jewish, Muslim, or Rastafarian. Why did that need to be immediately specified in the first words of this nom? At the very least, why aren't we talking about merging it back to TRACS? -- JJay 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the speedy tag because "this article provides no meaningful content." As for your bad faith comment, you might want to see who created the TRACS page. This is a fork that is why it is up for AfD. Arbusto 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that qualifies as a significant misuse of CSD. I suggest you review CSD criteria before mistagging something as nonsense. -- JJay 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You comparing TRACS to the NCAA? I fail to understand the connection. It should not be listed because (as I wrote in the nom.) "TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information." The list is updated on the TRACS page according to schools that lost accreditation and earned accreditation. Most recently in Feb. 2006. There is no reason to think the wiki page will be updated to be accurate. Thus, the information will be incorrect and provide misleading details on school accreditation.
If this list is kept then the other accrediting agnecies will also have lists. That includes North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits 10,000 schools. Do you want a list of 10,000 schools on wikipedia pertaining to one accreditation group? Or the 13,000 schools accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which I removed the beginnings of the list one month ago [48]. Arbusto 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all very weak arguments. What may or may not exist on the web is not my problem. Almost every topic we cover here is covered in greater depth somewhere else. That should never be an excuse to remove content. The bottom line for me is that if we are going to do school lists such as these [49], I can find no reason to remove a list of accredited schools from a group such as TRACS for which we have a page. In my view, it is just as essential to know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella as with any other accreditation agency. -- JJay 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll have a list of 10,000 schools linked at North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and 13,000 at Southern Association of Colleges and Schools because you want to keep this list of around 40 schools, which only 12 have wikipedia articles.
If you want to know "know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella" you could just visit the TRACS category or their website.Arbusto 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could get all info on every topic elsewhere, but I choose to use wikipedia. Otherwise, all the lists you mentioned are good with me. For more, see response on talk page. -- JJay 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep you made it very clear that you have no problem with a 13,000 school list for one accreditation group on your talk. I strongly differ. Arbusto 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to make sense as you spend a lot of time nominating sometimes nominate lists for deletion. Of course, this list is a wee bit smaller that that at present. Could probably be nicely merged into TRACS, which lacks content.-- JJay 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These attacks against me tiresome. One person says I am on an anti-Christian bent. Then you claim I spend my time nominating lists for deletion. One person says I am anti- this another says I am anti- that. Argue with facts, reasons and sources. Trying to attribute false motives to me doesn't help your argument. Grow up. Arbusto 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What attacks? What are you talking about? You nominated this for deletion and have other lists on Afd. You also indicated on my user page that you have removed other lists from wikipedia. You felt the need to say that you "strongly differ" with me on school lists using an example with no application to the current discussion and which should have been obvious given our positions. As for facts, this list has 40 schools on it, not 10,200 or 13,000. -- JJay 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about "you spend a lot of time nominating lists for deletion." Which is not true nor relevant. Arbusto 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I "sometimes nominate lists" now? That's news to me. I think I have only nominated two lists ever (this and the alpha list). Arbusto 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, then as supported by this [50], all my statements here are now perfectly factual. This list has 40 schools on it. It should be kept or merged with TRACS, so people interested can know what schools have been accredited by TRACS. -- JJay 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again: You are just lazy and don't really care about quality. Had you clicked on the link [51] you would have noticed I deleted the list of three schools off the article page because I didn't want the other 12,997 to be added. I did not, as you claimed, "nominate" that list for AfD. Thusly, are not "factually correct." Like I said before, its tiresome. Arbusto 03:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing semantics with you. I guess I'm just lazy that way. In any case, to use your own words, you "strongly differ" with my opinions on the utility of these types of lists. You have used all kinds of arguments for why this should be deleted (pointless, POV fork, no meaningful content, misleading, list on other web site, will result in 13,000 school list, etc), none of which I agree with. Since you are highly unlikely to withdraw this nom, and I will never revise my vote, this discussion now serves absolutely no purpose. -- JJay 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category was created after the start of this AfD. It does not include schools for which we need pages. -- JJay 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities is for. Arbusto 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. Of course, none of the TRACS schools are included on that list. -- JJay 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you are welcome to add them to the list. JoshuaZ 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but they are just fine right now on this list, or even better merged to TRACS. In any case, I have no doubt that the Wikiproject missing article list will be deleted too, sooner or later, just as soon as someone nominates it. Just think, a list that encourages people to write articles on schools. Now why would we need that? -- JJay 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is likely to nominate a project-space article listing articles for universities which need to be created, even though lists of redlinks tend (as with the Schools project) to spawn substubs of no encycloaedic value. If this was in project space - part of the Christianity wikiproject, for example - I think it's unlikely it would have been nominated. As it stands what this list does is to duplicate the list at the TRACS website (only with much less detail and not necessarily up-to-date). Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 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 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid crossroads[edit]

I cannot decide if this is webcruft promoting the website Lucid Crossroads or not. It is certainly not a type of "Dream" which is the category it is in. It appears to be borderline nonsense, with a healthy dose of vague new-age claims thrown in for semi-validity. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if nothing else it doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failing that, dispatch it to the Lucid Crossroads. Adds nothing to the discussion of lucid dreaming. Thinly disguised spamvertisement for NN website. Alexa Traffic Rank for lucidcrossroads.co.uk: 3,071,156. Slowmover 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What is this, an LSD fantasy? Cyde Weys 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sixties were really good to someone. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:41, 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 no consensus; one sentence merged from Cybergrind to Grindcore, with a redirect put in place. If the merged content is inappropriate, feel free to remove it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybergrind[edit]

pseudo metal genre. If it exists, which I strongly doubt considering its many other names such as Cybergrind, Digital Grindcore, Digigrind, or Midicore, it is not notable and barely different from grindcore. Delete Spearhead 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Deli nk 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up genre. incog 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made up nonsense. Ley Shade 09:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Grindcore While the genre does exist, there isn't enough information here to justify a full page, and would be better suited in the main grindcore page. - Raven_1959 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it its not made up nonsense its a newer movement generated through grind influence in electronic music such as noise and breakcore. Also its informative to people who believe such a movement/genre is fake and help spread the word of said movement.--[[User:DPICGRIND|DPICGRIND] 01:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Moe ε 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Are you guys serious? A made-up genre? So the list of bands is made-up? Give me a break. This is a legit sub-genre of grindcore. As a matter of fact its been around since the mid 90's. I agree about all the stupid terms. It's Cybergrind plain and simple. Every band listed has at least a CD or a record out.
  • Merge with Grindcore - Google search brings 40,000 hits. The Cyber- prefix is commonly used in the metal press for any band with electronic elements and Grind is no exception. Big in albania 18:39, 4 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 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drum machine grind[edit]

this genre does not exist, just name dropping. Drum computer uses are not uncommon in grind and other related genres. see also Cybergrind discussion Spearhead 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Deli nk 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another made up genre, another one of Spearhead's good finds for AFD, unlike 'Epic Metal' and 'Extreme Metal' ¬¬. Ley Shade 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:42, 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 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic grindcore[edit]

non-existent genre. See also Cybergrind afd. Delete Spearhead 21:01, 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 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercore[edit]

yet another bogus genre. delete Spearhead 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Deli nk 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up genre. incog 23:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Something ive noticed, a lot of these articles seem to be created/recreated by one user. This should be checked out. Ley Shade 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:42, 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 - Liberatore(T) 14:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Hooshyar Yousefi[edit]

Probally vanity as it was created by user:Bhyousefi Jon513 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, just search the name "Bahram Hooshyar Yousef" by google, actually all of the claims has got documental positions, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.50.83 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Spearhead 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, probably should be a speedy keep. Vanity is not grounds for deletion, and the subject of the article is considered notable enough, for example, to serve as a juror on a nontrivial prize competition at UC Berkeley [52], and is identified by that institution as an award-winning writer and a prominent writer/critic in his home country of Iran. And while I can't read a word of the one's I've found, there are enough online articles from the Iranian press by the guy to demonstrate notability. An object lesson for the many Afd nominators who don't bother to research the subjects they are enthusiastic to declare non-notable. Monicasdude 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Actually vanity is grounds for deletion. Stev0 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reread that page; it says this quite explicitly: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." Vanity vigilantes who are more concerned with authorship than content do far more to damage Wikipedia than to improve it. It's one thing to beat up on goofy (but fundamentally harmless) articles by high school kids who identify themselves as Pope of Latveria, or whatever; it's quite another to slag rather modestly stated, factually impeccable articles that improve Wikipedia. Excessive fannishness is also a vanity signal, but somehow the label is never attached to 50,000 word articles on Pokemon characters, or the veritable hagiographies of musicians like Mariah Carey, or the episode-by-episode exegeses of wretched televison programs. Judge articles, not authors. Monicasdude 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change so it isn't vanity. --James 22:07, 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 No consensus. Thryduulf 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calaveras Road[edit]

Original research, non-notable roadcruft, no encyclopedic merit. JohnnyBGood 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, major enough road. If there is original research, remove it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's "major" only for very peculiar values of "major". Major, maybe, to people in Sunol, but that's it.--Calton | Talk 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Milipitas. --MacRusgail 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article just describes someone's commute to work. --maclean25 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously... I nominated it.JohnnyBGood 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Moe ε 02:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 103[edit]

(I am also nominating Psalm 104, Psalm 119, Psalm 23, Psalm 51). Do we really need to present every Psalm as it's own article? Isn't this what wikisource is for? Jon513 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Psalm 23 is one of the most well known passages in the Bible, one that has been made into song lyrics in thousands of languages, and an important element in the Christian and Jewish faith. Many non-adherents of the faith may also be interested to find out what it is actually about. There is enough information on this Psalm to discuss as an indivudial article, and personally I find it a good and very practical source of information. --gc_susetyo 15:20, 31 March 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Speedy Keep - utter rubbish. The translation Psalm 23 ('The Lord is my shepherd') is the most popular poem/hymn in the English language, Psalm 51 not far behind. Their impact on language, art, music and Christian and Jewish theology cannot be underestimated. Wikisouce is for primary sources not for a description of the importance, impact, and influence of these texts. There are only 150 Psalms (compared to millions of schools and barely notable bands), so having an article on every one (which we don't yet) is perfectly appropriate. Ridiculous nomination. --Doc ask? 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - whether we agree with it or not, the Bible is still a massive cultural influence. --MacRusgail 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • d, nn, biblecruft, move to a specialist religion wiki A nomination that is a violation of WP:POINT at worst and merely grossly defective judgement at best. Keep - David Gerard 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Agree with above. If there is enough to say about a Psalm, besides its translation, then it should have its own article, otherwise, there might be a case for merging content into the main Psalms article. Deletion is completely inappropriate. (My comments apply to all Psalms nominated for deletion.)--agr 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Many people in western society today are not familiar with the Bible, its real influence, and what parts of it are more significant than others. It needs a lot of work to be a good article, though. Slowmover 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doc.--Pal5017 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this needs to be Expanded considerably. --Liface 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Doc. Even assuming that "every psalm" shouldn't have their own articles, these psalms are exceptional. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I think it's a pretty safe bet the individual psalms, remembered and read for several thousand years after their writing, will prove more durable than the individual episodes of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. (Assuming the article is kept, the precedent should not apply to the individual Proverbs.) Monicasdude 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There had been some previous discussion of bible verses at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Could groups of Psalms be merged together in an acceptable way? Esquizombi 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These psalms are not grouped in any meaningful way. They're individual articles on diverse psalms that nom is just happening to afd all at once. Besides, psalms aren't "bible verses", nor does their numbering really correspond to the chapters of other books, both of which divisions are of relatively recent origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I realize that psalms are different than bible verses, but I think that they are analogous enough that the dicussions would be relevant. As e.g. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text states, "as per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, entire chapters of the Bible do not belong on wikipedia. Since the Bible already exists in several different translations and different languages at its proper location (Wikisource), any article containing only Bible text should be speedily deleted or redirected as is necessary, and article should only contain as much source text as is necessary for purposes of example." See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew Esquizombi 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I agree that a lot of the primary source material could be deleted, but I think the articles themselves should be kept. --MacRusgail 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Esquizombi, if you actually look at the articles, you'll find that only Psalm 23 Psalm 51 contain the entire text of the psalms. (In several different translations for Psalm 51 -- I would support cutting them out.) Even in these cases, however, the text is not the entire content of the article. While all of them could use expansion, they are primarily articles about the individual psalms, not the psalms themselves. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm for merging a lot of the verse articles I think these are good enough. They aren't just replicating the text in different translations, focusing on trivial details to fill space, or could they been merged into something more in a logical way that I can think of. We shouldn't set any precedent though, each needs to be judged on their own merits. (There has been a lot of discussion over bible versus, I think most of them are linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:9 including the arbcom case that is on going.) kotepho 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep chapters of books of major religious texts. youngamerican (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per agr. Please note that I agree with the other editors who have called for the full psalm text not to be included in each article. --Metropolitan90 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment. I also agree that the full text shouldn't be included. youngamerican (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should make that decision on basis of what makes a good article. Clearly including the whole text of Psalm 119 would be disproportionate. But other Psalms are very short (some just 3 sentences). As with Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry it may make sense to include copyright free versions where available. We need to be pragmatic here - neither include or exclude text just for the sake of it. --Doc ask? 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Dsmdgold 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 Psalm is probably the best known and one of the most important psalms, and an entry on it is necessary.Ncox 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Psalm 23 is very famous. Psalm 104 is important, for one thing, because of the link to the Great Hymn to the Aten. We don't need an article on each and every Psalm, but some are worth it! Paul B 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of the more famous psalms, often quoted and referred to. The fact that it's part of a collection shouldn't affect that. Ratbat 0:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- This provides a great article especially referencing the history and meaning behind one of the most famous literary works namely Psalm 23
  • Keep Moe ε 02:45, 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. JIP | Talk 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes torpe[edit]

Apparent plagiarism, made up of a bunch of sections written by other people, incredibly POV, self-advertising (The user who made it is named Johnt2k). ShadowMan1od 21:48, 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 pschemp | talk 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme metal[edit]

Not needed article. Largely redundant with heavy metal music and its named subgenres. Also consider that heavy metal is per definition extreme. Spearhead 21:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --MacRusgail 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Spearhead. "Extreme" metal denotes no specific bands or genre specifications. It merely lists a couple subgenres.+Johnson 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extreme Metal is no genre, keep it with Heavy Metal and inside that atricle the sub genres like Trash, Black etc etc. 62.145.208.215 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a recognised genre, article has no real content. Redirect to heavy metal music. Proto||type 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is a corely used term, paticularly by fans and musicians in the Metal Scene. Bands such as Eternal Tears of Sorrow often call themselfs Extreme Metal. Spearhead is doing some create clean up work, but this article is directly linked from List of heavy metal genres, an article i mediate very closely to expell and integrate bad and good content. I think Spearhead has gone a little too far this time, however. Ley Shade 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you insofar as that the term does exist and is commonly used. However, I don't think it warrants an article by itself, as it can be explained properly on Heavy metal music. A redirect may be more appropriate. Spearhead 10:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps making an article listing all the terms such as Speed Metal, Epic Metal, Extreme Metal, Dark Metal, etc etc would be appropriate, and linking it to the List of heavy metal genres article, titling it 'Heavy Metal References' or something. Ley Shade 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
isn't that what List of heavy metal genres already does (or at least should do)? Spearhead 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be, but leyasu keeps deleting stuff out of there. +Johnson 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i delete stuff from there is because people keep filling it with nonsense, and trying to create genres, here is a few: 'Circus Metal', 'Jungle Beats Metal', 'Evil Metal'. As for the merge, i think that, perhaps, Spearhead and me should merge all the articles that are cross-genre references into one article - which shouldnt be the List of heavy metal genres, as thats supposed to be a general shortcut to all the main articles. Ley Shade 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sounds good. Makese sense, since the article is called "List of heavy metal genres" and not "List of heavy metal genres, cross genre references, styles" ect. +Johnson 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a proper List of heavy metal genres is a good starting point. If we could at least settle on that, we can start working on getting the actual articles fixed. Generally speaking all these metal genre articles are a load of crap. And it completely is beyond me why Heavy metal music is a featured article. One other thing is that all the lists of key artists should go, since they are target for vandalising and contained in the article anyway. Maybe we should take this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal Spearhead 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should, and ill move it to the correct page when youve done it, mainly because im havign a hard time concentrating on something for a long period of time atm. Anyways, like i said, move all the cross genre references onto one article, that, should in theory, provide a good starting place. Ley Shade 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to vote keep based on the heavy google response [53]. -- JJay 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to delete this page and merge all cross-genre references into one page. "Extreme metal" is not specific enough, it does not denote a specific style or genre. I could call any metal extreme, fans of mainstream music would probably agree. +Johnson 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you intend a merge that should have been worked out with the editors of the page. It does not require AfD. Otherwise, the page seems fine to me. -- JJay 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as all "extreme metal" genres (Black metal, death metal, viking metal, even thrash) are poorly described on the heavy metal music article. I know there are pages for each of these genres, but while all the sub-genres, variations and history of heavy metal (power metal, speed metal, etc.) are featured on one page, this is not the case for the "extreme metal" genres. In its present form, the page is useless however, and needs to be expanded or deleted until someone has time to write a proper article. --IronChris 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Danteferno 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are a lot of tenuous music genres out there, but this is legit. Some of the (sub) genres on Template:Heavymetal google as as low as 21,000 - this gets 1,200,000. note - The battle to avoid over-categorisation in music has been lost. Deizio 12:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:45, 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. Thryduulf 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic thrash[edit]

Obsolete article. This article just tries to tie a a small number of bands together under one flag, which is already mention on the thrash metal page. Delete Spearhead 21:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto||type 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-existant term, couined in violation of WP:NOT. One of Spearhead's better nominations for deletion. Ley Shade 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:45, 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 Merge and redirect pschemp | talk 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer financial history[edit]

Article contents are completely non-notable. Tempshill 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Article can be expanded, there are a wealth of sources, and subject is very notable -Mask 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first two criteria aren't good reasons to keep an article. Better to delete this small hill of unnotable material and if someone later feels they can write a real encyclopedia article on the subject, they can start from scratch at that point. Tempshill 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are incorrect. Please review WP:DP. The fact that it is a stub is not a valid criteria for deletion. -Mask 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a stub. It's just garbage. Have you read the article? Tempshill 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Claiming that the financial performance of a major corporation is not notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia may be the most appallingly ignorant comment I've come across in AfDs so far, and that's saying something. What, you think Jobs, Wozniak, Scully, et al were in this for their own entertainment? It's unfortunate that Wikipedia style calls for breaking subjects down into discrete pieces to keep page sizes low; but with that practice as a given, there ought to be articles like this (in terms of subject matter, not of this low quality) for all major business entities. I know that a task like this only diverts attention from the vital work of documenting each iteration of Bulbasaur, but it's a necessary evil. Monicasdude 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that the financial performance of a major corporation is not notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia may be the most appallingly ignorant comment I've come across True. Of course, no one actually said that -- see Strawman argument -- so one wonders who you're trying to insult (again) or what your point is, other than your perennial bitter complaints that the Wrong Articles are being kept. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Exactly what else could "Article contents are completely non-notable" mean, given that the article contents include discussions of the company's going public, its dividend history, its market capitalization, and an incomplete history of the stock's performance. Monicasdude 02:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above paragraph is not reflective of the article's content, except for the last 7 words you wrote. The data seems to be a few snapshots of data, not a historical perspective, and the snapshots have been taken from random points in time. The article is currently worse than useless, and instead of plaintively waiting for a savior to make an encyclopedia article out of this - which may be impossible - I argue the article ought to be deleted (or merged into History of Apple Computer, though any meaningful data is already there). Tempshill 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Financial information, in the context of an encyclopedia, that is utterly trivial and not worth a separate article. This is an encyclopedia, a digest of knowledge, not a repository for every jot and tittle of eye-glazing data. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with History of Apple Computer. The topic is encyclopedic in principle, and History of Apple Computer is long enough to justify a fork, but the financial history of a company is so tightly bound with other aspects of its history that I think it would make more sense to fork by time period if we want to fork. --Allen 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. What Allen said. Stev0 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Thirded. Notability of a subject which is a subcategory of a larger one with existing articles doesn't justify creating stubs for all the subcategories. Georgewilliamherbert 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Certainly notable content and per Allen above. — Wackymacs 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Allen. Thatcher131 19:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Moe ε 02:46, 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 speedily redirected to 700 (number). Proto||type 08:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

765 (number)[edit]

non-notable number -- not even an assertion of notability — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The trivia about Namco is already mentioned in the Namco article, hence the reason for my earlier deletion of this page.  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and  (aeropagitica) . Slowmover 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even the WP:WINI rule is not gonna save this one. But no need to delete - custom for these is to redirect to the main number below, in this case 700 (number). And this does not take an AFD debate, so is as good as done.Obina 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article now redirects to 700. --MacRusgail 23:56, 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. Thryduulf 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grappacino[edit]

Non-notable cocktail. WP:NOT a cookbook or recipe guide for non-notable cocktails. Prod was removed by page author. Quale 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also it sounds like a truly foul cocktail. Gwernol 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Moe ε 02:47, 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 Thryduulf 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities starting with A[edit]

Out of date, unencyclopedic, and pointless list. It puts all schools good or diploma mill, community college, university or PO Box, from the US to UK to China in a infinite list. Manually logged and therefore out of date and based on user's desires to list and label/name schools. The whole list if up for AfD: A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- X -- Y -- Z -- Arbusto 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot per nom. Indiscriminate list mania. Slowmover 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Listcruft by Alpha, unmaintainable by design, and utterly senseless by nature. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant per category and adds nothing other than maintenance overhead. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot Dlyons493 Talk 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - this list does nothing that categories don't provide better, no criteria for inclusion are given, and it's not even well maintained (bizarrely and inexplicably sudivided too: Aa-Ai in one section, but Al gets three subsections?) Aquilina 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all ... except for 'S', which should be kept because my alma mater is listed there. ... Come to think of it, you can delete 'S', too. Bucketsofg 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't have any other alphabetical listing of universities. This also shows what Universities we need pages for. Hence, I can't see how it is redundant with anything. -- JJay 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are numerous lists of different criteria that more accurately define higher education. Example: [54] Arbusto 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those are all great lists. The problem is that they are mostly organized by US State. That is not too helpful if you don't know which State to check. That is why I see this list as useful and complementary. Not that it will have any impact with those so quick to call it redundant. I ask: redundant with what? We have no corresponding category. -- JJay 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed your opinion on an 13,000 school list pertaining to one accreditation group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members. I disagree that we need a list in place for every differing criteria. Categories are suitable for groups. Arbusto 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then create a category to replace this list. -- JJay 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, totally inadequate per my remarks above. There is no alphabetized category for universities. Removing this list is a serious blow to the organization of the site.-- JJay 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories by definition alpha order lists. Arbusto 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stating the obvious. When you have set up a master university category by letter get back to me. Until then, we have no categories comparable to this list. -- JJay 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities (mentioned by Reflex below). Arbusto 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd repeat my comments above but what's the point? Do you do this for fun or what? Point me to an alphabetized master category for universities, not organized by state or country. Point me to a list that includes all the universities on this list. Until then we have nothing comparable to this list and by deleting we do nothing to improve the organization of this site. -- JJay 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly redundant with the category system, adds nothing to it. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dismas|(talk) 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more encyclopedic than most other lists, it cannot be an infinite list, since there isn't an infinite lists of universities. --Vizcarra 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, far better managed by categories. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate splurge of information, nor is it a directory. Proto||type 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And comment - Category:Lists of universities and colleges by alphabetical order will subsequently need to go through WP:CFD if these directories are deleted. Proto||type 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from article space, but the remaining redlinks may be useful in some list in the Wikipedia name space. u p p l a n d 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, the categories are more than sufficient.  RasputinAXP  c 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For those of you concerned about "losing redlinks" there is a list of colleges and universities that need articles created about them at WP:MEA. This subproject was also designed to identify colleges that lack infoboxes or are not using the new standard infobox {{Infobox University}}. It was based entirely on this list that is about to be deleted, but I still think this list should be deleted. There are other more appropriate sites that have this type of information. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is even worse than most "list of" articles. Friday (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existance of this list seems an argument against the practice of not allowing things to be in subcategories and supercategories at the same time. If there were a category that included all colleges this list would be completely unnecessary. As it is, it is of very marginal utility but impossible to maintain. Delete and argue for categories that include EVERYTHING of a certain type. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Moe ε 02:47, 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 rewritten version. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (Chad Kroeger song)[edit]

Probable copyright violation MacRusgail 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a copyvio, rights for reproduction of original material will be held by Kroeger, Nickleback, their record company, etc.  (aeropagitica)  22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. While a legitimate article could be written about this song, we don't need copyvios. It seems that a couple of heroes in Bearcat and Samaritan have saved the article so Keep.Capitalistroadster 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, no significant cultural impact is implied or asserted such as with "Let It Be (song)" or "Stairway to Heaven". Dismas|(talk) 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Changing vote after recent edits. The song is still no "Stairway..." but the article at least is worth keeping now. Dismas|(talk) 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ardenn 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio. --Soumyasch 07:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, the new version IS a good start to an article. --Soumyasch 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A possible violation?? --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to a real article. Samaritan 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with Bearcat's save. If an admin gets the chance, they should erase the prior copyvio versions from its history. Samaritan 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stripped the lyrics and stubbed it, so it's no longer a copyvio. It ain't much of an article, still, but at least it's about as honest an attempt at the beginnings of one as could be managed by someone who hates everything Nickelback ever even thought about standing for. Probably keepable now, but I don't like to assume. Bearcat 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep no longer copyvio, should have used the copyvio template anyway ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to use the copyvio template, but I didn't know where it had been taken from... --MacRusgail 17:00, 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 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Home[edit]

Delete. I randomly came across this page, and started to clean it up because it was in poor condition. I then went to try to find the URL, and couldn't. Seems like non-notable to me. CharacterZero 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advert --MacRusgail 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Royboycrashfan 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well-beyond non-notability, imo, if we can't even find the website that this was intended to advertise! Bucketsofg 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Moe ε 02:48, 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 Speedy deleted ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Abel[edit]

NN. Spoof? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax, spoof or nonsense, take your pick. Gwernol
  • Delete Total nonsense. Just someone writing a short story. 70.60.149.226 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - voodoo. --MacRusgail 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent research and original nonsense. Bucketsofg 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It’s a Hoax. The guy’s even written himself into Metal Gear. Seano1 01:58, 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 - although there are a number of keep votes, a significant number of the arguments used in favour of keeping the article have been shown to be either false or unverifiable. There are allegations that at least two of the keep votes are the same person. Thryduulf 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Frankl[edit]

Procedural nomination because a user has disputed whether a consensus existed to turn this into a redirect the last time we got into the whole York Region thing. The user has not only violated 3RR over it, but has registered new sockpuppets to keep reverting even after being blocked. Thus I'm asking for a new consensus: is this a keep, a delete, or a merge into Vaughan municipal election, 2006? No vote from me since this is a procedural nom, but I will say that I'm really not too clear on how we can consider unelected municipal council candidates notable enough for WP inclusion, when the very same city's actual incumbent councillors haven't been able to pass the AFD bar. Bearcat 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. If he gets elected, it can be recreated. Ardenn 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Probably still not notable after being elected, imo, but let's save that argument until later. Bucketsofg 00:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —GrantNeufeld 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New information has come to light that the writer is making things up. See the article talk page for evidence. -- pm_shef 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "new information" was produced by you, Pm_shef, the son of Alan Shefman, opponent of Frankl's in both the 2004 election and this upcoming election. I know we should assume good faith, but have you no shame? Skycloud 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What makes him notable is not his former candidacy or his present candidacy, but his notable role in hockey and business. Looking through google, I found him to be a senior member of the Hall of Fame administration: http://www.ihhof.com/aboutContact.htm
  • And he's hardly and up-and-comer; he started his business in 1997. Skycloud 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Pm_shef removes content from the page, even though an AfD is going on. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Elliott_Frankl&diff=45796929&oldid=45771301 Speedy keep! Skycloud 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) I deleted content that was PoV and unencylopedic. 2)Please note that User:Skycloud is a suspected sockpuppet pm_shef 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all Vaughan councillors and councillor wannabes per consensus that was reached in extensive previous discussions. Luigizanasi 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Skycloud -- Leotardo 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn city council candidate. --maclean25 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Very notable person aside from the municipal election, I just watched Frankl as a guest on the TV show Insights representing the City of Vaughan, very knowledgable and intelligent person. This article should be expanded. Frankl being a successfull business man and serving on the Board of Directors of an international organization warrents an article in its self.--Eyeonvaughan 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again, as discussed on the Article talk page, there is no evidence of Frankl being on the IHHF Board of Directors, thus does not meet the verifiable requirement of Wikipedia. pm_shef 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per what Eye_on_Vaughan stated. Also, I just received some interesting news about pm_shef and the reasons to why he is so anti-Frankl. Besides the obvious of course. Now I'm going to go make a T-Shirt promoting world peace. Who knows, the mayor may give me an award for it. 69.198.130.82 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the above comment constitutes a thinly veiled attack on my character in violation of WP:NPA, as well, User:69.198.130.82 has only made edits on this page, the Vaughan Watch AfD and user pages involved in this dispute. pm_shef 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I used to be user:70.29.239.249. I have been on here a couple months. I have made posts on other topics. 69.198.130.82 17:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article itself is very good, it just needs some wikifying and some gramatical help. VaughanWatch 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note above user Jon Calla made his first edit on this AfD, and all of his edits thus far have been on similarly controversial AfD's. pm_shef 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note above user Pm_shef is the son of the main opponent of Frankl's, Councilour Alan Shefman, and all of his edits thus far have been on similarly controversial AfD's and articles related to his father. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstandOnlyEdit (talk • contribs)
I can't quite see what Princess Alice of Albany, Shania Twain, Paul Simon or Art Garfunkle have to do with the elder Shefman. Pm_shef's contribs. Samaritan 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor Desmond Morton, Marshall Rothstein, McGill University or Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, for that matter. And again, I repeat to the anon contributor: you are to can the ad hominem attacks on pm_shef immediately. Frankl's notability or lack thereof is to be discussed on his own merits; the question of pm_shef's identity is irrelevant to the process. He didn't nominate the article for deletion — I did. So cut it the hell out. Bearcat 00:40, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Shahaf[edit]

Procedural nomination because a user has disputed whether a consensus existed to turn this into a redirect the last time we got into the whole York Region thing. The user has not only violated 3RR over it, but has registered new sockpuppets to keep reverting even after being blocked. Thus I'm asking for a new consensus: is this a keep, a delete, or a merge into Vaughan municipal election, 2006? No vote from me since this is a procedural nom, but I will say that I'm really not too clear on how we can consider unelected municipal council candidates notable enough for WP inclusion, when the very same city's actual incumbent councillors haven't been able to pass the AFD bar. Bearcat 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. If he gets elected, it can be recreated. Ardenn 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the last round. pm_shef 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A councillor in a small city would hardly qualify as notable enough for an article, imo; a candidate, still less so. After he's elected I suppose we can talk about it, but I will be sceptical. Bucketsofg 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO notability requirements; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per above. —GrantNeufeld 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shahaf is notable for his role in the Israeli military. Skycloud 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all Vaughan councillors and councillor wannabes per consensus that was reached in extensive previous discussions. nn past Israeli military officer, no google hits outside of Vaughan. Luigizanasi 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --maclean25 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Skycloud--Eyeonvaughan 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shahaf was the head logistics officer of Israel's civil defense, a country that has one of the largest militaries in the world. VaughanWatch 00:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this on today's AfD page as there is currently no consensus, which does not help resolve the issue. No vote. Thryduulf 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoops, very sorry, I thought that it was starting over again! Sorry about that. pm_shef 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn bio. youngamerican (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skycloud. Monicasdude 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN for now, it is a current event. Support on recreation if he wins and the article can be cleaned and wikified. T K E 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Non-notable. Perhaps recreate per TKE, if he wins the election. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:57, 3 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 Thryduulf 00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Michael Zuniga[edit]

NN photographer, author is subject of article, google returns 6 hits for "Jordan Michael Zuniga" Dismas|(talk) 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability not established; probably vanity. Bucketsofg 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moe ε 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. The only Google hits I got were his website and his vanity insertions in Wikipedia. SDC 23:12, 2 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 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Russ[edit]

I put a prod tag on this but it was quickly removed. Delete - Non notable dodgeball team No Guru 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about deleting the first prod. I though i was meant to if i disagreed.

I profoundly disagree that this article should be deleted. It is quite an important team to a, be quite small, group of people. It is doing no harm. Please do not delete it; the article will be improved. Thank you. Wright123 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable club. ("Doing no harm" is never a reason to keep.) --Kinu t/c 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it please be explained what you define as a 'notable dodgeball team'. Thank you. Wright123 14:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a specific notability test for sports teams but if the team was a professional one that played as part of a well-established league then it might well be considered notable. If it was an amateur team, then some high profile reports in national media publications might make it notable. That's my view anyway. Maybe others will have more information for you. No Guru 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The team has featured in a local paper. It has a fixture with a university team and was invited to a tournament but could not make it. Have you any precedents that you can show me about a similar issue. I do think a more 'solid' definition is needed before it could be considered for removal. Thank you for your time and dealing with this in such a nice way. Wright123 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that there is a reference to a local mag, I say that the article be given the benefit of doubt, and be kept till someone refutes the claim, when this matter can be brought up again. --Soumyasch 05:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My local paper carries all kinds of stories on local sports (Slow-pitch softball teams, Over 55 Basketball leagues, Women's ice hockey), but it doesn't signify the kind of notabilty that would warrant an article on Wikipedia. No Guru 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can it please be noted that I have given a message to all of the users who voted delete, detailing why I disagree. Only one has replied. I believe that this damages their validity. Wright123 12:41, 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 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabid Squirrel Ltd.[edit]

Was Proded, objector removed prod so now comes to AfD. Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC and Alexa, [56] and google [57] External link is the official website which is under construction. Dakota ~ ° 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is more to the point. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 08:26, 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 insufficient consensus to delete so I'll call this a redirect to transactinide element, although I don't think it's a likely search term. Article contains nothing worth merging as far as I can see, since all transactinide elements with atomic number 115+ are believed to unstable, radioactive and undiscovered. That goes for number 176 as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsepthexium[edit]

Delete. Article creator claims this element exists[59], and removed a prod on that basis, but only evidence for the element's existence seems to be misunderstanding of a site that speculatively lists not-yet-created elements[60]. Some as-yet-uncreated superheavy elements may warrant their own articles for one reason or another[61] but no argument has been given for why this particular one should be among them. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Elements_beyond_Rg.--Calair 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Transactinide element. (vote altered slightly) --MacRusgail 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Transactinide element. I agree with Femto's comments on the Elements project talkpage cited by Calair above. Number 176 is so far from existing even for a moment in a particle accelerator that it's not encyclopedic to discuss it, or any atomic number much higher than 116, as if it were a "real" element with properties that a reader might experience. Barno 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete this article does warrant a page on Wikipedia. It depicts a factual atom, and its source is correct. Visit it for yourself--it only list known elements. It is absurd to suggest that such an article should be deleted, because it represtents the very issues that Wikipedia was created to handle. Theonlyedge 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm sure if I'm supposed to say "do not delete" or something else[reply]
You usually say "Keep". However, I think your sentiment is clear. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have visited the site. It has an entry for all element numbers up to #202, including many others which have not yet been created. Note that for elements that have been created, it lists a discovery date; no such date is listed for #176. Furthermore, if you check the entry for #118 and view image properties, you will see the image tagged as 'Place-holder, no picture available of Ununoctium'. The (very similar) image associated with #176 is similarly tagged 'Placeholder', as indeed are all the ones past #118. I'm not clear about what part of the page gives you the impression that #176 has been created and #177 hasn't. --Calair 21:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (rather, just redirect, since there isn't much to merge). "Known", as in "not completely fictional"... but still only "hypothetical". There's no reason to have a separate article. Femto 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as no source or reference has been put forwards supporting its factual existence (and, following superheavy elements somewhat, this is way way way beyond where science was a month ago, by around 60 atomic units...). If you're going to claim something as factual which is extreme and beyond boundaries, it requires better proof than this. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DELETE' and create new REDIRECT to Systematic element name like all the other superhigh element names, the others redirect to Systematic element name, so this one should too. 132.205.44.134 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as this element has never been made, and there next closest "real" element is 116! Olin 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE as it has no basis in chemistry as we are not even close to synthesizing it yet. Ryan Jones 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE the reference goes upto Binilnilium 200 while scientists had to stop with 117 or so.--Stone 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, DO NOT MERGE, its purely fictional and just the result of a program that calculates orbital occupancies. This atom will never ever be produced let alone be analyzed. Cacycle 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh, now, don't say it will never be produced. There are few physical limits on the ability to build bigger heavy ion accellerators, and the techniques which have rather reliably let us produce up to the low 1-teens (116 so far) should extend out a good long ways. At the current rate of progress, we would expect to see it synthesized around year 2200, assuming that continuing to produce new artificial elements out past the Island of stability is seen as worthwhile for any purpose. Georgewilliamherbert 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It has never been manufactured. It is not close to being manufactured. No one is trying to manufacture it. There is nothing to distinguish this element from any other arbitrary superheavy element that has never been manufactured. Truly the chemical equivalent of a garage band. Shimmin 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A3: this "article has no content whatsoever, and i suspect it is merely an attempt to improve the Google rating of the linked site. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After doing further research, I have learned that this element does not exist. There is no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to change my above "Keep" vote, but i'd like to change it to Delete. If it is merged, it so should the other atoms up to 200. I'd say. Theonlyedge 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're allowed to change your vote - and thanks for rechecking. --Calair 03:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Better with the other. --Jon Calla 03:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete element 136, while there are other articles like 138, 122, those have a Significance section but 176 is not significant in any way. 218.102.218.126 09:06, 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_27&oldid=1142647210"