Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 March 30 >

Purge server cache

March 29[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7 and WP:SNOW). Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

شهاب الدین حبیبی خوزانی[edit]

non english entry ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself would not be a reason for immediate deletion. However, here is what the translation desk has to say. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. -- Francs2000 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Arabic. Persian or Iranian perhaps? --SophiaEg 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is Arabic, I just don't know what dialect it is. (I studied a little bit of Arabic to recognize its characters, but not enough to recognize the words/dialect)
That is like recognising roman letters and deducing that the language is Latin. I think this is Farsi (the references to Iran are a bit of a giveaway. ColinFine 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Perso-Arabic script, and it seems to be about a person named Šahâb Aldin Habibi Xozâni (or Xuzâni, I'm not entirely sure). The article is talking about how video game systems are emulated. It's not notable, delete it. Kirbytime 01:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's advertisement. Look at the Userpage and Usertalk of the person who wrote it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dimcomputer Kirbytime 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed it for deletion as {{prod|advertisement}}. Kusma (討論) 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...but the prod was removed. Can somebody who reads Perso-Arabic please nominate this at AfD? Kusma (討論) 21:53, 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 G7 by User:Starblind. Royboycrashfan 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schmidt[edit]

I originally {{prod}}ded this page, but the creator objected without reason. Google search for "Christian Schmidt" "Molecular Cancer" brings up 46 unique hits; when searching for one alone, the results given make it difficult to justify a conclusion. Implies notability, though I doubt many people have heard of him. I have to say delete. Royboycrashfan 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What justification do you need in order to change your mind ? In other words, how 'well known' should a person be in order to be included in Wikipedia?--Schmidt102 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, extensive publication record, journal editor, signficant Google Scholar presence. Notable subject, neutrally written article. Content is more important than authorship, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I looked it up and agree with you. Go ahead and delete the page as soon as possible. --Schmidt102 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have deleted the article per the author's request, seen above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 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. I think it's fair to close this as "delete", as there are considerably more delete votes than keep votes, and most of the keep votes are from users with very few contributions. JIP | Talk 07:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah and Azuu[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.

A webcomic hosted on DrunkDuck, a free webcomic host which is described in its own article as "a small community", it has an Alexa rank over 100,000. And note, that this webcomic is just one of many on that 100,000+ ranked site. Is this comic notable? A look on Google for "Elijah and Azuu" brings up 125 hits, and looking through the first 70 or so links, not a single one of them was a review or critical commentary from a semi-respected source. - Hahnchen 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as above RobLinwood 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As two above Leidiot 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RoyBoy ConDemTalk 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Ugur Basak 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I reading the Google hits thing wrong? Because the description above says it only has 125 hits, but when I click it I see 1,540.
    • For some reason, when I click on it now, the amount of links is reduced to under 80. I'm counting the amount of "unique hits", you can find out the unique hits by clicking through the google pages until the end. The reason I count unique hits only is because for webcomics, literally thousands of hits are all from one site like buzzcomic. And I had a look at your additions to the article too, they're pretty informative additions too, but I just don't think that singular drunkduck comics do not have that large a following. - Hahnchen 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, is it really fair to judge a comics viability based on its choice of hosting service? I really think that the comic should be looked at as a seperate entity from Drunk Duck.
  • Do Not Delete: I definitely believe that this comic falls under the "noteable" category, as it is the top-read comic on DrunkDuck, and it was nominated for several prestigious awards at BuzzComix, but has since opted not to compete for awards. This does not change the fact that it was obviously of a high enough quality that it was nominated in the first place. Experimentmonty
  • Do Not Delete. I second the above reasoning.
  • Keep High quality, several award nominations and a large fanbase. Seems with articles about obscure pkanets in star wars books have articles this deservs to stay--Seth Turner 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above --85.12.80.1 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1,620 hits on Google. The wiki page is second.
  • Do Not Delete. This comic has been around for a while, and was once in the top 10 on webcomicslist.com (which is now defunct).
  • Delete - 1,620 hits is not notable by my standards -sorry. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep E&A is the webcomic that got me hooked on webcomics. I have yet to see another that can really compare. The hosting's only part in the comics standings is that because the hosting was crap for so long, the comic lost a fair bit of its following. We're coming back, but you can't judge its validity or lack thereof so soon after such a major crash. This comic has been around for years, is well produced, is near a thousand strips, and has a major loyal following. If webcomics list were up I have no doubt it would be in the top ten. This sounds like a cornerstone of the webcomic industry to me, not a negligible side note. Do not delete this, please.
  • Delete, arguments for notability not convincing. Sandstein 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do guest comics done by the author have any impact on notoriety? Because there have been at least guest comics for RPG World and Alien Loves Predator
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You ever seen a drunk duck? Sorry sight. T K E 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now now, there's no need to attack Drunk Duck; I've seen a lot of very quality work come from there. They provide a helpful service and don't ask for anything in return. Anyway, although E&A is an important comic to me, I have to admit that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seaterra[edit]

Looks like an advertisement Indiana Fats 01:12, 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 speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls Historical Preservation Society[edit]

I have no idea what this is supposed to be. Does note establish notabilty or even wether this organization actually exists. Google has never heard about it. Mstroeck 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7, tagged accordingly. No Google hits. Brian G. Crawford 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 per above. Royboycrashfan 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. probably a joke 02:01, 29 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 keep `'mikka (t) 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey C. Wynn[edit]

No real significance. It seems like a person's resume. Red dwarf 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Keep per below. Royboycrashfan 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Scientific American article (circulation >5000), two patents and 220 articles, books (Amazon has 14) and papers seems to meet WP:BIO requirements. The article needs to have its POV/vanity elements editied down, but he seems notable. Gwernol 01:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol. Those 14 books does it for me. --Lockley 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol Leidiot 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol ConDemTalk 03:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Cnwb 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. But for heaven's sake, stop calling him "Jeff." ProhibitOnions 09:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol. --Terence Ong 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Monicasdude 14:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all notable people have to be in the form of an action figure or bobblehead. --Jay(Reply) 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shhh. Don't tempt the bobblemakers Kuru talk 04:12, 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. The number of new voters here is so high that I cannot count them. Arguments presented regarding notability revolve around the Alexa rank which is below 3 million. If people are interested in a wiki for webcomics, I suggest you go to Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits[edit]

A webcomic, which can be found here on a website with no Alexa rank. Is this website notable? I tried various Google searches, "Eight Easy Bits" brings back 40 hits and so does "8 Easy Bits". Is this website notable? Is it influential in the webcomic world? Signs say it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE - Currently the website is unavailable due to Domain name expiration. So the link above won't work for for a while. - Hahnchen 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -Check the date. April 1st. I'm betting it's a joke, not Domain name expiration, unless there is something big I'm missing, which I may.Pariochial
      • Comment - If it is an April Fool's joke (which I doubt) then it's pretty realistic. Because the entire site and forums are down and the whole thing has been replaced by a placeholder advertising portal you see at "parked" domains. The webmaster has still got the domain reserved, only the former webmaster may renew it for the time being. - Hahnchen 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, yet another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom Leidiot 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ConDemTalk 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteKeep: This should be put in the transwiki for wikibooks sections how to's. --CyclePat 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) After reading the comment below I realized this is not a how to book. My modo is in this instance is to delete articles that don't have proper citations as per WP:CITE. --CyclePat 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please take a look at the article and at my nomination, this is not a howto. The article can also be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't it be better to give the article the proper citations? Mind you, in the case of webcomics, most if not all citations will direct to single episodes. If that's okay, expect citations once the site is back up. No problem there. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete For the obvious reasons, delete, but weak only because it's a very well-written article. I don't quite understand CyclePat's transwiki proposal... this isn't a how-to, but a sprite comic. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep 11,100 hits for "8 easy bits" [1] and seems to have a following of sorts plus positive reviews. Reasonably good article. ProhibitOnions 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - The reason it generates 11,000 links is because roughly 11,000 or so of those links are from one source, Buzzcomix.net. Every single entry portal into Buzzcomix contains the phrase "8 easy bits". - Hahnchen 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Hahnchen is right about this, drops below the notability threshold. ProhibitOnions 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unique story perspective. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreeing with the little hen. Eusebeus 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "unique story perspective" does not warrant WP-ness. No traffic rank data on this website from Alexa.com, no it is definitely not a notable website. Wickethewok 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this Alexa rate only numbers? Since when is pure traffic important when it comes o determining things like artistic merit? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly. This is not cruft, it's a concise, encyclopædic article about a meritorious work. I, for one, have visited the article independently before it came up for deletion. Leave it alone. There's real cruft and real advertising on wikipedia. Lebob
  • Delete most web comic articles should be deleted on sight. There have been quite a few of late. --Jay(Reply) 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As an example that a sprite comic can be more than a poorly put together rip-off and can be, dare I say it, original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.51.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Google search doesn't suggest notability either. Fagstein 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Alexa statistics found here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=8easybits.tk and comic is inventive in contrast to its competing sprite comics Bananaboy32 (talk · contribs) 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rank of 3,721,599 hardly makes a website notable. The Google test recommends it be 100,000 or less (even though it says it shouldn't be a criteria for notability). Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: even after the Alexa it still looks nn. --Hetar 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. Is the Alexa rating important for determining relevance or isn't it, now? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa_test. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As that paragraph clearyl states that "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites", I must ask why they were brought up in the first place. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 8 Easy Bits has a fundamental uniqueness to it. So far as I know, no other webcomic shares its premise or style. Some might say it is similar to Captain SNES, but 8 Easy Bits is definitely its own comic and not a clone of another as so many are these days. 64.72.87.113 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep and I know my vote won't count. 8 Easy Bits is literate, topical and funny. There's nothing else to say: the comic has artistic merit and Wiki is not paper. The fact of the matter is that there are people who care enough about this comic to have the article kept, and there is nobody who cares enough about twenty kilobytes on Wikimedia's servers to have the article deleted. Or nobody who should care enough, at any rate. Honestly, this is a good article, and deleting it isn't worth the effort of voting.66.245.141.71 (talk · contribs) 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For a very well written and highly underrated webcomic. L hypnos (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unlike any other webcomic. Really good and original. linked to by VG Cats, so you can't really just dismiss it as unknown.
  • Keep: Because it's still one of the best webcomics I've read, quantity of readers regardless.Pariochial (talk · contribs)
  • Keep: Original, clever, and frankly one of the few comics left that can make me laugh. I encourage anyone whom has voted to delete it to take the time and read through the archives. Destroying a sensible article on an exceptional source of entertainment makes little sense.Breadinator (talk · contribs)
  • Keep: The Alexa rating is obviously there (albeit for the older domain), so that argument is invalid. Apart from that, it's a higly original comic in its genre and does things very few others do (reference the use of sprites, not just rehash the game's story etc.) --R. Wolff (talk · contribs) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Added later: It was linked in the article on sprite comics even prior to creation, so it has to have some significance, no? Actually, that's what prompted me to create it in the first place. --R. Wolff 11:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It really shouldn't have been linked from the sprite comic article. I mean, Cheesy comics was originally linked from there until it was deleted, and if I see redlinked webcomics in see also sections, I normally delete them. - Hahnchen 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why shouldn't it have been linked? To me, a redlink indicates someone saw the need for an article. --R. Wolff 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the article can still be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of the best web comics I've read, Im always checking for updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.249.1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, March 30, 2006
  • Week Keep: I have little experience with Wikipedia itself, but I have helped work on other Wikis. I feel that a Wiki is for informational purposes about everything, no matter how mundane. I have found other articles in Wikipedia that had less of a reason to be here than this, and they're not being discussed for information. Why? Because it's handy. Give this webcomic a chance, and spread the word rather than pushing it back into oblivion. --SirAPKered (talk · contribs) 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to review this policy, and this guideline, which indicate that your ideas of what a wiki is for do not necessarily apply to this wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, and I'll keep that in mind. Vote changed from "Keep" to "Week Keep". I still believe it has some merits. --SirAPKered 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As others have said, this clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for website notability. RaelImperialAerosolKid 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I changed my mind. Weak Keep. As others have said, this does seem to be fairly unique and somewhat popular in the webcomics community. When you factor in its longevity, I think that gives it enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, but only just. RaelImperialAerosolKid 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It's been around since 2003 (ancient history in terms of a webcomic) and I 4,700+ google hits even ignoring the wikipedia and buzzcomics entries. Stev0 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you take a look at "eight easy bits" on Google now, it only gives back 45 unique hits and about 300 in total. The reason for the high amount of links beforehand was because Google was indexing roughly 3000 links for a forum user with "eight easy bits" in his signiture. I do disagree with the synopsis that being launched in 2003 makes for a long running webcomic, it has only managed 97 strips and if you look at List of webcomics, you'll find many more webcomics which have lasted much longer. - Hahnchen 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Eight Easy Bits comics tend to be at least three to four times as long as typical webcomics, and have exceeded seventy panels on a single page. Not to mention that it's a very sprite-intensive comic, with sprites and graphics extracted from many different NES games. You can't dismiss it out of hand based on the "97 strips" criterion. Lebob
  • keep For reasons listed above. it is notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia. Wutasumi (talk · contribs) 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The Wikipedia policy says nothing about notability. It merely states that it isn't a dumping ground for random information, and with the organization and content in the article, it isn't random information. 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the comic is often linked by other webcomic authors, and thus seems to be somewhat notable, at least in the webcomic community. "Notability" is such a fuzzy criteria anyway, and there's little to no mention of it in Wikipedia policies. This does not seem to be a vanity or advertising page, and that's the closest thing on WP:NOT to a "notability" requirement that I can find. --HBK|Talk 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nifboy 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-webcomic. Stifle 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the fact that Hannchann's own links link to 916 and 11,600 sites respectively, I find the statement to have little merit. It is linked to by VG cats, whose author is himself quite notable, giving it plenty of merit in the webcomic world. Beyond that, several of the comics written are four or five pages long, giving the sparse updates a good reason. --Funk Masta K 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I personally don't hold any strong like or dislike of this webcomic, and I'm sure that my opinion isn't as valid or accepted as some more established members, it seems that it has some notable points. The comic is linked by VGCats, it has been online for something like three years. It's fans seemed to believe that it was worthy of an entry, which show's that people feel strongly about the influence of the comic. The entry seemed somewhat well written and I don't actually see any reason for the entry to be deleted, though I don't see much of a reason for it to remain either. -- Moggy 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the "ATTENTION" template clearly states: "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." So how is it important whether it's someone's first or only contribution? The arguments are still the same. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/New Proposal: I nominate User:Hahnchen for banning from the articles for deletion category by method one in section two outlined under Wikipedia:Banning_policy. I believe that he should be allowed to continue to contribute to other areas of the project, but he has shown vast amounts of immaturity in regards to deletion in his defense, nomination, and support of deletion of articles. Additionally, he appears to nurse a vendetta of some sort against webcomics in general, and has been problematic enough to incite multiple users to vandalize his page with such things as putting a request for deletion* on his user page, or stating that the only thing in his vocabulary was "please delete". 64.72.87.113 13:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One which did not follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia, but this seems to show that it was meant as a sarcastic attack against the user rather than an actual request for deletion.
    • Considering the number of delete votes above, I would say these nominations have merit. Please don't engage in personal attacks. Thank you. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As stated by User:Hahnchen, the domain name has expired, it is apparent by navigating the site that this is not an April Fool's Joke. If the domain name remains expired, the terms of this entry deletion might be different. (Ex - Votes to keep to preserve the history of the comic.) Perhaps it would be best to make sure if the domain will be renewed before continuing with the discussion of deleting this entry. Maybe someone could contact the author of the webcomic to get some insight on this? -- Moggy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kurt Cobain and Tupac Shakur notwithstanding, things don't become notable after they cease to exist, and non-notable webcomics shouldn't be kept just because they don't exist anymore. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, you think we shouldn't preserve history? Then just vote to delete it, don't criticize another users comments just because you don't agree. Besides, I was stating the possibility that others may feel that way, I don't particularly feel that it's disappearance merits it a free ride here. Moggy 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moot point since the site is back up. --R. Wolff 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It does have a proper citation. "How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits" is the entire name of the webcomic. How else would you put it? And why doesn't it belong here? It's not advertising, as the author of the comic was unaware of its creation until someone pointed it out to him (or so he claims), and it's well written. A bit more professionalism would be good, but other than that, it's quite descriptive and is up to date. Besides, plenty of comics, especially webcomics, don't become famous from the get-go. It's a well written comic, one that lies under the shadow of its crude presentation (the website, which is just the comic, is pretty ugly). I'd be willing to bet that if the site were to get a complete makeover, it'd receive a lot more traffic.206.248.72.52 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Ipsum[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Bondi[edit]

Seems minor and non-notable. --maru (talk) contribs 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article does not suggest this person is notable. Royboycrashfan 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's more famous than Flavia Colgan, who has a Wikipedia article, easily survived a vote for deletion, and has essentially the same job: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flavia Colgan

Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/ Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player. Beisnj 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not Significant person Leidiot 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. dbtfztalk 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep. Article now makes a better claim to notability. dbtfztalk 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My first instinct was delete; however, her prosecution of Dwight Gooden is likely to gain her enough notoriety in a "newsworthy event" to meet WP:BIO. Furthermore, her name does return 16.000 hits on google (though we can be sure all of those refer to her), and apparently there is some corporate interest in making a show out of her. I don't really see too much danger in preserving the stub and letting others expand it, if they are so obliged. How embarassing for us if we deleted her and she became a world-renowned prosecutor. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minor notablity.--MONGO 04:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- assunming article is correct, this looks to me like the sort of person someone might well want to look up -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks notable enough through TV work Gu 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears regularly on national TV. ProhibitOnions 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 10:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; aside from the logical arguments made above, also meets the deplorable Air Force Amy standard. Monicasdude 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and toss Air Force Amy out of the plane as well. Fishhead64 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has clearly achieved a lot and is in the public eye. -- JJay 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Meh. She was on TV. Low on the notability scale, but still present. Fagstein 03:29, 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 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dee philosophy[edit]

Non-notable philosophy. Was originally proded as a hoax, but was deprodded by the article's creator. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. They can't even spell "doctrine" correctly. Royboycrashfan 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax RobLinwood 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RoyBoy. Not even amusing. Fan1967 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobLinwood Leidiot 02:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobLinwood. ConDemTalk 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not amusing and unencyclopedic Leidiot 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand before reconsidering AfD —This unsigned comment was added by 165.123.180.151 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 April 2024 UTC [refresh].
  • Delete as pointless gibberish. dbtfztalk 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a monologue.--MONGO 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, hoax, joke, or otherwise non-notable "philosophy". JIP | Talk 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it quacks like a hoax. ProhibitOnions 09:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dee-Dee-Dee-lete per WP:NFT. Lame joke, not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth BJAODN. Editor included do-not-delete blurb in the main article. I was hoping this would at least be the Aleister Crowley fan talking about the stuff written under the "John Dee" name. Barno 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very informative about a budding philosophy.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thakathi[edit]

Article about a word in an unidentified language (Google seems to suggest that it may be in the Zulu language); questionable for English Wikipedia. Mareklug talk 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete not an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing seems to come up when searched...it's unfinished though.--MONGO 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — mark ✎ 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If rewritten, then keep per Humansdorpie. — mark ✎ 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and maybe move to Tagati. Tagati is a South African English (taken from Zulu) word of long standing that means A witch or wizard; a practitioner of evil magic; an evil-doer (Oxford Dictionary of South African English, 1996); the ODSAE's earliest reference is from 1836. Thakathi is the usual modern transliteration of the Zulu word. I cite the precedent of tikoloshe and inyanga - Zulu words which have entered the English language with a specific meaning. Humansdorpie 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above explanation by Humansdorpie. Yes, I am the nominator, but I have not voted until now, pending such an explanation. -- Mareklug talk 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've swayed a nominator! I've redirected the page to Tagati as I proposed - I'll try to expand it over the next couple of days. Humansdorpie 17:24, 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 speedy delete by MONGO. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Theta Chi[edit]

Delete: A local sorrority with only 26 members, very non-notable. The article states they have "NUMBER alumnae across the United States." --Hetar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no way this is notable. Royboycrashfan 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I think it's a little premature for an AfD vote, as the article was created only an hour ago. It's not empty, it's just unfinished. Brian G. Crawford 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not tagged for Afd because it's empty, its tagged because its a non-notable organization - and its notability isn't going to change any time soon. --Hetar 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Royboycrashfan Leidiot 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tete du boeuf[edit]

Nominated for {{prod}} twice by two different users, both times reverted by JJay, who is unlikely to change the state of this article in any way shape or form, and i'm getting tired of it. Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Delete per nom. jacoplane 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tired of what? Violating prod rules by reprodding? I removed the first prod with a message to transwiki. If it has been transwikied then delete is fine with me. If not keep particularly as your fatigue is not yet a reason for deletion and you have not provided any other argument for the removal of this article. -- JJay 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't make much of an effort [2]. I'd be happier if you stopped following my edits, or reverting all {{prod}}s, or whatever it is you do around here. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:32] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • Following your edits? Reverting all prods? I'll ignore the last crack, but those are rather serious accusations. Or is that the fatigue talking?-- JJay 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somehow I continue to unwillingly encountering you at every turn. Do you have any better suggestions? — Mar. 29, '06 [03:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • Try reality since the only article where you ever encountered me was this one, and I edited it before you. I would have also suggested WP:CIV and WP:AGF, but what's the point, you are well beyond that. -- JJay 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a suggestion: take it elsewhere. Please. dbtfztalk 03:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At the very least, pointless. A slang phrase which literally means "head of beef" and is figuratively used to mean ... what? Fan1967 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ain't nothin' but a dicdef, y'all. Brian G. Crawford 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Gene Nygaard 02:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian ConDemTalk 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom Leidiot 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significantly improved. The article implies that the term is slang for something else, but doesn't say what that something else might be, or assert why the slang term is notable. --Hyperbole 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki as dicdef. dbtfztalk 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Move to Wiktionary}} Royboycrashfan 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally contextless phrase, I'd probably speedy it. Don't transwiki, do we transwiki definitions like "tete du poulet", "tete du merde"? - Hahnchen 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear dicdef Gwernol 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without purpose...not encyclopedic.--MONGO 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pointless. I know tête du boeuf is bull head, but what's the alleged slang meaning? And even then it would belong in the French Wiktionary. Peter Grey 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it can be used as an insult? I need a few new ones, I'm running out of them. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • I hadn't thought of insults, but that could work: "Boy, you're really acting like a tete du boeuf." I thought of a few other possibilities, like: "Man, I had 10 margaritas last night and this morning I really have a tete du boeuf." Any number of things it could be used for. Fan1967 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Head of beef" means "head of beef", eh? Fascinating. ProhibitOnions 10:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef without the def --Deville (Talk) 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per just about everything above. Deizio 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete le boeuf per Deville. Sandstein 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not Transwiki, this is just a French translation of some English words. If there were some discussion of its notability, importance or cultural significance, it might merit an article. But this is without merit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't Transwiki per Zoe. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 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 speedied. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Zaraza (hacker)[edit]

non-notable, and probably vanity. A quick WHOIS shows that the anonymous editor that created the page comes from the same town as the hacker himself, alluding to vanity. Delete, and possibly speedy. Firestorm 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, tagged accordingly. This didn't have to come to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity Leidiot 03:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (Matt) William Cooke[edit]

Non-notable. See [3] [4] [5] and [6].


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan J. Brothers[edit]

Does not meet the WP:PROFTEST criteria. The author (Hjb) is clearly the subject himself. Is this a vanity page? Ogdred 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He seems notable enough to me. Last I checked WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO were not reasons to delete verifiable bios on notable people. Although, I would cut out some of it. kotepho 02:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a few patents. Notable enough for me Leidiot 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kotepho, the mathematical work seems notable enough. --Lockley 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I wish people would stop submitting their autobiographies, this does seem to be a notable-enough person and a fairly well-written article. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for me. Royboycrashfan 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep may be vanity, but still notable.--MONGO 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably satisfies WP:BIO. dbtfztalk 06:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in my opinion and I would like a cleanup to be done so that it would not read like a vanity article. --Terence Ong 11:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; number theory is one of the few areas in mathematics where nonprofessionals regularly produce notable work. Monicasdude 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems ok. The article could use some cleanup though. --C S (Talk) 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT, to say the least. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:57


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vespa[edit]

Non-notable software that is stated to cause 'whiplash' and 'death'. Speedy delete pulled twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 02:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, some sort of hoax or joke. JIP | Talk 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Brian said it above. Unfunny, badly written, "solutions." Nuff said. ProhibitOnions 09:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Send it to BJAODN. --Terence Ong 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. --Off! 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, pride is a sin, you guys aren't Brittanica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabud (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks against no one in particular aren't very effective, now are they? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Calling this a "hoax" would also require throughout readjustment of the definition of the expression "stating the obvious". Not funny enough for BJAODN. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen the commercials? Farce? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad D. Alagaban, Jr.[edit]

Delete - fails notability in my view, but cannot be speedied as article asserts notability in political activism exolon 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ConDemTalk 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -does it fail notability on grounds that person has no impact on a larger portion of the world? A young individual with interest in politics is noteworthy in influencing others to participate via activism. Must a person have a Ph.D to be counted notable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel05 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete not notable; many students out there. A2Kafir 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the notability threshold for politics is generally office-holding, and not just any office at that; city councilmen are regularly found nn. Someone involved in politics at Alagaban's level is clearly not yet notable enough for Wikipedia on political grounds; it's a vanity page. --Hyperbole 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable promo of wannabe.--MONGO 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self promotion and most probaly vanity. --Terence Ong 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and probably vain student with an interest in politics Deizio 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn student, could have been speedied, in my book. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn student. Write an article after the person does something important. Fagstein 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 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, as 70% of all votes are for deletion, and POV forks are against Wikipedia policy. JIP | Talk 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russsian claims about Warsaw Uprising 1794[edit]

This article is just a copy and paste of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article. User:Molobo disliked its sourced expansion and tried to blank it. When blanking was reverted he pasted the entire content into the new title creating a duplicate article Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am a nominator. --Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. This information btw doesn't describe Warsaw Uprising but is simply a example of Russian propaganda aimed against Poles and their attempt to win freedom from Russia --Molobo 02:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fork. Plus wrong spelling for title of page as is (three s in Russian).--Jersey Devil 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Work out your differences on the original article, don't create a new one for clarification. Let a user know if you need some mediation. TKE 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an apparent textbook example of a POV fork. --Hyperbole 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is pointless
  • Delete per all the others, but at the same time instruct Irpen to try to reach NPOV from time to time. //Halibutt 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV forks against concensus.--MONGO 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Warsaw Uprising (1794), then delete (no need for a redirect with such a strange name, I think). POV forks must die.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Love the spelling. 23skidoo 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Molobo's opus, as all his previous efforts has been. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deletion as Halibutt has taken to correcting the article from info coming from Tsarist propaganda book.--Molobo 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stab POV fork in face. In case you didn't get it, that meant delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Important details for the main article, pointless fork. ProhibitOnions 10:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. --Terence Ong 11:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Don't put the onus on anyone else to merge. If the person who added the details wants them in the main article they should go back to the main article and negotiate with the other contributors to it. Bhoeble 12:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fantasize about seeing an Uncylopedia AfD with "fork" in the title... Deizio 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, then delete. Ak47K
  • Uncertain can I be bribed to vote for one side or the other? Dr. Dan 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back, POV forks are bad karma. Stifle 23:49, 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 Speedy delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Roberg[edit]

Not notable per WP:BIO. --Wolf530 02:50, 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 move, but the deletion during the debate now requires a history merge. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inforwars.com[edit]

  • Speedy Delete Move to Infowars.com Well, for one thing I wouldn't mind this topic having a page. Infowars.com is indeed notable, but this thing is misspelled to " Inforwars.com" not "www.infowars.com Infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used ". The creator removed a speedy deletion tag so I thought I might as well put it here for a speedy. Jersey Devil 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Can't we just move it? Don't want to disrupt the AFD process, though. ConDemTalk 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedie Move Sure, lets move it, im the creator. --Striver 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Move to Infowars.com. Do we really need afd for this? It's non-controversial. --Hyperbole 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, I created Infowars.com with the same information... someone should feel free to delete this article now... --Hyperbole 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I opose delete, JD, the guy creating this AFD is infamous for afding everything i creat. They even rather afd and make a POINT rather than just move it in good faith. Dont give in to them, dont delete this, just move it. --Striver 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errmm... moving is done by creating and deleting, no? I created an identical article at Infowars.com (where all further improvements should be made) - now, the second half of the move is deleting the remaining article at Inforwars.com. This really is non-controversial and everyone agrees on it. --Hyperbole 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can make a move. I hate giving JD the satisfaction of having the article deleted when he simply could have moved it and not made a fuss about it.--Striver 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, never mind, im the one maknig the fuss now... Just redirect it :)--Striver 04:49, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berger[edit]

not notable, possible vanity page A2Kafir 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even mentioned by the article in the movement he is supposedly "prominent" in. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Changed my vote, he is mentioned on there. However, he is only linked from there with little contextual mention. This gives him at least some degree of notability. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep prominent in the 9/11 Truth movement, just as the article says. The easiest proof for that is hím being choosen as a commentator by CNN. --Striver 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A friend of mine was on Fox News to talk about Amtrak. She doesn't have her own article. One TV appearence does not notability make....A2Kafir 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable for being on CNN, he is notable as a member of the 9/11 truth movement, and being on CNN is a proof of that, not the other way around. --Striver 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reasoning. A2Kafir 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reasoning = A => b => A. That is not what im saying. Im sayin Notable => CNN, not CNN => notable. Get me? --Striver 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Googling "Michael Berger" brings up a voice actor, an artist, a karate trainer, and a physics professor by that name on the first page, but no mention of this particular Michael Berger. He really doesn't seem to be notable outside his role in the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews, and even in that context, his importance is questionable. I don't even see any evidence that he's even a notable member of the 9/11 truth movement. --Hyperbole 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try [7]--Striver 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable...at all--MONGO 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established by one television appearance. -- Samir (the scope) 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hyperbole. (man, that sounds odd) --Mmx1 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Me follow what MONGO say. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, again, he is not notable for being in the television, he is notable for being the Media Coordinator of 911Truth.org, and that is so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement. Does it get more notable than that? --Striver 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement.. In other words, he's notable precisely because he's a media representative, i.e., being on television, not because he's on television. Right, got it. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. And that is not the case. He was and is one of the prominent figures for one of the most prominent parts of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was due to that he was invited to CNN. He was prominent and notable in the movement before that, and not the other way around--Striver 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. Got it in one. And all your handwaving about how prominent he is inside your walled garden doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one interview on an entertainment news magazine != notability. 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 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you quite assuming bad faith?! I take offence in your accusations!--Striver 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: don't assume bad faith. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the HN/CNN mixup was anything but an innocent error, and every reason not to. --Hyperbole 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not after the Morgan Reynolds thing. Striver is either being willfully deceptive, or he lacks the attention to detail required of an encyclopedia editor. Rhobite 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, here is another radio interview with him:

29/3, CJBK--London, Ontario--10am Eastern. Listen Here: http://911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/CJBK%201290AM%20Talk%203-29-06.mp3

His been in Showbiz Tonight, and has been interviewed by CJBK, both times as a representative of the 9/11 truth movement, he is the media coordiantor of one of the bigest 9/11 movement groups, and you call him non-notable? C'mon, he is far more notable than a whole bunch of the guys in wikipedia and easly fullfills WP:BIO:

  • Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • Name recognition
  • Google Test , michael berger "9/11" 557 hits
  • audience of 5 000

Its simply wrong to delete him. --Striver 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you quote his name, it's only 557 hits [8] Reply: Yeah, sorry, i just saw that you commented before i corrected it. --Striver 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the "5000" is a guideline, not a rule. I've been quoted in several papers with a daily publication of several million; I get a few hundred ghits (and I have a non-common name), and I've been quoted on Fox News. I'm just a dopey college student and I don't rate a wiki article. Getting quoted in a paper is not alone a sign of notability, regardless of how popular the paper is. Hell, they quote the neighbors in the New York Times when a building burns down. Are they notable now? --Mmx1 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not debating your notability, and further, he has not been simly quoted, he has been called as a representative of a nation wide movement, and also given time to talk long about his issues on both TV and Radio! His notability is being the media coordinator of a nationwide movement, deleting him is a blatant violatioin of the spirit of wikipeda. --Striver 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's the media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement" I'm using myself as an example why his credentials aren't that impressive. I know I'm not notable, yet in my uninteresting undergraduate career I'm still managed to pretty much match his media credentials. And I'm not even trying to pass myself as the rep for some movement. I'm sure I could get an hour on Art Bell with that claim.--Mmx1 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need to have any education to begin with in order to have notability. Have you been invited to talk on both national tv and local radio? If you have, then you are also notable according to WP:BIO, SPECIALY if you are the "media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement"! Again, have you been called to talk in both radio and national TV? Do you have a large number of people you represent? Are you the media coordinator of the prominent website of a group? Are you working on a movie that is being relesed 9/4/06? Bereger has all of this, and you are deleteting him as nn?--Striver 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he less notable than: P. J. Abbott, Achille Valenciennes, Adélaïde Dufrénoy, Adrien René Franchet or Bernard Picinbono ?--Striver 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have something against the French ;-) And yes, I was quoted on Fox News because I couldn't get an interview taped before the story broke. That's a bit more significant than Showbiz tonight. He does NOT represent the movement, he only claims to. Who represents the Anti-War movement? Lots of people claim they do but I doubt you'll find consensus.--Mmx1 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? And it does not matter if he is truuly the representative of them, he was there as the representeative of the 9/11 movement. Further, i challenge you to find one single 9/11 movement activist rejecting him as a notable and prominent representative of the movement. angain, he was not quoted or taped, he was there live on both the tv and now, yesturday, on local radio, and he is working on a movie that will break in 10 days. --Striver 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? Clearly, the really important question to ask is exactly how many angels dancing on the head of a pin makes the pin notable. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know if it maters, but he also has "his own plastic recycling company and movie production company": end of tape--Striver 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Michael Berger: [9], deleting him is just wrong! --Striver 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, anyone can start a blog in 30 seconds. You're beginning to sound like Sollog. A2Kafir 00:55, 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. JIP | Talk 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield: Apocalypse[edit]

This could be considered cruft, the mod is unreleased and the article isn't wikified.--Zxcvbnm 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Delete 231 unique hits on Google; official English website has only 1029 members but asserts almost 3 million page views. I'm really finding this one borderline. --Hyperbole 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm pretty sure this is WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 04:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:CRUFT --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into the lists of battlefield 2 mods ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Battlefieldcruft. --Terence Ong 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring the Battlefieldcruft and non-notability, it hasn't been released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fagstein 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These people see, to hate Battlefield 2 Modications... ----
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland 2042[edit]

Cruft--Zxcvbnm 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fancruft. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruftish...not an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. I don't think game mods in general are notable. JIP | Talk 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:42] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Strong keep its a released mod. That in itself is notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jester. The original game certainly seems to have a large presence, and Battlefield 1942 definitely has a fleshed-out article. If BF 1942 is notable enough, seems to me that this is enough for a stub. Maybe delink all of those weapons, like "crowbar" etc.? --Deville (Talk) 12:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game mod. Has 189 unique Google hits, which isn't much at all for something videogame-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, other than through extreme systemic bias. WP:CHILL there. Deizio 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Battlefieldcruft, no evidence of sufficient notability. Fagstein 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 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 keep. Sockpuppets not included. Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G10 (Canadian universities)[edit]

Unverified, and non-notable. I've never seen this used in relation to these Universities. Delete Ardenn 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - So because one user hasn't seen it, we should delete it? It is verified, many instances on UWO's website, as cited on the article itself. This is the equivalent of the Ivy League in the US, would we consider deleting that? I think not. This is a very noteable group of the most prestigious research-intensive schools in Canada, there is no reason for deletion. pm_shef 03:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the page better asserts its notability. So some University presidents purportedly (there's no link to verify it) meet once in a while. So what? That needs to be answered. --Hyperbole 03:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Brian G. Crawford 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — Deckiller 04:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just added a primary source to the article that proves it's existance and notability. Seraphim 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. Pm shef makes a good point about the nomination. Royboycrashfan 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. While the designation is special, and should be retained, there's no need to have an article on this, as it is a finite list with enough Google hits to satisfy notability (though most of them come from the constituent schools). It would be much more useful to do a "List of G-10 schools" and add that bit of information to the individual articles on each school. I'll propose this on talk. MSJapan 05:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please also note that the G10 Template has also been nominated for deletion. pm_shef 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. As per MSJapan. Poche1 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per pm_shef, notability established. Silensor 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Universities have "informal gatherings" all the time. If there were a funding connection that might mean something. Peter Grey 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note the question is not whether the schools are notable, it's whether this ad hoc consortium is meaningful or is just a top ten list made up in school one day. I attended University of Waterloo 10 years ago and never heard the term, although there were other grouping of universities (Maclean's rankings, government post-secondary programs) that were commonly known. Peter Grey 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the uses of this term can be found on the Western Ontario site, but I've been able to find it on other sites in the G10 and a few mentions elsewhere. May not be a term very well-known outside of Canada, but seems used enough to be notable nevertheless. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How likely is it that a Wiki-user would look for this infiormation under this title ? Unless it is significant, I would suggest that the material be transferred' to a Canada-specific l,ocation. -- Simon Cursitor 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: Pretty damn likely. G10 is a disambiguation page. That's how Wikipedia works. Silensor 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bur "Formed over 10 years ago"? A little research wouldn't hurt. ProhibitOnions 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice should further supporting info become available ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Group of Ten (Canadian universities) (G10 is rarely used online at least). There are many similar cooperative groupings of Universities that are notable. Most references online seem to be to student exchange programme cooperation. See my search here. This does not mean that research cooperation is not a big part, but that exchange programmes are much more likely to have search hits, whereas research cooperation is much more internal. The article needs to be improved, but it should certainly be kept. jnothman talk 11:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per jnothman. Also, quite a convincing Gsearch. Certainly, if we have Ivy League and Atlantic Coast Conference and tons of others, this can stay. And as others say, it is true that this organization is most trumpeted by UWO and not so much by McGill, but this is also natural. Harvard doesn't spend a lot of time talking "Ivy League", but Dartmouth and UPenn do. --Deville (Talk) 12:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the above google result inflates the numbers. If I add in the names of the universities themselves [[10](Here McGill and UofT, two of the most prominent), the result falls to under 1000. I noticed following the above link I was hitting room numbers and the like pretty quickly. Eusebeus 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the consensus is to Keep, I will take it on myself to dig up some more detailed (non-online) sources to expand this article. pm_shef 16:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was aware of this association before stumbling upon it in Wikipedia.Ramdrake 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and Rename per jnothman -- I'm from Michigan, and I've heard of them! Makes me wonder who is this Canadian named Ardenn, why s/he thinks Old Four was a hoax, and exactly what university s/he attended? -- William Allen Simpson 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assume good faith. That said, it doesn't matter what Uni I attended, I still haven't heard of either of them, and I'm from Ottawa. Ardenn 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the Assume Good Faith rule, one does need to wonder why this user has been attacking everything to do with McGill. The Redmen, the G10, the Old Four, etc. pm_shef 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and as also mentionned above, strongly support renaming to Group of Ten (Canadian universities) --Stephane Charette 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I'd never heard of them before, but a quick google on Waterloo's site suggests that certainly Waterloo knows what it is; one of the documents is dated August 1995, so 10 years seems reasonable as well. Kraigus 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add references. --BDD 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Peter Grey. Skeezix1000 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I didn't know a thing about it, but the references are there and it seems fair enough. --DarkEvil 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Heqs 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to allow for promised expansion; perhaps rename per voters above. Encyclopedic subject. Samaritan 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable if referenced. This guy is wasting everyones time. 130.113.111.210 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "I've never heard of them" isn't grounds for deletion; otherwise, Wikipedia inclusion would be based on its editors' ignorance rather than their knowledge. Monicasdude 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It will grow, give it a chance.--Greenmind 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've heard of it before. I think someone is bitter because their alma mater is not on the list. This group is similar to the Group of 8 in Australia and the Russell Group in the UK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.0.223 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There are no grounds for deletion. But the article definately needs to be expanded. Deletion may be coming up because this article hasn't been listed as a STUB. if someone has the time/knowhow, that could help--Soorej 06:35, 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 speedy delete per CSD A7. the wub "?!" 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hamm(musician)[edit]

Google disproves notability when cross-searching with "Hellboy" [11] or "Hell Boy" [12] - both frequently mentioned in article.

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

}

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO as patent nonsense. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamworth jesifesto[edit]

Delete. Seems like just a bunch of made up nonsense. CharacterZero 04:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Heymann[edit]

An associate professor of architecture who fails WP:PROF. Only possible bit of fame is designing a house for George Bush. Seems to be part of a "Get as Many UTexas People in Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Calton | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - subject is a notable architect who has designed the house at Prairie Chapel Ranch for the current President of the United States. Article was just created today as a stub and has not had much time for expansion. I'm not sure what the nominator has against people who attended a certain university. Johntex\talk 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have something against alumni of any university blindly using Wikipedia to promote their alma mater. Was that clear enough, or are you going to twist those words, too?
    • And as for his big commission: it's a HOUSE: not Fallingwater, not Dumbarton Oaks, not Monticello, just a McMansion for the President. You misuse the word "notable". --Calton | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you implying that I am blindly creating articles? If so then you are mistaken. His name was redlinked in another article, he seemed notable to me, so I made a stub. You are free to disagree with me about whether he is notable or not, but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL by accusing me of having anything other than the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Johntex\talk 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL As opposed to your extremely civil and fact-free accusation that I hate UTexas people. Uh huh. Consistency not a virtue in Texas?
        • Maybe "blindly" was a poor choice of words. Promiscuously? Thoughtlessly? Without regard to actual encyclopedic merit?
        • Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with WP:PROF and ask yourself how this guy overcomes the "average professor" test, or even the "average architect" test. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:PROF does not now, nor did it ever, represent consensus. Wikipedia doesn't even have an "average Pokemon" test. Monicasdude 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's weird: you often refer to a non-existent "Air Force Amy" test, but have trouble with an actual guideline? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:PROF isn't a guideline; it's mentioned on a guideline page only as a proposal, and if you bothered to follow the link to the proposal itself, you'd see that the version you favor has been rather solidly rejected, and the existing proposal (still under development) is quite different. As for Air Force Amy, I cite the recent Afd [13] as a precedent (as other editors cite previous AfD decisions), and don't pretend that that there's a consensus WP:Air Force Amy policy or guideline. Monicasdude 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not only does WP:PROF not represent consensus, the nominator has not even produced any evidence that Heymann fails the so-called test. Johntex\talk 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's called a "standard" -- they DO have standards in Texas, right? -- and it's widely accepted as such, no matter how much handwaving you and Monicasdude do. More to the point, as a standard for article creation, it's not up to me to prove anyone fails it, it's up to you to prove he passes it -- or are tests done differently in Texas? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not a matter of how things are done in Texas, its a matter of how they are done on Wikipedia. The deletion process states "When in doubt, don't delete"[14] In other words, the default position is always to keep the article - the burden of proof falls to anyone who wants it to be deleted to achieve at least rough consensus to do so. And I notice that once again you make a gratiuitous comment about Texas, rather than sticking to the substance of the issue at hand. Perhaps that is because there is no substance to your nomination for deletion? Johntex\talk 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I created the article with info from another Wikipedia article, which may have been out of date. According to this he is now an Associate Dean - I'm still investigating. Johntex\talk 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, an assistant academic bureaucrat! That's notable! --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Monicasdude 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John and MD. I warn Calton to be civil and comment on content not contributors (or their origins or affiliations). We have to remember that Wiki is not paper. There is an article about something that he helped to design and build. He certainly merits this article about him. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - there doesn't seem to be a perfectly applicable policy here, but being selected by the President to design a house does seem to imply greater notability than the average professor. --Hyperbole 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral - see comment Far more notable professors have been cheerfully deleted. Only conceivable reason to keep is that he designed a house for a notable person but notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His publication list seems non-existent - he's a good teacher who built a house. Keeping him as a professor would set a whole new standard for professors. He not only fails the average professor test, but probably fails the fourth quartile professor test! If he's to be kept, it can only be as an architect. I've moved some material around in the article to reflect that. Also removed some personal details which, while verifiable, have no relevance to his notability. Dlyons493 Talk 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Dlyons493, who beat me to it. :-) A U.S. president's doctor or personal attorney would not qualify for an article either, if that is their only claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, their attorney would automatically qualify, not sure about their doctor, but their archetect probably not. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their attorney would qualify. By "personal", I meant someone who does an occasional will or trust or something, not someone who defended them in criminal/civil court or sued people on their behalf (even then, I think the case would have to be significant for an article, though). -- Kjkolb 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per johntex ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He's an associate dean, a plus. OTOH, I can't find his publication list and his award is only for teaching excellence, and hence not relevant to notability. JeffBurdges 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my vote to abstain or keep if his publication list looks half way decent. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, none of the little bits taken alone would satisfy notability, but it seems that when you put it all together he makes the cut. --Deville (Talk) 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, article does asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete profcruft, pure and simple. At some point, we need to weed all these minor prof entries out pour encourager les autres. Eusebeus 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, he's looking at the notability bar at eye-level through those pretty glasses of his. Get some more impressive press coverage about the house-building thing than "cowboysindians.com" and for Wiki's sake he must have something decent on his publication list, he might sneak over. Deizio 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm still researching the subject of the article. There are a lot of Google hits to wade through. I've expanded the article today with an another award he earned and press coverage on another commission - an interpretive visitor center for the Audubon Society. Johntex\talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-sourced good little article. As well, if the President of the United States asked an academic to prepare a report that would well and truly establish notability in my book. The President of the United States asking a Professor of Architecture to design his ranch falls under the same category. It is now a notable building in its own right for all sorts of reasons and we have an article on it at Prairie Chapel Ranch. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, per discussion above. Fishhead64 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The client he designed the house for may be notable but that does not make him so. Nigelthefish 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article now details 5 awards he has earned. I've also added several other press citations. I'm still working through the Google hits on this guy. Johntex\talk 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very good treatment of this architect and academic. Thanks to Johntex for his work on this. -- JJay 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Prairie Chapel Ranch. The house may be notable, but I don't see any evidence that its architect is, other than the fact that he designed the house. Fagstein 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Verifiable and notable, imo. --Gurubrahma 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be noted that I have just completed migrating all of the external links to ref|ref style notation. This article actually has more references than some FAs I've seen out there. This certainly indicates verifiability and notability. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Scm83x. Your changes and those of Dlyons483 have made a big impact to the article. It is very much improved today compared to when this process began:diff Johntex\talk 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The structure designed for Bush is more notable than just being for a president. The environmental design features incorporated into the structure are also noteworthy. As for the architect himself, he has received other honors aside from the presidential commission and other assignments worthy of note (e.g. Audubon). I am surprised this article is up for deletion consieration...must be some politics going on that i dont know about. Covalent 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment have a look at the original article and see how much it's changed - Johntex has put a lot of work into it. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, to put the original article on AfD - it was focussed on his work as a professor (which he's good at, but not especially notable for). Dlyons493 Talk
  • The article was prodded shortly after creation and was nominated for deletion six minutes after objection from Johntex, an experienced user and the article creator.[15] No attempt at dialogue was made by this nom on the article talk page. That neither seems reasonable to me or very in keeping with WP:AGF. -- JJay 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked at the timings - certainly more time would have been appropriate (and a little more tact wouldn't have gone amiss) Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Teachers, no. Professors, yes. Also, passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:54
  • Keep. I agree with Brian. According to the Pokemon test, he's notable. bogdan 19:05, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hickman[edit]

Associate professor of art. Wrote a computer program. Yet another Average Professor, and fails WP:BIO, it appears. Calton | Talk 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I don't think the prof test is what gets Mr. Hickman in. Kid Pix is clearly notable software, so I think its author has claims to notability by analogy to "Published authors... who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more..." in WP:BIO. I'm sure Kid Pix in its heyday had significantly more than 5,000 users. Gwernol 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Gwernol. Johntex\talk 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol, but stronger. Creator of notable software package. Books don't write themselves; cartoons don't animate themselves, and computers don't program themselves (not even the HAL 9000). Wikipedia, across the board, treats the creator of notable work as notable, and there's no exception for software, or for professors. Monicasdude 05:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, creator of Kid Pix. Basically, what Gwernol said. Royboycrashfan 05:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep San Antonio Express-News (TX): Graphics program for kids so easy it doesn't have a manual June 19, 2005 mentions him/Kid Pix. Kid Pix itself is pretty notable, couple of newspaper hits, couple of awards. kotepho 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Gwernol. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per first keep ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, creator of Kid Pix makes the person notable. Meets WP:BIO criteria and per Gwernol. --Terence Ong 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per first keep. Cedars 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol JeffBurdges 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude, although that pic's gotta go --Deville (Talk) 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as creator of notable software, though it doesn't look like there's much else to say about him. dbtfztalk 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Teachers, no. Professors, yes. Also, passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:52


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Strempler[edit]

President of a Canadian internet pharmacy. That's pretty much it: an average mid-sized company's CEO. Seems to fail WP:BIO, though possibly his company might pass WP:CORP. Calton | Talk 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete close but not quite notable enough to merit an article, IMO. Johntex\talk 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant figure in industry, often enough quoted in media coverage of controversies involving prescription drugs, back-importation of drugus to US, internet pharmacies, etc. Will Google poorly under this name; typo; his name is Andrew Strempler, and the page needs to be moved. [16] [17] [18] [19]. Monicasdude 05:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being in some reporter's Rolodex doesn't equal actual notability. Hell, I was interviewed and quoted by a newspaper reporter once as knowledgable source about personal webpages (it was the mid-90s). Of course he misspelled my name and got my profession wrong... --Calton | Talk 05:29, 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 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Barrie[edit]

Reposting of deleted material; non-notable or hoax SigPig 05:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reposting of deleted material is a speediable offense under WP:CSD G4. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So how do I do this? Do I withdraw the AfD then request a speedy, or do I leave the current ball rolling and wait for a consensus or a wandering admin to drop by and delete? I've never done this before (but vandalizing the Arlington Nat'l Cemetery page just put me over the top...) SigPig 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material, unless verfiable sources can be provided to argue for inclusion. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shouldn't be speedied, based on new information, but I can't find any solid information showing that Malachi Barrie is notable and not a hoax. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above; reposting of deleted material Not sure about this because of Zoe's new info, no vote --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy delete repost must die In light of Zoe's information, Weak Keep.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, recreated previously deleted material. --Terence Ong 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not speedy. The only deleted revision I can see is completely different. For the benefit of those who can't see deleted pages it reads "Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World." [20] No vote on notability of current article, sources would be nice. the wub "?!" 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does one look at the previous article? I'm not an admin. SigPig 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only admins can view deleted revisions. However, the quote that User:the wub wrote in his vote is "exactly" what the previous version looked like. Pepsidrinka 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The very original was deleted because it was a hoax. This one looks legitamite.

Comment. This particular unsigned comment was inserted by User:69.24.189.229[21] most of whose edits seem to be mostly vandalism, even to user pages. Also there seems to be some connection between this anonymous user and Amaas120; see [22] SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google returns no (non-Wikipedia derived) hits for "Malachi Noble Barrie", "Malachi Barrie". There was a "Malachi Favors" who played with Ray Charles, but that's not the same person. I strongly suspect a hoax: its highly unlikely that anyone who played with Ray Charles returns zero GHits. Gwernol 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previously-deleted version said, Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World.. This is not the same person. Please discuss based on the current content. Not a vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment true, but note that the replacement article appears to be a hoax as well - I was unable to locate any mention of a musician called Malachi Barrie through Google. Just because the hoax is different does not make it any less of one. Gwernol 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, transparent hoax. Rumors that his father died in "a freak reed-moistening accident"? Ray Charles (who didn't own a record label) gave him a recording contract? I don't think this "saxaphone" player ever saw the inside of a "rehabatation" facility, or that his father was "diognosed" with chewing tobacco-related cancer. Mostly because none of them ever existed. Monicasdude 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I refer everyone to [23], which also mentions the "reed-moistening incident", which is what (incorrectly) twigged me on to this as being a copy. SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 0 google hits for a "notable 70s musician" suggest a hoax. Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax, no Alexa, no googles, fails WP:MUSIC. I can see the previously deleted article and this is not the same.--Dakota ~ ° 03:40, 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 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nindrone Comix[edit]

Non-notable comic book company. Both Google (2 hits) and Yahoo (zero hits) failed to find anything substantial.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gate to destiny[edit]

Non-notable game (format unspecified) created by non-notable "team". 30 google hits for the phrase, but none when combined with main character's name. I mistakenly re-added {{prod}} for what turned out to be the third (whoops) time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Joe 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game by non-notable company (couldn't find any relevant ghits). Royboycrashfan 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Blue520 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'll do a little more industry research, perhaps I've just missed this one, but as a game reviewer who's not heard of this? delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn game. --Terence Ong 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally added the prod tag. I could find no relevant google hits. If it even exists it probably fails the notability test. Rmhermen 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 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 userfy and delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry harriet[edit]

nn (Google search yields 676); subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think thats right. Just because someone doesn't have a direct "claim to fame" doesn't mean that they don't do good work, and there is absolutely no reason why this page should be deleted. Larry Harriet is very popular among the Court TV message board. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia's database. Thankyou for taking the time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryharriet (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Mr. Intrepid Legal Journalist doesn't even have his own domain name for "CourtNet", and I'm not finding any other sign resembling notability. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy nn, vanity. Very popular on a message board does not mean notable. Fan1967 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think a user page can hold this ego. Gazpacho 05:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy per Fan-1967 and Gazpacho, the most vain autobiography I've seen. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. dbtfztalk 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly userfy. Claim to notability is activity in a message board. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, or userfy --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as vanity ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Per Royboy, this might be the most vain vanity bio ever. --Deville (Talk) 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, USER HAS VALID PTS.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Whitewash Commission[edit]

POV fork of 9/11 Commission, whose thin excuse for existence is the use of a pejorative name. Another product of...g'wan, guess. Calton | Talk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV? Since when is "pov" a criteria for deleteting? Maybe you mean you dont agree with the term? Try Great Satan and Little Satan, they are as much "pov" or "pov fork" as this, that is not at all. --Striver 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is POV because it concerns an ideosyncratic non-topic, acting effectively as a vehicle for promoting a particular point of view. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, the article is not notable by "world" standard, but the article is notable for the group using it. How notable is Khums, Sayyid or Mujtahid for you? Not a pov fork, this is about a term used in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Its just as much of a pov fork as Allah is a pov Fork to God and Jehova. When determining the notability of a term, do it in its context, you dont determine the nobatility of Foul ball in the world context, i have never heard of it before, but it is notbale in its own context.--Striver 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you making the point that Islam is comparable to a fringe conspiracy theory? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striver, I see your point regarding its usage and POV, but I don't know that in this case who is using it justifies notability. Not every slang term by the 9/11 critics is notable because they're using it. I have to go with Delete, given what you've posted so far, though the article isn't bad. It's just not notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn neologism. dbtfztalk 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism and fork.--Jersey Devil 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork and presumably covered already in the 911 Truth Movement article anyway. 23skidoo 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. It may not be, but I'd like to see some more mainstream or reliable sources. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article admits it's both neologism and jargon. Funny name, though! Peter Grey 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neologism? Hmm... didnt think about that one... I would have asked for opinions before creating, i hadn't forgoten about that. How new must a expresion be to be counted as a neolgism? Im pretty confident that i can find sourced for it dating to at 2002 or so... Anyone knows? --Striver 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which notable people would those be? --Calton | Talk 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it mentions Alex Jones: I asked you to name some notable people it mentions. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a problem distinguishing between singular and plural uses? According to you, "some notable people" = one person, Alex Jones, who fails on all three words, unless you utter sentences such as "A notable people came to my door last night and sold me some Girl-Scout cookie." --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork, conspiracy cruft. Proto||type 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention the term in main article per Hyperbole. ProhibitOnions 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stabbity POV fork in the face. If you didn't get it, that means delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the author knows we already have an article about the commission, and one about Jones. Gazpacho 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unambiguously, and the very definition of, a WP:POVFORK. Esquizombi 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork as per many others. --Deville (Talk) 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys, could you explain to me how this is a pov fork, while Great Satan is not? No? You cant? I guessed so. Thanks for voting in accordance to Wikipedia policies, and not with feeling and opinions in the first hand. --Striver 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Perhaps Great Satan is one also. In any case, it is far more widespread in usage over both time and space. Please remember Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith even when it is difficult. Esquizombi 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because "Great Satan" is an phrase used by the national leadership of a major state repeatedly over two decades, while "9/11 Whitewash Commission" had been used once by a single "investigative journalist" (read: conspiracy theorist). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Only once"?!--Striver 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...so far as I can tell from the article, there has been exactly one meaningful instance (along with however many blog posts) in which the term was employed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives transcript to Jones using it on the CNN show, and gives an audio of a caller using it, and also Jones using it again after the caller used it firest. The term is used all over the place--Striver 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my way of thinking, this is absolutely not a POV fork; people are playing fast and loose with that term. A POV fork occurs when someone can't get their edits accepted on a page so they create another one for those edits - say, their belief that John Kerry is a Martian keep getting reverted on John Kerry, so they create the article Viewpoint that John Kerry is a Martian. That's a POV fork. This article doesn't exist to sneak information on the 9/11 commission through the back door that way; this article exists to point out the fact that some people are calling it a Whitewash Commission. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out, just not something that necessitates an entire article. --Hyperbole 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, wrong. It would be like creating articles at Tricky Dick, Slick Willy, or Chimpy McFlightsuit as a repository for whatever garbage some political axe-grinders would to put up -- which is, of course, exactly what's happening here. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an article was created that said "Tricky Dick is a nickname for Richard Nixon," that would not constitute a POV fork. And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick would only constitute a POV fork if it was a new article with new content about Nixon - especially if it was content that consensus had deemed to be unworthy of inclusion in Richard Nixon. --Hyperbole 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Lovely bit of misdirection there: it was ORIGINALLY a page that informed you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon, but was quickly (and rightly) changed to List of United States Presidential nicknames -- as was Slick Willy, which WAS originallty a redirect to Bill Clinton: that's precisely the point. The article in question is precisely NOT doing anything resembling redirecting, and, per your analog with Nixon, is precisely a new article with new content about the 9/11 Commission, so by your own definition, a POV fork. And as for redirecting, Slick Willy doesn't redirect to Bill Clinton and Chimpy McFlightsuit doesn't redirect to George W. Bush: the reasons should be plainly obvious, but, frankly, I despair that it isn't for you. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've always wondered what would happen if one relied solely on Alex Jones for their news. Now I know. Rhobite 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we at least make the appearance of observing WP:NPA? --Hyperbole 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. God forbid we should libel someone with the charge that they get all their news from Alex Jones. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any point behind your sarcasm. Yes, Calton, we should avoid making the baseless charge that any user here gets his or her news from a single source. --Hyperbole 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sarcasm is because I can't convincingly roll my eyes in cyberspace -- and given the general tenor of your comments, they'd be apt to roll all the way into the next city, anyways, So, a general accusation of single-source news consumption is a form of personal attack? Somehow, I don't think that was the thought that prompted your original comment. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, making an unfounded accusation that someone's personal beliefs are the result of a limited exposure to news is a form of personal attack - and totally unnecessary on an afd page. That's obvious. --Hyperbole 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self explanatory - Hahnchen 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as protologism. POV is not the issue and this isn't a POV fork per se in my opinion. There is no evidence of general usage of this term however.--Isotope23 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, neologism, non neutral point of view, take your pick. Cool3 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cool3, I pick non-notable and neologism. This does not deserve its own article. Gwernol 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is essentially useless. Allemannster 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple of Alex Jones references does not make a new word. -- Samir (the scope) 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is nothing but an entry for a dictionary of political slang. Non-notable. Warrants a single line in the 9/11 Truth Movement article, at best. Ande B. 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above abakharev 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this misuse of Wikipedia resources to POV push.--MONGO 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have 9/11 Truth Movement, 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Commission. I understand hyperbole's point but this particular term (unlike Tricky Dick) is not notable enough to keep even as a blank redirect. Thatcher131 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Hyperbole --The Walrus 03:29, 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 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Abbott (The Abbotts)[edit]

I'm finding a lot of "Tony Abbott"s through Google, but almost none of them this guy, nor as the author of actual books of these titles. This is a vanity/advert for an Aussie psychic. Calton | Talk 06:10, 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 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore rocks[edit]

  • Delete - a search for "bangalore rocks entertainment" turns up nothing. Probably spam. Wickethewok 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note also, that a new user interspersed comments within Wicketwok's comment, I have removed those. JoshuaZ 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Systao doesn't seem particular notable either. JoshuaZ 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A cooperation in order to be notable must meet WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable company --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; poorly written, not possible to establish notability. Anyone from India able to comment on this? ProhibitOnions 10:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, though on a side note, it is too bad that the Bangalore article has no mention of its position as the hub of India's up-and-coming Rock scene.--Isotope23 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:corp. See [[WP:CORP} if you are still confused as to why it does not belong here. Nigelthefish 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:25, 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 REDIRECT to Mark Hoppus. JIP | Talk 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My Name Is Mark[edit]

Delete non-notable podcast – besides it is already covered in Blink-182. --Bruce1ee 06:33, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Grossi[edit]

Looks like a hoax/nonsense or both. Peter Grey 06:34, 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 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian governments and Indigenous Australians[edit]

I'm not sure what this article is trying to achieve, but as it stands it is unacceptable for Wikipedia. cj | talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though I can't help but think someone will come along and say otherwise. Royboycrashfan 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but a shit-slinging article with no real purpose. This topic is better covered in other articles relating to Indigenous Australians. michael talk 06:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge anything important (if any) into the Torres Strait Islanders article --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful to Indigenous Australians or Torres Strait Islanders. Australian history seems very deplorable to me (like a lot of history, actually,) but this is unsourced POV soapboxery, and I'm not sure what it's really trying to acheive, either. Grandmasterka 07:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing useful to merge, so save the closer the trouble. Ambi 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncyclopedic content. --Terence Ong 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic is covered much better elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons, agree with Michael, Ambi and Roadster that there is nothing salvageable. --Scott Davis Talk 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verging on being an attack page which give grounds for speedy deletion. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have read almost this exact entry as part of a larger Wikipedia article (although I can't remember whoch one). --Roisterer 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gray[edit]

An unsuccessful minor party candidate in a State election who achieved an unremarkable result. Not notable. cj | talk 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 07:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Royboycrashfan 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor election-losers are not notable. Grandmasterka 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per above; non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also first link in References is already dead Gu 10:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the article "has not announced any intention" to refer to a notable person. Deizio 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsuccessful candidate who did not achieve much coverage. Nor does he appear to have any other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that he is entirely deserving and you band of insignificance should learn a bit about accomplishment and committment; you dismissive nothings offend decency. talentlesshack 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Slightly less non-notable than the raft of Australian Progressive Alliance candidate entries deleted some time back but not by much. --Roisterer 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jumping on the wagon (I created the article) michael talk 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Newquay Scout Group[edit]

non-notable as local Scout group; vanity jergen 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are hundreds of scout groups out there, and this one is no more significant than any of them --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable scout group. JIP | Talk 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a Scout Troop. This scout troop has done nothing above and beyond the activities of your average, run-of-the-mill Scout Troop. Delete. -- Saberwyn 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Scout Troop.  (aeropagitica)  09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. ProhibitOnions 10:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scout Groups are not notable, but a mention can go in Scout County articles. I have just created Scouting in Cornwall and added a very small section on this Group. --Bduke 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. incog 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorand Minyo[edit]

Google results disprove notability.[24]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult_Locals[edit]

Advertisment for one of many dating web sites. Gu 07:53, 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 merge to Bitmap Brothers - Liberatore(T) 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Coleman (computer graphics)[edit]

This person does not appear to be notable according to this Google search. CrypticBacon 08:59, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGadugi[edit]

Article devoted to a non-notable website - a wikipedia fork of all things! -- Aim Here 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, non-notable wikicity, 8 unique Google results [25] --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fork. The entry WikiGadugi Website was deleted a few days ago as "plainly vanispamcruftisement". That characterization applies more strongly to this version. — MediaMangler 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This site is a download of Wikipedia information some done by Merkey but edited in large part by Wikipedia members. Jeff did not like the edits so he started his own site that he could edit like HE wanted to. He is violating Wikipedia's copying policy. --Kebron 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part is he violating exactly? You are allowed to fork. kotepho 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part to credit the original source of Wikipedia not as himself. --Kebron 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a mere renaming of the already deleted WikiGadugi Website article. The Google hits are either Wikipedia references, Merkey watchers discussing the site and it's admin (SCOX board), or postings or other websites of the admin of the site (LKML archives en merkeylaw.com). --MJ(☎|@|C) 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have done a slight disservice to PeyoteMan (talk • contribs) by implying that he merely renamed the previous article. This version is better formatted and shares almost no content with the previous version. He may not have even seen the previous article. Of course, this version should still be deleted. — MediaMangler 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw the other article, I just based it on the materials on the website. I found the site on Inktomi's subscription service. PeyoteMan 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the subject; an article with a different name, but same subject, has already been deleted. For the same reasons this one should be deleted as well. --MJ(☎|@|C) 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I see no notability. kotepho 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely non-notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 383 hits in Yahoo, 8 on Google, 27 on MSN, 3500+ on Inktomi. Looks like it is getting some traffic. I guess Google is slow crawling the web or avoids Wikipedia mirrors. PeyoteMan 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    383?? I get 19; all of them in the same categories mentiond on the Google hits. MSN gives me 4 results. And Inktomi is no longer an independent search engine, it was acquired by Yahoo in 2002, so how you got 3500+ hits with their engine is anybody's guess. --MJ(☎|@|C) 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unequivocably as WP:VSCA among other things. This part of an astroturfing campaign by the site maintainers, who have a stated purpose here. — Scm83x hook 'em 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --BWD (talk) 23:11, 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 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applesac[edit]

Non-notable company; article created by company's founder. 59 google hits, not all relevant. Prod contested by anon without comment. Henning Makholm 09:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable company, fails WP:CORP --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like advert of nn company Gu 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Hestemand 21:35, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massy_Tadjedin[edit]

nn

  • Weak keep, was screenwriter for two professional movies, as seen on his IMDb profile [26] --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above and over 18000 Google hits Gu 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Monicasdude 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, >18000 Google hits is notable and an IMDB profile. --Terence Ong 15:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Ugur Basak 23:38, 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 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holowacz[edit]

Vanity article created by User:Holowacz and copied from his (PDF) biography. 451 hits for Eric Vaughn Holowacz and 662 for Eric Holowacz. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Advance 5: Yoshi's Story[edit]

Most of the article's content is speculative. It appeared as a tech demo, showing off the GBA's capabilities at E3. It was never spoken of again. It makes no more sense than an article on the Zelda SW tech demo, or the Mario 128 tech demo, or the FFVII tech demo. Additionally, the same itself is speculative, and most of the article's content is a quote of a provided link. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it should be noted that we do have an article on the Super Mario 128 tech demo. --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A tech demo at E3? You mean, like, the single most important gaming convention other than GDC? keeeep, with speculation template on article ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, however, the IGN reference does not mention that Yoshi's Story was going to be Super Mario Advance 5, only that it was used "simply to show the GBA's 2D capabilities ". Perhaps merge the article into Yoshi's Story? --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes, a tech demo. Not a game, a tech demo. It'd be like if the PSX had a tech demo of a vase that you could examine. Are you saying that every single tech demo deserves an article? And as for Super Mario 128, that is not just a tech demo. It was the name given to his next game. I was referring TO the tech demo, which became Pikmin, not a Mario game. This is not a game, this is a single video of a demo that was not intended to become a game. It was not announced, named or cancelled. It was a tech demo featuring a single level that was not intended to be anything more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable tech demo for GBA with no evidence it will ever be anything more than that. Merge to GBA article if anyone really cares to (minus the "Super Mario Advance 5" speculation that is totally unsourced).--Isotope23 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mario 128 is just a tech-demo right now. The game will most definitely not feature 128 Marios running around as in the tech demo. In the same way, this tech demo does not necessarily have to show in-game footage in order for it to be considered a tech demo. - Darkhawk (29 March, 2006 @ 17:30 EST)
    • I am dumbfounded as to why people think that tech demos warrant articles JUST because they're of franchises. It's a video featuring Yoshi that will never have anymore content than what is there now. And Super Mario 128 is NOT an article on the tech demo! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. I don't really think any of this is worth merging, though. BryanG 01:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we can't even verify the title is correct, the article isn't worth keeping for now. We can always recreate it later. Fagstein 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a commercially available program, just a demo. Proto||type 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe change the title to a more proper "Yoshi's Island Tech Demo," but this is still a notable incarnation as posters above have noted. Liu Bei 05:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this tech demo is notable, every tech demo ever made is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiki_is_not_paper. Just because we don't have pages for older tech demos due to lack of interest/information doesn't mean they shouldn't be included.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afore notation[edit]

Tagged {db-band} but contested. Subject looks profoundly uinimportant, but let AfD have its say. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. No relevant results on allmusic and only 41 unique Google results [27]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be very young local band besides own sites on myspace.com and purevolume.com Gu 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims to notability in article, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart places, tours, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nowhere near WP:BAND. --Hetar 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. I originally tagged this article for speedy, but its creator, Captain Internet twice removed the tag, appending the last time a comment to the effect that he would improve the article so as to demonstrate the subject's notability. I construed this as a "hangon" request and consequently tagged the article for "hangon" (I moved his message to the talk page, where also I explain my reasoning for applying the "hangon" tag on an article that I tagged for speedy); nevertheless, as the searches above demonstrate clearly, there is no notability to be demonstrated, whatever Captain Internet might add to the contrary. Thus, I think that JzG was altogether correct to bring this to AfD and that, even as typically it might be indecorous of us to support deletion of a page that has been tagged "hangon" (or has been edited in such a way as to reflect "hangon" sentiments, notwithstanding the failure properly to tag the article), here the subject is empirically shown to be non-notable and we needn't to wait for edits to the article. Joe 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike Manager[edit]

As much as I love all things game-related in WP, nonnotable, gameguide ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Hmm didn't work last time, but non-notable gameguide/program. See 3rd paragraph "the aim of this article is not just to give a description of what the game involves, but more to give an idea of the basics of how to play the game" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn gameguide. --Terence Ong 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current version is just a description of the game rather than a gameguide, but it still would seem to be a pretty non-notable game. On a side note; when you are playing a multiplayer game dedicated to building/managing a gaming clan playing a mod of a videogame you've pretty much hit the rock bottom of geekdom... and I've been to Gen Con.--Isotope23 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Wolman[edit]

Try as I might I can't see where the claims are that this character meets WP:BIO. Unencyclopaedic in tone, and cone that is fixed there is virtually no verifiable data, and of that none seems to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup, as he seems to be the first photographer of Rolling Stone [28], a notable magazine --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup style. Nearly 70000 Google hits, several books at amazon.com and [29] claims "Wolman’s photographs have appeared in virtually every U.S. magazine from Time to Playboy to Vogue and beyond." Gu 12:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Important and well-known popular culture figure; he was Annie Leibowitz before Annie Leibowitz was Annie Leibowitz. Monicasdude 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. He looks notable as he was working for Rolling Stone. --Terence Ong 15:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and LOL... This concern is why I tagged it to begin with and even took the time to write something on the Discussion page. There's an article in there, it just needs the PRish crap taken out. Bobak 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: There were some CP concerns, I have taken time to rewrite those portions (roughly) and remove them. Bobak 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, this now has an assertion of notability, and the copyright violations are gone. Which is an improvement :-)
Comment: I'm the one who made the entry. There were confusing problems that led to a duplicate entries so I'd feel fine about everything being deleted and starting all over again, as long as someone doesn't come along and, without doing any research, figures since he hasn't heard of Baron Wolman he doesn't belong in Wikipedia! Feel free to remove all the duplication or whatever. It looks like you've determined that Baron Wolman is a worthy inclusion. You removed the photo which his assistant took. I was confused by all the rights choices, so please advise what to put for the image if the photographer is the copyright holder, period. Thanks! User:Scribblerman 17:32 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The photo must be released under a free license. I would suggest either GFDL-self or public domain if you, the uploader, own the copyright. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. In response to your query to Just zis Guy: AFD debates last for no more than 7 days. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merged; now redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime numbers in nature[edit]

An AFD tag was added to this article, but the article was not listed here. I'm listing it now. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I think the section on prime numbers in evolution is worth merging into prime number. The rest seems to be nonsense and can be eliminated. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 11:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge evolution tidbit if citable; delete the rest as trivia. Bilateral symmetry? What does that have to do with the primeness of 2? --Mmx1 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is also a case to be made for Fibonacci numbers appearing in nature. There is a section in that article, Fibonacci numbers in nature. This article should be merged with prime numbers in a similar way. Slowmover 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge salvagable content into prime number, and redirect there. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The entire article is nonsense, even the part about the cicadas.--C S (Talk) 10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge either into prime number or cicada. The cicada theory is due to Mario Markus and seems a viable theory. The rest of the article is an exercise in numerology. Either redirect as suggested or delete this title. --C S (Talk) 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. Cicada stuff interesting, the rest ridiculous. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge cicada section into cicada and/or prime number; the rest is numerology, rather than mathematics or science, and has no part in Category:Science or Category:Mathematics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess none of us had clicked on the external links. The introductory sentences were lifted straight out of the second link, as were most of the examples (including the absurd "number of ribs in mongoloid children" that I had removed earlier). Also note that the information merge should probably go to magicicada, not cicada, if it gets merged at all. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge evolution tidbit if citable; delete the rest as trivia. (
  • Delete everything except that which is citable (maybe magicicada stuff) JianLi 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the text on prime numbers as an evolutionary strategy with prime number. I agree that the rest is trivia, unless a probable link can be shown between the fact that these numbers occur in nature, and that it is a prime number. It was started as a stub, but was not developed further since. As it stands it probably is not viable article. Zingi 07:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JianLi. --MaNeMeBasat 07:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bit about the magicicada is already in the Prime number article. Looking at the other examples, the only reason explaining why prime numbers in nature are relatively common (as indicated in the lead) seems to be because "prime numbers are relatively common among small integers"; nothing here suggests that primality is an important factor. Schutz 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Seeing that the information about the magicicada in the Prime number was copied almost verbatim from this article, we should probably keep the history of the article around for authorship purposes (as suggested on Talk:Prime number). Schutz 09:18, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ugail[edit]

Non notable academic. the wub "?!" 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough. Not a professor, no notable publications mentioned. Bhoeble 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent enough Google Scholar profile. There seem to be cultural differences between Euro-American users and others about how to assert professorial notability, but that's not a good reason to keep deleting articles on subjects who have (at least) reasonable claims to notability, often on very notable subjects. Monicasdude 14:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that he is notable as an academic: a senior lecturer is roughly the equivalent of associate professor. Unless it can be established that he is a world-leader in his field (in which case, why isn't he a full professor?), I think we have to assume insufficient notability. Bucketsofg 21:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two credible published references at Google Books [30]. Dr Ugail may not be a world leader in his field, but since the Republic of Maldives has only 300,000-odd citizens, I think he counts as a notable national figure. Humansdorpie 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr Ugail has a credible list of publications recorded in his university staff page [31]. He has contributed articles to major international research journals and international conferences in his field. Despite being relatively young (34 years old to date) he has major research grants (e.g. see for example [32]). Though one may not consider him to be a world leading figure (eg. not a professor) one should also note his rate of progress in his career. For example, within a short space of 2.5 years he has been promoted to Senior lecturer which the usual academics take on average 10+ years. He is certainly a notable and respected figure in the Republic of Maldives. More importantly he is a source of motivation to many young Maldivians.

Dr Ugail's recent research in the area of 3D modelling and animation has been reported in the media. Examples inlcude, Yorkshire Post [33], Innovations Report [34], Yorkshire Forward [35], IOFILM news [36]. Though not a full professor he is an established resarcher and acedemic in his field. Simply not being a full professor is not a good enough excuse for deleting this page. --82.47.145.96

  • Keep Dr Ugail appears at the top of the google search for "ugail" or "hassan ugail". Kurumba


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're taking the hobbits to isengard[edit]

No indication of this flash movie's significance. Proposed for deletion by User:Weregerbil, but User:AliceV reverted without comment.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the title has over 100000 Google hits, it seems to be just one of many short clips floating on the net. Gu 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft with pointy ears. Sandstein 21:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rory096 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bryan[edit]

Non-notable horserider (well, not yet, just as soon as he's finished his accountancy exams) claiming notability but Googling for "Tom Bryan" dressage produces one possibly unrelated MySpace account. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also tried googling ""tom bryan" dressage" a week or so ago when an acquaintance of mine told me of his website, http://www.tombryan.co.uk . Although the website was live last week, it appears to have gone down over the weekend, although when I contacted his website's administrator he claimed this was temporary. User:markpearce1979
  • I am the author of this entry. Agreed, googling his name does not come up with any hits due to problems in linking his homepage as described above with google. I have been advised that this is temporary (as unfortunately are the problems with his webpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombryanfan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, even if Google would find his homepage, there is still NO other link with any relevant information found. nn-bio Gu 12:20, 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 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster (Lost)[edit]

Deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (Lost), this is sufficiently different that I am not comfortable deleting as a repost, but the core problem remains: the name is made up by fans and lacks a reliable source, and the balance of the content is also largely speculative. There is nothing here which can't be encyclopaedically covered without the speculation in the article for Lost. Similar concerns raised in Talk:The Monster (Lost). Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It scrapes WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT. PJM 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG's well explained nomination. --Terence Ong 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm a huge fan of Lost... but this is just wholly unnecessary. Merge any applicable content to main Lost article. No good reason for a separate article.--Isotope23 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has already been deleted once before. Crufty and trivial. Danflave 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons listed above and in the previous afd. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Big Lost fan but this need to disappear back down the hole from which it came. Nigelthefish 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Again. This shouldn't keep reappearing as an issue, taking all our time, when it's already been clearly resolved. -- PKtm 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep. There's already an apparent consensus that Lost characters are notable enough for Wikipedia - and this is a recurring character in Lost. There are very obvious problems with this article, not least of which is that The Monster is not the official name of the character, but I see these as problems to be worked out rather than reasons for deletion. If we've already decided that Lost fancruft is notable enough for Wikipedia - and I think we have - then this should stay. --Hyperbole 21:16, 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 Speedy deleted as nn-bio.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murray storm[edit]

Tagged as db-bio but makes some assertion of notability. Geogre's Law failure, notability is questionab le per the redlinked status of the businesses and projects mentioned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of news aggregators[edit]

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A collection of external links per WP:NOT. --Blue520 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Normally I vote against the lists I find on AfD. But this list has some value because an attempt has been made to classify the news aggregators into various categories. So it isn't just an indiscriminate list. It's a useful supplement to the news aggregators article. If some of the links could be wikified to reduce the linkspamming, then I would vote for a stronger keep. I see the links as a problem, but not the list itself. Slowmover 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if the list has been sorted or not, it remains a violation of Wikipedia policy to have an article that is a mere collection of external links. If the article was a list of internal articles about agregators, such as List of news web sites, that would be fine. As it is, there is no way to guess at which sites are worthy of inclusion and which were added as spam. --GraemeL (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what you say. But I don't think this is a "mere collection of external links". This is an annotated list, with additional information like capabilities and compatibility of the aggregators. While most of the aggregators have external links, I counted 13 wikilinks without external links, which convinces me the author has tried to find internal links where possible and is not intentionally spamlinking. Someone put a lot of work into this list.Slowmover 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point. The example you gave of a "good" list, List of news web sites, is not useful at all. This list can be replaced by a category because all the links are just pointers to wiki articles, and there is no additional content that expands on the meaning of the list. If it was deleted, no information would be lost. So its a good candidate for deletion/replacement with a category. That cannot be said of the article which is the subject of this debate. Slowmover 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This list serves as a honeypot for linkspammers who would otherwise swarm all over Aggregator. I say them them have free reign over this worthless article so that other articles can live freely.—thames 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, clear violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge/delete - merge only the most prominent aggregators to a new section that lists some examples in Aggregator. Delete rest. --P199 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users who come to this page probably are looking for an aggregator to use, as opposed to literally wanting a list of all news aggregators, so merging prominent aggregators gives users what they want while removing cruft from WP. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge/delete - same as above. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - If there is a Web site out there with pretty much the same info (or better), I vote to put a link to it on the News Aggregators article and delete this one. If there were only a few, I wouldn't mind keeping it. But a big list which is incomplete is sort of silly. Beetle B. 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: "No encyclopedic content whatsoever" is a lie, just read the entries and they give a small description of the programs (which is good for comparing the options to others. The article could and should be strengthened with more detailed feature information. But if you have to lie in order to support an argument, then a keep is absolutely necessary. --MateoP 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. At worst it should be a collection of internal links, but then that's what a category is for, isn't it? Fagstein 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the list is useful and does provide enough information. If you think it doesn't have enough information why don't you try adding it a few more lines to make it richer? Cankoklu 12:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable speedy as only content is external links. Stifle 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seconded: A collection of external links per WP:NOT. Same must be said about List of Podcatchers btw. --Gego 18:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete - nothing but a collection of external link spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I deliberately searched for it, so it might be definitely useful --Angelo 17:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gut feeling[edit]

article belongs to Wiktionary and there already is such an entry there Mumpitz 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef. Note the author created a number of dicdef pages with his first edits in 2004. This one must have escaped deletion with the others. Slowmover 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nigelthefish 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Intuition. --Hyperbole 21:17, 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 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News sources in India[edit]

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:30, 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 kill it with fire. DS 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea squirrel[edit]

Sea Squirrel is a mythical creature. Without references we can only assume that this myth was created by the author of this article. (Prod tag was removed by anon.) -- RHaworth 12:30, 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 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doupine[edit]

Appears to be spam, no sign of meeting WP:CORP, created by oilpainting (talk · contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. does not meet notability criteria guideline WP:CORP. --Blue520 13:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: no evidence of notability Bucketsofg 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spice records[edit]

Not notable Sludge 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteCompletely agree. This page should be deleted because a) the information included already exists on the songs own pages b) its completely irrelevant c) its a very poor excuse for a page. Rimmers 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary page, what should 'best' mean? Most sold? Gu 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or merge into Spice Girls if anybody thinks the content is worth saving. - Longhair 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information is already available on other pages - namely each song's page Rimmers 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Moldovan[edit]

This guy seems to be as famous as me. Poppypetty 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio Gu 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---- No Guru 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Poppypetty article... err... delete. Fagstein 05:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn, I wanted to say that. Delete as per Fagstein. GRuban 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 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 speedy delete - Liberatore(T) 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipaedophile[edit]

Possible hoax. NN website at the very least. Computerjoe's talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN -Gerrit CUTEDH 14:55, 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 - rewrite acknowledged, but it doesn't appear to address the concerns of the 'delete's. Flowerparty■ 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Harding[edit]

I can't make up my mind whether to speedy this one as an attack or whether to flag it for extreme cleanup to remove the POV. The answer, I guess, hinges on whether the guy is thought notable. If he is, then the crap about child support needs to go (I've left it so you can see what I mean). Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears notable. The child support thing is covered in the article Glenn, and could be mentioned briefly here but the level of detail is excessive. The rest of the article badly needs sources and cleanup. Powers 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing it. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to Glenn. ---- No Guru 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? I can't imagine anyone searching for the boomerang designer would be interested in a son who disclaims all relationship to him and has nothing to do with boomerangs. Powers 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got mixed up, I thought both articles were about the same person. I'm going to have to abstain. I guess he might be notable within the boomerang community but I'm not sure that warrants an article. No Guru 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, I just don't get how this guy's notable. Fagstein 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LtPowers edits noted. I'll change my vote when someone introduces evidence of notability. Fagstein 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attack page. Let the boomerangers celebrate him in their own space. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cleaned up the article and removed "attack" portions of it, so that we can see what's left. It's still a stub, and it badly needs sources, but it's no longer an "attack page". Powers 13:20, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dolan[edit]

There are millions of people on this planet that have a much stronger record of community involvement than A. Dolan does, and are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now that Dolan has resigned as Chair of the Green Party of BC, there's no reason why he should be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prescottbush (talk • contribs)

  • By the same token you could say now that Queen Victoria is no longer queen there's no reason why she should be listed here. KeepJcuk 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Green Party of Canada. — RJH 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard of Queen Victoria, but never for this Chair of the GP of BC that resined. So, nn now, but in the future, who knows, than we can recreate the article. I'm sorry for Dolan. MaNeMeBasat 14:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can always be recreated. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (9k, 9d). Hermione1980 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages[edit]

There is no need for this. There was a very old deletion debate Talk:List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages/Delete, but the consensus is rather sloppy and now this is just a title list in other languages. There is no discussion of anything about the translations, just a bare list. We have a sidebar with links to wikipedias in other languages, and for this particular topic, we have Harry Potter in translation which actually has some interesting content, including a list of languages the books have been translated into. All six Harry Potter books have articles in many languages, where this information could easily be accessed. I don't think the whole Harry Pottern in translation series is bad, but Wikipedia is not babelfish.com. Delete. Mangojuice 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This keeps the chaff from the main book articles. The "Translations" sections in the other book articles, such as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets link to here instead of having the alternate book titles clutter up the main articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I clicked on this with the full expetation of asking for a keep, but the nominator is convincing, and having looked at the two pages in question, I agree that List is unnecessary. It will be a poor redirect, so delete. —Encephalon 17:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who is to say there's no need for this information? Personally, I find the list kind of interesting. While the books have articles in the other languages, they dont neccessarily have articles in every language that the books have been translated into. Further, it's easier to read through a list than to manually click onto a foreign language wiki, where its less likely to be understandable, because well, it's in a foreign language. Also a nice thing about this article is that there are occasional translations back into English, showing how the translator chose to represent the book titles> For example, the article notes that in German, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is Harry Potter und die Kammer des Schreckens (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fear), or that the French version of the first book is Harry Potter at the School of Wizards. You're not neccessarily going to get that from a foreign language wiki. At the most, this information could be merged into Harry Potter in translation, but I think there's enough information there to merit keeping it in it's own article. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Harry Potter in translation where useful. Dalf | Talk 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Evilphoenix. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with interwiki links. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, with the hope that someone will eventually be bold and merge/cleanup/redirect as needed. youngamerican (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, my struckout comments above still stand in that this keeps the chaff away from the main pages. It's a useful list of foreign titles that isn't mentioned anywhere else, including Harry Potter in translation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'.Poppypetty 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have harry Potter fans so exhausted topics that this is what's left? Eusebeus 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. GfloresTalk 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These foreign language lists are always kind of interesting and informative. Harry Potter is popular and it's good to show that the interest extends beyond the English-speaking world. Seems like just the sort of thing we need. -- JJay 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Evilphoenix. Kusma (討論) 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How do we verify this? It seems to be original research. This should be dealt with in the individual books' articles, with links to articles in the other languages. Lists in Wikipedia (though I don't believe most should exist) should point to articles. This one does not. Fagstein 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, titles of a book are easily verifiable even if they're in other languages. Apparently, though, there have been issues on the page in the past where editors simply translated the title into another language (Klingon) without that translation actually existing. Mangojuice 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I spend some time in the deletion area to find things that interest me, and you are absolutely everywhere. Since you have a suggestion of how it can be improved, then why delete it? All it does in remove the article, and instead of having an article that could be good once improved, we have no article at all.68.192.25.106 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it still can be improved. It is not hopeless.68.192.25.106 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you need to be an established editor to vote in Afd discussions. Why not go ahead and sign up for a username? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. Here you go. I honestly don't see why that is needed at all. I just don't like signing in.Sbloemeke 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The concern with this list is that it consists of titles of each Potter book translated into another language, in the script most used for that language. Most of it is likely incomprehensible to the majority of English Wikipedians, either because they don't know the language, the script, or both. Where the script is comprehensible (or even preferred), the user is better off reading about it in that tongue (and script) elsewhere. The second issue we have to confront is how to maintain this? There is, incredibly for such a long list, not a single reference. Wikipedia is a very welcoming encyclopedia, but it has certain constraints. We do not have a panel of expert editors or professional peer-reviewers or teams of expert translators. We cannot reasonably be expected to maintain a list in the mainspace which the vast majority of us can't even read (with understanding). This was a novel idea, and I wish I could support its inclusion, but given the above concerns I can't. —Encephalon 01:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea has merit, it just needs to be better organized and focused. Perhaps re-ordering it by region, rather than title. Also, the inclusion of English translations and images of the book covers would make this a much more useful entry. Definitely worth fixing, not deleting.Rhindle The Red 12:55, 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. JIP | Talk 09:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netceeing[edit]

Relates to "the posting on the web of rap lyrics". Has a "list of prominent persons" that includes several very insulting entries. —This unsigned comment was added by Alethiophile (talk • contribs) .

  • Cleanup, there seems to be enough salvagable material there. Just strip away all the dumb vandalism and she'll be okay. Lankiveil 11:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Considering content "insulting" is not a reason for deletion.
  • Delete Only returns 1930 hits on google the first of which is Wikipedia, so its still a neologism. Note that whether or not it is insulting is completely irrelevant. JoshuaZ 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism still. (And yes, strongly agree that offensiveness is not a reason to delete). JoshuaZ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a reiteration of a previous vote by JoshuaZ. --Hyperbole 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavily cleanup. It's a neologism, sure, but Google seems to indicate that it's a notable one - netceeing is a real phenomenon. Unfortunately, the original author of this page didn't seem at all interested in writing an article of encyclopedic quality. --Hyperbole 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism with 226 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. A term requires a lot more Google hits before it should become notable. And I can't see anything in this article which indicates this is widespread. Fagstein 05:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 23:35, 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)  06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Comics Studios, HaVeN, Percival Constantine[edit]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of nobility. Fagstein 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree, they're definitely not kings. (Sorry, I just had to) --Rory096 06:25, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Man's[edit]

Delete. NN pub, just the address in the article, no explanation of notability. Prod removed by creator. This is a waste of AfD time - there need to be criteria for getting rid of obviously unworthy entries by CSD means. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator keeps removing the AfD tag on the article. I give up replacing it. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol. Eusebeus 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this any different from any other old man's pubs? Fagstein
  • Keep. It says it was the first to sell Stella Artois in London. User:Coggin
  • Delete. Serves better in the wikipedia dictionary than here. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.192.25.106 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Hot Stuntaz[edit]

While it has about 21,000 google hits, all vaguely relating to the same thing, and it was briefly an internet fad (and I mean very briefly) it didn't stick, was not memorable or notable in any special way, and the article as written has nothing to offer. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I still remember it and hear of it from time to time. kotepho 18:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable internet meme. youngamerican (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn internet meme. Eusebeus 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and this is a good reason why meme criteria should be established as an offshoot of WP:WEB.--Isotope23 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have to agree with everyone above. Writing about these internet fads is what makes us different. The article seemed good to me too. -- JJay 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sadly, this is indeed notable as an internet meme. -Big Smooth 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable enough because it's been a cliche in Fark.com Photoshop contests for a long time (although I think it may be wearing off recently). Seems to be well-known enough to stand the test of time, like Mahir's "I kiss you" page. In this instance, a meme is a terrible thing to waste. --Elkman - (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. We may hate them, but major Fark.com fads are notable. I can see ordinary people researching Wikipedia wanting to know about these guys, and hence it should probably be included. Fagstein 05:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just found out about the Stuntaz through this article, and it should be saved for future generations! S7ven 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definite meme! Quite a lot of people have heard of it. -- nsandwich 00:03, 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 speedy delete by Syrthiss

Tiger party[edit]

Delete non-notable musical project – have not released anything yet and a Google on "Tiger party" "Carlos Gomez-Hernandez" -wikipedia, returns nothing. --Bruce1ee 15:14, 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 le crap. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Crap[edit]

Nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Hoax. Originally prod'd, but prod removed w/o comment. -- JLaTondre 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the name of the article completely sums up the content. Keresaspa 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article asserts its own lack of notability: "...only been practiced by two student artists..." Slowmover 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le delete as WP:NFT and nonsense. --Kinu t/c 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nonsense. GfloresTalk 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SoLando (Talk) 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something made up in Le Crap school one day. --Lockley 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is obviously not a hoax. Should we have deleted Pablo Picasso's entry because it was not popular at the time? Besides, if we complain that we want to delete it, we are just bringing attention to it. If we just ignore it, no one would really notice.--1028 16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia existed in the early twentieth century and you posted an article about Picaso before he became famous, or if anyone else did, it should have been deleted because it is impossible tl tell for sure who will be a famous artist or musician. Someone would eventually notice this article, and only good articles should be in Wikipedia. Academic Challenger 21:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WorldWide Dream Builders[edit]

Similar to TEAM, this article is a hodgepodge of advertising, unverified accusations and responses to said accusations, and other cruft. Any relevant information can be incorporated into Independent Business Owner, Amway or Quixtar; the rest can be deleted. Paul 15:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN, advertisement. I hope nobody is going to cite the MSNBC coverage as evidence of notability. Using that standard, we'll need another 100,000 articles to cover every tinpot scheme ever seen on the business news media, which is mostly a thinly disguised advertisement anyway. Slowmover 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I skimmed the MSNBC story, and I didn't even see any mention of WWDB. Maybe it's there and I missed it, but even if it is, the story deals with Amway/Quixtar in general, and doesn't confer notability to WWDB. Paul 19:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Not really an advertisement per se, but just more Amway MLM-cruft. There are dozens of these IBO development groups (like Team of Destiny, et al). An article about the concept of these groups and their relationship to Quixtar or Amway might be appropriate and encyclopedic, but really this could all be merged to Amway in my opinion.--Isotope23 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 Bucketsofg 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hardly advertising. Multi-million dollar business connected with many millionaires...definately notable IMO. Gallwapa 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multi-million dollar business? Meaning what? The article doesn't even make it clear what kind of "business" this is. A "professional development" group? What are they developing, their WP advert article? With all due respect, sir, the article doesn't say much of substance because it doesn't appear that there is much to be said. Paul 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then add the info? Research the company? The WorldWide group's business includes tax accounting, voice mail services, internet service provider, business consulting, travel, and more...theres a lot to be said. It doesn't necessarily have a huge online presence, but thats partially because WWDB has made an effort to subvert that information in some cases. Jack Thompson has a sizeable entry, but by many people's accounts, he has "notability" because he got mentioned once or twice on the news...meanwhile, the people who have dealt with this company over the past 30 years have been in the MILLIONS. Not notable? No, just a different target audience. Gallwapa 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gallwapa - what you are saying may very well be correct, and warrants some investigation - however, "WorldWide Dream Builders" would appear to be a different entity than the World Wide Group. The WWG may or may not pass notability muster, but the subject matter of the current page definitely does not. Thank you for your comments, please help providing any relevant info. Best, Paul 08:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I am no longer associated with WorldWide Dreambuilders. WWDB is the original entity that "WWG" has sprung out of, the terms are interchangable when referring to the company. I'm certainly in favor of trying to massage the article, but, I'm not a 'huge' wikipedian...so... getting it to an acceptable state is hurdle completely. At any rate, I don't know what else to say. If it goes, it goes... but I would hope at least some people have gotten use out of this article (Its got a fair number of views, just from tracking referrals out from it). Gallwapa 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Thompson has notability because he is a shameless publicity whore who will say/do just about anything to get his name mentioned in the media (and one of the worst contributors to our nation's growing smug problem)... and it works. There just isn't enough verifiable 3rd party reporting about WorldWide Dream Builders to meet WP:CORP.--Isotope23 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gallwapa: Your contributions are appreciated, and your input to this discussion is valuable. It looks as if the best solution here is to delete the article and merge some sort of mention of it into the IBO or Quixtar article. Isotope - I share your sentiments about Mr. Thompson, although publicity "whore" may not be the accepted scientific term...desparate, shameless, etc. should suffice. Paul 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity whore sums him up nicely, though... heh heh heh. Gallwapa 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no real content here. The article can basically be boiled down to, "The company has some sort of a 'system', which may or may not work." There's no description of the system, or what it does, or how it works. For a company that exists only because of this "system" that's a pretty glaring omission. eaolson 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of real notability here, its tenuous connections with Amway notwithstanding. Fagstein 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M16 rifle in popular culture[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a list of movies and videogames. Apparently it was created because this sort of thing was getting added to M16 rifle and people didn't like it there. Well, I don't see how it's any better as a seperate page. There's also M4 Carbine in popular culture, which is a very similiar list, just for a shorter variant of the same rifle. See also the talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — So it's a topic fork from a notable page? I guess I'm not seeing why this page deserves to be deleted, as it's related to the main topic. — RJH 16:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me, it treads too close to a indiscriminate collection of information. We could have List of people who work in factories where M16 parts are made, too, but it wouldn't have any encyclopedic value either. As I said on the talk page, this could all be covered by a single sentence in M16 rifle. But, I realize not everyone may agree with that, hence the Afd. Even if people want to keep, does anyone have an opinion on whether M4 Carbine in popular culture should be a seperate artice? It was a redirect for a while but was recently reverted. If we must have such a list, so be it, but do we need seperate lists for every different variation of the rifle? There are verifiability concerns there- see my comments on Talk:M4_Carbine_in_popular_culture. Friday (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. The M16 and its variants are so ubiquitous it's pointless to name every movie or video game it appeared in. I doubt there's really a significant appearance like a flight sim might be for an aircraft. This isn't a rare gun that appeared in one or two movies; it appears in practically every modern war movie and modern FPS. It'd be like a Honda Civic in popular culture article with an entry for every 2-bit film where you could see the Civic parked somewhere--Mmx1 16:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is supposed to list only significant appearences, such as being used in major scene (such as scarface), or by major cast (such in a Platoon. Weeding out "2-bit" appearences would require a cleanup tag (or at worst involve a dispute over page content) not a AFD. I would prefer a written format, rather than a list, but this is what people who work on the page have done.
  • Strong delete as indiscriminate list. Are we going to scrutinize every frame of every film looking for M16 sightings? And then what about the hundreds of thousands of other products one could find in a film? Slowmover 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Again, the page needs guidlines for inclusion but it is far from indiscriminate. The M16 is one of the most famous firearms of all time, and one of the few that actually make ANY appearence in film. As per my other comments elsewhere, it is certainly possible to have guidlines for the page.
  • Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. There are too many "So-and-so in popular culture" articles in Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Use by the film industry of one of the most famouse firearms ever made should be judged on its own value. There may be to many such pages, but firearm use in film and games is important aspect of firearms history. There are some firearms created soley for use in film. There are items not worthy of pop culture pages no doubt, but that is not a reason against notable objects with them. Ve3 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with doing this type of page since we have an article on M16 and we also have many lists of movies and videogames. Hence, would seem to be highly encyclopedic. -- JJay 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, purely trivial. I don't have a problem with having a "Popular culture" section within an article, as long as it is kept short and under control. However, as soon as people spot a trivia section, they have an uncontrollable urge to add something they've spotted at their favorite movie or game, and it gets out of hand. I'd rather not have popular culture sections at all than having to constantly revert anime and video game fans additions to keep articles encyclopedic.--Squalla 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure I find this "highly encyclopedic"; actually, how about indiscriminate listcruft. Eusebeus 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge them back to the pages the came from. A written article rather then item list would be better for them, but they are well deserved part of firearm articles overall. Pointing out firearm use in movies is well established in firearm articles, similar to how other types of use are listed (e.g. civilian, military users). Ve3 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere's at least 40 entries on this page and I wager over 100 if you look really hard. It's also very hard to distinguish between these appearances by notability, as I noted above. Do we count screentime? Must you have at least 1000 frames to qualify? There should be a statement about its ubiquity, but other than that, how do you distinguish what makes it into the article? Unless you can give some inclusion/exclusion criteria that makes this list manageable, I say toss the whole bit. --Mmx1 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether a page is notable or not would be a dispute over page content, which could be handled in turn by those concerned (perhaps being handled by a major cast memeber?). At worst, it would make the page a candiate for cleanup, not deletion. I should add these were moved off already long M16 and M4 pages. I would also point out FN P90 in popular culture was proposed for deletion, h had similar arguments levled against it and the result was to keep. Finally, I would support doing a proper merger of AR-15 related firearms into one popculture page. The idea of adding stricter guidlines could also be a good alternative deletion.
  • Weak keep per RJH. --Hyperbole 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has come up before; most recently with the FN P90 in popular culture article. There seems to be widespread support for splitting these articles off the parents. Unless we make a widespread policy change to merge them all back in, Keep this one. Georgewilliamherbert 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's better to spin off the "...in poplar culture" sections of articles to their own pages, rather than keep them cluttering up the main pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the best argument I've heard for keeping this sort of stuff, but it means we're putting junk in the encyclopedia in order to keep junk out of the encyclopedia. Isn't better yet still to remove the cruft from the main articles and NOT put it somewhere else? Friday (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there is a lot of this junk, and if you want to go around removing it from all of the articles it's in, you're going to have an uprising on your hands. This is the cleanest solution. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people really think there could be an article here, not just a list, why not work on Guns in popular culture or something? Does the M16 family specifically have a different impact on popular culture than any other group of similiar rifles? Is anyone actually saying that an AR15 with a 20-inch barrel has a different impact on popular culture than an AR15 with a 14-inch barrel? I think we're either going to end up with a simple list (which should go away for not being an article) or a bunch of original research about the impact of specific models of guns on culture (which should go away for being original research.) Friday (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're coming at it backwards. The logic is... weapon X is notable, and gets an article. In some cases, specific usage in popular culture (movies, games, sometimes books or other) is sufficiently notable to include in that article. In some cases, there's so much of that info that splitting it off seems like the right thing to do. It's perfectly reasonable to question whether that info should be notable; I did so a few months ago, but the conclusion keeps coming up "yes". As long as it's notable enough to keep somewhere, how do we organize it... which is the real problem. Georgewilliamherbert 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe there's no getting around the fundamental disagreement. Tools are great topics for an encyclopedia. This is why we have sledgehammer. Notice that we do not have List of people who have used a sledgehammer or List of stores that sell sledgehammers. If reputable sources are talking about the impact of guns on popular culture, by all means someone can make an article about that. Keeping lists for individual guns (and, worse yet, even variations of the same gun) doesn't make sense to me until someone produces a reliable source that says that gun X has a different impact on popular culture than gun Y. I think we're getting this sort of stuff mostly because it's videogame-related, not because it belongs in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a good idea for an article as it would remove M16-cruft from the main article and create a description on how, why and where the gun is used in popular culture. However, this article is just a list of media in which images or mentionings of the gun appear. This content is inappropriate as a separate article, and inappropriate in the M16 main article. --maclean25 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrously pointless, and misnamed: it's just a list of pop-culture products featuring the M-16 -- a huge trivia magnet, as Squalla points out. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Friday on this one. These appearances have to be notable. Otherwise it's just pointless listcruft. If a movie discusses the M16, have a paragraph about it in the M16 article. Otherwise, it's uninteresting trivia. Fagstein 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not an encyclopedia article. Pure list. MaNeMeBasat 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you're considering where the best place for M16 cruft is, you really need to include 'nowhere' in your list of choices. Proto||type 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could become an examination of the rifle's prominence in film and other media over the decades. Right now it's at the first step. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:48
  • Merge to M16 (rifle) or delete. Stifle 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleins[edit]

fan cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wai's Sonic 2 Beta[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable website. Advertising, by the admission of the page's creator. (Admission in this thread, access restricted to existing members due to forum policy.) ThomasWinwood 16:16, 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 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Gurus[edit]

This seems to have been created largely as an advert (I've removed the links), for a group that is distinctly non-notable. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English vs. Czech names[edit]

It's a list of names. Doesn't belong in an Encylopedia. GfloresTalk 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Such a list doesn't seem to merit an encyclopedia article. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If need be, create an article called Czech name where some of this information can be presented (cf Polish name). Plus, misuse of "vs." ProhibitOnions 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, if possible. Stifle 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enhan[edit]

Possible hoax? Non-notable. GfloresTalk 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "It is not known how many people or who speaks it" ?? Wickethewok 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People also say that this article should be deleted as unverifiable, non-notable, and probably just made up in school one day. --Deville (Talk) 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research, and also non-notable. A Google search yields one self-published 'book' on Lulu.com, which also seems made up. Hanako 18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified original research.  (aeropagitica)  18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds interesting enough, but instead of giving answers the article only leaves questions. No factual backup at all, and Google isn't helpful either. I'd like to know more about the phenomenon, but in this form the article surely can't stay. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Melissa:) As Seen on TV[edit]

  • Delete: Vanity article about a mostly-unverifiable show concept by Chase Erwin (the article's author I presume) that was pitched but never picked up. Google gave me a few hits but they all appear to be things posted by Chase Erwin and/or things posted on Chase Erwin's website. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you gotta be kidding me. The upshot here is that some guy thought something would be a good idea for a TV show. And then it was not.--Deville (Talk) 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I liked the "the classic catch phrase "'I don't know.'" Gwernol 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. incog 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Cool3 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gordon Lawrence[edit]

Has a previous no consensus AFD. No idea why it was AFD'd, ask User:Andyru. Just listing it properly. kotepho 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion before when I was extremely new to Wikipedia. The argument was not presented well. Please take a look at the following discussions: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Oosterman ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Williamo1 ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citywide_Church ][reply]

Delete: user Williamo1 (and his socks) are using this article as a personal soapbox. Look at the edit history. Any person just diving into this issue is going to be immediately horrified at the past of Roy Gordon Lawrence. However, nobody on Wikipedia ever cared about him before Williamo1 first created the page. It was created in a manner to portray public informance (seems justified)... however, quickly has turned into a personal vendetta and soapbox for him. Williamo1 seems to be using this as a sex offender registry, tracking the whereabouts of this person. He pays no heed to the fact this man has changed his lifestyle form his past and pokes fun as his current life as well as tried to descredit the church he attends by suggesting all sorts of crazy things (saying he won't cooperate with police etc.) This article either needs to be deleted to remove the soapbox (which only Williamo1 cares about), or at least its history should be deleted (kept as current) and Williamo1 and his IP should be banned from further edits (I don't wish to edit it either). Note that nobody in Wikipedia cared about this subject matter except Williamo1 (and myself) -- though a few people have stepped in to help control the POV editing by Williamo1 and another stepped in to help format the article better. Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I recognize that relisted this as AFD may (at first glance) seem like the wrong approach -- at it may be. I tried RFC once, and had no response (though I wonder if I did it correctly). Please have a look at the links I listed above... it does take a little time to understand the soapbox allegation -- with a little looking you'll see exactly what I mean. Advice appreciated -- I hope I've stated things clearly enough, as a first glance at this issue won't provide you with enough info to see where I'm coming from Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is why. kotepho 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arundhati bakshi 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons I gave in the last AFD. This article was created originally as an attack, and the creator has constantly tried to defame people other than Lawrence through "guilt by association". I will be quite happy if it's deleted, but as explained in the past, it has been fixed (by another editor, and by me), and it does qualify for inclusion. Before judging the article, please review the article's history, as it can flip back and forth quite frequently. --Rob 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything suggesting encyclopedia-level notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO... since the last AfD this guy still isn't notable.--Isotope23 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete We don't need an article on every criminal/alleged criminal and I'm not sure what makes this guy special. kotepho 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep. The question is verifiability and notability. Both are clearly established by the numerous stories in Canadian newspapers and newsmagazines. If there is some perceived difficulty with fairness, the article should be edited to undo what is the problem. But just because this guy's past is unpleasant doesn't make it any less a part of the record. Bucketsofg 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google search doesn't find much "numerous". Besides, one newspaper article does not a notabler person make. Fagstein 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, didn't you notice the original event occurred years before Google was founded? Did you know that they published newspapers and magazines on paper at one time (I hear they still do)? There's this thing called a library. You can find all sorts of stuff at it, some of which isn't on the free web. --Rob 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per kotepho. Sandstein 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--RandM 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is user's fourth edit, all to this AFD and previous. --Rob 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kosiam 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is user's third edit, all to this AFD and previous one. --Rob 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OMG, Man charged with crime! He can come back when he assassinates a king. Fagstein 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next time, read the article, and read the referenced articles, before making such an ill-informed comment. Some people here are writing an encyclopedia. If you wish to clown around, there are many places you can do that. I respect those who disagree with me on this article. I don't respect people who disrespect this project. --Rob 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote :: looking at the "History", and the article style, this appears to be in the style of an attack page. What makes this individual notable in an encyclopaedic sense ? If he is notable, why does the article have to deal in perjoratives and POV, rather than simple facts ? On the other hand, is there any public-good reason for not starting an article List of known paedophiles and their current addresses ? -- With respect, Simon Cursitor 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Comments withdrawn, in a spirit of further respect -- Simon Cursitor 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What specifically are you talking about? Given the volitile nature of this article, you'll have to specify (with a link), which version you're referring to, regarding "perjoratives and POV". I beleive the current version deals strictly with facts, at the expense of being very concise, and not fully elaborating on the broader controversies (old and new) and public policy debates triggered by the person (old and new). Generally, we don't delete articles because old versions had problems. Also, I can't tell from your comments if you're seriously suggesting List of known paedophiles and their current addresses or if that was sarcasm (in any event, I wouldn't want such a list here). Sorry in advance, as I'm sure I misunderstood/misinterpretted some of your comments. --Rob 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but also because the subject is simply not notable enough, per Simon Cursitor and Fagstein. If we are to debate honestly the merits of retaining this article, it has to be on the basis of notability. This man's notability ultimately derives from acts he committed 15 years ago. I don't see national or international press coverage of these events; I don't see wide or constantly maintained press interest in this individual and, although I note Rob's point about paper -v- Web, I don't see widespread Internet coverage. The fact that the subject held a responsible position when he committed crimes may interest or titillate us, but I do not believe that it confers notability. Humansdorpie 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you don't feel there was *sufficient* national coverage. But surely you acknowledge there was national coverage. You're statement "I don't see national or international press coverage of these events" seems to ignore coverage in a national magazine, as well as newspapers from Alberta, BC, and Ontario. That is national coverage. Again, I'm fine if you don't think that's sufficient. But you're making a literal mistatement. It's also offensive to suggest this is done to "titillate us". Read the article. There's no "titillation". And yes, I concede your point that in 1991 there was not "widespread Internet coverage" (I don't see how you note my point, then seem to miss it). Can I ask you if you actually read the cited offline news stories (which is necessary to have a basis for the opinions you expressed)? Again, I got no problem with people deciding this is not notable, in their opinion, but I object to what I see are factual errors expressed.. --Rob 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right - I should have been more specific and stated that I didn't see any significant national coverage. My point about the Internet is that it is reasonable to expect a greater Internet presence for anyone notable enough for an online encyclopaedia - no matter when the events happened. I don't believe I suggested the article was designed to titillate people, and I'm afraid I disagree that it is necessary to read the offline news stories to express an opinion on the notability of this individual. Humansdorpie 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm quite fine with you deleting this article. But, I seriously hope you would agree that there are many other articles, that are supported largely by offline sources, which very much warrant inclusion, and are of great value (note: I'm talking of other articles here, not this one). Some of the best references for articles are still on paper. The fact we're online in no way means we should hostile to offline sources. In fact, the offline sources are often more reliable than online ones. --Rob 17:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Joe dimitri 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Appears to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual criminals rarely rise to the level of being encyclopedic. I agree that web-based arguments about notability have flaws; I have tried to rescue articles myself on this basis with mixed success. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) )
  • Keep per Rob, bucketsofg. Samaritan 15:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • STRONG KEEP The Roman Catholic priests have articles - why not protestants? This man made headlines many time,,,as a police officer and pastor he is notorious. The Grace Baptist Church web page ,shows he is still active preaching and teaching,,,,that could possibly lead to more headlines,,Again this should be kept,,many people think so. Frankly it worries me that YOU want his past hidden i.e ...User Andyru ARE YOU WELL??? .Jugementonyou 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)),.[reply]
    • - Jugementonyou (nice hidden name), you are either a socketpuppet or meatpuppet of user Williamo1 (no, that is NOT an insult, look up the meanings of those terms on Wikipedia and you'll understand). You've already proved this by your attempts to redit the William Oosterman article (which were deleted by admins promptly). DO NOT remove votes from this page! You removed my nomination statement. You should read it. Notorious? Maybe you should look in mirror first. Don't pretend to know me and hide behind a secret identity. Andyru 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to concur. This is one of the lamest sock/meat puppet attempts I've seen. --Rob 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a confessed sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history and comments on project/talk page. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Under the notable people in Wikipedia it define notoriety as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Based on the news coverage of this guy, I would definitly say he has notoriety. I say keep because what is there now is basic public knowledge of events that were considered quite newsworthy. So long as it stays neutral, let it stay. What he did was pretty horrendus. Now he has to live with that it is public knowledge. —This unsigned comment was added by SunbirdInc (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: This is the first edit of this user. --Rob 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: appears to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I don't think by deleting this page would be helpfull to the community! Graceb 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first and only edit. Reminder: all these sock votes (on both sides) will be disregarded. --Rob 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be good to factor out ALL the votes by people who just signed up to vote (for EITHER delete or keep). Fair is fair. I bet if you trace the sock/meatpuppet IPs, they are all from Ottawa. This page wasn't meant as a "pissing match" (pardon the expression), it was made to get comments from outside neutral parties. This only goes to further prove my point in the nom, that nobody cares about this outside the scope of two churches which split. Hence, my original vote to delete off of this encyclopedia. Andyru 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems both notable and verifiable. AfD is not the place to bring up problems like this. I would encourage all of those who were heavaly involved with this article in the past to voluntarily walk away from it and never look back. —A 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have I understood you correctly ? You want the people *involved* with this to "walk away" ? Presumably, they are the ones likeliest to know the *facts* in this instance. Do I take it that, while they are doing so, and thereafter, you will yourself enter into an undertaking that neither personally nor through others will you in any way edit the page, so that "the rest of us" can be sure that the Wiki entry (if this clears AfD) remains unbiased and objective ? -- Simon Cursitor
      • It seems that you have. There is no embargo on facts. If those involved were able to locate and cite the sources in the article, others will be able to as well. If this is not the case, you need to ask yourself if you are in fact performing original research. —A 03:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin Request: if a strong enough consensus is not reached (to delete the article) by end of voting, would it be possible (as per the nom) to at least delete the history of this article and leave it under its current (neutral) state? If there is a IP/userid specific edit restriction for an article... it may also be useful here. As you can see, even the AFD page becomes a subject of nonencyclopedic nonsense. Yes, I'm a part of it, but I'm on the side of getting it OFF Wikipedia (which I think is good). So, I will voluntarily ask that I be one of the banned editors (if this article survives AFD) Andyru 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This subject is verifiable and well within the bounds of WP:BIO notability. Whoever said "delete per WP:BIO" please cite your guideline for deletion. Silensor 15:06, 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 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podium solutions[edit]

No assertion of notability -SCEhardT 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable / advert -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to advertize your business startup. Stifle 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranuspknockwood[edit]

Extremely minor character from "Powerhouse," a short story by Eudora Welty. A transcription of the story reveals that "Uranus Knockwood" is simply a name on a telegram. This might be worthy of note on a page about the short story "Powerhouse" or Thirteen Stories, the collection containing "Powerhouse" (neither currently exists), but as a separate article it's bound to remain a minor stub at best. I'd bet this was added more for the silliness of the name than for any encyclopedic content.

Incidentally, the namespace is incorrect. Aside from the obvious formatting issue, there's no evidence that Uranus Knockwood's middle initital is "P". - Rynne 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epa Donoso[edit]

Non-notable person. GfloresTalk 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would consider keeping if some evidence of the popularity/importance/influence of his artwork were provided. 148.177.1.219 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear notable. About 50 GHits outside of WP and mirrors. The article itself admits he doesn't make a living through his art. Fan1967 00:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 15:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companies in Atlas Shrugged[edit]

Transwiki to wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged and delete. Fragments of an early effort at a wikibook, a Cliff's Notes to Atlas Shrugged; much of the rest of the project is already on Wikibooks. Encyclopedic material has been merged to main article. Septentrionalis 18:28, 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. Should have been an A7. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Seacrest[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. I can't find any bios of Ryan Seacrest that indicate he has a sister. NBC's website lists a past winner of the lucky case game as "Jessica Sechrist", not "Seacrest". The page was previously deleted by User:Mushroom since it does not assert notability, and I think that is still the case. Big Smooth 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe it's some sort of elaborate hoax attempt, but neither one of those claims, even if true, are assertions of encyclopedic notability per WP:BIO. (I've preemptively removed the reference which was added to the DOND page, per the nom's research.) --Kinu t/c 19:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as she is notable due to winning a nationally televised contest, as well as being related to a famous celebrity. Is there really any good reason to delete this? - Jacono
    • Only the reasons stated by other users above. The onus is on you to prove the assertions in this article. That involves: finding a reliable source that says Ryan Seacrest has a sister named Jessica; proving that the name "Jessica Sechrist" is a typo on NBC's part, and that this Jessica Seacrest person actually won; and showing that the sum of these parts meets inclusion standards for individuals. Please also provide a reference for the picture. --Kinu t/c 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither one of the items mentioned makes her notable -Nv8200p talk 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Do Not Delete Why can't we just leave it in here? It is the truth, I give you my personal Jacono guarantee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacono (talk • contribs) Multiple recommendation stricken per AfD Etiquette.
  • Delete per WP:BIO and likely a (not very good) hoax. Rockpocket 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per... well obvious reasons. -Mask 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deletewhy is everyone betraying me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacono (talk • contribs) Multiple recommendation stricken per AfD Etiquette.


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

The result of the debate was merging; already done, and apparently no one objected. - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous flow production[edit]

Page merged to mass production on suggestion. Misterpurple 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boldly redirected as is customary. Gazpacho 03:00, 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 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Early Warning (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambig is pointless. It only points to one article with this term in the article's name. And then there is only one more link to a music album not with this term in its name. P199 19:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A Rush song (and not even a notable one at that) is no excuse for a DAB page. Fan1967 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If and when an article on this song appears (and let us all pray this day never comes) then the DAB page is appropriate. --Deville (Talk) 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's only two articles to disambiguate, I prefer not to have a disambig page at all; just have the articles reference each other at the top. One real article and a song redlink is even worse. Grandmasterka 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pointless disambiguation. A trivia or disambiguation link in the DEW article to Rush is all that is needed. ProhibitOnions 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headcall[edit]

Was tagged speedy, but that was contested (and companies are not speediable anyway). Taken here for a closer scrutiny. - Liberatore(T) 19:19, 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 Speedy A7, performed by Gflores. -- Saberwyn 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham[edit]

repeatedly removed db tags for a non notable bio nomination Arundhati bakshi 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn, vanity GfloresTalk 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele nn, not sure if it's vanity or attack, but either way... --Deville (Talk) 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, vanity, or attack. Take your pick. Brian G. Crawford 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteOK. Y'all are a bunch of squares and tools. Now, I can understand that y'all care about Wikipedia. However, why do you have to actively go around enforcing the rules. This should be done passively. For example, if you're browsing along and you find the article for Heritage College (the only page this was linked to) and you look under notable alumni and you're like who is this Jonas THE STEAMROLLER Graham and then you look and you're like: "Oh. Not worthy of a Wikipedia article. (yet!)" and so you delete it, then I would be fine with that. But as far as I can tell, y'all have nothing to do with "Hurtige" so you do this for no point. You're just doing this enforce the rules. But rules are made for a reason: because breaking them causes harm to others. But seriously: how much harm does this cause? Think about it: how much harm does this cause? I stole 2mb or so from Wikipedia: big deal. Do you know how much bandwidth you're wasting by continuously going back to my page to make sure I haven't removed the "some square wants to delete this page" thing? I'll give you an analogy here: imagine you're a cop. Do you go around looking for people smoking weed and drinking in parks after midnight or do you go around looking out for more serious things such as assault and arson and stuff? Of course if you see somebody smoking weed in front of children or something whilst patrolling, or if you get a call that a bunch of drunken kids are threatening to burn down houses near the park, you might go and charge them for one of those MINOR crimes. But actively pursuing the small stuff is just not worth it. In fact, the fact that y'all care so much makes me pity you! What do you gain from doing this? Only a reputation for being a stiffly stifferson, you stiffly stifferson. Just ignore it and you'll hardly notice it. But no... despite the fact that you don't get paid for it, you've got to waste your time enforcing all the stupid rules and stuff that nobody cares about. Way to go! But I am willing to compromise: if y'all give me a week to show it off to my friends, you can delete it after that. But until that: Do not delete! --Mcdeltat 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NOW per everyone except captain vanity. Grandmasterka 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasterka: you, sir, are a loser! --Mcdeltat 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 20:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and suggest (respectfully) that page creator get a life. A2Kafir 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deleted it, but don't know how to close this afd. I'd appreciate it if someone could show me. GfloresTalk 20:29, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infosec Institute[edit]

Non notable training institute. The article is nothing but an advertisement for the nn company --Ragib 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: NN, as nom. --Ragib 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (interpreted as Keep): That is incorrect. InfoSec Institute is one of 3-4 information security training companies. Users looking for information concerning the company can also find books published by authors via ISBN in the listing. --markg123 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just not seeing how they're notable. The "users looking for info" argument doesn't hold water. Some users come to wiki looking for porn - does that mean we give it to them? --Bachrach44 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bachrach44. Stifle 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:57, 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)  06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog Paladins[edit]

I prodded this a few days ago, but the tag was removed without explanation. This is a small webcomics hosting site that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Also, WP:VANITY is likely an issue, since the article was created by User:MeekoAngelo, who appears to be the site's webmaster. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, vanity. Bucketsofg 20:40, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Chairboy. Proto||type 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SopeGirls[edit]

This is a Web site by a group of girls who do manga-style webcomics. Perhaps a potential article for Comixpedia, but it doesn't currently meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Speedy delete {{db-club}}, tagged as such. --Rory096 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it qualifies for CSD. The article makes it sound like it's nothing more than a club, but the site does host several webcomics. We do have articles on other webcomic collectives that have survived AfDs. However, I contend that this collective is not sufficiently notable to merit an article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Abe as non-notable web site. --Lockley 00:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Stifle 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartikey Srivastava[edit]

Evident nn-bio, but claims notability (or at least fame), so speedy tag removed and article sent here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A7 per my original tag. For what it's worth, I don't consider the sneaky placement of the word "famous" in a description without any sort of qualification in the rest of the article to be a legitimate assertion of notability, especially given that most of the article isn't even about the supposed subject anyway... --Kinu t/c 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. GfloresTalk 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Kinu --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete most of the article is about the Indian cricket team. No assertion of notability, no sources. Gwernol 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - unencyclopedic, badly written, and the only useful information is about the team. ProhibitOnions 21:57, 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 redirect; achieves same end as delete anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Kaffee[edit]

Minor character in movie for which main characters do not have separate pages; no point A2Kafir 19:53, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal jewelry[edit]

Not encyclopedic or notable enough for its own article. As it stands, it's a dicdef plus advertising. Brian G. Crawford 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete It's not notable enough for its own article. It's essentially a plug for a niche product. The content could be rolled into the pages butt plug and non-piercing body jewelry. Glowimperial 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You vote delete, but you argue for merge. --Easyas12c 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Anal jewelry is jewelry worn in the anus. Glad they cleared that up I wasn't sure what it was! 28,000 google hits seems enough for me to warrant inclusion somewhere. kotepho 20:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--Primetime 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, though it might well serve as a cautionary tale. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by Glowimperial. If we keep this article, someone might attach a picture, and I don't want to see it. --Elkman - (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very, very good point. Eww. A2Kafir 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it has its own article you can just skip the article. If it gets merged then you have to see the picture when browsing the more general article. --Easyas12c 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. And may I respectfully ask, if you're going to suggest merge, you explain just where you want to merge it to? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see why we can't have the topic mentioned in two places. It would be harder to find the it if it were embedded in "non-piercing body jewelry". People already reading about non-piercing body jewelry could be interested in this topic as well, but I'm sure that there are others looking just for info on anal jewelry. It's definitely informative, as I certainly did not know there was such a thing as anal jewelry until I saw the article.

    Also, I agree with Easyas12c in that this entry was not in clear view of visitors until it was listed on the AFD page. In any case, the world is full of offensive things, and hiding them isn't in Wikipedia's spirit of inquiry at all.--Primetime 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. One way or another, let's hope this doesn't catch on. Bucketsofg 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Weak Keep. Some of the reasons above for not merging make some sense. However wikipedia is not censored. If the decision is to merge into non-piercing body jewelry, then leaving this as a Redirect could be the best solution. Vegaswikian 06:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to wiktionary. -ZeroTalk 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a redirect. FloNight talk 14:26, 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 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare marketing[edit]

"This Wiki page was created for the students of Dr. Anthony Cox's Healthcare Marketing course at IUPUI"...WP:NOT a free webhost. I'm sure IUPUI has web space for students and professors.  RasputinAXP  c 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because Wikipedia isn't a web host. Wikicities might be a more appropriate place for this. --Elkman - (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. Stifle 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iFDG[edit]

It has been said that this is a Not Notable hobby group. Opinions? KPWM_Spotter 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable organization. --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Sandstein 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a group that designs "aircraft" for PC flight sims. That's it. A hobbyist group. Non-notable? Unencyclopedic? Trivial? Utterly. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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 speedy deleted - currently on WP:DRV. W.marsh 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Taylor[edit]

It's a one-man hit piece on a non-notable individual. The meme of the moment is fun, but we hardly need character assassination pieces on Wikipedia, and other than the brief mention of the incident suitable for Trivia on the Tuttle, Oklahoma page, this man does not merit his own entry. Merge any appropriate contents into the Tuttle, Oklahoma piece and delete separate entry. — WCityMike (T | C) 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and do not merge into Tuttle, Oklahoma (indeed delete the info about Jerry in that article also.) This is a funny but unbelievably minor occurance (and yes, it is why I looked up the city) that just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It was broken by the Reg and then picked up as an 'oddly enough' piece by Slashdot (note the foot), Digg, Reddit et al. Nowhere else in the media. No lawsuit, FBI, nothing, just an obnoxious email exchange from a manager who got out the wrong side of the bed and doesn't understand computers. It's a funny story that will be forgotten within a week - no, ok, maybe a month. _If_ it develops into a significant lasting internet meme or "tuttled" gains traction I do of course retract this. In that case I think the incident should be recorded here (it was Jerry as a person that was involved in this) rather than on the Tuttle, Oklahoma page; it's an incident concerning Jerry, not the town. A single line in the town article referencing Jerry would then be enough (as with exploding whale, something that doesn't happen every day.) -- Blorg 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Speedy deleted. — WCityMike (T | C) 22:07, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vargathrone[edit]

Non-notable band, exactly zero Google hits. Essentially no assertion of notability (on the fence, but I don't think the unsourceable list of songs counts), but attempts to speedy have failed (per the author's refusal to heed warnings not to remove A7 tags from his own pages; I was even nice enough to {{hangon}} for him...). I hate bringing it here, but... delete. --Kinu t/c 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ulvrangers is also repeatedly removing the AfD tags. Looks like we have a trouble maker... block recommended per vandalism on next such offense ASAP. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no Google hits, no allmusic profile, no claim to notability, and half of it is in German (or whatever language it is) --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back into the grave per TBC. Sandstein 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - NN Band. Fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn band, tagged as such. --Rory096 23:31, 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 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club noeth[edit]

looks like it fails WP:WEB-- Syrthiss 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, webcruft, alexa rank 918,978. Warning: Clicking on the weblink will hurt your eyes. Sandstein 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yikes, Sandstein is right! (and not just because it's NN) ProhibitOnions 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Gwernol 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per WP:WEB and comments above. Also, note that the afd notice on the article was temporarily removed by an anon IP, and later restored when the article was independently re-nominated. -- The Anome 10:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kingdom hearts 2 show[edit]

Delete as non-notable web show. It's also worth nothing that the creator of the Wiki page is Wwe4567, which is also the cited username of the show's creator on Youtube. —LrdChaos 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as non-notable and likely vanity. --Lockley 00:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jon Calla 03:57, 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. JIP | Talk 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWorld joke programming languages[edit]

Was (were) previously nominated for deletion here. The result was no consensus/merge. I have merged them and believe it is now clear that this (these) article(s) should be deleted. —Ruud 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forward-cruft. Gazpacho 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create a new joke-programming-languages parent article and merge them there (along with other stuff lying around). The topic of joke languages is notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it's OK but not much better than that. Stifle 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Transwiki to Wikisource (already done) and delete. It's really only source text. Stifle 23:38, 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 Speedy delete - {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Wall[edit]

Doesn't pass notability bar, acomplishments not notable. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if they wait a bit for the article to expand, it can be increasingly more accurate. Aimee Wall is an associate of Dr. Mel Levine, and is increasingly heading into fame. (The highest fame a Los Angles school teacher in a small private school can accomplish.) - «Talk» 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Wall is a real individual and the article has been cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's standards

  • Speedy Delete sorry, does not meet WP:BIO Gwernol 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could write PAGES about some of my high school teachers. A2Kafir 21:49, 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 Speedy delete as repost of a previously deleted article. Stifle 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahfor[edit]

Moving from prod as a courtesy to the reprodder. It was prodded both times as a non-notable website (see WP:WEB). It also failed AfD back in December, but since the article asserts growth since that time, I don't know if speedy is appropriate, and I can't view deleted articles anyway, to know if it's a substantial recreation. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:29, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal death metal[edit]

nonnotable sub genre of death metal - genre-cruft; contents are covered by death metal. Delete Spearhead 21:29, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Jeremy London[edit]

Delete - Jason London and Jeremy London each have their own article. Nothing on this page can be merged into the other articles, and I don't believe a redirect could be created either. Sweetie Petie 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would normally advocate a redirect but that's not practical in this case, and there are no existing incoming links. — sjorford (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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 Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Robbins[edit]

gibberish A2Kafir 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I think this is a Speedy delete, either under the criteria of a non-notable biography, an attack page (looking back in the revision list), or just patent nonsense. I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Elkman - (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math metal[edit]

what is this metalheads that are good at math? All sarcasm aside, just another bogus metal genre. delete Spearhead 21:13, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto IV Soundtrack[edit]

There is no such thing as Grand Theft Auto "4". Fake. Unverifiable. Don Vito Corleone 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic. --P199 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth is this supposed to mean? I see it everywhere and yet I think no two people have ever used the word to mean the same thing. The article should be deleted because it's a hoax - don't complicate the issue by using meaningless terms like "non-encyclopedic". — sjorford (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means that the article has no informative value at all, hence "non-encyclopedic". I may reconsider if it has at least some useful trivia, background info, explanation, etc. --P199 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It informs people what songs are used on the soundtrack of a very popular and notable game (albeit a non-existent one). So it does not have "no informative value at all". It may not have enough value in your opinion, but if that is the case, say that. (Note: I am well aware of the ironic pointlessness of arguing over the semantics of a single word when we both think the article should be deleted and anyway it's April Fool's Day... :) — sjorford (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, that is until Grand Theft Auto 4 does get released --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax and/or crystal ballism. -- Saberwyn 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too crystal ball-ish. youngamerican (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Texterity[edit]

Advertisement. Delete.Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -D. Wu 05:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new product space... As long as the descriptions are somewhat factual, its necessary to keep Zinio and other entries to maintain parity. These are all "vendor generated" descriptions, but unless someone has a better idea, it's better to have some information rather than nothing. (Unsigned vote by Cimarron.buser (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texterity[edit]

This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee[37]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. Daniel Case 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, {{db-repost}}, tagged as such. --Rory096 23:32, 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 slight merge and redirect to Bob Dylan, as per the last comment. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_people_compared_to_Bob_Dylan[edit]

Comparisons don't necessarily mean anything. Just because someone is compared to someone else, does not necessarily make them as good as that artist. Comparisons are even more pointless when it's with another great musician. Are we going to put an article comparing the Beatles to the Stones? No. They're both good, similar in some ways, different in others. Imagine if we compiled a list of musicians compared to the Beatles. That would be every post-1970 band in existence!Darkhawk 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV and stupid. Chairman S. Talk 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think everyone would qualify, right? Might as well merge with Catagory:Living Persons. TKE 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV and.... unworkable. --Lockley 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and potentially useful information. Wikipedia is not paper. dbtfztalk 02:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment I do understand per verification this could be a good list. However, my reservation is that it would take constant watching as for contributions everyday to people compaired to Dylan. There'd be an edit war over Conor Oberst alone. I think it invites trolling and doesn't make up for that in content. TKE 04:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possible trolling is not valid reason for deletion. We have thousands vandalized lists to watch. Every day I revert a dozen of "days of birth" in year articles. `'mikka (t) 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All articles require constant watching. That's what watchlists are for. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:44
        • Yes, you are both correct. I've been thinking about this, so to clarify my position. I think this is one case where Wikipedia is Not Paper might not apply. I would much rather leave such lists up to expert music critics. Don't get me wrong, I'm ready to watch the page; but for someone to cite such a claim in a paper or akin should come from a reputable music source such as Billboard, Rolling Stone et. cet. By all means keep if that's the concensus, this is more of a future reference for myself kinda thing. T K E 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherent POV and just silly. Proto||type 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. Rename into a more exact title. Anyone may be compared to Bob Dylan. But the point of the article is to list people who were declared kind of "version" of Dylan. My poor English does not allow me to find a good term. Kind of List of people likened to Bob Dylan, meaning not simply "compared" but sort of "identified with". `'mikka (t) 17:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I boldly moved the page to the title Mikka suggested, which I think is quite apt. dbtfztalk 02:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think twice, it's all Keep per Mikka who's utterings are always positively Dylanesque in their contours of meaning. Peel this list back and you get Dylan version internationale. What's not to like about that? It's also nice to know that at 60 plus, Dylan still carries some weight in an age of rap and Britney. On a side note, I think that both the nom's ideas for future lists are excellent. -- JJay 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. —P199 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: interesting list on a notable concept. Interestingstuffadder 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete this, which is reasonable, please someone add the introductory comment to the main Dylan article, listing some key people who have been compared to him (Kristofferson, Costello, etc.). I found this very useful, and it gives me further people whose music I can check out, since I haven't discovered much of the likes of the Bobfather. The Mad Echidna 21:53, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three 'o' clock victory[edit]

Non-notable ex-band, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, tours, notable members. PROD removed without improving article or discussion as to same.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. Daniel Case 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Case TKE 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy a7, nn-band, tagged as such. --Rory096 23:33, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29[edit]

I get the feeling this might be an unpopular one, but I don't see anything notable about a particular given eclipse, that can't be summarised in the solar eclipse article itself. There's a nice gallery, which can go off to Commons, and the rest isn't worth keeping IMHO. Erath 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Because it happened recently and informs people who are interested in this particlar eclipse. beccus April 04, 2006 17:00 UTC
  • Keep!. Why not. It's a good page that summarizes something people may be interested in.
  • Delete. A year from now nobody will remember the exact date Dwp49423 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do it. It was significant.
  • Keep. Why not? It's something people will want to read about over the next few years.
  • Keep. Total solar eclispes only happen once every two years or less. It's notable in that respect.--Adam (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Total eclipses are rare and significant events. See NASA publication for the eclipse on 2006 March 29, it is 27 MB, contains many related information, not only a gallery. — Yaohua2000 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Merge. Isn't there just a list of every time a total solar eclipse had happened/will happen? The individual articles will all read identical anyway, so just merge them into a list, and make that a "see also" on the Solar Eclipse entry. - Darkhawk (29 March 2006 @ 17:35 EST)
  • Merge. add this info to the List of solar eclipses article. - Christopher 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge There is nothing special about this eclipse. This is a classic case of recentism. joturner 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that just because it happened in 2006, more people want to read and write about it, but I think if we could write about all the eclipses that ever happened it would be a powerful resource. So I don't think there is anything wrong with "recentism". Donama 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per Joturner. MrMurph101 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge. Add to List of solar eclipses. Allemannster 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are unique events that don't happen every day. People who see them often remember them for their whole lives. As a reference work we should have articles on this type of thing. -- JJay 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of solar eclipses article. The eclipse is now a historical eclipse and its only claim to noteworthiness is that it is the most recent total eclipse. Apart from being an eclipse, it is not particularly noteworthy from an astronomical point of view because it was not particularly long or short nor had particular historical events associated with it. By comparison, the longest total solar eclipse of the 20th century, 1991 July 11, does not have a separate article. This eclipse was well studied because the path of totality passed over major observatories in Hawaii, USA. The same criteria should be applied to other eclipse articles that are not significant from an astronomical perspective. The article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 is only noteworthy because the line of totality passed over Europe, but in eclipse terms and from a global perspective the 1999 eclipse itself is not particularly noteworthy. Therefore the article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 should also be considered for deletion or merging for the same reasons as the article Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29.

--B.d.mills 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Events like these are rare and scientists pay a lot of attention to them. They may set up just another hypothesis based on observatories of a particular eclipse and that particular eclipse might be a milestone. This article is more important than the GX Pilots. If GX Pilots are there, let this be kept. 85.103.28.145 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons already given, and because Wikipedia is not paper (I quote: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover") Djnjwd 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Solar eclipses, such as this one, are rare events and NASA does have a wealth of information on this particular eclipse. Tachyon01 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per B.d.mills. Kerowyn 23:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BD Mills, unless someone can point out another notable factor of this eclipse. Staxringold 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills. TKE 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills. Equinoxe 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a massive event affecting a significant portion of the world, and it only happens every 2-3 years- less than the Olympics. --Rory096 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good article providing information about an event. Isn't that what encyclopedias do? --daunrealist 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, reiterating my own vote which wasn't clear when I opened the discussion. I would also like to point out to the voters who are suggesting keep on the grounds of rarity, that the rarity and importance of solar eclipses is not what is being debated; it is the notability of this specific eclipse which is. Erath 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yaohua2000 --Ugur Basak 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills, although there really isn't a reason to merge much information worthy of keeping, as that would set a precedent for creating articles, or sections, with unnecessary details. Oscabat 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep astronomical event. --Revolución hablar ver 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The pics are amazing, and documenting solar eclipse is good, and I'm fine with this article. I think it is like saying that we shouldn't care about a random war. That article would never be deleted. I dont see why a specific solar eclipse should be deleted. - Mbralchenko 19:34 29 March 2006 Ottawa
  • Keep per Mbralchenko, Daunrealist, Revolución, and others. --Kilraven 01:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect BrokenSegue 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djnjwd. Doidimais Brasil 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant event. Failing that, merge into list of solar eclipses. Alphax τεχ 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to keeping the article, it should be renamed to Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006. --Revolución hablar ver 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm pretty sure a solar or lunar eclipse is a rare event. Douglasr007 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, failing that, merge, as per Alphax. Algebra 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What is the big fuss about deleting this modest article? Who does it bother, who does it offend? Let it be! You're very right, Erath. Censors and deleters are impopular indeed, and deserve it! AVM 02:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix - an article that is mostly external links isn't really Wikipedia material. I can see keeping it, but it should be turned into an article rather than a link list. -- Robster2001 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills. SM247 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when we have listings for every hurricane in a season and lots of other minutia why should we not track rare astronomical events? 72.130.179.37 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list. Solar eclipses are quite commonplace in general, you just have to be in the right place to see them. Gazpacho 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djndwd - Wikipedia is not paper, we can cover an infinite amount of topics. -zappa 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills Goldfinger820 03:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zappa PageantUpdater 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is a important addition to the informations. Please atleast leave an article for people to add more information. This is really premature to delete. viyyer 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep&Expand A lot of info to be added. --Anthony Ivanoff 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills. --Randy 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tally Removed per Segue joturner 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This tally is both wrong (includes an IP and a new user, whose "votes" are usually discounted) and deceptive, as this is not a vote. BrokenSegue 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a major solar eclipse. Also can be transwiki or merge ed. Hohohob 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per what others have said. -- Chuq 05:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand i see no reason not to have an article for every single eclipse (that has enough information to put in such an article), and there is a lot more information that could be added to this article. --Someones life 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Dynamite Eleven 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NASA manages to edit an half-centimer thick booklet about each eclipse, there should enough specific to say about it, although I agree that the current article is a bit short. Schutz 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Total solar eclipses are rare and fairly major astronomical events, so I think they are worthy of separate articles describing location and how it was observed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Each Total Solar Eclipse is unique in its event. Conditions on the Sun and areas seen on Earth have a major effect on visibility of corona, photosphere and wisps etc. The occulation by the moon shows different effects as well. They rarely (not in a lifetime) happen in the same path of totality (let alone a same duration). Expand the report to cover path and duration spots. Secondary, as a memebr of the ASV [38]] the recording of these events only serves to enrich our understanding of the events, for those located out of east travel range (not counting rich eclipse chasers). Finally, its not a case of "Seen one, seen them all!" - I disagree this is recentism-- Ravend (I apologise for lack of Wiki editing skill)
  • Keep. --Thiago90ap 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions and Comments: For the good Wikipedians who are planning to vote for Keep or Merge, I have a few questions to aid you in your decision. Consider the criteria to use to determine whether particular total solar eclipses merit a separate article. If the vote is for Keep, there may be a case for creating more articles for individual eclipses. Should we create articles for other recent total solar eclipses? If so, which ones? When creating articles for individual eclipses, what selection criteria distinguishes a notable eclipse from a non-notable eclipse? Does the eclipse have to pass over a large populated area, or any populated area, or are all total solar eclipses notable regardless of the remoteness of the location? I feel that a vote for keep really means keep -- and create more articles for particular eclipses. Examples: There is no article for Solar eclipse on 11 July 1991 even though that eclipse was notable for being over 7 minutes long and by being particularly well observed by the astronomical community. A friend of mine saw the Solar eclipse on 4 December 2002 but that eclipse lacks an article. I experienced the Solar eclipse on 23 October 1976 from Melbourne but that eclipse also lacks an article. --B.d.mills 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I vote on Keep and expand/create pages related to other eclipses - I think prior ones have not been done simply due to the fact that no one has done them yet (and I intend to start gathering my shots and data on 4 December 2002 for a page (if this one is not deleted) -- Ravend 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. I think it is yet too early to consider this article for deletion. NASA itself has not yet (that I know of) released the scientific results of this eclipse, other information, etc. The user above has a point that other notable eclipses may be considered to have an article.--Pyg 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It might be recentism, but I am sure that when the next solar eclipse arrives people would be interested to see a (small) page on the previous eclipse(s). --Donar Reiskoffer 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Just another eclipse. No mass hysteria or other significant social, cultural, political, economic or scientic sequaelae. A-giau 07:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djnjwd. - Estel (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep each solar eclipse is unique and paths should be recorded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.128.187 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into list of solar eclipses per above. single event, non-notable considering past eclipses do not have their idividual pages. NSLE (T+C) at 08:17 UTC (2006-03-30)
  • Keep and expand or merge. Each solar eclipse is unique. Either expand the article or merge, but do not delete.--Jusjih 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per NSLE jacoplane 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good source of info. BTW, this is an archive of an event.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand it or merge and delete it per NSLE.
  • Keep, the list article is a list; if we have detailed information on a particular eclipse, it should get its own article, be linked from the list article, and be in Category:Solar eclipses. dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per BD Mills. I think we should merge the August 11 eclipse aswell.--Luccent 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Yet again I forgot to sign it - sorry)[reply]
  • Merge I don't see how this would ever become a decent sized article while avoiding fluff like "and people were in awe at the awsome event at the rooftop for football stadium x in country y". The person who brought up the article with the pilots of a videogame even makes the case even stronger because even THAT has more to write about than the new eclipse.--Technosphere83 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not vote about the present state of the article, but about its potential. Wikipedia:Recentism? Jill Carroll. There is an eclipse every other year, but people get abducted and killed every day in Iraq. The eclipse is certainly more notable in terms of rarity. dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we have an article about every KIA or abductee.--Technosphere83 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per dab Kmorozov 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is bordering indiscriminate list of data (since this eclipse is no more special than most of the others)... however, it's completely harmless and of possible interest. This all fits into a greater debate on if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in the traditional sense, or if it's helping to redefine what is encyclopedic since we can afford to have more articles. Only the future will tell... gren グレン 12:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per BD Mills. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per BD Mills - Kicking222 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but after it's no longer on the front page. Rob 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging either would not preserve material information (links, graphics) or would result in an unwieldy article - or both. -- DS1953 talk 15:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per B.d.mills --Vyran 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per dab --Squigish 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as said, each solar eclypse is unique--Aldux 16:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to know how unique and how notable,every person is unique but we don't have an article about it.Hell every car is "unique".--Technosphere83 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its notable enough. Bertilvidet 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- sure the article is short now, but merging it would only prevent it form getting any bigger, here it at least has a chance --T-rex 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would also be in favour of there being pages for other elipses, if they also have sufficient detail, photos, etc. We have pages for specific South Park episodes, minor film characters and all kinds of minutiea less interesting or noteworthy than this. Matt Deres 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per BD Mills. Olin 17:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: deleting this article would be completely ridiculous. This has been the most visited eclipse since that of 1999. Why should it be that the least important political events get an entry, and an eclipse which displaced thousands of people not? Nick 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is interesting and useful. Ensure it's linked from the list of solar eclipese page. Kilbosh 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly useful article containing unique information. Considering this article is linked from the main page deletion is a poor idea.
  • Keep. Solar eclipses are definitely notable, and there's no reason to remove information by merging. Vashti 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, per Djnjwd Autopilots 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Each total solar eclipse is unique. They occur infrequently enough and have unique characteristics. Individual elections in countries and states, sports championships and other regularly, recurring events have their own, separate pages, why not solar eclipses? Alansohn 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because other eclipses don't have articles yet doesn't make this article any less valid. Just because there is no significant scientific results from it yet, doesn't mean there isn't potental for any, and this article is a valuable place to put any results that are found. The path of totality is unique for every eclipse, and is significant in it's own right. There are all sorts of little details and differences between eclipses that can't be shown in any type of summary list, but the details that can be included in individual article means that that information is available. I think that there should be an article for every single eclipse. It just happened, so of course it's going to look like recentism, but it's still a valuable article to have, and is definitely worth keeping, and possibly expanding. Nekura 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As already mentioned by others before me, it's notable enough. Especially total solar eclipses visible from half the Earth.
  • Keep rare and notable Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uvaduck 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is simply not notable enough on its own to warrant a separate article; merge in List of solar eclipses as suggested (a long way) above. Batmanand | Talk 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More information in the article than could survive a merge, which is a good sign than it should be kept as its own article. No reason to lose information in this way, and I see no compelling reason not to have it as a separate article. I don't have a problem with every eclipse having its own article so long as there is enough content to warrant it being separate from a list which seems to be the case in this instance. --Fastfission 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. It happened to half the world. I believe it's notable. 24.47.52.72 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep (pending paradigm shift) because, whether it's supposed to be or not, enyclopedic information is based upon its impact on humanity (culturally, economically, scientifically, etc.). For example, take the 2005 hurricane season, you have the storms that affected the socio-economic status of some areas (Katrina) and those that didn't. You'll notice that those which did have seperate articles and those that didn't have smaller entries in the main 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season article. Another example, the Olympics. Though its cultural impact lasts only for a short while, it still greatly impacts society for that short while, nonetheless. Eclipses should only have seperate entries if they make a noticeable, strong impact on humanity, unless you guys want an encyclopedic paradigm shift or something (which I kind of doubt by reading other comments). Other than that, all pertinent infirmation should go to either the list of solar eclipses or the main article. Sauvastika 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "List of solar eclipses" or such broader article. 80.221.61.8 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Add to List of solar eclipses. The pointer outer 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over many years articles like this will produce an excellent detailed record of solar eclipses.--Liss 21:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think people are forgotting what Wikipedia is. --Rick Browser 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge BD Mills is right. RashBold Talk 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every eclipse has its own "personality". (As to which eclipses deserve its own page: those that there are people willing to write such a page.)--Imz 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Huh? Werdna648T/C\@ 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per B.d.mills. Yoninah 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Absurd tendancy among wikipedians to want less information out there. --MateoP 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the point of deleting this page??? Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and keeping this page will help it reach its potential of having excellent and accurate information (and lots of it). ClarkF1 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Label as Stub to be Expanded Find it that this article could expand a lot and a lot. That really is the point of encyclopedias, espicially with this article. Mbralchenko 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Solar eclipses do not occur very often, and a big one like this hasn't happened recently. Let's keep it, rename it, and label it as a stub. At least then it might be expanded gradually. Supertrouperdc 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course! Why aren't you also AfDing all the elections, Olympic games, world cups, and every other event that happens regularly? Solar eclipses aren't even monotonous: there's a lot to document about where the solar eclipse can/could be seen, how long it took, etc. Much more exciting data than votes or sports results in my opinion! — Timwi 00:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst the moon passing in front of the sun is the same for every total eclipse, the path the eclipse follows, and which countries it visits, is unique. This, plus recording of the reactions of different cultures to the eclipse, is worth keeping.
  • Keep, for all of the reasons thus far presented. Some have noted that other prior eclipse do not have a dedicated article - therefore, neither should should this one [of 2006 March 29]. However, the problem with this argument is that Wikipedia is ever expanding. In fact, nothing is stopping anyone from creating a new article for the 11 July 1991 eclipse right now. And I think it would be a good idea to have a page charting all known eclipses - to which this one can be linked. Stephenw77 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a part of history (and a rare one if I might add). No reason what so ever not to keep this.
  • Keep. These events don't happen everyday. --Artorius 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event doesn't deserve to be ignored. In fact, it's a shame that such an article that is even linked on Wikipedia's homepage is marked to be deleted. 155.223.42.185 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each solar eclipse is unique. Brian | (Talk) 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Kubra 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has has been said many times, this isn't a paper encyclopedia; we could have one page for each solar eclipse, and I think there's enough notable information on each eclipse to justify doing so. -- Ch'marr 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article for every eclipse sounds like a good idea to me. They're all notable, and unique. If an article on one such eclipse doesn't contain enough unique information, that doesn't mean that it can't contain enough unique information. We don't delete stubs just because they're stubs... this is a wiki. Expansion is the way of the future. Fieari 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. i think we should merge this. dont really think its worth keeping that much craigosbourne 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that most total eclipses are worthy of an article. I'd like to see someone take on creating articles about other major ones. How that critera would be determined is a something that would have to be decided.Davidpdx 10:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have the space, and it's not harming anyone. Samy Merchi (Talk) 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Brian. --lightdarkness (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills G Clark 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability issues aside, there is certainly precident for elaborating on the details of a specific event outside of the primary article for the class of events. This is why the {{main}} template exists. -Harmil 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list that links to every solar eclipse article would be good, but instead of deleting this one as only one of a few articles on solar eclipses, how about starting to write articles on other solar eclipses. Stating that all of the articles will read the same is not a viable argument, because you could similarly argue that we shouldn't have articles on chemical elements because they would all be very similar. To someone interested in the data, the slight differences are important and significant.
  • Speedy Keep Article is of a notable news event, is linked to from the Main Page, and too large to merge.--Ted-m 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article describes a significant event. --Barfoos 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Delete & Merge later Obviously from the number of comments, this is still a popular article. Plus, it is still on the Main Page. However, later I don't believe that many people will look up this specific solar eclipse. Zreeon 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see WP as a bastion of knowledge and don't agree with deletes except in extreme cases. Too large to merge. Robert Brockway 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia could always use some more bandwidth ;)Also, I think it is ABSURD that someone wants to delete an article THAT WAS FEATURED ON THE FRONT PAGE FOR CHRIST SAKES 69.109.121.215 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just keep it, no reasoon to delete. --ObaidR 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, along with all the other solar eclipse articles. ShadowMan1od 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think every solar eclipse deserves a separate article. Someone called it recentism, but I think even after 10 years it will be interesting to find some more information and pictures of an eclipse, than just list of countries, in random order, from which it was derectly observed. We should just make some kind of template for eclipses, which would include useful encyclopedic information, using, for example, Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29 as reference. Even if my vote is discounted, you have my opinion, wikipedia contains tons of useless articles, so why don't we keep a useful one? 213.197.129.54 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A whole different chunk of the world's population gets to see each eclipse and that's one reason why each one is an event. Further, since this doesn't involve distorting a pre-existing article, nor is the article very long, this is hardly a particularly egregious example of recentism. --Danward 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable EuroSong 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no reason to delete perfectly good info. I mean, really, its on the Main Page. SeanMD80 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very important, and has interwikis.--Taichi 03:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what policies does this article violate? — Catherine\talk 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of course. CG 04:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable astronomical event with plenty of encyclopedic potential. For example, an astronomer I know observed the eclipse from a site in North Africa with special equipment intended to investigate the existence of Vulcanoid asteroids. MCB 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an event that has happened in the past, and never will again, this presents absolutely no use at all to anyone. Similarly, all information on dead people should be removed. We should also cleanse the system of any references to dates before last week. Numbers, too. Just trivia, after all :P 216.93.217.136 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, almost all who witnessed totality (bar a few thousand tourists) earn less than $10,000 annually, and are not likely to ever read Wikipedia.
  • Keep. A total solar eclipse is a spectacular and rare event. I myself have always wanted to witness one, and may never have the opportunity. Reading this article and viewing the linked sites was rewarding to me. I'm sure there are lots of articles in Wikipeida which are of much less interest than this one. 66.245.204.51 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for frivolous nomination. Hektor 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the sake of consistency should the same apply to the entire Category:Solar_eclipses and not only this particular one. Bertilvidet 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm amazed this was really nominated. Someone has little to do. 64.12.116.73 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly keep. Very well done and worth the space it takes up --70.111.46.105 12:48, April 1, 2006 (Added signature by Steven at 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable event. Failing keep, at least merge, don't delete. --Davril2020 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. A notable event, rare occurrence. --Steven 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per arguments above --Grocer 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have articles for the most trivial of topics (minor political squabbles and miniscule organizations and bands, which are quite common) and this one, an eclipse, which is quite rare, is nominated to be deleted. In that case, we should delete all the other junk out there, but unfortunately no one bothers to do that. I say we Expand this too, if anyone feels that there is too little information. Also, as Djnjwd says, we can fit almost anything into Wikipedia, as there is no issue with too little space. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 72.130.179.37 (comparing to hurricane articles), Schutz (NASA's data), Ravend (others are missing because they're just not done yet). The list of solar eclipses is not meant for all of the extra information and pictures in this article. --Spiffy sperry 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiffy sperry Kirbytime 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In future, any number of topics and issues (such as folklore, social movements) etc might be related to that event. IMHO, unless articles are rubbish, and assuming Wikipedia's servers aren't running out of electrons, deletions should be very rare. I found the article interesting and intend to link to it on my own site (and I'm not an astronomer). Alpheus 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an event that deserves an article. Tristanb 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All total eclipses are rare and significant enough to be notable. The only sense in which this is "recentism" is that events that have occured since Wikipedia was begun are able to have more data included since data is more readily available while the event is taking place and shortly thereafter. (see also articles on recent olympics as opposed to earlier olympics). If more data can be found on previous total eclipses, those eclipses should also have articles written based on that data. Tyler 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is strange to call this "recentism" as the article has been there since April 8, 2005. Maybe "futurism"? LambiamTalk 11:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Kids and students may need to write some paper about this particular eclipse, especially if they live in the mentioned countries. And what if something happens, such as a colective suicide, and is later related to this event? It wouldn't be the first time such thing happens. I don't understand this deletion fury of some. Lets make Wikipedia the most complete encyclopedia ever. Pedro.Guero 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant event which happened recently. Mdwav 1:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC+8)
  • Keep .This article is more notable than many others you can find in the wikipedia. --Francisco Valverde 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BDM. —Ruud 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep viewable from ISS, unusually good weather and corona. The last viewable one was in Antarctica, so this is way more 1337 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete—There's nothing especially notable about this particular eclipse. The title is also awful, being some kind of bizarre amalgamation of ISO 8601 and common date formats. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I want to be able to find out obscure information about a specific eclipse on Wikipedia if someone has been happy to write it, even though eclipses happen every few years. Wikipedia can't compete with NASA or other parallel organisations to record astronomical events, but we can try to provide the high-level story of each even to the layperson. I don't care that no one will write an article for the eclipse that happened in 1243AD! If they'd had Wikipedia back then someone would have taken photos and written the article no doubt! Donama 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and get a life to whomever nominated this
  • Keep Pmaguire 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chuck 12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course.--Jyril 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - solar eclipses are rare occurences and each is different. --Leifern 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a note to teh ISS page. 71.202.41.210 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tend to reduce or minimise duplication of material - IE an article on solar eclipses, and possibly on eg observing solar eclipses, and then a n article on the specifics, particualrly any new observations, of each one. Midgley 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with photos taken by wikipedians from five different countries it shows some of the best of what wikipedia can do -- Astrokey44|talk 02:50, 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 transwikied already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caput[edit]

Dicdef that can't possibly grow into an article we don't already have. Daniel Case 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be useful for the people to know that caput exists both as bone/body part and as a disease. It serves as a redirection, just like the CNS --www.doc 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the disambiguation as a footnote, I hope it's alright now--www.doc 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right idea with the transwiki link. I'm going to suggest that's what you do ... take all those entries to the Wiktionary entry for caput. It is not a disambiguation page, and can't be, since it links to no other articles named "Caput." Thus it's really not encyclopedic, nor is it likely to be, and thus wiktionary is the best place for it. I will add the appropriate tag. Daniel Case 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Thanks for the help with the tagging.
  • delete. No articles - no disambig pages. At the moment these are just dicdefs. `'mikka (t) 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I've already transfered it there.--www.doc 22:10, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The page Unenrolled now redirects to Unenrolled voter. The material at Unenrolled voter is substantially different from the original article for which this AfD was made. As a result, another AfD should be proposed if deletion is warranted for the new article. --HappyCamper 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenrolled, Party Government, Political commentary[edit]

Political advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Daniel Case 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY WELL, I THOUGHT THAT VERY MUCH WAS THE PHILOSAPHY FOR UNENROLLED VOTERS. I WAS AIMING TO GIVE THIER PHILOSOPHY NOT A SOAPBOX. IF YOU CAN BETTER GIVE UNENROLLED PHILOSAPHY PLEASE DO IT OR HAVE ME REWRITE IT, BUT DO NOT DELETE IT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinus (talk • contribs)

Then what I suggest you do is work on the existing Independent (voter) article, which certainly needs it at the moment. I think I'll put a merge tag on this one. Daniel Case 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep/Rewrite - I'm not familiar enough with this concept but if the core of it is true, it would warrant an article - a serious NPOV rewrite needed. --P199 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Complete WP:OR. --Rory096 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, and not very good. I know a lot of independents. I've never once heard any Americans describe themselves as "unenrolled". Fan1967 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I suppose they're unenrolled if they're not registered to vote at all... --Rory096 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the bundling Delete All. No way to salvage an acceptable article out of any of these. Fan1967 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Author has created basically the same article under two other titles at Party Government and Political commentary. These are even worse, as they're the version before his version of reducing POV. Recommend all three be bundled into the same AfD. Fan1967 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Daniel Case 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Fan. Joe 03:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE 4/2/2006: AfD and merge tags have been removed by Merlinus. Will warn him. Daniel Case 22:24, 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 Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Matthews[edit]

I'm listing this here rather than on {{prod}} because a similarly-titled article (Scott Mathews) is currently on AFD, and I wanted to minimize confusion. This Scott Mattews is a different musician than that, and to the best of my knowledge, he's also a different guy than the genuinely notable drummer for The Derailers. This Scott Matthews is a non-notable singer/songwriter with one album that hasn't been released yet. Googling his name and that of the album turns up only ~15 google hits, and he doesn't have an Allmusic page. We don't have an article on his label (San Remo Records), and a google search for them turned up 74 pages, most of which were either irrelevant or mirrors. Colin Kimbrell 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Music, escpecially if the album hasn't been released. TKE 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. `'mikka (t) 18:11, 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 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice City[edit]

Cruft game mod--Zxcvbnm 23:07, 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 speedily deleted as copy-paste copyvio by ESkog. Proto||type 10:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yumbel[edit]

this is not in english. Maybe this should be transwikied? Where (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Translate and keep a not English tag has been placed. Let someone translate it into English.--Adam (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete content has changed to copyvio.--Adam (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Its copyvio from the tourist site of the town in Chile [39]. Site says material is copyright. Dlyons493 Talk 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:22, 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 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pageant Beauties[edit]

Non notable website. Prod removed without an edit summary. --Rory096 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WEB, Advertiser, et. al TKE 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Rory096. wikipediatrix 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. It doesn't even have its own domain. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (For a second there I thought this site was "Pregnant Beauties"). Daniel Case 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with my site? First of all, you don't need a domain name to have a website. At least, I did have one, TBC! Second of all, I saw all of your username pages: Zoe, Rory 096, TBC, and Daniel and I think your pages are bader than mines. I have a right to post my entry here, just like all 4 of you's. I will updated it soon, so it could meet, ur... "Wikipedia Standards." Also I don't know what your doing because, Zoe you are so mean. You deleted 2 of my pages. If you even what to delete this entry, I would have to delete your's and talk with Wikipedia. Same goes for Rory096, Daniel, TBC, and Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam72991 (talk • contribs)

Do not make threats. You have also blanked your own talk page to remove the vandalism warnings since you received notice that one more instance of vandalism would get you blocked. Daniel Case 05:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to do what you wish with your userpage, as the editors above have. This deals with the creation of arcticles, which appear in the search engine. T K E 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The author needs to read Notability (websites)--rogerd 05:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, delete as advertising copy. If cleaned-up and given substance, I would be willing to reconsider my view -- Simon Cursitor 07:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threating you. I'm just saying, your userpage is also advertistment of yourself and I don't delete it. Thanks Simon for letting us see your interesting username page. Anyway, yes I will put press releases about Pageant Beauties so it won't violate the Wikipedia Policy.

Comment. User pages are not article space. --Rory096 05:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, new website, not notable or encyclopedic. Authors are discouraged from writing about themselves or their projects. The way this works is: you start a website, lots of people visit it and write about it in places other than Wikipedia, then someone writes a Wikipedia article about it. FreplySpang (talk) 15:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coism[edit]

Delete. Google search brings zero hits, author admits subject is obscure and without sources. wikipediatrix 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know what to think of this article. While it fails verification, notability is nill but not being a paper encyclopdia it could stand with verification to me. Since the author is willing to let it go, it's a coin toss. I'm waiting to see if anything else happens with it. TKE 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. A religion supposedly developed and spread through the internet that doesn't Google? I don't think so. Sounds like something made up in school. Fan1967 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources and likely hoax --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I am the author, and a Coist. You can accept or reject my word according to your judgement, but I hope you don't dismiss every obscure article as a 'hoax'; Coism is not a schoolboy 'fad' (I am, regrettably, no longer that young,) just because it was conceived recently by a small number of people (as, throughout history, all religions were, according to Atheists). To clarify, however, the principle of Coism was conceived by a small group of us who became acquainted via the internet, rather than invented in a chat-room. If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge. I think it is not that Coism is too spurious a subject to warrant an article, rather that not enough other equally obscure subjects have articles as well. There may only be a handful of us, but are there no diseases with far fewer sufferers that are listed on Wikipedia? Furthermore, does Wikipedia have a 'maximum' capacity for knowledge? And what is the threshold of 'obscureness' that must be passed to warrant an article? Mjefm 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: 1. Where did the information in this article come from? 2. How can you prove that this whole thing isn't something you just made up? 3. Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a notable subject for inclusion? wikipediatrix 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough..." That is correct. "...but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge." I don't know where you got that idea. Wikipedia does not want to be an indiscriminate repository of everything under the sun. The standards are basically that, in order to be covered in Wikipedia, something must be notable and verifiable. We have at least half a dozen new religions or belief systems a month, some spurious but many sincere, and most known to at best a few dozen people. The sincerity of your beliefs is not an issue. What is an issue is whether there are any significant number of people who follow, or have even heard of, this belief. It seems quite clear that, at this time, the answer to that is no. If at some point this belief should spread and actually become notable, it can, at that time, be legitimately covered here. Fan1967 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide a citation that the religion exists and has been recognized by other people, and we may keep it. Gazpacho 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it would be good to keep this kind of article - even if the movement never has more than a handful of members, it's worth preserving this article for historical reasons. DH, --203.111.66.236 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to prove first that it really exists and is not a hoax. Not much chance of that with zero Google hits. wikipediatrix 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Geez, I'm starting to think that we need to formulate notability guidelines for religion sometime or other. --maru (talk) contribs 20:34, 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 12:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with ADHD[edit]

An obscure target of vandalism, List of people with ADHD is not only not notable, but consists of six uncited and most likely unverifiable statements, and a (hidden) message that any more uncited examples will be considered, and reverted as, vandalism.

  • Delete. KI 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a crank magnet. Brian G. Crawford 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Yamla 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. This seems very familiar, I'm surprised there's no previous AfD on this article. Edit history shows pattern of (let's call it) unenlightened behavior. --Lockley 01:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unsourced, and probably plain false. Carlo 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible speedy delete. Haven't similar lists not survived deletion votes? Daniel Case 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing left after cleanup. Gazpacho 03:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the existing article is poor. But we have similar articles that are fairly solid in Category:Lists of people with disabilities, so maybe there's potential here. FreplySpang (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In it's current state, it's an absolutely rubbish article. Uncited and unverifiable, going to be POV guesswork. Which is incidentally what I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with ADHD, and that was kept! - Hahnchen 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and permanently unverifiable listcruft. Stifle 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 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.

If you came here looking for the November 2012 AFD of this article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender (2nd nomination).

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender[edit]

Definition plus etymology plus examples of usage still equals a dictionary definition. It's also a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • DeleteTranswiki protologism. Plus all of that not a dictionary stuff. kotepho 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's significantly more than a dicdef. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a neologism and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Yes, the article has more than just a definition, but you can do that with any word if you choose. It's still just a word. And a neologism, besides. Carlo 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article admits the word is a neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a neologism is not sufficient criteria for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is that whole WP:NOT a dictionary thing, along with WP:V and WP:RS that this article is lacking. kotepho 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it is a neologism, but one that is referenced by dozens of other articles (see what links to it), and one that has meaning within an small academic community. I don't see what is hurt by keeping it, and I can see many articles that would be hurt by not being linked to it. There is a fuzzy line between neologisms and legitimate accepted terms in new fields of study. It is not a black and white distinction. If anything, we have to draw that line closer to neologisms and allow some of the better examples. This is one such case. I never heard of this term until I saw it referenced somewhere else, and I learned something from reading the article. Is that a bad thing? -- Samuel Wantman 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "cisgender" in any academic database I searched. The best I could get was one hit on google scholar in an unpublished paper which cites no source for the term and admits that it is not in wide use. Very low number of google hits ~800 inculding wikipedia, ~650 w/o). Article has no real sources. kotepho 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the results for "cisgendered to be more interesting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With this great revelation I have come up with...zero results. Oops :( kotepho 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little used neologism (as per Kotepho's research). Proto||type 10:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neodicdef. `'mikka (t) 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. C'mon, WP is not supposed to use or introduce neologism, but what's wrong with describing a significant one? This is a very decent article, worked on my many people, complete with all kinds of references and interwiki links. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources for its significance. The sources in the article are eerly similar to each other to the point that they were all written by the same person or copyvios of each other. Oh, and they aren't WP:RS either. kotepho 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact alone that it is linked from several articles should make it clear that it is important to keep it. Also, I wonder what "academic databases" were searched that turned up no hits. -- AlexR 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PyschARTICLES, PyschINFO, PubMed, Duke University Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Contempory Women's Issues along with searches of periodical databases such as NewsBank's American Newspapers, Factiva, InfoTrac, SIRS, LexisNexis. kotepho 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful term that is actually reasonably widespread among this field; I can try to find more published uses, but a quick google revealed its use in this book (Medical Therapy and Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide For Health Care Providers, by R. Nick Gorton MD, Jamie Buth MD, Dean Spade JD), in addition to a reference found in google scholar (not sure if it's the same one referred to above, but this one has been published): Debating Trans Inclusion in the Feminist Movement: A Trans-Positive Analysis (by Eli R. Green), in: "Challenging Lesbian Norms: Intersex, Transgender, Intersectional, and Queer Perspectives", Edited by Angela Pattatucci-Aragón, PhD Director, Center for Evaluation and Sociomedical Research, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan. Perhaps those keen on deleting pages that define specialised terms and lack references can turn their attention to Category:Cooking techniques — none of these terms (e.g. Sautéing, basting) have cited references from academic publications as far as I can tell. ntennis 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think basting is a neologism... nevermind. That is the same paper from google scholar though, I was incorrect that it was not published (the version I read stated it was yet to be published). The Journal of Lesbian Studies is at least described as peer-revied by others. The book seems to be unpublished as far as I can tell. It is a book that is released under GFDL and googling for the ISBN comes up nothing. This is still a far way from demostrating that it has significant use. I'm changing my vote to Transwiki though. kotepho 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are hard to please :P I will have a look for other published sources from the real world of actual paper and ink. In the meantime, the use of the term and its meaning is easily verifiable online. And no, I don't think basting is a neologism. What gave you that idea? ntennis 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant, used, probably passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:42
  • Keep. Dysprosia 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain —undecided. —Ashley Y 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, seems to exist but doesn't seem to have any reliable sources. Stifle 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per ntennis. soggyr 13:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful in transdiscussions, so it's useful to have this entry. Steve Harris. 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and then Delete. WP:WINAD applies here: the term has an important usage in transgender discussions, but it belongs in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    oops! Forgot to sign my vote yesterday evening: appropriate signature now added. --BrownHairedGirl 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this different than the pedant article? WP:WINAD should either apply to both articles, or neither. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is different in several ways: a) pedant has a wiktionary entry; b) pedant fits WP:V and WP:RS. Even so, I would consider the case for keeping pedant to be marginal, but Cisgender fits none of those criteria. --BrownHairedGirl 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. neologism without reputable sources yet. Mukadderat 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A term and concept in development. Cisgender was referred to at the recent (2006) ILGA World Transgender pre-conference. Its usefulness is still being explored, one thing for certain it has far more possibility of theoretical usage than 'RG" (real girl) and bio-boy (STW, 02-04-06)--68.203.186.198 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "usefulness still being explored" seems to me to be the strongest case yet made for this article's deletion. Personally, I think that it is a useful term, but that's not the issue here — it's more relevant to note kotepho's failure to find usage of it in a search of academic databases. Until there is some wider consensus on its usefulness and usage, this term does not fit on wikipedia: see WP:V or WP:RS, let alone WP:WINAD.
      I fear that some contributors to this discussion appear to be applying inappropriate criteria, by asking whether the term is useful to them personally rather than whether it fits wikipedia's criteria. --BrownHairedGirl 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's more than simply a word, it is a concept that is steadily accepted in the transgendered as well as the GLB community, much like the term "genderqueer". -CapitolAnarchy 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no good reason for deleting it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Query Could one of you keepers please explain how this passes WP:WINAD? kotepho 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the top of the WINAD page: "Nearly everyone here agrees that in general, stub articles are to be encouraged, provided they meet certain criteria. There are likewise some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable for beginning an article. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort —don't just give the meanings of the word." It seems to me that this article already has encyclopedic information in talking about the social and political context in which the word emerged, who uses it and why. It would fail to meet this policy if it only consisted of the lead section. The article could certainly be improved though; perhaps you would like to help? ntennis 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seems to be WP:OR given the lack of sources. kotepho 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it were WP:OR, it would have been created by the authors. We didn't create it, it's a part of our understanding. I'm sorry if the word isn't used often enoguh fo it to pass your filter, but it certainly passes WP:WINAD and WP:KIT. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read WP:OR? Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. It hasn't been published. It is original research. kotepho 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret this two ways. I've always read it to mean that "material added to articles authored by Wikipedia editors that has not been published in a book, journal or on the web already..." rather than "material from any source added to articles that has not been published in a book or journal..." If it is the second case, all of my work on List of largest suspension bridges is original research because all of my sources were from the web. It is, as far as I know more up to date than anything to be found on paper. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my interpretatoin as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting back, I couldn't find any other published uses of the word. i guess it is mainly confined to less formal forums like personal websites and discussion lists. ntennis 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Element[edit]

Sounds like made-up nonsense, no references, no Google relevant hits Gu 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note page is made by the same user, whose own page is also up for deletion Kyle_Stewart Gu 09:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like vanity/hoax/NN-bio to me. --Bachrach44 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. verifiability. `'mikka (t) 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable nonsense. 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did a Google search of it, and no relevent links. --Red Dwarf 23:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy's a professor at Confederation College in Ontario, Canada (and a lousy one at that). TheAxeGrinder 08:34, 2 April 2006 (GMT)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_29&oldid=1081096685"