Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

Purge server cache

March 30[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Abdul-Wahhab[edit]

NN. Keep filling wikipedia with all the webmasters out there? Not such a good idea Oblivious 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator does not state that the article fulfills any of the deletion criteria. 'Not a good idea' isn't one of them. Cynical 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okei lets state the criterias. 1. Non notable The article states he is a webmaster. Unfortunately just-a-webmaster is not notable enough for the subject to be an encyclopedic entry. 2. Self promulgated website - While the website has some very good articles in different areas, Maldives Royal Family it not a website of any officialy recoganized body. Its run and operated independantly by its webmaster. Hope this is enough. --Oblivious 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. The article is about a non-notable webmaster in charge of a non-notable website with an Alexa ranking of 1,362,172 [1]--TBC??? ??? ??? 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio. Royboycrashfan 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete so what that it's verifiable? I am overweight. It's verifiable. I don't deserve to have my own WP article, do I? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. --Sneftel 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be uttery non-notable, and article asserts no claims that would apply to WP:BIO. Kuru talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't believe I have been on this site this long without even realising that there is a whole sub-culture of trying to delete peoples articles. For great justice. 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable mess. Funnybunny 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promotion. --Phoenix Hacker 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Fishhead64 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VANITY article about a WP:BIO-failing webmaster of a WP:WEB-failing website. Dick Vitale would say "Trifecta, bay-bee!" --Kinu t/c 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lector Latinus[edit]

nn software with only three Google hits. Article created by the software's programmer. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condor Earth Technologies Inc.[edit]

Advert for minor non-notable engineering company Calton | Talk 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, 990 ghits [2] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement and non-notable; fails WP:CORP --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, it does look like an advertisment you might see everyday on the tube. Funnybunny 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, minus the tube and inserting something less foreign-y -Mask 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete big ugly advert --Luccent 10:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 10:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, advert Celcius 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excavate this as above. ProhibitOnions 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I feel that this topic having 900 google hits is notable enough. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, 99% copyvio from their website, only difference being "our" changed to "their". [3] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per "What's in, What's out-companies": It is a large company, well-established and is highly notable in it's field internationally. Wording is currently being re-worked to sound less like an ad.--63.204.90.126 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Kimchi.sg pointed out, it's a copyvio. Other then that, I would agree with Siva1979; It seems like this is large enough to get an article, assuming that it is less of an ad. -Haon 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Engineering and surveying firm with 75 (per infoUSA.com business directory) or 110 (per article) employees. Probably involved in site assessments for buildings, landfills, and so on as is usual with this type of firm. No assertion why this particular firm is notable compared to many many other firms engaged in similar business. Thatcher131 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does meet WP:CORP in that it meets notablility criterea of having been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."63.204.90.126 19:33, 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 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udargo[edit]

Webcomic/blog? Found here. It's hardly ever updated and is not exactly a notable, important or notorious website is it. Alexa ranks it 2 million+. - Hahnchen 00:37, 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 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of All Blades[edit]

I congratulate the comic on reaching the difficult 38th strip, you can see this here. And you can also have a look at their 34 member forum here. No Alexa rank and less than 60 links on Google. This is not notable, at all. - Hahnchen 00:42, 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 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban the Basics![edit]

Your run of the mill webcomic, which can be found on the free host comic genesis, here. According to Alexa stats, this draws 1% of the traffic to the comicgenesis domain. Is this an extremely popular or notable webcomic? A look at Google gives back over 200 links which is not bad for a webcomic. But this website has been online since 2001, and looking at the links, it still doesn't seem to have generated a large following or garnered any critical attention. - Hahnchen 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. -- King of Hearts talk 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime physics[edit]

I see no way that this list of personal opinions can ever become an encyclopedia article. Big Blue Marble 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, maybe add a note to anime about how the laws of physics in the anime world is different from real world (if there isn't any). — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We have to have some kind of warning left in the article to make sure no one tries to create one again, too. MythSearcher 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to put it here, I have looked at the cartoon physics page and figured out that if the article could be somehow changed to describing what Anime Physics means (which will be really similar to what the cartoon physics page currently has.) MythSearcher 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then I suggest a merge --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as it seems to be a better solution. MythSearcher 05:10, 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 keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tough love[edit]

Dictionary definition, contested PROD. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: this concept is central to the treatment of substance abuse and other disorders. There is potentially a lot of meat here -- the history of tough love, noted experts in favor, noted experts against, controversy, etc....just like other psychiatric / substance abuse treatment strategies (eg Twelve-step program, although this is not 100% analogous). Yes, this is a stub. But isn't the purpose of the stub tag to identify potentially good articles that are still in their infancy? This is clearly not simply a dictionary definition. Quepasahombre 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is potential to expand this article. Books have been written on it and so forth. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or weak keep if expanded --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notability as to treatment and verification can be found, needs some tough love to make it work :) TKE 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entry needs to be shown some of itself. Bucketsofg 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from the Wiki. I don't see this working on Wiktionary. Royboycrashfan 06:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The concept of "tough love" is a political one that has major implications in the field of social care (see this book, for instance). Agreed the article as it stands isn't enough, but mark for clean-up and expansion - and keep.Vizjim 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, unless expanded and cleanup then keep. --Terence Ong 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. it starts with "Tough love is an expression used when" and it's a Vocabulary stub. Clear enough to me. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite/expand - definitely an article-worthy concept. What's there at the moment can also go to Wiktionary, but there's an encyclopaedic article in there somewhere. Proto||type 10:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - Tough Love is large concept of behavior, about which there is much to be said. Expand the article, because it's not enough as it is. Hanako 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tranwiki An obvious candidate Celcius 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepLoom91 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quepasahombre. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded. This is an important enough concept, I've had to deal with it in translation work (and it was a chore to translate!). Can be more than a dictdef. ProhibitOnions 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/expand, has potential far beyond dicdef.Bjones 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concept could be fleshed out quite a bit more - people write books on the topic. Worth keeping as a stub until someone gets around to updating. Kuru talk 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki The seepage of items to Wikipedia that should be in Wiktionary is getting ridiculous! Fishhead64 06:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. There's nothing here that would be lost should someone create a relevant article in the future. Gene Nygaard 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: this argument could be used to justify deleting all stubs. the counter argument is that having a stub in place helps to encourage further improvement. Quepasahombre 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Quepasahombre. Simon Dodd 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well-known concept. Should never have been prodded and the nom makes very little case for deletion. -- JJay 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, dictionary definition, not really encylopedic. Radagast83 19:34, 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 No consensus. By my count, we have 24 delete (including transwiki to Wiktionary), 18 keep, 3 merge, and 4 redirect. Go work it out on the talk page. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licking[edit]

mainly nonsense. As pointed out on it's talk page if anything, this is a definition of a verb for wiktionary. It was tagged for speedy but tag removed. My vote is for Delete obviously :) ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, would say transwiki but Wiktionary probably has this very common word already. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; no need to transwiki --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Bucketsofg 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gerund of the verb to lick? Can be mentioned on the Wiktionary article page of same - WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). --Terence Ong 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (argh, I feel weird doing this) - no more a dictdef than clapping is. If what there is a dictdef, which it sort of is, it should be expanded and not deleted. Proto||type 11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Move to "Lick" per naming conventions, rewrite/expand
    As Lick is a disambiguation page, if licking were to be kept, it's in the right place. Unless you really think Lick (tongue action) is a good title. Proto||type 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Proto. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename to Lick, which ought to be moved to Lick (disambiguation). Your not going to delete an article about one of the primary functions of such a significant anatomical component. JeffBurdges 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. History, culture, etc can all be covered under this. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:16
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with eating - it's basically a form of ingestion. Fishhead64 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef with no other meaningful content, even after yesterday's major rewrite—sorry :-(( Slowmover 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as wider range of subjects are incorporated. Because of the many places in North America named "Lick" (as in "salt lick"), I think that "licking" deserves its own entry. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow struck out. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improvement, but licking is an important mammal trait. WAS 4.250 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was started by a banned sock puppet. It contains unsourced, non-verified information. If some one decides to write an article they should start from scratch using scientific sources. (Sorry, I didn't look far enough back in the history.) Delete and merge the factual text where appropriate. FloNight talk 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tongue. --FloNight talk 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly because of WP is not a dictionary - but also article is rather uninformative, unsourced, with little to no meaningful content.DonaNobisPacem 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic and unsourced. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support redirecting to tongue as an alternative. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable, unencyclopedic ➥the Epopt 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Deserves mention on Wikitionary. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Goes beyond a dictdef I think. --kingboyk 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be sourced and there seems to be quite a bit of information that could be added beyond just a def. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as horrible, could be made encyclopaedic but we are better off without this cruft-o-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FloNight and others above. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per DonaNobisPacem and The Epopt. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMG Keep - How in the world do you delete an article on an ingestion method for many mammals?! Cyde Weys 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Updated vote to strong keep below.[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary or weak delete. Esteffect 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't imagine why this article was tagged for deletion. It could certainly benefit from cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the version that existed when listed here you'll understand ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony (or redirect to tongue per Cyde below). The existing content is mostly silly and ought to be pruned down to a stub, but the subject itself is certainly encyclopedic. I'm too tired to work on the article now, but I'll try to clean it up tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is "silly" in it's present form and is not changed then shouldn't this article be deleted and page left blank until someone is bothered writing a serious article? Just my $0.02... ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just went and wrote what is at least an attempt at a serious article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After five days and a few hours, we have:

  • Delete or Weak Delete - 19
  • Keep or Weak Keep - 13
  • Merge (with eating) - 1

DonaNobisPacem 06:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS NOT A VOTE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do you think you'll have to yell that before it becomes true? AfD is without question a vote. Try closing a "discussion" with 17 "delete, NN" votes and one decent argument for keeping as a keep, and see what happens.Grace Note 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One of the cornerstones of the deletion policy is a prohibition against dictionary definitions. This article is a dictionary definition with subheadings. The matter is rather simple and should have been automatic, had there not been a banned user involved and passions surrounding his claims. Please, folks: look at the article, not the authors. Look at the article, not what could someday be done along the same lines. This is an overly long dictionary definition: we have Wiktionary at another site. It is, incidentally, a self-evident dictionary definition as well, but that's only a multiplier. Geogre 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictionary defintion and put link to Wiktionary article on the "lick" disambig page. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just plain silly - this word is not that complex that special definitions are required. The dictionary is good enough. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some people seem to think that licking is obvious or a dictdef. Would you please like to tell me the muscles that are involved in licking then? There's lots of potential here for a great encyclopedia article. Hell, you could even write a good section about the evolution of licking. But no one seems to see that potential but I. Cyde Weys 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the relevant info, including "social application" ;), is already at the article Tongue - which is what is used for licking. Any info on complex muscle groups would more properly belong under that heading, as that is what the muscles are attached to, I would think? DonaNobisPacem 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-checked the tongue article - it has info on the muscle groups/biology. DonaNobisPacem 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, any objections to redirecting licking to tongue? --Cyde Weys 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great idea. Redirect to Tongue, per Cyde. -Colin Kimbrell 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde Weys and DonaNobisPacem, sounds like a good idea to me if most of the information is already there. Thanks for working it out.FloNight talk 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Tongue per above. Herostratus 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after rewrite. Keep. Enh, why not. Important animal trait. Herostratus 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I just rewrote the article almost entirely. It still needs a lot of work, but should at least be a step in the right direction. Hopefully those who voted to delete the earlier content will reconsider now that the article has been rewritten. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After Ilmari's rewrite, the article is in much better shape, and I doubt Wikitionary would accept this article, as it is more than just a dictionary definition. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Geogre, even after the rewrite. Sorry. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree; any info that is there still belongs (in my humble opinion) on the tongue page. On the Wikipedia merge page, we read that not every topic requires a page; for instance, flammable and inflammable belong on flammability. I would think that licking belongs on tongue under that argument? DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I should clarify - that means, as I have said above, redirect to tongue. DonaNobisPacem 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly enough information there to deserve its own article. Polotet 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anyone cares, info can be added to tongue. patsw 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge. I linked to both off my user page (well before this AfD) and found it amusing that there were a entries for both lick and licking. I'm not picky as to which article title is kept and I'd be happy to help with merging and expanding the two.--Pro-Lick 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for clarity, I was voting for a merge of Lick and Licking. I'm not opposed to merging with Tongue if it does not create any size issues.
  • Delete This is vandal bait as it sits. Dominick (TALK) 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand on that? I may be missing some context, but to me "vandal bait" suggests articles like Teabagging or Anus language. I'm sure this article would attract its share of vandals and silly trivia, but I don't see why it should be a particularly common target compared to the really heavily vandalized ones like George W. Bush or Hitler or even (for whatever strange reason) Archimedes. Nor do I see why we couldn't handle vandalism to this article just like we handle it in general. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vandalbait" is just not a valid reason for deletion, it really isn't. We can protect an article, we can watch it, but we don't give in to vandals by deleting valid encyclopedic content! --kingboyk 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- but if the vote is to delete, should be redirect to Licking County, Ohio. --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the article looked like initially but in its current state it seems encyclopedic to me, a lot more than just a mere dictdef. Keep (however I am not opposed to a merge with tongue, that would be my second choice if this is close, but previous versions talked about other meanings of the word that are derived from the main definition... those could be expanded better here than there) ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 (γραφ) 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per above. Kukini 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's much better in its current form and I commend you tremendously, Ilmari Karonen. I knew this thing could be done encyclopedically. To the rest of the voters — please reconsider your votes. And to the closing admin, please consider that most of these previous votes were done on the old version, and in addition, "consensus" shouldn't overwhelm the mission of the project, which is what would happen if this thing were to be deleted. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – Licking is a notable topic, with sexual and sociological implications for various species. If made encyclopedic, there is no reason to delete; and if the article cannot grow much beyond a stub, by all means merge with Tongue. - RoyBoy 800 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopaedias are or should be in part dictionaries with more detail. If someone is willing to write a comprehensive article about "licking", I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop them. Grace Note 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is not a need to write a comprehensive article on every single kind of variation of a theme. e.g. there is no need to have a page on flammable, inflammable, and flammability. The Tongue is an integral part to licking. The use of the tongue in eating and drinking are already laid out in the Tongue article, having a page specifically for licking is redundant. If this survives the AfD, then all relevant information that is already included on the tongue page should be excised from Licking. Radagast83 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is something of a straw-man argument: whereas "flammable" and "inflammable" are descriptions of flammability, "licking" is a separate concept from tongue, just one of a number of actions it is used for. After all, we don't redirect running to foot, do we? Other uses of the tongue, such as eating, drinking and talking, do have their own main articles, even if they're also described briefly in the tongue article. Why not so for licking? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ilmari has it exactly right... There is more to licking than fits into the tongue article. In particular I think exploration of why the term is used (along with "hiding") to describe corporal punishment might be quite interesting. No change in my previous opinion of keep... ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think sprotecting AFD pages by default would be a great idea. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WildOutWest Venture Consulting[edit]

Industrial-strength Vanispamcruftisement for a venture-capital firm. Created by [email protected] (talk · contribs), who also created David Shantz, WildOutWest, as well as WildOutwest and David shantz. Calton | Talk 01:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WildOutwest[edit]

Blatant vanity. lots of assertions, but seems nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article is merely a vanity page for the co-founder. Royboycrashfan 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 10:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic nn Celcius 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Whoever did this was spamming Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete spam per above. Kuru talk 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennichuck talk[edit]

Prdo removed. Nonsense language, WP:NOT for some (nonsense) thing made up in a school day.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "At one of its three middle schools ...". Daniel Case 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As someone attending the high school in which this "phenomenon" is "taking hold", I can say first-hand that this is by far not noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. This "dialect" is practiced by an extreme minority of individuals in high schools and one middle school. - Mike 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If one knows "Mike" one will know that he infact does attend this high school, but that the claims he makes are an attack to discredit and destroy an article that has not even had a chance to firmly plant its feet on the ground. Within 10 minutes of being created it was on the table for deletion, and while many in the wikipedia community may see that as a victory I see it as a shame - a shame that new ideas cannot be expressed or shared with the rest of the world. All I implore is that this article is allowed to remain active for more than five days so that those who have made this dialect so famous can voice their opinions and show that this article is "Notable" - Smack-nhn 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to make you sad, but raising the pitch of your voice to imply sarcasm on a word not normally used in that context is absolutely nothing new to the English language; it's a method of speaking that most everyone discovers at some point in the development of speech. T K E 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GEEEE THANKS I wish this had an audio file, Keegan, so we could demonstrate. I don't want to make you sad, but isn't reading articles prolifically on Wikipedia mean you have a very, boring life? After all - you stop vandalism like there's no tommorow. I salute you! Smack-nhn 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take that as a backhanded compliment. Look, it's nice to have something catch on and I don't doubt that your group has done that. But I had a History of the English Language professor who swore up and down that her family invented the word "crud" in 1955, and there is no way she would consider it inclusive as she admits there is no proof. That's from an person who knows language and dialect. Now, if I'm sitting down here in Tennessee and in six months to two years I hear this, then I will support. The point of the editors is that a few thousand teens (or adults) in New Hampshire are simply not notable. Myspace is a place to rally trends, not Wikipedia. By all means look over this place and the links pointed out, and become a serious editor. We take it seriously because there are several hundred new pages everyday that have to be filtered. I am here because I love history and English, but my job is not in the field so it's a nice way to relax for me. I don't consider you a vandal, I take your contributions assuming good faith. CC to the user's talk. T K E 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Pennichuck Talk is not simply a local-Interest or a small scale dialect. It is a phenomenon that is starting to take hold throught the city of Nashua and the Region of Southern New Hampshire. Due to the increased networking of young adults in today's society - what may seem as insignificant or "un-notable" can very quickly become a national trend. By killing this article before it even starts, you are in effect killing the documentation of a dialect of the english language. Already, we here in Southern New Hampshire are seeing increased use of this "talk" among young adults from other schools through interaction in sports, clubs, and other extra-cirricular activity. The fact that it has spawned use by thousands of people after originally being born from a select few shows that this dialect Demands Notation - in a few short years it has firestormed and simply deleting it because it hasn't reached you yet is killing a part of our culture. A part of our culture that could reach you in a few years. If this site is all about spreading information and breaking borders, why is there censorship on what is percieved to be "Not-Notable" material.smack-nhn 30 March 2006
  • see discussion page for reasons to keep this page alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smack-nhn (talk • contribs) (I moved these two comments of Smack's; they were above the deletion nomination Joe 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious nonsense and neologism made up by a couple of high school students on a school day--TBC??? ??? ??? 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not made up in a day - it has been evolving over the past 4 yearsSmack-nhn 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Nope. This hasn't even spread that far in the Nashua School System. --Mike 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow Up Answer: Maybe...We don't know for sure one way or the other. And Mike - I love you - Do you wanna go to prom with me? I need a date ;)Smack-nhn 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mike. Joe 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and whatnot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh-LEEEEET. private neologisms. --moof 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, and WP:WINAD. Royboycrashfan 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this utter nonsense.Vizjim 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, yet another non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 10:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local nonsense Celcius 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. So much so, perhaps this should be captured and put on WP:NFT as the canonical example of something made up in school one day. ;) And what does "crecendoing" mean anyway? --Deville (Talk) 14:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smack-nhn. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't believe that an experienced hand like you, Siva, could be conned in this way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Siva1979 - You're my heeerrrooo. Smack-nhn 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, but I like Derville's idea that this should be kept in some form as the epitome of this kind of stuff. ProhibitOnions 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism, WP:NFT as stated above by Terence Ong.--Isotope23 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It's not original in any form, unlike piglatin. It's a manner of speaking that is commomplace and wasn't "invented" anywhere by anyone on particular. T K E 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please. Utterly unverfiable and just a simple neologism, per Mr. Ong. Kuru talk 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concession Knowing you guys are gonna tank this - I would be honored if this is used as an example of what not to do. I was upset at first, I can not lie, but I realize that it's hilarious how seriously this is being taken. Feel free to delete at will, but immortalizing it as the epitome of what not to do would be the highest honor I could ever hope for. On a side note: Thanks to Siva1979 for not being a jerk, supporting free speech, and obviously liking the Smashing Pumpkins. Rock on and keep on rantin' Smack-nhn 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC) P.S - I WILL NEVER PUBLISH ANOTHER ARTICLE IF THIS BECOMES A PERMANENT EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO. YAAAAAAAA!!!! Smack-nhn 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Believe you me, there are examples of what not to do. Don't take it personally. T K E 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete honestly, at first I would have agreed with you. but after reading the article, i was so enlightened! People who live in Nashua actually really need this to be here. contrary to popular belief, this is more than a few kids making up stuff. this is one of those things that will spread like wildfire as did the use of awkward. I say ohp and I didnt even realize it was pennichuck talk. Now I can recognize it when I hear it. Mark my words, when this hits LA, you heard it on wikipedia first. user:lizzie 31 March (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.67.152 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2006
    • Comment actually posted by an anon impersonating a user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And, notwithstanding that, "you heard it on Wikipedia first" pretty much well recapitulates the reasons for which deletion is urged. Joe 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment but hey, they're from New Jersey! Soon, the whole midwest... sarcasm as per my userpage. T K E 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete encyclopedic juvenilia. Nice try tho'. Fishhead64 06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:NFT. --Kinu t/c 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 speedily deleted as having no assertion of importance by Brian0918. Proto||type 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puman[edit]

Nonnotable, google result turns out to be 299 when Puman and WOW are searched together. This seems to be a page created by someone who had an argument or likes with Puman before. The author deleted the speedy tag twice. Olorin28 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an unverifiable non-notable borderline attack page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable yet -- "it's only a matter of time before he becomes infamous globally.". ~MDD4696 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Evidently his primary claim to fame is being a... "forum troll". 68.39.174.238 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Option[edit]

Linkspam for non-notable business jmd 02:23, 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 Speedily deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Stifle 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gprime[edit]

Devovled into fancruft editing TKE 02:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now nominated for speedy delete by AmiDaniel. I support. T K E 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gprime isn't notable enough to be on here.Yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Penguin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Has an Alexa ranking of 8,439 [5] --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google says that on websites link to it. 71.248.210.54 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum. "has maybe one hundred active users." Any article on a forum that starts listing and describing its colorful posters needs to be poisoned, stabbed, strangled, drowned and dismembered. Then collect the pieces and burn them. Fan1967 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. TKE 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Woops, I didn't realize that was an AfD notice... I thought it had just been proded, so I tagged it with db-bio. Nonetheless, delete as fancruft. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forumcruft. Listing individual forum members (especially pseudonymous ones) should be a criterion for speedy deletion. JIP | Talk 09:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website forum, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Celcius 13:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly as per Fan1967. Wait, it contains a chatroom and a forum?!? Well, let me reconsider. --Deville (Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The site can be fun, but the forums are half useless anymore and not much worth mentioning Darksoulz 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Mr. Fan said, but I'd settle for a simple deletion. Kuru talk 00:49, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Plant[edit]

Delete as non-notable. I can't much verifiable information. I have only been able to find two pages: a list of him as a run-of-the-mill real estate agent, and a page which requires payment to view the archives. A prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP. Also see Plant Organization. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Organization[edit]

Delete, as I can't verifiable information about whether this place even exists. This looks like it could possibly be notable, but I can't find enough verifiable information to agree to that. Also see Brett Plant. Prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP performing blanking vandalism of the entire page, but I brought it to AfD just in case. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertisement and non-notable; fails WP:CORP. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The search "Plant organization" +"Brett Plant" only yields WP pages on google. Where (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. dbtfztalk 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn WP:CORPORATION. Royboycrashfan 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn corp. --Terence Ong 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable, non-notable Celcius 13:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax per above. Finding it hard to beleive such a major organization fails to show up anywhere. Kuru talk 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 that there is obviously no consensus for deleting this. Ashibaka tock 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot subculture[edit]

No sources. Yes, it links to Slashdot posts; however, extrapolating anything from those posts is original research. I don't see anything on this page that is not original research. Yes, there are specific posts that support claims, but there is no evidence that those posts are part of a trend. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You know, it doesn't meet my requirements, but it's clarified, wikified, and amusing. And I have never read slashdot. So, I'll go for Wikipedia is not paper. TKE 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it too, but unfortunately WP:V is "non-negotiable". Ashibaka tock 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I figure it will be deleted, but I had to weight in :) TKE 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but appears to be original research. dbtfztalk 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to weak keep, per Sjorford's comments below. The article contains useful, verifiable information, and is not necessarily the kind of thing WP:NOR is intended to exclude. I would change to "strong keep" if some reputable sources other than slashdot itself were cited. dbtfztalk 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable by any adult without specialist knowledge. 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit!
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.(from WP:NOR) + slashdot is a reliable primary source about itself. kotepho 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can verify that individual posts have been made which follow the memes outlined on the page, but you can't verify that this is a staple of Slashdot, or part of a "culture". Nobody can verify that without a difficult study which would make this original research. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've changed my mind. Whle I still think that this is verifiable I do not think it is in the spirit that we need it to be. I'm sure that most of it is accurate and anyone would not disagree with me that has watched /. for a while, but what if slashdot is not around in 10 years. How would we verifiy it then(for the purpose of this thought experiment forget about archive.org/google cache/whatever)? What about 100 years from now? It would be nice if our modern cultures were described somewhere, but I do not think something trying to be an encyclopedia(in the sense of a source of reliable information) is the proper place. kotepho 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have suggested moving this to the main Slashdot article, but it turns out that the subculture article is longer than the main Slashdot article. And, it's pretty amusing too. --Elkman - (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lacking sources does not mean an article should be deleted, if that were the case, half of Wikipedia would disappear. The subject seems legit and harmless. Tag as needing sources. -- Samuel Wantman 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, as per Ashibaka. --moof 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, no sources = pure speculation = not encyclopedic and has no place here. --Hetar 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —- the fact that nobody has written a book about Slashdot yet might make this article unverified, but not unverifiable. I really dislike misuse of the term "no original research" — that policy isn't intended to prevent research from primary sources, because that's what you're supposed to do when writing articles, it's intended to prevent original opinions. — sjorford (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in a bad mood today, so weak delete. Seems to be right on the cusp. Certainly you can write an article on subcultures, and most of these statements can be verified, but they aren't here and the article as a whole seems to be a fairly pointless summary of a nn subgroup.Vizjim 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding me? This is a huge part of the Slashdot culture and INVALUABLE to people looking up Slashdot and trying to understand it. This is like deleting an article on Apple Pie when relating to the "culture" of the US. This is a page about a culture, not some spam article about a message board or a claim about how magnets cure joint pain. Even claiming this is non-verifiable is ludacris and a disgusting perversion of the intent of the rules. --Mboverload 10:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try and keep things civil; there's way more chance of people paying attention to what you're saying. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and as Slashdotcruft. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, unverifiable and cruft. --Terence Ong 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that this is overwritten /.-cruft (Inexplicably, given the amount of detail, no mention is made of Danger Will Robinson! one of the most popular /. memes). But reading through part of it, it is accurate enough. It just needs some major excision work. Eusebeus 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, IF, it's a decent article, albeit crufty, and keeps the size of the parent article down. I'm all for deleting unverifiable articles, but this is unverified, not unverifiable. Perhaps those feeling strongly about keeping the article might like to add reliable references to the article. If decent references can't be added to the article by the end of this AFD, please consider this a delete. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Slashdot (keep in any event), prune and rewrite to remove POV. Celcius 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clean it up if you want. JeffBurdges 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep poorly written and full of crufty goodness, but still ample grounds for a decent article. Keep and put on cleanup.--Isotope23 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally over the top. Merchbow 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: While 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit! is absolutely priceless, the article's flaw is that most of the content is pop culture references that happend to occur on slashdot, not an actual subculture that is specific to slashdot. And every chat/message site has its own jargon, including Wikipedia. Peter Grey 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not every article on Wikipedia has to be about wars and politicians. This article is verifiable, notable, not original research, and it adds some happy variety to the encyclopaedia. Hook me the hell up. Lord Bob 21:09, 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 keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denvilles railway station[edit]

This station does not exist and never has existed. User:Unisouth has clearly seen some ruins but seems totally unconcerned by the lack of documentary evidence. Tubechallenger agrees with me - see this talk page. -- RHaworth 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Revised below.)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of the existance of this railway station on the internet (that is, except for on Wikipedia)Keep per below [7] --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This may exist inside the imagination of the person who created it, I guess. I've changed my vote to Keep due to a reliable source by Vizjim. Thanks for alerting me! :) Funnybunny 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Not only did it exist, it was notable as part of a dispute between two railway companies as to who would get to run the London-Havant line. I have added data and evidence on the page. The fact that it was only in use for two years in the mid-19th century might explain the lack of online evidence.Vizjim 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the station did exist, then it would be listed in Quail Trackmaps, and also the UK Rail Atlas by OPC. Tubechallenger 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (adding more information), Farlington station did indeed exist for a few years until it was abandoned, with the right side of the triangle being named Farlington Junction as reference. Denvilles does exist, and is around a mile from Havant, the "apparent" proposed station according to Quail does not exist for any point between 37.40 miles (to Portsmouth direct) (mileage change to 66.18) Shalford Junction at 31.42 miles (nr. Farncombe) Tubechallenger 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --WikiCats 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Comment. currently the article has no factual information, dates... Not much really. It ought to be deleted until someone with tangible and verifiable information can reopen the article, maybe even with historic photographs. Even if it is likely that the station existed the current article does not reflect that and it is on those grounds that it should be deleted. Captain scarlet 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax and unverifiable. --Terence Ong 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The photo is almost certainly a copyvio (looks like google map satellite imagery to me). Eusebeus 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after reviewing the reference Vizjim provided. It does indicate - in passing - that a temporary platform (not a station) existed at Denvilles for two years, I don't think a temporary platform that existed for two years is encyclopaedic, when the references consist of one brief mention. It was not the centre of the dispute mentioned by Vizjim, nor was it particularly relevant to the dispute. The image is indeed probably a copyvio. Proto||type 11:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto||type Celcius 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete keep; if other stations on this line have articles, this one should be able to as well, even if it was only briefly used. However, the current article asserts essentially nothing and is a copyvio to boot. If it's vastly improved, I'll vote to keep. ProhibitOnions 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment proof found!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the station recollections (click) the bottom has this quote The L.S.W.R. did, however, start a service from London but passengers had to alight at a temporary platform which was erected in Denvilles. is that proof or what. it is because of this i have removed the articles for deletion tag. i will expand the article to include this nformation. the southerner 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:14
  • Keep. If we cover the line we should keep the closed stations even if they are in ruins. -- JJay 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with London and South Western Railway, as it's not clear if it was actually called "Denvilles station" - it was a temporary platform. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changed view of nominator) Merge into Portsmouth Direct Line and redirect - the story is notable but it does not really qualify for a ... railway station article. A very pleasing outcome, we can both say we were right! Unisouth has probably, correctly identified a place where people got on and off trains. But RHaworth can say: yes, but even the LSWR never gave it the exalted title of "station", if they called it anything it would have been "Denvilles halt" or just "Denvilles platform". So come on Unisouth, take a trip to Winchester and visit your county's local studies library, see if you can unearth some contemporary documents like the Bradshaw for 1859 with a note saying "passengers are conveyed by omnibus ...". -- RHaworth 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what if i try to change the name of the article of the station to Denvilles halt. people have to know about this peace of history so we have to keep it. the southerner 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ps: if anyne knows how to change an articles name tell me on my user page thanks.[reply]
  • Comment I've fould out how to move the page so its now at denvilles haltthe southerner 09:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe Denvilles station has some interesting history to it - there were other battles besides the battle of Havant - so KEEP it. Tabletop 09:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment some articles have only two lines! this article is very important as it is a article. its written in detail and we know that it is a keeper so lets keep it. the southerner 09:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) its at denvilles halt now in case you have forgotten. those other twoliners should be merged or deleted not this one.[reply]
  • Keep - the frog war article describes a US version of the Battle of Havant. Tabletop 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I visited the site today and there is clearly evidence the station was there the southerner 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have you taken any photographs, notes, sketches ? Why don't you sign with your username ? Captain scarlet 16:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hwang Chen[edit]

Autobiography. Self-promotional. Doesn't seem to demonstrate clear notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Independent Taiwanese filmmaker. Not Micheal Jackson thought, but not average Joe.

Keep. Hmm, we do know that he makes music videos and commercials in Asia, but he is most famous for the designs of his T-shirts, well in Taiwan / HK and China at least. Hmm is it so bad that brucehchen edited his own page, if it is really him finding himself on Wiki? His name is gotta be searched in an Asian search engine though -> [8]

Keep. He seems to have received a few legitimate honors for his filmmaking. Carlo 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VANITY (as it was created by User:Brucehchen) and WP:BIO (as the article states that "Bruce Hwang Chen's contribution to the Film and Fashion industry is still yet to be seen"). Only 19 unique Google results. [9] --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. --Terence Ong 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Goat-flingingly nn and vanity Celcius 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TBC, let's wait until some contribution is seen. Also, Celcius, you're flinging a lot of goats today, no? --Deville (Talk) 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Carl[edit]

Unencyclopedic slang definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This was nominated for deletion once before on August 1, 2005 with no consensus. I merged the material in this article with Sexual slang, and redirected, but I was reverted. Brian G. Crawford 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge per nom; Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with having hot carl on this site. It is an act that has and will occur, so how is that different from having the term "war" on this site? This is an encyclopedia in which people can look up information on just about anything, and this is definitely one of those topics. Not to mention, it doesn't break any of the site's deletion policies. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs) .
  • Redirect since it is already merged. kotepho 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Hot Karl (note the K) was redirected to Anal-oral contact. Maybe this should be too, but since it is unencylopedic in style, and nn and non-WP:V it should probably be deleted from Sexual slang as well. Esquizombi 05:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect please to Anal-oral contact term has 75,000 google hits related Yuckfoo 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no evidence that an actual sexual practice is referred to by this name in the real world by the people who perform it (this is not to say that some people do not engage in activities similar to what is described). It's kind of a well known sexual myth-joke. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) * Saying that "It's kind of a well known sexual myth-joke." sounds like a pretty good reason to keep an article on the subject, mythical or not. Silensor 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC --Mmx1 15:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per nom. Fishhead64 06:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect; whilst there may be a case that this material *does* belong, the article seems to be describing essentially the same thing as Cleveland steamer into which it might be merged. And for consistency, whatever's decided for this article should apply to Hot Karl as well. Fourohfour 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cleveland steamer, if it survives AfD. Redirect to the sex slang article if the before mentioned target is deleted or redirected. youngamerican (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CONDEMNETH TO WIKIIIIIII-HELLLLLLLL!!!!!. BD2412 T 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Is that a "keep" or "delete" then? ;-) Fourohfour 12:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to sexual slang. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Carl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Karl, enough time has been wasted on this crap. cough. Silensor 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect It just doesn't matter enough.Thatfunkymunki 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is just another variation on Cleveland steamer anyway, as noted above. Radagast83 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_steamer_(second_nomination). Anyone who voted delete here should go there too. GT 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalendar Koffee House Company[edit]

Non-notable coffeehouse with aspirations to being a local chain. Also advertising and apparent vanity article, as all of the previous edits are by one of the proprietors. Delete. DMG413 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VANITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an advert for a corporation to get customers. Funnybunny 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, nn cafe and most probaly vanity. --Terence Ong 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adv, nn Celcius 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Ardenn 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VANITY, WP:CORP,WP:SPAM , NN Bridesmill 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • please note this page is duped at Kalendar_Koffee_House - I'm fairly new & think I messed up the process to list that page for deletion also, but if this one goes, so should that one...and the fact that we have two very similarly named pages with identical content argues towards confirmed WP:SPAM Bridesmill 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CORP. -- P199 17:53, 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 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disco nap[edit]

Neologism – ClockworkSoul 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A real concept, I suppose, but I can't imagine this being expanded to a real article. dbtfztalk 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks more like dictionary content to me. Funnybunny 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's silly. Gohst 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dbtfz. Royboycrashfan 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 11:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neo, nn - we honestly can't have articles for every conceivable nap-category Celcius 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The other articles listed probably deserve deletion as well. ProhibitOnions 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. This term is an accurate description of what many people I know do, yet had to be explained with a sentence. It is used in articles (e.g., http://www.slate.com/id/2137624/?nav=fo) in context.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omgsplosion[edit]

Neologism, dicdef. Speedy tag removed twice and prod tag once without explanation. Delete. DMG413 03:47, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A6. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brown (teaneck)[edit]

Extremely non-notable high school student. CSD tag repeatedly removed, so here we are. Speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 03:48, 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 No consensus/keep. Stifle 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masturband[edit]

Contested PROD. Mentioned in a magazine article, but still non-notable. Current entry is simply a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A single mention of a neologism in a magazine piece. -Will Beback 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted, mentioned in a magazine article as sourced in the article [10]. It isn't a neologism as much as an actual thing that is part of a greater movement. Do not delete, but rather keep and expand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not stopping you from expanding it, if that's what you think should be done with it. I just don't see how notable the idea is of wearing a rubberband around one's wrist to indicate that one is "master of one's domain." I think if it's not expanded after seven days of deletion debate, it's likely never to be expanded and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By nominating this for AfD, you're pretty much saying you don't believe that it can or should be expanded. I disagree. I personally don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads, but a need for expansion isn't a reason for deletion. I know you don't think it's notable, but media mentions tend to disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent time searching, but there is no more information avaialble with which to expand it. We've said all there is to say, until such time as someoene else writres an article about the topic. Is a single, short, magazine article sufficient to make this a notable neologism, even if no one else has ever used it? -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is size a deletion reason? If it is, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I'd find it hard to believe that nothing else will come of this, given its current notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not an issue in AfD, just notability. What notability are you referring to? Aall I could find was one article a over a year ago, with a few bogs reacting in titillation. I can't imagine that the original proponents are still advocating for it, but if they have no one has reported on it. No manufacturer is known to be producing them. No church group is handing them out. It was a fad limited to three guys who managed to interest an editor enough to get mentioned in a short "man-bites-dog" piece in the Rolling Stone. -Will Beback 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that things discussed in RS are no longer notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something has only been mentioned once, a while ago, in an small piece in the RS, then no, that is not sufficient to make it notable. If there were other mentions in the RS, or in other publications, then it might be notable. -Will Beback 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you voted to "keep and expand". Can you expand it? I'm interested in what else you can add. -Will Beback 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads. Regardless, the answer to a somewhat short yet notable article is to keep it and expand it in any way possible, and not delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the RS article you know as much as anyone, because that's all there is to know that has been published. -Will Beback 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While not all that notable, it is real and verifiable, and Wikipedia is not paper. I won't be wearing one any time soon, though. dbtfztalk 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand, per above. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbtfx. It is a dicdef, but one that you are not likely to find in any dictionary. --Samuel Wantman 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and expand, as per per above!--IceflamePhoenix 07:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, it exists alright, but can't find much except the mentioned source article, blog entries talking about that article and copies of the wiki text. Might be better just mentioned in the 'Modern abstinence movements' part of Sexual_abstinence Gu 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wtf? Eusebeus 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and expand per Dbtfz. --Terence Ong 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete er at best merge into some "Wristbands" article. This is just not notable enough for an article in itself and seems to be a very local phenomenon in the US. Celcius 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As long as this is verifiable. So it is something local? Interesting idea. Expand if possible. Editdroid 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)+[reply]
    • It's impossible to expand. Beyond the one short article (and a couple of blog comments abuot the article) there is no further information. If we could do a follow-up with the original proponents that might be interesting, but it'd be original research. -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Normally one article in a magazine is not enough in AfD, based on previous discussions. But I guess I'll give this one a shot. Grandmasterka 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable human symbolic artefact. Fishhead64 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Non-notable. Slowmover 17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified with reliable sources cited. Stifle 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As verifiable, reliable sources are cited, does that mean your delete will change? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting concept and relevant to recent wristband craze. Chadley99 06:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic def with no potential for expansion. Also not notable -- such wristbands exist for almost every viewpoint and lifestyle imaginable. Worthy of a mention in Wristband, but not for its own article. GT 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Ninjas[edit]

It's gamecruft and/or spam. Vanispamcruftisement? Delete. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, There are other pages like it, so, don't be bias. Thanks. Look at the Battlefield 2 Entry, if you delete this, you will be deleting all the others or I will be quite angry. Save. --MrWiddim 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other pages of this sort? -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring them forth, and they will be considered on their own merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game mod. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT, WP:SPAM, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game mod written in unencyclopædic tone, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, etc. --moof 06:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, non-notable game mod, gamecruft, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Battlefieldcruft, nn, spam. --Terence Ong 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, ninjas Celcius 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinions Say you found McDonalds not interesting... would you delete that? Call it advertising? No, because people love to eat artery clogging food for 1 dollar. yay. All of a sudden you get to choose who makes a wiki on a mod... quite interesting... do you have to pay to get on here? I really don't understand... --MrWiddim 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finding McDonalds interesting isn't really the point; you could still establish the notability of such an organization easily, even using the fairly harsh guidlines in WP:CORP. Not really a good example for comparison. You've been given quite a bit of feeback above; perhaps modifying your article or asking some more specific follow-up questions would help? Kuru talk 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mcdonalds is a multinational corporation with resteraunts in almost every nation on the planet, with a yearly profit in the billions and close to half a million employees in the United States alone. By comparison, this is a modification of a single game, which has been in progress for over a year now, and has ten volunteers working on it. I'm sure it's going to be an excellent mod, but until the mod meets one or more of the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline, and infromation can be provided from a reliable third-party source, it doesn't belong here. -- Saberwyn 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apprently, size matters for you. non-notable is an opinion and seems unfit for such a facutal site. Just because a person does not like the notion of a ninja, does not make something, non-notable. Spam it is not, please other smaller modifications have been listed here without doubt. (US Intervention a small modification not talked about in the BF2 community. I sense some favoritism...) I see not the fairness. --MrWiddim 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it stands, and at this point in time, the mod does not appear to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline, and as it is still in production, also appears to violate the 'crystal ball' section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not official policy. If evidence showing how the mod meets the abovementioned guideline and policy, the article will be considered in a more favourable light. If there are other mods that you do not believe meet these criteria, bring them forth and let the community decide on each article's merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. All I see are two websites claiming direct ties to the development of this project. They are not the people to turn to for information on the notability of this project. If you could provide references to newspaper or gaming magazine articles claiming grand things for this project, then there would be no problems on keeping it.
And as for the "That piece of shit is on Wikipedia, My article is vastly superior to that piece of shit, therefore, my article should be kept"... it doesn't work that way. Until it is proven that this mod meets the criteria of the various policies and guidelines noted above by various users, it stands a very good chance of deletion. But I will say it again, if there are other articles that you believe do not meet the abovementioned criteria, bring them forth, and we will consider those articles on their own merits (or lack thereof), just as we are considering this article on its own merits. -- Saberwyn 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battlefield 2 mods contains similar articles, if someone wants to vet them (pun intended) -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in retrospect, Saberwyn already knows that, because he added the category to the Battlefield Ninjas article...oops! -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the gaint banner is clearly an ad, the link to the main site is the first thing on page, this is spam.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What banner? What link? --MrWiddim 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones you removed here -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better? I'm just trying to please you, I am not advertising, just teaching. (I could care if you look at the history ;p) --MrWiddim 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My apologies if I sounded snarky. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry If I got mad, I was just trying to be like the other mods... --MrWiddim 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Lacey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple bite[edit]

Contested PROD. Self-explanatory concept and nothing but a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: this could easily grow beyond a mere definition. Could go into things like history, why it is erotic, appearances in pornography, feminist analyses, etc....there are numerous sex act articles on the pedia and though this alone is not valid reason for inclusion, in the context of these other articles this seems like a useful addition to help make coverage of sex acts more complete. Defintely deserves a stub tag, though. Quepasahombre 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. This would be better suited to Wiktionary, if at all. pm_shef 06:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and the unencyclopedic tone. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs to be expanded and maybe renamed to "nipple biting" (I don't see it as a 'term' for a dictionary but as a 'practice'). Seems also to be relevant in terms of breastfeeding with over 73000 Google hits for nipple+bite+breastfeeding. Gu 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. What are we saying here? A "nipple bite" is when a nipple gets bit? Huh? --Deville (Talk) 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable sexual act Celcius 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable sexual practice. I agree with users above who point out that there is more to be said about this practice. Thus, though the article is not sufficiently complete right now, some good wiki-editing and expansion could definitely lead to this becoming a worthwhile article. Interestingstuffadder 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete per Deville —Encephalon 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Human_sexual_behavior#List_of_sex_acts_and_practices which ought to be text, not just a list. No doubt more could be said, but it should be expanded on the Human_sexual_behavior page before creating one line articles. Any sex acts which develop long texts there, ought to be given seperate articles. JeffBurdges 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate article. Definitely passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:13
  • Merge or Delete per JeffBurdges. This is only a dictionary entry. Even if it were expanded, it should be merged. Ande B. 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable human oral activity. What's next? Ear-lobe licking? Fishhead64 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shudder to think how long that link is going to stay a sensible red. —Encephalon 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Deville. Slowmover 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Funky Monkey 12:00, 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. Let me know if the page still requires protection. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Campbell[edit]

Wendy Campell, the subject of this article is a peace activist and supporter of the Palestinian people. Peace activism aside, Campell has also aligned herself with white supremacist and white pride groups such as National Vanguard and is a supporter Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist organization. Understandably, her support for such groups in addition to her frequent use of the term 'Jewish-Supremacist' has branded her with controversy.

Consequently, many people on the left, on the right, and on both sides of the Israel-Palestine dillema consider her to be racist and anti-semetic/anti-Jewish.

When the one-sided, soapbox article on the subject first appeared, many Wikipedia users have attempted to balance the article with mention of issues that have branded her with controversy. However, the user with IP address 71.102.67.133/email [email protected] (possibly Ms. Campell herself. a google search of the email adress provides plausable evidence) has repeadedly deleted any additions that attempt to bring the article to a NPOV.

Campell, or one of her supporters have repeatedly prevented others from contributing to the article and has repeatedly censured the associated discussion page. Through her actions, the subject has insisted that Wikipedia serve as a soapbox and has refused to assume good faith.

Consequently, the article has no place on Wikipedia as it is being used as a soapbox and there are questions concerning Cambells notableness. Limbojones 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and protect the page. This helps to prevent IP adresses from vandalizing the page and solves the above problem. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already asked that any future contributions of Lioness/Wendy Campbell be banned-NOT because she is a revolting racist/nazi activist as the links below demonstrate her to be-but because of her and her allies attempts to censor and silence all contributions to Wikipedia that draw attention to that fact. She and her pro-Hitler supporters seek to deny the very freedom of speech to others that they so hypocrtically demand for themselves. She has done this in repeated violation of Wikipedia rules for participation and has failed to contribute to this discussion in good faith, constantly removing all critical posts. I would be happy with either allowing the discussion to go on, with full participation of those who do not attempt to censor others, or simply removing this topic altogether. What is utterly unacceptable is for her and her allies/agents to be allowed to fascistically dictate the entire terms of discussion, especially in response to an original entry that was little more than a (deliberately) misleading sanitized puff piece, one quite possibly written by Wendy Campbell/Lioness herself. (anti-fascist activist).
  • keep and block 71.102.67.133 if POV edits keep being made M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & protect per User TBC. Clearly notable: protection should reduce soapboxing. -- Simon Cursitor 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

Comment, I've added the above-mentioned links to the article and put it on my watchlist. If we have some POV editting problems in the future, we can bring it down the RfC route. --Deville (Talk) 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & protect but only from unconfirmed user edits, please allow ordinary logged in users to edit it. Also, please add back all the controversial stuff. JeffBurdges 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect; this, unfortunately, isn't the only subject on Wikipedia where POV warriors relentlessly delete information unfavorable to them. ProhibitOnions 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable crank. Failing that just keep and protect from unregistered editing. Marcus22 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote (because I don't have any first-hand knowledge): The only valid reason for deletion I can see would be if Campbell fails notability as a film-maker. Peter Grey 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and PROTECT. This is RIDICULOUS... Someone alignes themself with National Vanguard and the Institute for Historical Review, has their picture taken, has material on those organizations' websites... And then goes out and tries to cover up evidence of it on Wikipedia?! WOW that's dumb. Grandmasterka 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:12
  • Keep & Protect as per above. Notable. Chairman S. Talk 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect - The POV editors are the problem, not the subject. She's notable. Fishhead64 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Campbell -or one of her delegated lackeys- has YET AGAIN removed critical comments on the discussion page, even after being expressely warned not to vandalize and NPOV this article and even after this discussion page had to be set up in response to her constant attempts at censorship. This is further proof that while the article itself should be kept, her failure to participate in good faith makes an irrefutable case for her own removal from the discussion. [[User: Antifascist activist]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khal Shariff[edit]

Canadian web designer of uncertain notability; was listed for speedy and contested, so I'm bringing it here for outside opinions. Procedural nom, no vote from me. Bearcat 04:37, 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 No consensus. Seeing as Chain Of Strength passed AFD, it's probably a good idea to go and merge them, but I'll leave that to the relevant talk pages. Stifle 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of Strength[edit]

See also the related articles up for deletion: Chain Of Strength (duplicate article), What Holds Us Apart (record), True Till Death (record).

Like the other Chain Of Strength article, this one asserts no notability and should be deleted. Aplomado - UTC 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. "Members went on to bands like who??" Grandmasterka 06:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Celcius 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and merge the two articles of the same name. This band is one of the most noted of the genre. A google search for the name plus "straight edge" or "hardcore" both turn up 10s of thousands of hits. THe nominator seems to be on a single minded quest to remove them for some reason.Tombride 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they not notable? They've released 2 records on a notable record label (per wikipedia notability requirements) and return 10s of thousands of google hits.Tombride 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as non-notable late 80s California band, featured members of who? Bands that don't even themselves have pages. Radagast83 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article and merge album pages, per Saberwyn. Band also has an All Music Guide entry, though the AMG doesn't have a bio and only lists the compilation album—not the two singles which currently reside on seperate pages. It's scraping the bottom of the notability barrel for certain, but I think a single article is justified. - Rynne 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think we've seen enough evidence of noability. Merge everything into CoS. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad Europa[edit]

This software application does not appear to be noteworthy, nor verifiable. The name "Notepad Europa" returns 2 hits on Google [11] neither of which are related to this program. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Application is not verifiable purely because the owner isnt able to advertise his software as he is not yet of legal age to do so. For proper verification the software could only be verifiable under a freeware agreement. Which could compromise the developers ideas and even copyright. The only verifiable way so far the developer can give is pictures. However once he is of legal age A business name will be obtained and the software will be advertised and sold. Notepad Europa Pictures


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dust ClothingCO[edit]

NN clothing company, External links go to... MySpace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 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 no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of school pranks[edit]

DELETE Quite possibly the most unencyclopedic article I've ever seen. It violates What Wikipedia is NOT on a number of counts. WP is NOT a Dictionary, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc, etc. So, unencylopedic, not noteable, and much of it is unverifiable. pm_shef 06:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even if it were to be sourced, it would still violated WP:NOT and WP:NFT -- pm_shef 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to be indiscriminate, and wouldn't be made up. Needs a context obviously but, given that, there could be a perfectly good article in there. I agree a list of merry japes isn't encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. feydey 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. These things exist and are commonplace.Tombride 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of anthropological interest. If there are articles on (deadly) combat, mere buffoonry should not be excluded. Darlingg 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, with severe slashing and burning of all non-notable and/or unsourced entries. This is largely unencyclopedic as it is, but with work, it can be fixed without deleting it. –Sommers (Talk) 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, this definitely has some anthropological interest. But I can see it quickly evolving into a local usage free-for-all. Fishhead64 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good source of information, at least keep the most important ones. --FlyingPenguins 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as many of these things are more common than just 'things made up at school one day.' If it's on The Simpsons, it can't be that obscure, no? I recommend restarting the page and inserting only pranks that can be supported with evidence. Spamguy 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic invitation for abuse. Gene Nygaard 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Literally WP:NFT, although many of these things have nothing to do with school at all, and did I miss it, or is "short-sheeting" the bed missing from this list? Slowmover 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember, just because a page invites cruft or abuse doesn't mean it should be deleted—it means it should be watched and maintained. –Sommers (Talk) 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry I'm not convinced about keeping it. --Khoikhoi 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Page with nearly 1,000 edits in its history...screw 'unmaintainable'. Potentially more informative and useful than 95% of the other articles on Wikipedia. Andymc 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists inherently attract more edits than many 'articles' by their very nature; I notice that of the somewhat less than 1000 edits, the majority are anons, and there's a lot of decrufting, removing vandalism, and removing non-notable entries. And it's still in the shape it is; if it's to be "maintainable", it needs criteria for what should be included. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superstrong Keep—I actually bookmarked this only yesterday as one of my favourite articles. Articles like these are why people love Wikipedia! PS: for a non-native English speaker such as I this is a valuable source of information—where else could I have found out what a "purple nurple" is? Maikel 18:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who cares? It's a funny article that brings back memories. Go ahead and keep it.—This unsigned comment was added by 68.175.105.109 (talk • contribs) .
  • KeepMost of these pranks are widespread and not just made up one day. Howabout1 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bizarre. Ambi 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wtf --Ryan Delaney talk 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; preposterously unencyclopedic. MCB 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - For the same reasons as Andymc, Sjakkalle, and AED. Jgp 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Fishhead64. It would be nice if the article could be cleaned up enough to work - it's far too unwieldy just now, and seems to be more of a list of "my favourite pranks" than anything of real value - but I can't see any way in which there could be a consensus as to what pranks were notable enough and what weren't, since local customs vary so hugely even within a few miles. Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle; it may need cleaning up, but better to have this single article than a dozen or more individual articles for each item listed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic in this form but I agree with Loganberry and Fishhead64 above. I think that there is potential for an article if someone were tackle the subject matter in a rigorous manner.Obiskobilob 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy and restart with criteria and verifiable sources. We went through this recently with Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names, which then got moved to the Wikipedia space and is now merged back in much-reduced form at Place names considered unusual. That seems appropriate here as well, otherwise it's just listcruft. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I remember more than half of these from school 20 years ago. They're not simply something "made up in school one day" but a part of our collective social history. While the article does need a significant cleanup and a lot of the dross cut from it, the problems that most people are citing are purely format based – not content. That is a reason to edit; NOT to destroy a potential resource.--Mr2mk1g 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Locke Cole, Sjakkalle, etc. Though I do think that a liberal sprinkling of citations is required. Many of these entries could be found in kid's books and popular culture. Many of these are part of hazing in the military also.--talkie_tim 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. President Lethe 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and find verifiable sources. —Keenan Pepper 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a good list vandalism is not reason for ersaing things Yuckfoo 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously needing severe restructuring, guidelines, and verify sources (thus weeding out many of them). But as a resource to non-native english speakers (Maikel) and schoolteachers (of course), this should be kept if someone takes up championing it, the work isn't that difficult to correct the errors. This isn't AfD worthy, and i vaguely can grasp this as an WP:NOT. And lists as such don't neccessarly fall under the catagory of "Wikipedia is not a Dictonary" as long as they provide context and validity. This, albiet it some of them have an absence of it, contain both context and validity. Some orignal research, admittedly, but, a vast majority of this is common school pranks even I remember in school. I can see an article in the mess. A VfD isn't the way to solve this. It needs severe work, but is a worthy article. Snipe Hunt is a cleaner, more respectable idea of what this should be. Especially noting, if you're crusading based on content. Refrain. Silly and childish content matter is no reason for and AfD. --evesummernight 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and highly susceptible to hoaxes and non-notable additions. Rhobite 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, not encyclopedic, likely to contain original research or hoaxes. -Will Beback 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could use clean-up and some citations, but a valid documentation of legitimate practices.boinger 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unmaintainable, at the very least remove all but the most 'notable'. Radagast83 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I venture to say that those of us who fell victim to such things realize that they represent part of society, while those who "had a good time in school" probably don't understand the social significance. I strongly recommend the keep. Jimaginator 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's information, it's generally accurate, and in the nature of the subject this is likely to be a more concise and legible source than most others. If I'm reading a story or personal account that mentions a "reverse arm wrestle", for instance, then I'd be glad that Wikipedia can tell me what one is. PeteVerdon 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all pranks that have verifiable sources. This article is going to need a lot of work --Liface 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page could, in time, become a valuable resource about bullying. At least half of these are mentioned in one media of another. The title needs tweaking. Maybe List of high school pranks or similar. --Auric 23:17, 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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle_Stewart[edit]

This article's author is also its subject. It's a vanity page. Valiquet 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Too bad, his art looks cool. pm_shef 06:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just not notable. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims as to notability - reviews, exhibitions, critical appraisals, notable sales & influence on his peers. WP:Vanity, WP:BIO & WP:AUTO all refer.  (aeropagitica)  06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio and vanity, he made also page Kevin_Element which I put on AfD Gu 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, non-notable Celcius 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn `'mikka (t) 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 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 no consensus, although I suspect there may be sock puppeting going on. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Ben Hanan[edit]

No claim of notability aside from being on the cover of Life Magazine. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability asserted. He's not notable, anyway. Royboycrashfan 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a Major General, on the cover of a national magazine, etc. doesn't merit notability? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. The cover of Life shows only 'a soldier' as example, it doesn't mention his name on the cover. He seems now to be the head of the division for foreign defense assistance and exports in the Isreali Defense Ministry, but otherwise no notability Gu 08:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - below WP:BIO standard. Eusebeus 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Celcius 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being on the cover of LIFE and a reasonably high-ranking government official really ought to be enough. Monicasdude 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems that he is notable in Israel. This book by Howard Blum, published by Harper Collins makes reference to Yossi Ben Hanan and the Life cover photo in the first chapter (quoted on the webpage). This page mentions him as a "public figure". u p p l a n d 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT with ease. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:10
  • Comment Ben Hanan is mentioned in at least four reference books published in the last nine years [12], which seems to infer notability. Humansdorpie 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major General Ben Hanan was one of the Israeli officers who kept the Golan Heights from falling to Syria during the first days of the Yom Kippur War. He is an influential member of the Ministry of Defense, today, and exerts considerable influence over Israel's arms export industry. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.200.186 (talk • contribs) )
  • Keep. A lot more notable than some things Wikipedia has kept. --Quintucket 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He's no Jason Allen Alexander. Eivindt@c 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's more notable than Air Force Amy. Fishhead64 06:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if we wrote articles about all the non-notable soldiers in magazines we'd have millions of articles. --Khoikhoi 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a hero to me.--The Walrus 03:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His heroic actions alone should provide the necessary notability. He deserves to have his own page as much as any other war hero who puts his life on the line to save others.--Brad M. 16:45, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguolabial trill[edit]

I PRODded this with the argument that the article uses linguistic terminology to describe a sound (the "raspberry" or "Bronx cheer") not used linguistically in any language. The PROD was contested, so I'm bringing it here. The main problem with this article is that it's original research: phonetics terminology does not actually provide a name for the "Bronx cheer", nor does the IPA does provide a separate symbol for it, so the author of the article invented them. Phonetically I'm not convinced "linguolabial trill" is even the most accurate description of the sound (which begins with a complete closure and ends with disorganized noise rather than the steadily repeating contact of a canonical trill, so if anything it's a type of affricate), but that's not the point, the point is, this isn't a linguistic sound, so it shouldn't be described as one, and it hasn't been described as one except in this Wikipedia article. I wish I could say "merge with Blowing a raspberry" (as in fact I did in the PROD), but in fact since everything here is OR, nothing can in good conscience be merged there. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I contested the PROD, but now I totally defer to Dr. Angr's explanation, because surely he knows what he's talking about. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: hoax with linguistic techno-babble. Peter Grey 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created the article, and I have no problem with getting rid of it. However, Pike (1943) did call the Bronx cheer a "voiceless exolabio-lingual trill". Especially for people who have no idea what a Bronx cheer is, that may be worth saving, as would an IPA transcription. kwami 07:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I'm certainly in favor of adding that reference to Blowing a raspberry. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angr, who really does know what he's talking about in areas such as this. Proto||type 11:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, per nom. --Terence Ong 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a hoax, but it's OR. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a noble effort, but without significant appearance in other publications first it's original research. ProhibitOnions 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to blowing a raspberry and merge the phonetic information that isn't pure speculation. A reasonable article, but superfluous. / Peter Isotalo 10:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-reasoned nom. Joe 06:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by BorgQueen under CSD:G4. Stifle 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick LoPiccolo[edit]

nn--fewer than 100 results on google M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no real claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete nn Celcius 13:54, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Priest" Smith[edit]

No context, fictional (I think) character, no reason for notability, creator has had plenty of time to expand, but hasn't. Might even be patent nonsense, in which case it should be a speedy delete. Nobunaga24 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whaaat??? Royboycrashfan 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Er, BJAODN? T K E 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gu 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately. --Terence Ong 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contextless nonsense, but award it the no-bell price.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible A7 speedy. You can't be an assassin unless you have killed someone notable which he hasn't. There is no verifiable evidence for any of this. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Haon 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wikicrap. Fishhead64 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what are the S.P.E.A.R.S.? -- Samir (the scope) 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farseer Macha[edit]

Contested prod: article about a Warhammer 40,000 character which does not meet the agreed notability guidelines. Original author is claiming non-notable articles do not harm Wikipedia, which is a long-running debate, but not one to be had by article creation. Pak21 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fancruft? Royboycrashfan 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not fancruft, just a a minor character within the Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior game. If this is included, we're going to end up with hundreds of articles about every single character who gets mentioned by name in any Warhammer 40,000 material. Cheers --Pak21 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- Pak21 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any way how minor characters like this are notable. JIP | Talk 10:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Macha appears for about 1/4 to 1/3 of the game. There is an absolute minimum that can be written about the character at this point in time, not much more than is here. Also, the main character of the game, Gabriel Angelos, is only present as a section in the Blood Ravens article, as he has not yet had enough of an impact on the fictional universe (and thereby providing enough information to write about, to justify an article at this time. -- Saberwyn 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft, nn, at best merge Celcius 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft, nn. --Terence Ong 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, the article is pointless. Merge, Delete or Redirect --Charax 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if anyone cares to, merge this information to Dawn of War.--Isotope23 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into DoW article. --Falcorian (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable character. Should be removed. It isn't fancruft, however, as we can still mention the character in the W40K: FW game article Localzuk (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilar[edit]

nn neologism used in one place only. google says other meanings of the word are far more common. signed too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Gracious, I hope that medical students aren't using Wikipedia! :) T K E 08:23, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicca[edit]

""Nicca" Is an alternative slang for..." no it isnt. not according to google anyway. its a chemical and camera company according to almost all of the first few pages of results - almost all the rest are for things like Nebraska Crop Associations, a musician, a minor film star, and an Italian surname. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and perhaps recreate as a different article. Royboycrashfan 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or disamb page if there are also other meanings. It seems to be used in the claimed way according to urbandictionary.com and doubletongued.org. If kept it should probably be added to List_of_ethnic_slurs (but not sure if it is used often enough e.g. in rap music texts to be kept) Gu 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism - perhaps merge into suitable articles - in any event not suitable as a WP article Celcius 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genuity Capital Markets[edit]

Vanity and promotional material for minor non-notable finance company. JuanOso 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per not an advertiser T K E 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisment Gu 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adv, nn Celcius 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, vanity, nn company. --14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity of vanities. ProhibitOnions 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this passes the bar. Samaritan 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well-known new canadian investment bank, no reason to delete Montreal 18:43, 01 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Canadian company. YUL89YYZ 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A company that has acted as financial advisor to Le Chateau, Algoma Steel, Sears Canada and Score Media in the last three months alone ([13]) passes my keep line. It's stubbish, granted, but they're a valid article subject. Bearcat 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is kept, the article needs serious help. Right now, it's nothing but vanity promotional spam with all their addresses etc. Wiki isn't a phone book. David Hoag 07:29, 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 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Rotman[edit]

Non-notable individual; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information JuanOso 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no more notable than his company. Royboycrashfan 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboycrash T K E 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Nobunaga24 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio Gu 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gu Celcius 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio, per Robyboycrash. --Terence Ong 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio, per Robyboycrash. Ardenn 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. Samaritan 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IronChris 19:04, 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 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rhodes[edit]

Claim of Vice President at a company which may meet WP:CORP is assertion of notability, but is impossible to source: only relevant search hit is a self-submitted alumni magazine note which lists him only as an Associate Director, and the company doesn't list him as an officer. Doesn't satisfactorily meet WP:BIO. Also WP:VSCA, as page was created by the subject, User:Keithrhodes. Delete with optional userfy. Kinu t/c 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this vanity article gets a bit too personal. Royboycrashfan 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fat babies are notable? Nobunaga24 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio Gu 07:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO Dlyons493 Talk 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps notable - but contents of the article only peripherally deals with what actually makes him notable. Celcius 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only assertion of notability is that they were the heaviest twins yet born in Maryland, which sounds pretty NN to me. ProhibitOnions 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 an attack page. JIP | Talk 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prab-deep singh[edit]

Nominated by anonymous user. This is a blatant attack page (WP:CSD A6), so there's really no point in AfD. Royboycrashfan 08:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A6 and send to Wikihell as soon as possible. --Kinu t/c 08:54, 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 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmileCity[edit]

Deprodded without explanation, NN website advertisement, delete. --Hetar 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page want to be deleted?


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

The result of the debate was that the article was deleted by Dustimagic as an uncontested prod. Stifle 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early intervention for autism[edit]

Redundant information. Either delete or merge to Autism therapies Rdos 08:05, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of light[edit]

Non notable book relating to a non notable religion. Most of the related articles have been speedied or prodded. The prod for this one was anonymously removed without comment. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn; the "religion's" web page isn't even finished yet Nobunaga24 08:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --TM 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete omg, per nom Celcius 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --IslandGyrl 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Proism is a rapidly growing religion in the Vancouver area. It would be foolish to leave it out. --Hyperchickens 2:35, 31 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 Speedily deleted (A7) by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Proto||type 11:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee_Hawley_Hassan[edit]

This entry should be deleted because it's total nonsense.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny scubec[edit]

Please see Google results for the motivation behind this nomination.[14]

  • Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while there is a webpage here [15], the complete lack of Google hits makes it a nn-bio Gu 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nose-bleedingly nn Celcius 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Runcorn 21:15, 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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles DeBenedictis[edit]

Article fails to assert notability. Not promising Google results.[16]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has a significant article on this, so delete --Hetar 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Stifle 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jovino Santos-Neto[edit]

appears to be a personal bio and seems to qualify as nonnotable Kukini 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with over 30000 Google hits, several CDs on Amazon and lots of concerts he seems to be worth keeping. Gu 10:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Multiple, clear assertions of notability, all easily verified. Nominator, why shouldn't we view this nomination as bad faith, probably outright vandalism? What were you thinking? Monicasdude 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, winning a Grammy Award non-notable?? Bad faith AFD nomination I suppose. --Terence Ong 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, although I think he didn't actually win the Grammy, was just nominated --Deville (Talk) 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad Keep it..and delete the AFD. Clearly I didn't look into this well enough. Peace. Kukini 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, assuming that an errant AFD is vandalism is a tad aggressive. Just undo the AFD, and move along in peace. Just a thought. Kukini 01:30, 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 as {{db-repost}}. Stifle 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolucion Neutra[edit]

non-notable band Koffieyahoo 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band is first of it's kind in it's country, and is a representation of the Rock en español genre of Honduras, and music of Honduras. xtreemze 09:42, 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 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainism[edit]

This must be a joke. This is not a major religion. Delete Mr Adequate 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per nom. Any evidence this religion doesn't exist? 193.122.31.188 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. "Followers of Rainism don't attend church or "pray," so to say. The "church" experience is just watching an Our Lady Peace video, or, in desparate times, a simple interview with Raine Maida." -- Kjkolb 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. If it does exist, it is very nn anyway. GizzaChat © 10:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either a joke or an extremely non-notable religion. JIP | Talk 10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom Gu 10:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke. Eusebeus 11:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plenty of silliness, very little actual funniness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not funny, nn Celcius 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, BJAODN. --Terence Ong 15:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any mention of this religion on the Internet. Quickly overtaking Christianity? Named after the lead singer in a band? Gotta be a joke. --Clpo13 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More Wikicrap! It doesn't even possess the virtue of humour. Fishhead64 06:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, not even funny enough for BJAODN. --Kinu t/c 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax, per all above. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 keep. Stifle 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by length of coastline[edit]

This article was created by a user with only six edits to wikipedia. It is apparently based on data from [17] but I havent found it after searching for it on their site. Anyway the problem is that there is no accurate way to "rank" countries by coastline as coastlines are different on different scales and whether you include islands etc. There are huge differences with the figures given here and those of other sites such as the CIA. - on this list the USA has 133,312km of coastline compared to ten times less - 19,924 km on the CIA site. Even the order of countries is different such as here where the top five are Canada, Indonesia, Russia, Phillipines, Japan rather than Canada, US, Russia, Indonesia, Chile. This list which tries to give coastline figures to one decimal point is a huge misrepresentation -- Astrokey44|talk 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the limitations of the figures can be given instead. Another solution would be listing alphabetically and giving the figures from multiple sources (the article would need to be renamed, of course). They definitely should not be given down to the tenth of a mile, though. Unless the coastline is very small, I would round it to the nearest mile or even the nearest ten miles. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it would be alright listed alphabetically showing smallest and largest figures given - but it would still look pretty inaccurate, for instance Chile: smallest figure - 6,435km, largest - 78,563km -- Astrokey44|talk 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article can be useful. JIP | Talk 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know deletion is not the way to correct a flawed but viable article; unless someone steps up to the plate to correct this, however, I say toss it and let it be recreated at some point with accurate information. FWIW, Canada's shoreline is as the CIA says. Excellent. Keep Eusebeus 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten with verifiable data. Better to start from scratch rather than hope it will be patched up. Keep excellent rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now after the large scale rewrite I did, to accomodate all CIA world factbook figures, plus other useful information. Kindly check the new article and change your votes accordingly. (We need a better intro, please help).  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very nice! ok I withdraw nomination after NikoSilver's rewrite since it is now based on the CIA factbook source -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Whatever the flaws of the original, articles like this are what make Wikipedia really useful. ProhibitOnions 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I think it pointless, but it's there now, it doesn't require maintenance, and who knows someone might want to look it up. Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate topic. Add alternative figures and annotate as appropriate. Merchbow 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My coastline is bigger than yours. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:07
  • keep = as above. For great justice. 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very useful, but should be fixed. Fishhead64 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If it's crying out for improvement, then let's improve it instead of deleting.--Dustweek 07:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling terms[edit]

Incomplete entry, originally added with notation that it was used by permission from a particular site, when in fact most if not all the definitions are taken from other sources. Article also bizarely only goes to "C". A glossary entry of gambling terms may or may not be an appropriate article, but an incomplete one with a false reference certainly should not exist. I removed the link spam "reference" in that this shouldn't be on an article in any case. 2005 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice, this is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. The best is that the last definition is truncated. I was half-expecting to see NO CARRIER at the end as well. --Deville (Talk) 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is part advertising, part listcruft, and possibly part copyvio. There's no use for this article. JIP | Talk 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, list of dicdefs, many wrong, probable copyvio. Stifle 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another stupid list. Has a stench of original research, as well. Evan Seeds (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above, and copyvio from here. — orioneight (talk) 17:51, 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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Ratings/Ranking[edit]

This page contains nothing but extensive reporting on recent cricket results and current ratings, copied from the ICC ratings. Information about the ratings is already at LG ICC cricket ratings JPD (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page will be pretty much unmaintainable if the original author loses interest. LG ICC cricket ratings is a much better article for an encyclopaedia, and points to a website with the up-to-date list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A better article of a similar topic already exists. GizzaChat © 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly per Stephen's point about this being dropped once the author moves on. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's lots of pages which link to this that'll need mods if this ends up being deleted -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These links are mainly inappropriate links added in the last 24 hours by the author of this page, and should be removed even if the page is kept. I'll start now. JPD (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified User:80.76.228.108 (the original author) as well as User:205.143.204.110, User:205.143.204.206, User:205.143.204.198 and User:205.143.204.102 (presumably all the same person) of this AfD as per AfD etiquette. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DaGizza. The LG ICC cricket ratings is much better. Also I would like to commend JPD on removing the link from many pages. -- Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But unlike DaGizza and Srikeit, I believe we need a lot of work done to the LG ICC cricket ratings to make it a worthwile article. I'd say delete it per Stephen, seeing as it doesn't look like it can be updated forever without a lot of effort from the contributors. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said LG ICC cricket ratings is a well constructed article. I just said it was better than this one. GizzaChat © 13:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the author and I don't see the problem. I took an article that was over a year out of date and updated and improved it. If this article is a problem why was it not deleted when it was horrendously out of date. In this article, my aim was to gather useful information from a variety of sources, combine them into a single piece, and detail how recent innings affected the Test ratings. The LG ICC cricket ratings article is poor, and other than an external link offers no up-to-date information. I fail to see the harm that this article was doing. With regards the comment about just taking information from other sources, of course that's what i've been doing. You may as well shut Wikipedia down entirely if this is the source of your problem, because i'm sure just about everything on here can be found somewhere else on the web. I'm sorry if i've stepped on the toes of whatever club you have going on here, and am dissapointed that contributors to an online encyclopedia would want to erase information - especially as this information that can not be found in this combination anywhere else on the web. I enjoyed updating it, and my work affords me plenty of time to have done so. Please delete the article.
The article as it was before you updated probably would have been deleted if anybody had noticed. You did update it well, and made us notice it by linking to it on other pages. I agree that it contains interesting information, but it is not all the sort of information that you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Any information that is appropriate would probably be better added to LG ICC cricket ratings, rather than in a completely separate article. JPD (talk) 04:55, 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 speedy deleted as vandalism. I didn't think it was that funny, but if anyone strongly disagrees send me a message and I'll dig it out for BJAODN. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fried briefs[edit]

Unverifiable, unproven, suspected hoax Cozzlewood 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is genuine... not nonsense, says it all. --Katch Pole Piker 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Katch Pole Piker is a vandal. [18] --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bunch of vandal sockpuppets added keep votes to the article, impersonating regular editors. Most have been blocked indefinitely for impersonation, sockpuppetry and vandalism. Rather than bother to annotate every single vote I just removed them. Look in the history if you care. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is more about Fried Brief than Fried briefs on Google. Gu 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. Proto||type 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete possible move to BJAODN. Eusebeus 11:25, 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. I'm also taking the liberty of recreating it as a redirect to James Hill as suggested by Proto. Stifle 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hill[edit]

  • Delete. Article does not provide references. Could not get even a single Google hit which speaks about the Jim Hill mentioned in the article. None of the contibutions mentioned could be verified. Soumyasch 10:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, googling various keywords (like the query '"Children Of The Covenant" Jim Hill') give no results at all. Non-notable. --Chris (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to disambiguation page at James Hill. Proto||type 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per above. PJM 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, non-notable! --Deville (Talk) 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's thoughts I started this page with the intention that people more knowledable than myself might complete it. Perhaps you are correct that I didn't note or expand on the more notable aspects of Reverend Hill's ministry. I don't feel qualified to do so, and so I thought that I would leave it to others. --98Hooker 09:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Jonas Silk 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Davidpdx 12:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually this is interesting..there is someone running for Governor of Oregon who's name is Jim Hill. I was hoping to write an article about him, but I can see this article name is now taken. If I do write it, I'll use something diffrent I guess. Davidpdx 12:39, 6 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. GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Ljalková[edit]

No real notability claimed, although she had a pretty productive military career. Google pulls less ~125 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio Gu 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally removed the speedy due to the fact that I thought she may have a claim to notability. However, after looking at this list of snipers I see that she does not. If in this case notability is claimed by the number of kills then there are alot more deserving of an article than Ljalková. We have two female snipers from that list Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there seems to be several reasons why Lyudmila_Pavlichenko can be seen as notable, Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya looks more similar to the case of Marie Ljalková and should maybe also deleted if this one is. Gu 11:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth noting that snipercentral.com is a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions, just FYI Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, google indicates very little because the Western-centric internet does not have many records on Soviet heros, for that you must turn to books. She is verifiable, and Wikipedia helps combat western ignorance of foreign veterans. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I speak english very little, unfortunately. What is "pretty productive military career" ? You need more info ? Nina Lobkovskaya has so brevity biografy. Is not problem. I look trouble only with text in English. I need helph - repair errors and redaction this text. User:Snipermouche
  • Weak Keep - marginally notable Jonas Silk 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non verifiable sniper. Haven't stumbled across the name yet from Snipershide.com ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Reasonably notable. One of the few female snipers with that many kills, and the only Czech one. Apperars to be verifiable: there is a reference in the article. Certainly more notable than many other people than have been kept (e.g. musicians) Imarek 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Imarek, but without the music bias. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: also per Sherurcij, combat systemic bias. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable sniper, appears verified. Sandstein 08:45, 8 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 Deleted as a nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)  12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hover Trousers[edit]

Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find relevant google hits, thus could not confirm. Soumyasch 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Come on, this is too easy. It is clearly written as a joke. Maybe even speedy, this is wasting everyones time. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as pure nonsense. Tagged. 193.122.31.188 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "It's the wrong trousers! They've gone wrong!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 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 keep. --Terence Ong 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware Lane, Melbourne[edit]

The article fails to distinguish itself from any other street or road located in Melbourne, thus failing to establish notability. Bumm13 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sounds like millions of other small lanes. Gu 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no claims to notability for said lane, so no reason to differentiate it from thousands of similar lanes, alleys, streets, walks, etc in Melbourne and any other city.  (aeropagitica)  12:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it were a person, it would be speediable. Dlyons493 Talk 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't decided which way to vote yet, but I want to comment that it is a well-known restaurant / cafe precinct in the Central Business District of Melbourne. Cnwb 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is a notable street in Melbourne, this article doesn't show it. Mind you, there were 72 hits on an Australia New Zealand database so it has some prominence.
  • Keep an important part of the City's café culture and now has a bit of its history tacked on. Keep and allow to expand. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Allow to expand. --Bduke 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please Allow This to expand! Hardware lane is the most cultural and vibrant laneway in Melbourne! It's a world away from the world! — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:202.7.176.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. There is an incoming link, and the WikiProject Melbourne people seem to be aiming to cover all their significant streets. WP:NOT paper. --Scott Davis Talk 09:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ScottDavis is dead right. Ambi 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this street is notable enough, and the article is of an acceptable length. If this were deleted, I'd await the nomination of all those insignifant London streets and alleys lucky enough to have gained Wikipedia articles.--cj | talk 05:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, will expand. Needs to focus more on history than Maccas. Harro5 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Harro5 (except for the bit about "will expand" — I'll let him do that bit without me). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of WikiProject Melbourne. -Canley 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for a while. Now that it's had this much attention focused on it, an expansion will no doubt be forthcoming. Lokicarbis 05:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would expect that in the CBD of a city of 3.8million people that there will be a number of smaller streets, lanes and arcades which are worthy of an article on wikipedia. Hardware Lane is but one of many which I hope will eventually be part of the WikiProject Melbourne - given time. Please have patience. Cuddy Wifter 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agnte 12:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scott and cj. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the lane is notable enough for myself, who doesn't live in Melbourne but an hour away, to be able to recognise it by name only. See the article history. - Longhair 22:49, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red light says go[edit]

Not notable - the band hasn't released any material, by the writer's admission. Tellkel 12:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom--Deville (Talk) 13:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7. --Blue520 14:15, 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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pram Maven[edit]

Delete non-notable band with no albums. --Bruce1ee 13:28, 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 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sneek Brothers[edit]

Unkown cartoon with no sources. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a hoax. If anything in the article were even close to true, it would be famous. No IMDB entry or Google references. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sneek brothers are two "notorious lecture skippers", apparently. [20]--Irishpunktom\talk 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotmail[edit]

Non-notable perl script / software. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. GWO 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NoDelete, per unixgold --Unixgold 17:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom --Soumyasch 13:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, chop chop Paul Weaver 14:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, add a short mention (or just an external link) to Hotmail if someone wants to. It's not that it's not famous or useful, it's just that it's a Random Forgettable Piece of Infrastructure of which you can't tell much. As in, what does this program do? Um, it grabs mail from Hotmail. That's about as much you can tell about it. It's certainly not a landmark in reverse-engineering mysterious proprietary protocols, or anything. It's not even an unprecedented example of its kind, and even if it were, it should probably be detailed in Hotmail article due to lack of scope. Detailed changelogs are unencyclopedic, too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Mahendru[edit]

I saw this while doing New Page patrol. I'm unsure whether she is notable enough for Wikipedia. 893 Google hits, Bollywood star with IMDB page. No vote Terence Ong 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable enough: [21] PJM 14:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, IMDB profile definitely means notable. --Terence Ong 14:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Bollywood star --TBC??? ??? ??? 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having an IMDB page usually confers notability. Proto||type 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been whittled down to a workable stub that could easily be expanded in the future as she is a leading name in Bollywood. Keresaspa 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per this filmography or the IMDb one. She's had credited roles in enough notable Bollywood films to be on here. She seems to have few or no leads, but being in 30 Bollywood films certainly clears the bar. --Deville (Talk) 16:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's definitely real and notable. (And real notable.) ProhibitOnions 16:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film and TV career spanning four decades and dozens of roles. Is that isn't notable, what is? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 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 clear Delete after discounting new users and socks. Stifle 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Honesty Movement[edit]

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page.
  • Delete - POV fork of Tax protester. The leaders of this movement are serving long prison terms for fraud, tax evasion, etc. (See Irwin Schiff), and addressing the issue with this tone is the moral equivalent of saying that 'a growing number of people believe that the government has no power to punish murder'. BD2412 T 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReWrite as a personal way of thinking. If there are official wiki guidelines which this article violates and it cannot or nobody wants to rewrite an article on the behavior or propanganda then I guess there is no choice but to delete, because we would not want to mislead the gullible reader that the tax honesty stuff is either honest or in good faith. So my preference is for a first line to the article that states: "The tax honesty movement is an ironically named and dishonest attempt to mislead... blah blah blah..." John wesley 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) That is if we can't rewrite or if it's against wiki policy then delete John wesley 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the arguments raised by the "tax honesty movement" are already addressed in Tax protester - rewriting would only make this a duplicate of that article, so it is just as simple to delete, redirect, and add a line to the effect that recent tax protesters have used this name. BD2412 T 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there nothing different about this movement than standard tax protesters? If no, then Redirect to Tax protestor and include the term there if it is verifiable and notable. If there are some important differences, perhaps this topic deserves an article, and in that case, all the ridiculous POV just needs to be excised. Only delete if this term is not important or really used at all. I don't really have any familiarity with it, so provide some evidence if you can. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then incorporating or adding this new name for the current group of protestors and redirect would be just as good as rewrite. Go ahead and delete and add the name tax honesty movement to a list of names that these protestors call themselves. John wesley 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for one thing, this article claims the phrase "Tax Honesty Movement" was coined in 2001, but refers to a 1948 tax protester as recognized as its founder, and recites arguments that were raised and dashed long before 2001. Some of these arguments (e.g. that the government refuses or is unable to point to where the power to tax originates) were previously added to the tax protester article,[22], [23], where they were debunked and revealed as nonsensical or having been rejected by courts in specific decisions. This is the very definition of a POV fork - material debunked as a fallacy in one article is used to set up another article that offers a competing version of the "truth". BD2412 T 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Right, but that doesn't matter because all the unverified POV simply needs to go in any case. The only thing we need to decide is is this term an important one of it's own right?—if it is not at all important->delete; if it is a little important->redirect and mention in Tax protestor; iff there is significant importance of the term in its own right->keep and rewrite it to be NPOV about the term. I'm thinking it is clearly one of the first two, I'd just like more information to decide. Do you have any sources for that? - Taxman Talk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you asking whether I have sources suggesting that the term is important in its own right? Or whether anyone does? Personally, I've seen nothing that distinguishes this label from all others applied to or adopted by tax protesters. BD2412 T 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Well I was asking both. If no evidence is provided for the use or importance of the term (again, in it's own right as a separate term from tax protestors), I'm fine with a delete. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • > "Personally, I've seen nothing that distinguishes this label from all others applied to or adopted by tax protesters." Well, you might consider that perhaps Tax Protesters have evolved into Tax Honesty Proponents, as more of the truth has been uncovered over the years. Perhaps it's the Tax Protester page that should be merged into the Tax Honesty page. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe merge to Tax protestor if there's really any content here; this is clearly a POV fork. One also notes that although the discussion is of the nonexistence of a certain class of laws, this article lists several of these laws explicitly. --Deville (Talk) 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above unless there is some evidence of the importance and distinctness of the use of this term. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite - There is one very important distinction between "tax protestors" and the "tax honesty movement." Tax Protestors agree that they are subject to the tax laws, but they believe the laws are unfair and excessive and they don't want to pay. Whereas the belief held by the Tax Honesty Movement is that the laws, as written, are perfectly legal. However, the enforcement of the revenue laws are being grossly mis-applied and are not legal. They also agree that everyone should pay taxes that they are liable for, obviously because the government operates on tax money. And there are plenty of legal ways for the government to collect the necessary funds to operate. But taxing a person's money that they earn from domestic sources is not constitutional, nor is there anything in the internal revenue code that imposes such a tax. The tax laws are written clear enough to understand that they don't apply to most americans. There are a number of ex-IRS agents that have quit because they've come to the same conclusions. And they are part of a class action lawsuit against the government because the government refuses to answer their questions(givemeliberty.org). A good place to start learning about this movement and to learn about the revenue laws, is by going to originalintent.org/edu. You can also read the Internal Revenue Code at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode. It is Title 26 (pay close attention to the statutory definitions) --Tax Heretic —This unsigned comment was added by 159.37.7.44 (talk • contribs) .
    • Actually, the distinction to which you point is the one between tax protesters and tax resisters. Tax protesters, as the term has been used by courts and government agencies, dispute that the tax laws are valid or constitutional. For example, the claim that "taxing a person's money that they earn from domestic sources is not constitutional" is a classic tax protester argument. Tax resisters (generally) do not dispute the legality of taxes but nonetheless refuse to pay them. The claim that "a number of ex-IRS agent... have quit because they've come to the same conclusions" is part of the scam language used to lure people into this nonsense. Also, "Tax Honesty Movement" is a POV title - kind of like naming a pedophile group the "Benefits of Sex With Children Honesty Movement". BD2412 T 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • > "Actually, the distinction to which you point" Not at all. According to your own stated definition, Tax Honesty proponents are neither Tax Protestors nor Tax Resistors. Tax Honesty proponents aren't questioning the legality of any law, nor are we refusing to pay a tax with which we disagree. You seem to have completely misunderstood the entire concept. What we're saying is that the law is COMPLETELY proper and constitutional, and that it simply doesn't apply to us. IRS and DOJ are intentionally misrepresenting and misapplying the law as it's written. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it's verifiable, then the movement should have an article. It's got a long way to go for NPOV, but that's a separate question. Peter Grey 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect: can this be closed now, since the nom said he is ok with deletion? --Hetar 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Is this not the policy regarding the label of a "POV fork"? Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it. The tyranny of those wanting to delete this is obvious. What's your hurry? Makes me suspicious. Where's the repeated vandalism? If anything, perhaps a rewrite may me in order to ensure it complies with the NPOV policy. I have notified the original author. Give him a chance to respond. --dick-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.253.142 (talk • contribs)
    • The basic claim attributed by the article to this group is the same as information that has previously repeatedly been removed from the Tax protester article and related articles on income tax in the U.S. The recent addition of the word "Honesty" to the name of a group espousing such views is inherently POV, as it suggests that the theories they espouse are "honest" (i.e. the truth), and that the actions of Congress, the Executive Branch, and repeated holdings of courts up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States are all part of a conspiracy to enforce laws which don't exist, or which the government has no power to enact. This is the tax protester movement under another name, and nothing more. BD2412 T 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • > "This is the tax protester movement under another name, and nothing more." That's not true. These are former Tax Protesters with new understanding about what the laws say. The understanding couldn't have come about without the advent of the internet, which is why it's a new phenomenon. It's you, sir, who is refusing to adapt and grow and who is grasping at old and outdated monikers. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReWrite Tax Honesty is not synonymous with Tax Protest nor is it a derivative. The difference comes in how supporters of either group intend to deal with the IRS and/or taxes. To Protest the tax, one assumes it is legitimate yet overreaching in scope. Honesty purports the tax is illegitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.16.100 (talk • contribs)
    • Please read the Tax protester article, which clearly states that tax protester "has been used by the Internal Revenue Service and by courts to describe those who believe that tax laws do not apply to them, or to their income", e.g., are illegitimate. BD2412 T 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • We are not what some judge calls us--we are what we call ourselves. Our freedoms, our lives, our liberty do not depend upon nor derive from any government decree. We are government's creator and are therefore its master. This is reflected in our national charter. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: ***Mr. BD2412, I notice that you seem to be leading the charge to delete this article. You undoubtably became aware of it's existance shortly after I added one sentence from the Tax Honesty Movement article to the Tax Protester article. I did this with the hope that linking to additional information would stimulate input to the Wiki and help further clarify issues for Wiki users. My intent was to add information, and I never deleted anything that already existed. You, on the otherhand, chose to immediately delete my addition from the Tax Protestor article, added paragraph the the Tax Honesty Movement article without giving citation of the court case from which you liberated text (out of context?), and initiated deletion proceedings against this one. Is your agenda here based upon finding and learning the truth or is is based on distortion and obfuscation? If it is the latter, sir, it resembles the actions of the best tyrants and autocrats. It appears that your objection(s) to the continued existence of this article are based mostly on your personal POV and smacks of censorship.
The Tax Honesty Movement is a name given to a growing number of individual Americans who desire honesty and accountability in the application of the tax laws of the United States. I'm sure that you will agree that having our tax laws applied honestly and fairly by our own government is in the best interest of all Americans, including yourself. I submit that blindly obeying orders from any taxing authority without knowing what the law actually requires and to whom it actually applies is servile, unpatriotic, and un-American. These people are gravely concerned by the fact that representatives of their own government refuse to sit down face-to-face and discuss questions that they have regarding proper application of tax law. In fact, in a recent press conference, a representative of the IRS stated that those who dare ask questions will be met with enforcement actions, rather than answers. Does this fit in with the IRS mission statement which says in part:
"Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all."
The formal organization leading the effort to get substantive response from the government is called the We The People Foundation. According to your own Wiki bio, during your time in law school you state that you focused on the First Amendment. It should interest you that the We The People Foundation has a First Amendment lawsuit against the govenment currently in the courts. The question in this suit is in regard to the fifth Right enumerated in the First Amendment regarding the Right To Petition. Members of the We The People Foundation created an exceedingly polite petiton to the government which asked over 500 questions begging answers regarding proper application of tax law. To date, the government has refused to answer the petition. In fact, the government has actually argued in court that while the Peope do indeed have the Right to petiton, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels the government to answer. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see this as insufferable arrogance on the part of the government, as the Right To Petition with expection of answer has a long and rich history dating as far back as the Magna Carta. Perhaps you should watch this case as it now appears likely to go to the Supreme Court.
Mr. BD2412, I respectfully request your participation in a public discussion of federal income tax law with one of the most outspoken members of the Tax Honesty Movement, Dave Champion, on his weekly radio show called The American radio Show. Perhaps you will do us all a favor and do what no government lawyer has yet been willing to do by slaying Mr. Champion publicly on his own radio show and forever lay to rest the Tax Honesty Movement. --dick--
The point of this AfD is not whether tax laws are constitutional or properly applied, but whether the Tax Honesty Movement is a separate concept from anything covered in the Tax protester article. Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid - the Tax Honesty Movement can snugly take up a paragraph of that article. (I note that reference to Vivian Kellems far precedes the coining of the term "Tax Honesty Movement", and should be in the tax protester article anyway, and the paragraph on the law prohibiting IRS reference to "illegal tax protesters" duplicates material in the tax protester article. As for the proferred debate, I am neither a tax lawyer nor a debater. No amount of rhetoric will stop the IRS from assessing taxes, or spring Schiff from the federal pen - if you really intend to avoid U.S. taxes and remain a free man, your choice will be to leave America, or ruin its government. BD2412 T 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone who has read WP:AUTO. Eivindt@c 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful material with Tax protester and edit for POVness. Fishhead64 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete as above. -- Simon Cursitor 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr. BD2412. Proto||type 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe a little of this material could be put into the tax protester article, but overall, it needs to be scrutinized for POV and Verifiability at a minimum. But even if some of the material passes the Wikipedia tests, I argue it belongs in the tax protester article. Yours, Famspear 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE IT AS IS!. Mr. 2412 states Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid. It seems Mr. 2412 wants to delete an article the contradicts his own POV article. Mr. 2412's article IS a POV article because the law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers. Quite simply, Mr. 2412, you are wrong. You are wrong for a very simple reason: You don't address the actual written words of law. If you don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay. Neither do you address the distinction between what constitutes a direct tax and an indirect tax. And neither do you address what definition of "INCOME" the Supreme Court limited Congress to using; Quote: "there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act" Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) Since you don't discuss the Consitutional meaning of "INCOME" as used in the 16th. Amendment, you can't be very clear on what is taxed with an "INCOME" tax. Just on this one issue, I have 6 plus pages dedicated to showing, what the definition of "INCOME" that is taxed by the "INCOME" tax is according to the Supreme Court. Because of the Cognitive_dissonance that many have regarding this issue I have approximately 74 questions on numbered pages 4-10 on my website. The questions are in the manner of an open book reading comprehension quiz. You may access those questions here: [24].

Tax Honesty Researchers are a small, but not insignificant, and growing number of people who have actually taken the time to study what the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES and REGULATIONS of the tax law actually say. And in reply to the insult about the use of the word honesty in the label: It's the government that refuses to answer questions. 1,200 people asked 6 questions of the government via Commissioner Everson and Secretary Snow. Those 6 questions and the government's non-responsive reply may be read here:[25] Perhaps you could put together a Wiki page on government evasion and use the scan of that evasive, insulting, threatening letter that does not answer the questions asked. You don't need my IP logged. Here's that website again: [26] [Note: The above comments were posted by an anonymous user at IP 4.158.201.8 on 31 March 2006.]

Anyone doubting the true nature of the "income tax" need only research the subject FOR THEMSELVES! Without relying on governement baffoons that lie, cheat and steal from the people they are supposed to work for.

Or you may want to go see "America, from freedom to fascism" when it hits theaters this summer, and watch the IRSS stumble all over itself trying to lie on camera. It is truly pathetic to watch. Or wait until congressmen are asked point blank if there are any laws requiring us to file or pay, and they say NO right on camera. The game is over, the people are aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.175.198 (talk • contribs)

Dear fellow editors: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion: whether the article in question should be deleted. I argue that neither this page (nor any formal Wikipedia articles) should be used as a soapbox for people on a mission to argue that the tax laws, etc., are invalid, etc., etc. Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. So let's take a deep breath and relax ......... Yours, Famspear 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, that's it. Breathe deeply and slowly, deeply and slowly....... Famspear 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page. Yours, Famspear 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"" Keep the page ""

I do not know why these people want this page deleted. The free flow of information is what makes this country great. I remember something about the 1st ammendment but I'm not sure its allowed anymore judging on whats going on here. The same debate about creation or evolution could easily open the wrath of multitudes, but we don't delete the information simply because some nut job blows a gasket because he doesn't agree with it. Information about the tax honesty movement on both sides of the arguement should be kept free and open. Let the individual reader decide for themselves what they believe to be true or false. My take on the tax honesty movement is that it is simply a grass root movement by free thinking people who are seeking to find out for themselves what is true and what is not about the Income Tax. Those in the movement are in the process of networking, learning, and educating themselves, searching for the truth. Some in the movement may be more vocal than others. Some have even written books and devoted considerable resources on the subject, but there are no "leaders" of the movement. There are some who have used mistaken information and have paid a price for it, while others who have done more research have found where they went wrong and learned from it. Those who make claims about the tax honesty movement being "heresy" and crying out "you people are evil Tax Protestors" appear to me to be nothing less than the same ilk of book burners of histories past.

2412, the "tax honesty movement" is an adjective phrase. As opposed to the noun sentence "Tax protestor". The two are not synonymous. I sincerely suggest you look up the legal definition of the words you use before you go spouting off accusations.

A. Neuman


Ummm, at the expense of appearing to inject an off-topic response to off-topic comments above, I'd like to point out that under the rules of English grammar I don't think there is any such thing as a "noun sentence." Also, "Tax protestor" is not only not a "noun sentence," it's not a sentence at all. In English, sentences generally have to have both a subject (express or implied) and a verb. Maybe we need to set up another fun after school project on English grammar. Yours, Famspear 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, I may be wrong. I think I found an example of a noun sentence in Engish. But "tax protester" does not appear to qualify. Yours, Famspear 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave As Is--The page accurately describes something that's really happening, and as such has merit. It's quite generic, not advancing any particular legal argument over another. Members of the Tax Honesty Movement aren't Tax Protesters at all. We're not protesting any tax, but rather we're saying that the law doesn't permit a tax in the first place. We're taking a stand against willful misapplication and misrepresentation of the written law by government agencies. The gentlemen who holds up trial convictions of prominent Tax Honesty figures is either ignorant of or is ignoring the fact that these convictions were gained through judges cooperating with and assisting prosecutors. A common theme in these trials is that defendants aren't allowed to use the written law in their defense. True justice is almost lost in America today. --InteXX 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. --Khoikhoi 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete
Some definitions:
1. Tax Protester: Someone who argues that a tax is illegal
2. Tax Resistor: Someone who disagrees with a tax
3. Tax Honesty proponent: Someone who argues that the law is being misapplied
This is anything but a POV. It's verifiable fact, by anyone willing to do the research.--InteXX 01:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- KEEP There is something wrong when the government will not answer the people!

Bob Schultz and the "We The People" movement politely and respectfully asked questions to those we have elected to serve us. There was no reply.

People have been jailed without having the chance to present their facts to the jury. Irwin Schiff's trial transcripts demonstrate the government's refusal to address the truth.

Larken Rose's trial, Tessa Rose's trial and Ward Dean's trial were all miscarraiges of justice and blantent hiding of the truth.

If the tax were being properly applied to most Americans, why the continued silence except for the shouts of "Frivolous"???

KEEP IT

Finally the word is getting out, don't bury your heads in the sand any longer. This is TRUE! I have investigated it myself for years. Show us the Law!

Keep

The "Tax honesty movement" folks are not "Tax protesters." They believe Title 26 is legally correct and binding. There problem is not with the Tax Laws but with the misapplication of the law by the IRS. If those views are incorrect it should be a simple matter for the IRS to show statutes and regulations that support their position. As an aside, Mr. BD2412's POV is not supported by the findings of the Grace Commission. Further, Income taxes collected don't go to the U. S. Treasury. They go to the International Monetary Fund. I have a POV as to what the IMF does with our Tax Dollars but that is not appropriate here.

Last reply here.Mr./Ms. Famspear correctly states: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion... Mr./Ms. Famspear incorrectly states: Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. That is exactly THE material that drives the tax honesty movement. I submitted external links for the purpose of giving those that are going to be active in this decision process something to think about in regards to the tax honesty movement article. A taste if you will, of the thought process of at least one person who, after reading the written words of the statutes and regulations, has determined that the law does not apply to him.

Mr./Ms. Famspear further states: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page.

Mr./Ms. Famspear, I am that person that posted from IP 4.158.201.8. I am not anonymous. Merely, not advertising my name. The website SynapticSparks is mine. If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's of questions. I've only a few days before I am indisposed for about 2 weeks, so our little tête-à-tête will be interupted. The page is already set up for us. [27] You may send your email answer directly to me [28] as that is how your comments will be put on that page.

Save This Page. This entry is well written and only states facts, exept for the last paragraph which states an opinion. the last paragragh should be deleted. Why would anyone have a problem with stating. Such entries as "Communism", "Aztlan" and "Fascism", etc. are groups that I and a lot of other people do not agree with. I, however, would not support deleting them, because they provide usefull information. isn't this why Wikipedia exists. Save the page delete the last biased paragraph.

KEEP !!!!! It's sad when undisputable, credible evidence is presented and backed up by resignations of their own officers, extensive research by folks such as Bill Benson, Irwin Schiff and others and folks (mostly corrupt judges !!)want to call that effort null and void !!! The largest exposure of the fraud shows when the government has been invited many many times to a press conference to "stake their claim" that they've been right/legal in what they've been doing all these years and miracuously "get the flu" every time about a week or so before it was supposed to happen. Come on people, doesn't the fact they've been "ducking the issue" all these years "throw up a flag" with even the most diehard of "still tax believers" ? You're living in fantasy land if it doesn't !!!

KEEP

I'm amazed that there are those who claim this article (in its original form) to be POV. Is it not factual? If it isn't, then let's discuss those portions of the article that are not. Truth be told, the tax honesty movement does exist, irrespective of how one might feel about it. The facts are that there are a growing group of people associated with these ideas, as evidenced by Bob Schulz and the We The People lawsuit. The emergence of the internet has caused an increasing number of people to start reading the law on their own and questioning the government as to the proper enforcement of the U.S. code and Federal Regulations. These issues will not go away if the government does not answer. These are FACTS.

To ignore the fact of a growing movement as an appeal to opinionated diatribe is intellectually obscene at best, and moral bankruptcy at worst. How is it that in America a group of people who promote honest, level-headed and rational discussion of law are considered "dangerous"? In America the citizenry is entrusted with government oversight and that can only be achieved through honest, tough-minded discourse that makes use of all the facts. Wikipedia is an excellent resource in that it makes this exchange possible by providing ALL the factual evidence necessary. Burying one's head in the sand at the sound of a movement he disagrees with is inherently un-American and close-minded.

If this page is truly dangerous then we need to close down pages covering other topics that might "fool" honest people. Simply pick ideas you disagree with and request deletion. Absurd.

I see this page as prompting more dialouge covering the issue, which, of course, can be covered by Wikipedia. For example, anarcho-capitalism has its own page but with links to sites that are critical of the theory. Why not employ the same open-exchange with respect to the Tax Honesty Movement? Once again, the article is factual. Because it points to facts that some don't like is not grounds for a wild POV accusation.

And if you disagree with the FACT that this movement exists, then go to Bob Schulz's website and view the briefs being filed in federal court, the summaries of his victory over the IRS concerning a summons issue, or see Aaron Russo's film when it comes out.

P.S. I am referring to the article in its original form. BenLS 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Dale R. Eastman or User at IP address 4.158.201.8: Regarding your questions to me personally (see above), please see my response at Talk:Tax protester, so we don’t clutter this page with any more off-topic material. Thanks, Famspear 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!

Why on earth would anyone want this entire topic deleted!? Prior to the American Revolution many colonists 'went to jail' for opposing tyrannical government and oppression. One cannot justify the removal of a concept, a phrase, a reality simply because there have been penal consequences for a few brave souls that stand up for truthfulness; that stand up for clearly written rights known to many through the bible, others through 'common sense' and fewer still from our written constitution. Thank you for the opportunity. D. Davis- Hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.84.114 (talk • contribs)

KEEP

There is a clear POV with this issue in the suggestion to delete Tax Honesty. To try to group everybody into a Tax protestor category is clearly a POV to degrade the message of people wanting honesty. Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty are clearly two different things. Tax protestor’s are just protesting something they owe. Tax Honesty is stating the law is misapplied.

The goal of those that are demanding the Tax honesty be grouped into Tax protestors are imposing a POV. For this reason alone Tax Honesty should be separate. The proper thing to do is to take anything in the tax protestor listing that would infer a Tax honesty position, that the law is misapplied, and move it to tax honesty. To do otherwise is clearly a POV contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. LOL Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.189.11 (talk • contribs)

  • This is simply incorrect. Tax resisters refuse to pay a tax that they owe. Tax protesters deny that they owe any tax, stating that the law is misapplied. The arguments that no taxes are owed because the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, or that the Sixteenth Amendment gives no power to tax, or that no law passed by Congress assesses an income tax, or that wages are not income, or that the IRS is not empowered to collect taxes, or that U.S. dollars are not money, or that the failure of the IRS to answer questions about its authority proves a lack of authority, or that no tax is owed because the United States ceased to operate under the Constitution during the Civil War, these are all arguments explicitly classified by U.S. courts and tax professionals alike as arguments of the tax protester movement. BD2412 T 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • BD2412 says: Tax resisters refuse to pay a tax that they owe. Tax protesters deny that they owe any tax, stating that the law is misapplied. BD2412 is attempting to use a Loaded_term for a label upon members of the Tax_honesty_movement in an attempt to justify the censorship he aims to institute on something he doesn't agree with. This "labels" argument is no different than what goes on in the Pro-choice / Pro-life conflict. People on both sides of that issue are fervent in their positions. What BD2412 attempting to do as a result of his personal opinion is no different than if a Pro-Choice advocate insisted upon deleting the Pro-Life article or vice versa, the Pro-Life advocate insisted upon the deletion of the Pro-Choice article.
    • BD2412 says: [T]hese are all arguments explicitly classified by U.S. courts and tax professionals alike as arguments of the tax protester movement. BD2412 aligns himself with the Courts.. BOTH can be observed using a Loaded_term in an effort to kill interest in; and ignore what the Tax_honesty_movement members are saying. (The Court is a tax revenue consumer, no conflict of interest there, right?)
    • BD2412 lists these topics as ignorable now because the tax protestors have examined them:
    • the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified; Bill Benson and The Law That Never Was [29]Right from one of the legal briefs [30] (PDF 112 kb.) of the Bill Benson case: No one can doubt that if the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, the income tax is unconstitutional. That part of Benson’s speech is absolutely true. The government is here attempting to make the utterance of the statement – that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified – unlawful activity subject to penalty, but the statement in reality does nothing more than state an opinion contrary to the government’s opinion. A free people decide important questions by comparing opinions, not by censoring unpopular ones. (hint, hint.) And now the government is in a bind: Here is the latest filling regarding the 16th. Amendment not being ratified: [31] (PDF 78 kb.)
    • the Sixteenth Amendment gives no power to tax; It doesn't. SCOTUS in STANTON says: ..it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling [BRUSHABER] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.. SCOTUS in Brushaber says: ... the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. ... they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment ... We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation ... And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it ... But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER; that is, they WOULD RESULT IN BRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT exempting a direct tax from apportionment INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT that all direct taxes be apportioned. ... Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. ... This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. It also should be noted that the lower courts are deciding opposite to each other based upon their reading (and mis-reading) of the Brushaber case. A more fleshed out treatment of the 16th may be found here: [32] with links to the cases on FindLaw.
    • Since the amount of time, and the amount of space my reply has taken up is so great, I am ignoring the rest of BD2412's list of naked assertions. The reason for my voluminous post is to refute assertions and personal opinions presented as if truth.
    • Since BD2412 is attempting to spin what the Tax_honesty_movement is with his catch-all Loaded_term label of "tax protestor", he opens the door to having a Loaded_term label applied to his own group of "IRS Collaborators" in the finest tradition of the Vichy_French Nazi Collaborators aiding and abetting tyrants.
    • I look forward to Mr. 2412 joining the discussion with Mr. Famspear and myself after (heavy spin and POV) "Tax Terrorism Season" is over and we all have time to hash this out. -Posted:Dale Eastman. 15:24 EDT 4/4/06

KEEP

Mr. 2412's willingness to keep a category like Tax Protestor and delete one called Tax Honesty is itself a POV. It ignores the point he makes himself above. The term Tax Protestor is a POV label invented by beneficiaries of the fraud, if indeed there is a fraud, being perpetrated by missapplication of perfectly Constitutional but deliberately confusing tax laws.

The notion that lying and deception are the exclusive provence of those not in line for government pensions is optimistic at best. Most "tax protestors" risk far more than they stand to gain in saved taxes. At the same time tax collectors, accountants, attorneys and other "tax professionals" can protect comfortable incomes and benefits with no risk at all by defending a misapplied law.

If indeed it turned out that Title 26 were being misapplied and the income tax only applied to certain Federally privileged activities, a large portion of the current tax enforcement and compliance sector would have to seek honest work. For that reason alone tax professionals and tax enforcement agencies, including the federal courts, cannot be considered neutral parties to the discussion. It would surprise me if the chief advocate here of deleting the Tax Honesty heading, Mr. 2412, was not among those whose economic fortunes are in some part dependent on the current popular interpretation of Title 26.

The very persistence of a movement that questions the legitimacy of the U.S. income tax laws, in spite the possibility of heavy fines and long prison terms, is reason enough to include both Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty in Wikipedia. We do not have "protestors" or "truth seekers" involved with any of the hundreds of other taxes imposed by Congress. There are no protests or doubts of the legitimacy of excises on gasoline, liquor or air fares, for instance. Those laws are clearly written and easily understood. The mind numbing complexity of the tangle lawmakers have created in Title 26 implies a desire to deceive rather than enlighten.

It would not contribute to the search for truth to eliminate one heading or to incorporate it under the other. If they were to be merged, it should be under a truly neutral heading like "U.S. Income Tax History." Otherwise Wikipedia should not be bullied by strongly held opinion in favor of censoring one POV. KEEP TAX HONESTY AS A HEADING. —This unsigned comment was added by Hxoboyle (talk • contribs)(user's only edit) . .

  • Like it or not, this group is composed of persons long defined as tax protesters. I'm really baffled by those who think "Tax protester" is a POV term, as "protester" is not inherently negative. If the main article were instead called "Tax liars" or "Tax idiots" then I would also argue for movement to a neutral title - but many groups have proudly borne the label of protester - consider "Civil rights protesters", who also refused to abide by laws which they rightly believed were unconstitutional and illegally enforced. BD2412 T 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP AS IS

I cannot fathom how others consider this POV. The article lays out the facts that define the term "Tax Honesty Movement" without injecting the opinion of the original author. Whether or not you agree with the goals of the movement, the article does the job of defining the movement to those people who have heard the term and wish to find out what it means. I could detect no attempt at swaying the reader to a particular POV.

Ironically, it seems that BD2412 would like to see it deleted because it offends his POV. Do I really need to point out that that is hardly reason to delete it? --Scratchman 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scratchman's only edit. My "POV" is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, i.e. not the place to attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong. Posting tax protester theories under the heading of "Tax Honesty" is such an attempt. BD2412 T 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Scratchman's only edit". I am not fully initiated into Wikipedia's culture, but I assume BD2412 is inferring that my opinion should be ignored because I have only posted one edit. Please tell me I am wrong.
    • I agree with you, BD2412, that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - which is why your contention that this article is somehow an "attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong" is a mystery to me. No matter how many times I read it, I cannot find within its passages an attempt to do anything other than define/explain what the term "Tax Honesty Movement" means. If someone thought, "Hmm, what is the Tax Honesty Movement?", this article would answer the question concisely and without injecting any particular POV of whether the movement is good or bad, right or wrong.--Scratchman 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) aka Neil D. Rosenthal[reply]
    • If it swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. When BD2412 states: "Posting tax protester theories under the heading of "Tax Honesty" is such an attempt." "(to attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong.)" he is posting his personal opinion POV that the article itself somehow is an "attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong."
    • What IF Arguendo, the Tax Honesty Movement is correct in their views? IF, (the big if), IF the Tax Honesty Movement is correct, what does that say about BD2412's attempts at censorship? Because IF the Tax Honesty Movement is correct, what BD2412 IS attempting to do is censorship based upon BD2412's then incorrect personal beliefs.
    • I should have taken a snapshot of the Tax_Honesty_Movement page prior to somebody editing it. I have taken a snapshot of the page as of the time of my composing this post. If you still insist that the article be removed in its present form, then you are definitely pushing a personal opinion POV. Though I don't like the paring down of the article, I myself can live with it. Others Tax Honesty Members may have disagreement with it.
    • Even if the article stays just as it is right now, I still want that discussion/debate with Mr. Famspear after the 17th and Mr. 2412 is also invited. I have an idea as to a more suitable forum for said discussion... If you can handle the government checking your posts five or more times per day. Posted: 20:59 EDT by Dale Eastman.
      • You know, if you want a snapshot of the article before it was edited, it's here - better hurry, tho, as it is liable to be deleted soon. BD2412 T 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Got it.- DE.
    • KEEP! Mr. BD2412, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone. Even those who refuse to share your personal views.
    • Show us the law. It seems that Wikipedia has a "law" called the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As an admin, you are bound to follow the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This article DOES NOT qualify for deletion as described in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Therefore, one must use the criteria found in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I demand that you show us EXACTLY which item(s) from the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" (notice the use of the word "may" in the title) that you believe apply to this article. ALL OF THE ISSUES you have raised thus far have solutions in the table "Problems that DON'T require deletion." You might be shocked to find that deletion is not a solution listed in the second table. Also, I expect and demand that you will follow the guidelines and policies set forth at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which states in part:
    • == Deciding whether to delete ==
      1. Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
      2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
      3. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
      4. When in doubt, don't delete.
    • You may also wish to review these:
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#When_you_wonder_what_to_do
    • Please list the item(s) found in the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" in Wikipedia:Deletion policy before you direct anyone to delete or merge this article. If such decision is made, I demand formal notice here and the opportunity to seek mediation and/or arbitration in this matter before any substantive change is made.
    • I thank you for your swift attention during this very busy tax terrorism season! --Dicktater 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While you're reviewing these Wikipedia guidelines, you may want to refer to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppets are bad, which states that "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments." As you can see, the question of deletion is out of my hands - it will be made by a closing administrator, who will likely discount the votes cast by anons and brand new users, particularly where most of those anons and new users appear to be part of the group that they are claiming should have an article. I have no control over whether you get notice or mediation, but I would point out to you that Wikipedia is not a government agency, but a private company, and has no obligation to provide due process. You have already had the opportunity to be heard in this forum, and our deletion process is pretty clear that once five days have passed, an admin may close this AfD and delete the article if that represents the consensus of established Wikipedians. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Mr. BD2412, Ouch! Please review Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers! Is there any reason you left out the last two lines of the paragraph from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppets are bad? The entire paragraph reads:
          • "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process."
        • I pray that the closing admin will consider "verifiable facts and evidence" in making a decision and post an opinion based on such. BTW: Any reason you have not shown this discussion, as I previously requested of you, which problem listed in the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" in the article Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that you believe apply to the Tax Honesty Movement article. This "newbie" (I am not a sockpuppet!) is requesting clarification from you, the admin who initiated the deletion process. Please, show me the "law"!
      • Also, please clarify for me a statement you made in your previous post. Is the Wikipedia Foundation a private company, or is it a private or public non-profit foundation? There is no question as to your bias. False statements, however, diminish your credibility.--Dicktater 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quoted the portion of the rule that is relevant to this discussion. Please show me the law that says that "a private or public non-profit foundation" can not also be a private company, and must instead be a government entity required to provide you with notice and an opportunity to mediate before material on its website can be changed. BD2412 T 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT AS IS. There is an enormous amount of misinformation about the Tax Honesty Movement. Members of the Tax Honesty Movement and those known as tax protestors are two groups that do not overlap by definition. The former advocates administration of the tax law as written by Congress and as adjudicated by the US Supreme Court, and the latter objects to the tax and/or the law as currently administered, regardless of how it is written or adjudicated by any court. When the day comes that the decision to keep an entry like "Tax Honesty Movement" turns on the effect of revealing the truth and uncovering a lie, then the integrity of Wikipedia will have vanished with its value. - Mark Yannone

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Beverages[edit]

Spam Acha11 14:27, 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was that the article is a copyright violation, and it has been blanked and tagged as such.

Cliff Simon[edit]

This article, or one like it, has been created and speedily deleted twice before; this time it's claiming some notability, but I can't verify the existence of this person (though there's another Cliff Simon whom Google picks up, and for whom I'm surprised there isn't an article). Delete as probably hoax. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some of the content may not be a hoax, as he is the actor that plays Baal (or Ba'al?) in Stargate SG-1. But the page is a direct copy from http://www.cliffsimon.com/bio.html and may be a copyright infringement.--Blue520 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio --TBC??? ??? ??? 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio... but the page should be recreated at some point. Cliff Simon does indeed play Baal in Stargate SG-1 and as one of the last remaining Goa'uld and having appeared in multiple episodes across multiple seasons, I'd say he's notable enough. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll close this, and put it through the copyvio process. I obviously missed the fact that this is the same as the person who was appearing on Google. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 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 Speedy deleted under A7 by User:Wiki_alf. kotepho 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hebert[edit]

Vanity page. Pugs Malone 14:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7, and now has a {{db-bio}} template on it. --Blue520 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non-notable, vanity, and as the article states, the guy "really isn't doing much of anything." --TBC??? ??? ??? 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7, is not really known outside of his immediate family, I'd say that's vanity :D --lightdarkness (talk) 15:26, 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 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Mall[edit]

This is a non-notable mall which the article admits is small, and isn't worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable mall--TBC??? ??? ??? 15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable [33] and somewhat notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it has some notability aside from the generic chain stores found most American malls. There are countless non-notable shopping centers in the world, we can't catalog them all. -Dawson 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Doesn't seem to be anything special about this mall to make it worthy of being on Wikipedia. Allemannster 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, lest Wikipedia turn into a mall guide. Fishhead64 06:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a mall people, a strip mall. Are there any strip malls in the world that are notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Yes, the first strip mall ever is probably notable. If there was one made of nothing but titanium and chewing gum, it would be notable. This is neither, and is not notable. Proto||type 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5F Northampton Squadron ATC[edit]

Non-notable Air Cadet squadron Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable squadron --TBC??? ??? ??? 15:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual ATC squadrons are non-notable clubs. David | Talk 15:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable club.--Adam (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:05
  • keep - Verifiable, and not entriely non-notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. incog 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Not sure how verifiability comes into it- notability is the criterion here (the subject certainly exists). There are thousands of these outfits throughout the country; unless this one is particularly unusual for some reason, it isn't encyclopaedic at this time. Badgerpatrol 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burshtin (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Originally tagged as prod due to my concerns and that of another editor on talk page, but prod tag removed by creator of article. Zero Google hits for "Burshtin dynasty" as a phrase, and I suspect that this is a vanity article. Delete CLW 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that this group exists for the last 30 years in Borough Park, Brooklyn. I am a personal follower of this group and you can go see for yourself by visiting the location at 12th Avenue and 56th Street in Brooklyn, NY. I can not understand your argument that there is no match on Goggle. The way I understand, Wikipedia is exactly for this purpose to get new information that was not available in any other source. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006

Comment Actually, Wikipedia is specifically not for "new information." See Wikipedia:No original research, which is the policy for such. —LrdChaos 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burshtin_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29"

Asking for verification makes sense. See my response above. However, I can not understand how you can even think of calling this a "Vanity" article. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006

O.K. I accept your comment about new information. So let me put it to you this way. The Burshtiner Rebbe is not new in any way. He is a reputable figure for over thirty years and Google has him referenced under "Eichenstein" which is his family name. USER: Sunny123 March 30,2006

  • Keep - But fix it so its not lying anymore, and do something with the pictures, its a mess on my res. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but, really, could the article be anymore hagiographic? Fishhead64 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim & keep -- Simon Cursitor 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted your suggestion of Trim & Keep - USER: Sunny123 March 31, 2006
  • How long do I have to wait before I can remove the "This article is being considered for deletion"? -

Does anybody know the rules? USER: Sunny123 March 31, 2006

  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. An administrator will remove the deletion notice on April 4th. You must not. Stifle 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me what you need for verifiability.

and I will try my best to give you that info. Thanks. USER: Sunny123 April 2, 2006

  • Please DO NOT delete.

This is a site that I am familiar with and I added some information to. For some reason this was flagged for deletion. I do not understand this. I replied to all the concerns that were stated. I am willing to supply additional information and I can use some help in clearly identifying what info should be supplied. Please DO NOT Delete. Thanks, USER: Sunny123 April 3, 2006

  • Made corrections:

Deleted some flowery statements and kept only factual statements. Hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 4, 2006

  • Keep but article should be sourced and cleaned / fixed up (specialy the pictures). Shlomke 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything in the article is verifyable. Just go to Boro Park. At 5822 11TH AVE, BROOKLYN, NY 11219 you can find Yeshiva Ohr Torah d'Burshtin (here is a website detaining education expenditures in New York that has it listed: [34]). Now, someone has to find out a little more about the Burshtiner Rebbe. (From what I've heard, he's the nicest man in Boro Park. But unfortunately, that's all that I've heard). But please don't delete this merely for a lack of information. That's how these things start. Soon, iyh, the article will grow. --Meshulam 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Not everyone can "go to Boro Park". Stifle 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The statement was more tongue-in-cheek. But regardless, I provided a link to New York documents that "verify" the existence of a Burshtin Dynasty. In fairness though, it seems sort of silly. If it happened to be the case that no book was written about the Statue of Liberty, it would nonetheless be obvious and verifiable that it exists. Just ask anyone who drives from NY to NJ periodically. --Meshulam 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made more corrections by major deletions: The deletion alert is up more than one week and nobody came forth to deny any of the claims made in this article. The original article is comments that are facts and accepted by a large segment of the Boor Park community. However, I tried to keep to the Wikipedia standards and therefore made major deletions to this article. At this point I believe I can not cut it down anymore and I hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

It is not up to Wikipedians to "deny any of the claims". The onus is on you to verify them. Stifle 12:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMAZING AND UNBELIEVABLE... how after all my deletions and improvements there are 2 users (CLW and Stifle) that are determined to nitpick and criticize this site. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

Comment - I belive that my "nitpicking" referred to above is my reversion of this edit and this edit; in both cases, [User:Sunny123] removed requests for citations, changed headings within articles to non-standard forms (e.g. with non-standard capitalisation and with colons) and reinserted deleted unverifiable statements, both times without using any edit summary. CLW 08:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEED HELP: At this point I need help from Wikipedia users that have Admin authority to evaluate my position. I improved this site to the best of my ability and I do not think that it is fair to put Citation after every word in this article. I analyzed other Wikipedia articles and came to the conclusion that if you really want to nitpick, it can be done to almost every Wikipedia article. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

  • Delete as unsourced (WP:RS), no indication of notability, also utterly confusing (is this a "dynasty", a "sect" or an individual? The lead talks about all three). Sandstein 08:43, 8 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. Stifle 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners[edit]

POV pushing article and original research. User:Medalstats (and suspected socks Them Medals and Wintermetal) have tried pushing the same sort of POV on the articles Total Olympics medal count and related articles. This table first appeared on the user's talkpage. Delete Kalsermar 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I refute Kalsermar's deletion proposal as follows:
    • 1. This is definitely not a POV (point of view) table - instead the table overcomes POV problems by objectively providing all data such that no particular POV is emphasized. To clarify this point, I made a list of frequent POVs regarding medal counts, and cited sources inside and outside of Wikipedia on the article talk page: Although the International Olympic Committee IOC rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations (e. g., Sports Illustrated), the mass media and Wikipedia publish them anyway - compare the recent 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. Different sources follow wildly varying habits though. CNN and NBC and others rank nations by the total number of medals, BBC and others by gold. Some simply delete nations such as the USSR that do not exist any more; e. g., see here. Many omit the number of participations per country (the USSR participated rarely, but usually won the medal count whenever they did). Some demand tallies with an entry for the EU, just like in GDP tables, e. g.: List of countries by GDP (nominal); compare the Washington Times. The medals of the various fragments of Germany are often but not always added together, e. g., here and also in the German Wikipedia. The medals of the USSR and its successor state CIS are frequently but not always added together. Often the medals of USSR and CIS are added to those of Russia, which is smaller but viewed as their political heir, e. g., here at Wikipedia. Many mention the medals per capita, e. g., the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Sport1.at. So we observe that there are a lot of medal count POVs out there! What I did was to combine all the data such that nobody's POV is dominant - different countries rank first in different categories, but of course we must keep in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. This is not original research - the table is based on data already available at Wikipedia. Unless the activity of adding and dividing numbers counts as original research? But by that reasoning one would have to delete many of the Wikipedia medal tables, such as the Total Olympics medal count, which adds summer counts and winter counts. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Choosing figures, labelling them, deciding what calculations to perform on them is indeed original research. For example, labelling a figure as the population of the Soviet Union, which differs by 23 million from the estimated 1991 population, doesn't do anything to overcome POV problems. —Michael Z. 2006-03-31 18:27 Z
    • 3. Sock accusation: still unfounded - you should have received an admin notice telling you I can't be a sock! Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be original research, with no sources for the data and no documentation of the methodology used to derive the statistics. Doesn't belong here. —Michael Z. 2006-03-30 17:28 Z
    • Response No original research - see above! The table is purely based on data already available at Wikipedia. Or is the activity of adding numbers original research? But as I pointed out above, then one would have to delete many other Wikipedia medal tables, such as the Total Olympics medal count, which adds summer counts and winter counts. Of course you are right, the Wikipedia sources should be mentioned - but it's easy to do this - no reason to delete the article. In the talk page or the article page? In the talk page you mentioned an error for the USSR data - thanks a lot! - just an oversight, can easily be corrected. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Plus I very much doubt they have calculated the population by medal using the population from each year. Average Earthman 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response No original research - see above. And the article talk page precisely addresses the issue above, by stating the methodology (plus an alternative methodology): "The latest available population data is used for the per capita entries - maybe one could instead average out the medal per capita data for all years when the nation participated." Should such methodology data go in the article page or in the talk page? Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the population for each year the medal was won in is used, it is intrinsically flawed. Average Earthman 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. This data is obviously only existant in the efforts to push the POV of the creator. Further, this is original research (no citations) and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I respectfully disagree. In fact the article should help to overcome the various POVs surrounding the issue of medal counts. I actually made a list of such POVs (see above, or the article talk page), and cited the sources inside and outside of Wikipedia. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. People per gold per games? I respectfully request that the author get a life. Grandmasterka 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response No original research - see above. Thank you very much, however, for your other helpful suggestion. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the objections either are not valid (no POV etc, no original research, many relevant sources cited) or can easily be addressed, by inserting statements about where the data came from (namely, Wikipedia) and how the numbers were computed (by adding and dividing Wikipedia data, just like in many other Wikipedia tables). Therefore I propose to keep this (in my humble opinion) very useful table, reminding everybody that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the author has an obvious POV and conducted original research here contrary to his transparant claims to the contrary. Could author explain how he got the EU's data and the USA's population figures for previous games for instance? (Using external, verifiable sources of course.) The ratios per capita can only really work for 1 edition of the Games at a time since these vary widely between 1896 and the present. I respectfully echo Grandmasterka's advise to the author.--Kalsermar 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Kalsermar claims the author has an obvious POV, without saying what that POV is. What is it? And please keep in mind what I said above about the population data (also in the article talk page), such that I do not have to repeat it again every time: "The latest available population data [readily available at Wikipedia] is used for the per capita entries - maybe one could instead average out the medal per capita data for all years when the nation participated". So please take note that I wouldn't mind the creation of per capita entries based on year by year population data. I suspect though this will yield rather similar results - as the populations grew, so did the number of disciplines and medals per Games. But yes, this would be an interesting task. Thanks also for reinforcing Grandmotherka's excellent suggestion! Medalstats 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, per all the above. @Medalstats: "original research" in this case refers to the fact that you invented the methodology of comparison. Instead of deleting it, I suggest userfication, which means you'll be able to keep your own personal statistics in your userspace, but this is definitely not material for an encyclopædia. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Thanks for the comment. But which non-trivial methodology of comparison do you think I invented? In case of non-trivial comparisons I gave references. For example, I cited highly visible sources of medals per capita statistics, e. g., the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I cited several sources that sum up medals of countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, e. g., here at Wikipedia. Nothing I did is really new, I just collected data that's already available in the Wikipedia medal counts and in the Wikipedia population statistics. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't believe that this could be unverifiable, POV, or OR, but it manages to be all of these. Userfy or delete. Stifle 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Thanks for the comment. But I am afraid I have to disagree on all three counts:
      • Verifiability: Easy - just go to the Wikipedia medal counts for each year, and to the Wikipedia population data of any mentioned country - all the information is right there.
      • POV: Kalsermar also claimed there is some POV, but then failed to explain which POV. So which POV do you mean? I'd really like to know. As pointed out above, the table actually overcomes the problems of narrow POVs: there is no obvioulsy dominant POV; different countries (which may or may not have different POVs) rank first in different categories (but of course we must keep in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority, which rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations: see article).
      • OR: None of the arguments above sufficiently explained why exactly this should be considered OR. I certainly did not invent a non-trivial methodology of comparison. I did cite highly visible sources of medals per capita statistics, e. g., the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I cited external and internal sources that sum up medals of countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, e. g., here at Wikipedia. Once more, nothing I did is really new - I just collected data that's already available in the Wikipedia medal counts and in the Wikipedia population statistics. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. WP:NOR is quite clear that Wikipedia articles cannot "introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". That is the case here. Medal tables from individual games (e.g. 2004 Summer Olympics medal count) have clear references (e.g IOC website). Cumulative tables, such as Total Olympics medal count, to be free of "introducing a new analysis or synthesis" of these counts, can do no more than simply sum up the totals by each IOC country code. Anything more is original research, as defined by Wikipedia. Andrwsc 10:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response But again, what exactly is this so-called "particular case favored by the editor"? What is it? Isn't this just an objective table compactly summarizing all the information you need to put medal counts in perspective? It serves all: those who care for absolute medal numbers, those who want to know how many Games some nation needed to collect how many medals, those who are interested in per capita data, etc. Obviously no particular case is favored by the editor, since different countries rank first in different categories (keeping in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority, which actually rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations: see article). Generally speaking, you cannot simply claim that a particular case is favored by me as an editor, you must also say what it is. If you fail to do so then your whole argumentation breaks down. Finally, the reputable source of the data is cited: it's Wikipedia itself. You claim that "cumulative tables can do no more than simply sum up the totals by each IOC country code. Anything more is original research, as defined by Wikipedia." Can you back up your claim? Please show me the Wikipedia guideline that says you can sum up data from Wikipedia tables, such as in the Total Olympics medal count, but you cannot divide by, say, Wikipedia population data. Why should one of the tables be free of "introducing a new analysis or synthesis" but not the other? It seems clear that deletion of the present table due to OR would imply deletion of several other Wikipedia tables such as the Total Olympics medal count which mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Wikipedia. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to identify exactly what your POV is -- it is sufficient to know that some POV exists. That is clearly obvious because of your desire to "put medal counts in perspective". That implies that you believe that there is currently no perspective in the medal table. That's good! That means that a neutral point of view has been achieved by only presenting a simple summation of counts.
Other editors have pointed out the inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years using only the 2004 population. That should be obvious to you too. However, I would support a proposal that added the following data (only) to those total medal table: number of games competed and first & last years competed. Those numbers are also completely objective.
Perhaps that would help you feel that there is some "perspective" in those tables. What do you think? Would that help?
However, I cannot support any proposal that combines counts from different NOCs. There was never an EU team at any Olympics; you cannot invent a medal count for this hypothetical team. You cannot add GER, FRG, GDR and EUA together because in some events, that "team" would have twice as many competitors (i.e. chances for a medal) as any other team. You cannot add BOH and TCH (or CZE) together because they represent nations with different geographic boundaries. Similar situations exist in many other places.
I agree that the notion of "total" medal counts that span multiple games may be problematic. I would prefer to see only medal table for each games individually. Those are unambiguous. However, if we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that summation by NOC is the most objective way possible. Andrwsc 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for your useful remarks! The text on my user page ("put medal counts in perspective") was badly chosen; I removed it, because that's not really what I want. I want to overcome various existing POVs by providing data (a simple summation of counts is not really neutral as it represents just one of many possible POVs without IOC support). I agree also with what you said about inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years! But of course this holds not only for population data which, as you said, has changed over the years, but also for other things that have changed, such as names of nations etc. All total medal counts (with or without per capita rankings) are problematic for such reasons; mine not more so than the Total Olympics medal count which mixes Winter Games and Summer Games (btw, Summer Games involve many more disciplines, a fact that currently is brushed under the carpet). Regarding combined counts from different NOCs: the IOC charta rejects ALL medal counts, but Wikipedia publishes them anyway - then why should a count with separate NOCs be allowed, and another one forbidden? For example, summing up all the German medals is routine in Germany and other countries (typically an asterisk is used to indicate that East-Germany's medals are added), why not here? Similarly, EU counts don't have more or less IOC support than any other medal count. And obviously it's not the quantity but the quality of the athletes that counts - sending more athletes will help you only in sports dominated by luck (there are not many of this kind). I share your general scepticism towards total medal counts, and I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion should not be limited to this particular article. If we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than a mere summation by NOC. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Liechtenstein accumulated 9 medals in the history of the Olympics is not neautral you say? The IOC does not reject medal tables, they don't endorse rankings but provide them for informational purposes, as do we. The IOC site is full of medal tables. As for mixing winter and summer games... that is a non-issue as both are Olympic Games organized by the same IOC seperated only because of practical concerns such as the difficulty of bobsledding in Sydney in the middle of summer or sailing in Turin in February. In fact there have been two summer games that have in fact hosted sports that are now included in the winter edition. Finally, as Medalstats points out lower down, nobody used Hungary's 1908 population figures. Precisely why this table of his is flawed. If he did use it it would be OR.--Kalsermar 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response How can it be neutral if it does not say how often Liechtenstein participated? And the IOC charta does reject medal tables, as has been pointed out frequently, with sources. Please show me an IOC web site that endorses medal tables. But don't show me a non-IOC web site (e.g., the site of some local organizer)! I agree though on one count, Kalsermar: balanced per capita data may need work, at the risk of OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table, along the lines of what Andrwsc suggested? Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is English not your native language perhaps? I pointed out the exact opposite of what you state, namely that the IOC does not endorse rankings based on medal counts but they do provide them for informational purposes. In fact, 'all medal count tables published on Wikipedia have been compiled by using IOC pages for verification! You might want to try a novel concept here and actually surf on over to the official IOC website where you will find medal tables for every edition of the Olympics. I'll even offer a helping hand.... go here and on the right somewhere you will see somewhere down the page a link to "Medals by country". Click on it and you will get the table for Athens 2004. It even has a nice little "1." followed by "USA" to start it off for you.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This web site explicitly says: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Well, that's what my table is all about: the data is displayed for information only. Medalstats 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Medalstats, how can your table possibly be more objective than a simple count? Do you know the meaning of the word "objective"? On top of the inherent inaccuracy of population figures, the biggest problem with your analogy is that it assumes that all medals are equal (they are not), and that medal counts scale linearly to other variables. They don't! A medal count can only be just that -- a count -- and trying to include it in a mathematical formula introduces POV because it implies a direct relationship with the other factors in each equation you present. I think most people might agree that there is obviously some relationship between medal counts and population, but I would hope most rational people could plainly see that it is not a direct and linear relationship and therefore, that ratio does not make sense.
It is becoming clear that you are not willing to consider the arguments and other suggestions presented by other editors here. I offered to support a move to add the number of games competed by each NOC to Total Olympics medal count etc. if you thought it would be a sufficient compromise, but you did not respond to that. You continue to offer rebuttals to every other message here without adjusting your position.
My suggestion is that you continue your work, but take it off Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic. Take a look at what Herman De Wael has done at this website. He has put together a system that assigns a score to each athlete. I have always thought that something similar could be done to "score" the Olympics, and would be more reasonable than medal counts. You could take this approach and present scores relative to population, GDP, etc. I think many people would find it interesting! However, it would not be encyclopedic, and therefore, does not belong in Wikipedia. Andrwsc 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response But a classic way of making data subjective is to simply omit some of the data! In general, more data is more objective than less data. That's why I am including numbers of Games etc. But I am sorry, Andrwsc, for failing to address your support of a move to add the number of games competed by each NOC to Total Olympics medal count. That would be a good idea, I think. The number of medal count victories should be listed as well, I think, at least for the medal count winners (this is part of what the current table is about). Finally, I actually agree that per capita data should be based on year by year population data - this may need work, at the risk of becoming OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table? The other data is not subject to similar criticism. Since this seems to be the only serious issue I am addressing it again further down in my summary of 5 April. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To summarize, none of the critics so far was able to identify a particular POV, or to back up the OR claim, or to show that the data is not verifiable, or that the source of the data is not cited. I still propose to keep the table. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medalstats, I'll humor you. 1)POV, look at user's contributions, the raison d'etre of user is because he doesn't like the nation on top of the medal standings and thus to try everything to get that addressed. Personal attacks didn't work (I was called an ugly American patriot once, quite the compliment for a Dutchman living in Canada!), grouping nations together didn't work, going through the Olympic Conventions page (currently at the Olympics ortal) didn't work so now he tries this table. 2)Verifiability/OR (I'll group these two together). It is original research because author performed analysis on figures purely in an arbitrary manner. Author simply added up 110 years worth of data and divided it by current population values. That is trying to make a point in author's favour. Did author gather the population figures of historical Games. Could author then perhaps describe how he got say... Hungary's population figure for 1908? Bohemia 1920? What about the EU. Surely author discounted EU medals before EU existed and correctly calculated the EU's population for each year it did. If so, that would make it OR again imo. Author cited a Australian analysis based on population for 2004. A reputable source I'm sure. What are his reputable sources of like analysis for 1932?--Kalsermar 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response 1) Kalsermar, I totally disagree with your claim that I don't like a particular nation! I feel you made a very offensive and personal statement here, and I'd appreciate an apology. Then please try to get back to the issue at hand: which are the pros and cons of the article? Try to find arguments against it, if you don't like it, but don't try to discredit the article by discrediting its author. 2) Apparently for lack of new ideas, you repeated issues already settled above: the methodology is clear, nobody claimed that Hungary's population figure for 1908 etc. is used. Please read the previous answers before bringing up the same issue again and again. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much think this debate if over, because the only one giving "responses" to the affirmative side is the person who created this page. If an admin wants to close out this debate early, be our guests. → J@red  19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that Jared fears that the above-mentioned problems with his Total Olympics medal count will come under scrutiny in case this discussion lasts much longer? Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of friends of Jared. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the arguments is such that there are 7 delete votes and two userfy and only one user, the author, who actually thinks this page is a good idea. Could someone else but author explain what is POV about saying that 1+1=2 whether you're from Liechtenstein or Australia? The total medal counts have been AfD'd and discussed at the Olympics portal and consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of retention of said article if I recall.--Kalsermar 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ah, but the problem is that most of the delete votes here and the support votes there are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page: "As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates." So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions, such as those of Andrwsc. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make are not the only ones who present their views on this site. Finally, this is not about facts such as 1+1=2, but about the way such facts are used to make a certain impression on the reader. Omitting crucial facts (such as number of Games) is the classic approach to spin-doctoring. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, Medalstats, I didn't even read many of the above blurbs. I just know that 7 people think it should be deleted. Keep this debate open as long as you want, but I know it's just going to end up getting deleted. I only said that for your sake of not being humiliated. → J@red  23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I just said, the problem is that most of the delete votes are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page: "As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates." So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make are not the only ones who present their views on this site. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the debate so far: The only serious criticism has been that per capita data for all time medal counts should be based on year by year population data (already suggested in the article's talk page, but not implemented). This may need work, at the risk of becoming Original Research (OR). Maybe we could save the article by removing the per capita data from the table? I could at least temporarily live with that. The other data is not subject to similar criticism. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! the AfD nomination rests on the premise that the whole concept of the page is POV and OR and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Kalsermar, the OR accusation does not hold, as shown in repetitive arguments above, and until now you have failed to point out what is my POV! You repeat there is a POV but what exactly is it? I suggest you solidify your claims or be quiet. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be original research combined with POV-pushing from a single-issue or role account. When it's been published in a reliable source I'll take another look. Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response No OR - see repetitive arguments above! And again, by your reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive arguments from your side only I might add. Are you even from this planet? No other reputable sources use the methodology of the Total Olympics medal count you say???? It adds them up for crying out loud! You won 2 medals in 1912 and 3 medals in 1984....boom, you have 5 medals total!--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for explaining how you add numbers, Kalsermar. By a strange coincidence it's actually the approach I used for my table - no OR there! But "Just zis guy" says we need reputable sources. This applies to both the Total Olympics medal count and my own table, doesn't it? How do you react to this? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, adding up medal number is NOT the approach you used for your table. You divide one variable by another. That is a huge difference, and that's what makes your work original research. I repeat again: your method implies a direct linear relationship between medal counts and other variables such aspopulation, and assumes that a value can be computed and ranked for that relationship. That's not true. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement: I deleted the per capita data since it should be based on year by year population data unavailable at Wikipedia - as has been pointed out in the discussion above, creating such data could be interpreted as Original Research (OR). The other elements of the table are not OR though; all data are taken from Wikipedia. I hope that everybody will now be happy with this reduction and improvement. Medalstats 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What you mean is that I deleted all of the OR elements of the table, and you restored all but the per capita data. WP:NOR defines original research as "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments." This table is full of new synthesis of published data and therefore fits the definition of original research. -- Jonel | Speak 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response First of all, I am sorry that I did not mention your contribution, Jonel. But if counting and adding medals qualifies as new synthesis of published data then other tables such as the Total Olympics medal count do so too. It mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Wikipedia. As I said before, I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion should not be limited to this particular article. If we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than previous ones. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Medalstats, I respectfully ask you to stop your personal attacks. I also would like to suggest you set up your own website where you can address the alleged POV pushing of saying that 1+1=2 and that it really only equals 2 in certain cases depending on how you look at the data. It has no place on Wikipedia, as pointed out by different users and any analysis of suimply adding up the numbers is OR. There are no other reputable sources whop use your methodology and analysis and therefore it doen't belong here.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please point out: where on this page did I attack you in a personal way? I could point out places where you personally attacked me, but never the other way round. And your comment on "1+1=2" misrepresents what I said above. Is English not your native language perhaps? Finally, by your reasoning you'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it is slightly improved, but I still have several major issues with this table, all of which would influence me to recommend deletion of the page:

  • Inclusion of the population data, even though you removed the derived statistics from those numbers, is still problematic. It is unclear at best, or intentionally misleading at worst, to show a "latest data" figure on a table that shows all-time (110 years) medal counts. The presence of this data makes an implied relationship which is then left undefined. It doesn't fit.
Response You have a point. The best way to include population data would be to use year by year data, but that would amount to OR. What a devil's circle! On the other hand, as the population grew, so did the number of Olympic disciplines - the latest population data is quite representative in terms of former population ratios. And isn't some sort of information about the population necessary to clarify certain facts such as: tiny Norway had nearly half as many medal count wins as the 60-fold bigger biggies? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medal count wins" and "Gold count wins" certainly implies that there is a competition between NOCs to win the most. I think the official position of the IOC must be followed on Wikipedia: no nation "wins" an Olympics, but medal counts are still presented (using their ranking method) for informational purposes.
Response I greatly sympathize with this view, but by this reasoning we'd have to delete all the medal counts of Wikipedia, since the official position of the IOC is: no medal counts! See this link. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official position of the IOC is that medal counts are not used to compare nations in terms of "who beat who", but they do provide medal tables anyway. That's precisely what we do on Wikipedia. They certainly don't try to analyze the results any more than that, and neither should we. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medals per Games" and "Gold per Games" are problematic because the number of events per games varies widely. Summer Games now have about 300 events; recent Winter Games around 90. Past Games were much smaller: Winter Games used to have 20-25 events, for example. Therefore, this kind of derived measurement would skew negatively towards NOCs that did not compete in the Winter Games, and would skew positively toward nations that competed only in recent games. Your placement of "CIS" (imprecise, should be EUN) as first in golds per games and medals per games bears this out. That team only competed in 1992. Any kind of "per games" data would have to be normalized across all games to have any meaning.
Response Again you have a point. But by that reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well - it skews positively towards nations that did better in the Summer Games than in the Winter Games, which have fewer disciplines! Moreover we'd have to delete ALL total medal counts as they skew positively towards nations that participated frequently. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The combination of different NOCs as "teams" to be compared is highly problematic. You are comparing apples to oranges. Look at a team sport like water polo. The "EU team" would have multiple entries and win multiple medals. No single nation has that opportunity. What does a "98%" value for "Medal count wins per Games" for the "EU team" mean? Who can tell?
Response True. In water polo and ice hockey and relays etc the EU could not win gold and silver and bronze, but only one of them. But the EU would simply win more gold medals - maybe mention only those? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily add another twist to the equations....mention only certain ones. Sounds like more OR to me, as well as making a point by manipulating data.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's leave it as is; maybe insert a footnote. Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out all of these problematic items, you are left with medal counts and "Number of Games" counts, and that can be achieved by adding a column to Total Olympics medal count instead of creating this new page. I still recommend delete of this page. Andrwsc 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response While I agree that it is necessary to add such columns to Total Olympics medal count, I believe that the answers above show that the present table has its merits and deserves to be kept. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Although contrary to Olympic spirit, people do like obsessing over medal totals and rankings, sometimes by very odd criteria. But I don't see this article as making a contribution. For example, the whole point of the Unified Team was that they didn't want to be thought of as the Soviet Team. It's too diverse a topic for simple calculations to provide meaningful insights, and a more complex analysis would be original research.

Response Thanks for your opinion. Given some of the comments above, I am already glad that the delete votes are getting weaker. I totally agree that medal counts are contrary to Olympic spirit. But if we are to use them, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and therefore more objective than quite a few others here at Wikipedia. Re: your specific points: I think many Russians and ex-Soviets want to include the old USSR medals in the rankings. Similarly for Germany. It's also done frequently: many sum up USSR/CIS/Russian medals and those of the various fragments of Germany, e.g., here at the all time winter medal count of the foreign Wikipedia. My table is objective in the sense that it provides variants: with and without CIS, with and without East Germany, etc. No particular POV can dominate. Medalstats 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a Russian or German POV respectively. We are the English language WP. I will repeat once more, the IOC provides medal tables on their site. We use those. We also have them added up to compile a total count. No POV whatsoever, in line with the IOC and in line with the supermajority views of the contributors to the pages on WP that deal with the Olympic Games. The one-issue account of User Medalstats cannot change that fact.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Russian or German POV, huh? Seems like a rather funny contradiction in itself. Traditionally the German and Russian POVs have been extreme opposites, haven't they? This is an international encyclopedia which should not endorse any POV. My table certainly does not - so far even Kalsermar himself has not been able to say what kind of POV there is. Instead he is still trying to claim that adding up the numbers for his Total Olympics medal count is somehow different from adding up the numbers for my Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. The IOC supports none of them, as explicitly stated on the IOC web site. Why is my table OR / POV but not his? One stands or falls with the other, right? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again.... I don't have a table. The total counts table is compiled by simply adding up the numbers using IOC provided data, how official can you be. They provide them for informational purposes and so does WP. For your information btw, the total medals count table has been through an AfD and survived with flying colours. I am heartened to see that you are beginning to finally see the light, namely that WP should not endorse a POV, so we finally agree that performing no analysis or manipulation of the data but simply keeping the raw numbers as noted on the total medals count table is the best way to go so that our readers may interpret the numbers as they see fit? BTW, I actually have stated what your POV is. One needs only to look at your contributions to see that you have a one-issue account created solely for the purpose of presenting the medals counts any way but straightforward because you don't like who's on top. If unsuccesfull, you'd rather see them deleted altogether. Now, may I respectfully ask we stop repeating our arguments ad nauseam and let the AfD process conclude?--Kalsermar 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let it conclude? And here I thought we were competing for largest AfD page ever... 45 kilobytes just ain't gonna do it. -- Jonel | Speak 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a typical NPOV problem, but the article give undue legitimacy to its calculations. The various Olympic games have had different participants, different events, different numbers of medals awarded. There isn't a meaningful way to put them together. The weird lists like medals won by Portuguese-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries or EU countries aren't really trying to be meaningful. Peter Grey 21:22, 6 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 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Head[edit]

Band not notable enough to merit an article

  • Delete unsigned band, does not appear to have any notable media attention. Average Earthman 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though there is a band with the same name that passes WP:MUSIC and has an allmusic profile [35] --TBC??? ??? ??? 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This particular band isn't notable. No information can be verified. --DanielCD 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-word titles of conservative books[edit]

Useless list. Why on earth would anyone want to read a list of books categorized by the length of their titles, let alone also categorized by their political viewpoints? Not to mention that the list is inaccurate, since every book on the list has a subtitle that extends the full title to multiple words. MysteryDog 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or A vote to remove an article containing a biased, unmaintainable and pointless list. Peter Grey 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Merchbow 19:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree, this list is useless. JIP | Talk 20:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A much as I would love to keep a list of four books which managaes to include two Red-links I fear I cannot --Irishpunktom\talk 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft would be a good one word title for a book. --Kinu t/c 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup....Tombride 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for such a list. --Hectorian 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to clarify my vote counts here by User:Leflyman. I am first marking votes that I discounted.
There is a total of 11 Keep, 9 Delete, and 10 Merge from established users, and a further 6 Keep and 5 Merge discounted votes. Where someone made multiple votes (e.g. "keep or merge") I took the first one without prejudice. There is clearly no consensus on what to do, although if you count keeps and merges as the same you could say there is a consensus not to delete. In any case, the keep or merge conundrum can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet map[edit]

Fancruft and full of speculation -- Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I agree there is some speculation, there is also a lot of fact (the translation of the Latin phrases for example). If anything it should be rewritten to remove speculation; deletion is overkill in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongrel (talk • contribs) March 30, 2006
  • I agree with Jtrost and vote for deletion. Fan speculation. Rlove 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree also. This could be rolled into Dharma Initiative. Coffeeboy 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, latin phrases and external links can be merged to DHARMA Initiative. Arru 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, this article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.243.66 (talk • contribs) March 30, 2006
    Comment This user's only contributions have been to this article and this afd. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, IP addresses don't count.
  • Delete. No need to keep proliferating Lost articles on every minor detail. Merge factual content, where appropriate, into DHARMA Initiative. -- PKtm 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as all of the facts are transfered to the DHARMA Initiative page and it has its own section as this map is quite interesting and in future episodes more may come out about it.Childzy 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting article, but if we add a new article everytime the writers add a new bit of mythology to Lost, it will get unwieldly before they hit 4 seasons. I've merged this article DHARMA Initiative which is the most logical place for it. It should only fork out if DHARMA gets too big.--Isotope23 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the kids over at DHARMA Initiative, didn't like my bold edit, I change my vote to Merge to see if we get any consensus here.--Isotope23 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes sense to have this separate. The Dharma Initiative page can link to this. There's nothing wrong with having it as a separate page. giginger 21:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-while it may contain OR and Fancruft, I think some of this information is quite useful. The useful info should definitely be merged with DHARMA Initiative. --Kahlfin 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-OR material, as above. Radagast 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have contributed a bit to this page and i do believe there will be a lot more learned from this map, especially if it makes a reappearance in the show. I believe some of the info is important and may not get as much use in the DHARMA Initiative page. Just my 2cents. Thanks.--Romulcah
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, only four edits.
  • Merge. I am for Merging it. There is a lot of fan speculation in the lost articles. We can't delete it all but we can merge it to articles on pure facts about the series. It makes them more interesting this way. Cheers. --CeeKay 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, only twelve edits.
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. Fishhead64 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to want to remove this because parts of it are of a speculative nature is a bad reason. The show is in progress and the information becomes more solid over time; if this kind of thing was not allowed on wikipedia, there wouldnt be an in-progress tvshow template. Also, Jtrost, you have no right to talk down to and discredit people that havent been here long, how would you like it if no one listened to your thoughts and opinions during your first week or two here? Everyone's opinion matters as long as it is presented logically and should not be disregarded merely because one side wants to win the argument. Back to the main point, based on the massive amount of information surrounding this map, I dont believe it is a good idea to shove it into DHARMA, it will grow too fast too quickly. If you're worried that every little thing in lost will have it's own article, then why not just give it a few weeks to see if the map is of actual importance (kind of like Drive Shaft is relevant enough to have an article), if it ends up being just another plot device thrown in by the writers, then we'll merge. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-progress tv show template is not a permission slip to run wild with unverified information and original research. You should still abide by Wikipedia policies, and this article is a textbook example of what an article should not be. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you thought it was appropriate for your argument to put words in my mouth, I'll go ahead and explain. I did NOT say that if we have the template we are allowed to make the article speculative, what I DID say was that the show is in progress, and a few parts of the article will end up being of a speculative nature. If you actually spent the time to read the article, you'd see that most of it is a description of the map, if you're sole argument is that there are some lines that say things like "has been speculated that", then you have no real argument. It is easy to clean it up and make it contain only facts.ArgentiumOutlaw 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the article myself and have removed or changed almost all of the lines that could be considered speculative. Now I'd like anyone still arguing that the article is too speculative to tell me what 'theories' are being presented in the article, or what opinions of the writer are causing this article to be too speculative. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, too much info to be deleted. I think we should merge it with the DHARMA page.- JustPhil 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42) 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now This page is very new, and there might still be more information coming from the show or from the producers. It's premature to delete or merge the article at this point. Let's revisit in a week or two. Elwood00 T | C 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article is full of very usefull info and detailed pictures. It should be merged with the Dharma page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.218.134 (talk • contribs) March 31, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote.
  • Delete However, some info can be merged into the DHARMA article. Danflave 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only reasoning is because the EW article about it said producers of the show actually released a better pic of the map to them, meaning they want it out there, and it will be perhaps a main focal point in upcoming episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.195.2 (talk • contribs) March 31, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote.
  • Comment It can be mentioned, but people cannot publish speculation about it, which is what this article is. Verifiable information about it is already available on the Dharma Initiative article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's too much information on this map to merge it into any of the other Lost articles. Also, I think deleting it is premature; as more information is revealed, this could turn out to be such a significant object that not having an article may seem strange.MysteryDog 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. There is a lot of very good info here and that part shouldn't be (if you'll excuse the pun) lost. But I don't think it merits it's own entry. ultraviolet map is not something that people will really be looking for independently of Lost or the DHARMA Initiative. It lacks any independent context or even a unique name. And heck, if things change in the story and it needs it's own article, can't it just be recreated then? Blade 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote has been counted; although the user has few edits, they are on various different articles.
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. --Station Attendant 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Stifle 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Information that can't be thrown away, but it doesn't deserve its own article. —Bannus 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above stated nearly or directly above. Konigsberg Monarch 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, user has made only two edits.
  • Keep While there are many reasons why this page should be merged with the DHARMA Initiative, it seems that for now, from the perspective of a fan of the show, that this entry should be its own entity. There are other aspects of the show that have their own pages (Oceanic Airlines or The Hanso Foundation) because they play key roles in the storyline of the series. Based on the information hidden in the map, it seems like it will also be a major factor in the development of the series. Merging this with DHARMA Initiative will probably be appropriate once we have more definate information on the map from the show, such as its history and its purpose. Jeremys779 06:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, very informative for Lost-heads, do NOT delete. Babajobu 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative, the Map is an important part of Lost now, so there should be a reference to it. However, I do think most of the speculation should be removed. I'd like to see if the producers have confirmed what is actually written (such the information gleaned from the EW article) on the Map before adding anything from it. --YoungFreud 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider renaming, though. Damsleth 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only include facts, though. Eliminate speculation from the article and take it to a Lost message board. Aren't I Obscure? 13:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, most of this user's couple of dozen edits are minor or trivial.
  • Merge with Dharma initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonian (talk • contribs) April 2, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, very few contributions.
  • Keep I agree with Damsleth. The map might be of significant important in the future episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.50.53 (talk • contribs) April 2, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote
  • Comment Saying that it might play an important role is completely speculative. We cannot build articles on what might happen. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to your comment I agree with you that it is speculative that it might be important. However, I would also like to point out the the creators of Lost tend to put in things that come back later on as something important. For example, early on in the series they saw random polar bears...and then there was the incident with the comic book (I am being vague in case someone does not want to read a spoiler)...and the mention of polar bears on the map. These small details do come back... Jeremys779 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It will definitely be featured in future episodes because in the preview for "S.O.S." following "Dave", it clearly showed Locke trying to trying to recreate the map. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Details of the episodes go into each episode summary, what connects to what is something only the producers know at this point. Some of the information is useful but how exactly does it not fit in the DHARMA article? Arru 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said in an earlier post, it probably will eventually fit into the DHARMA article...but we do not know yet. For all we know, this might have nothing to do with DHARMA but would fit in better with a different article. While I do agree with the general consensus that we should not and cannot include everything, it stands to reason that certain things that will prove to be important (and for anyone who watches LOST, you know what they are) can be left in place temporarily, until their proper "home" is found. Jeremys779 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course there is a lot we do not know but of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings. The burden of proof is on the keepers, or else why isn't there an article on the Numbers, the counter or the execute button? Arru 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings", isn't that speculative in itself? You're assuming it is 100% DHARMA, but we don't know enough about the map to determine even that for sure. Just because it's in The Swan, doesn't mean it belongs in the DHARMA category. As a note to everyone who says info from the map is too speculative, you wont acknowledge even the existence of The Swan as a hatch on the map (because you keep removing those lines from our edits), so you logically shouldnt claim that it belongs in the Dharma category for any other reason than it being on the blast door (and I say that's not enough of a reason to merge with Dharma). Things are so vague at this point, that the map might even end up better fitting a merge with a character or The Hanso Foundation (if it doesn't get merged/deleted by then). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiable facts about/on the map:
  1. Large ? mark in the middle
  2. Octagon
  3. It is drawn on the blast door separating the living quarters from the computer room in the Swan station
  4. A few more text bits can be read on the larger versions (not the one stored at wikipedia)
So, for now the map is an artifact located in the Swan station just like the computer or the counter. Like PKtm says below, everything else in this article is based on the "best try" of the EW staff. Just about everything is vague in Lost, that's its main feature. As stated previously, an entire article about the map is no more warranted than an article about the hatch speaker, or about Locke's legs. Arru 10:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-written and the importance to the series obvious. I see no reason to delete it, the speculation is not that strong. SorryGuy 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, merge later. There's certainly enough data about what's on the map to be worthy of keeping, but merging it right now would be way too much inference on the editors' part. --moof 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's discussion of all the supposed data "on the map" is actually not based on what's visible in the show itself. Instead, it's completely dependent on the more detailed versions of the map provided by EW, etc., which is not verifiable information from the show. When I look at the map that is actually visible in freeze frames from the show itself, I can't see 98% of what is in this article, and I don't believe anyone else can either. -- PKtm 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the original article based on only what was visible in the original image (first link in external links),which is from the show. The extra stuff like the formalae and the time line were written after the other image was found online, so look at the original image and compare with what I wrote originally, you'll see that there is at least a decent amount of info on it. A lot of it also has to do with where the map is, and how it was found in the episode. ArgentiumOutlaw 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, I love Lost, but this has no place being it's own article. Take the important facts and put them into the main Lost/episode synopsis. Should we make pages for anything that has a lot of visual information (rooms, records in the hatch)? Of course not. Radagast83 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that the article is up for deletion is because people say it has a lot of speculation. Either way, I think that this diagram is far more important than any other visual we've seen in the show yet (yes, its more important than the records), this map basically changes everything for the survivors, it offers the beginning of some explanation as to why they are where they are, and possibly where they are (much more so than the mysterious and rather vague dharma orientation video). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is a large portion of speculative content and that the map, and what is currently known about it, does not deserve an entire article of its own. Also, the title ("Ultraviolet map") is a disaster. Arru 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as a separate article. At this time, there's little-to-no Verifiable encyclopedic content here which deserves its own entry. The image appeared for a brief split-second in one episode, was seen by only one character and has had no impact on the story (yet.) A section about the "map" already exists at The Dharma Initiative, and a very limited amount of this material may be included there, minus the Original Research "analysis"-- unless such analysis can be cited to an external published source (not merely a fan site!) I'm to understand that Entertainment Weekly magazine ran an article on the map, which can serve as one, limited source. HOWEVER: the map is clearly intended by the writing staff to provide water-cooler speculation, thus extreme care should be taken when including it, as much of its scribblings may merely be fan-entertainment, and not appropriate to Wikipedia. Writer Javier Grillo-Marxuach revealed some hints about it in a recent chat with TheComicsReview.com, which can also be sourced. Finally, remember the "mural" in the station, which likewise created a speculative-frenzy, but has never played a part in the series.--LeflymanTalk 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was stated explicitly in the EW article that they got the image of the map from the producers of Lost. It is official...not fanart. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love lost. i read these pages so i can discover more and i enjoyed this because i wanted to know what this wall said with out refining the picture and this helped me.
  • Keep and Rename - Although the article admittedly started out as much fancruft (which is when it'd been listed AfD), it has since grown significantly past that. The information contained in it now is from the show or from the citable source of the EW article (which analysed and translated much of the map). Also from previews, the map will figure prominantly in next week's episode so much of the information here will likely be verified by that, and it would be a pain to then recreate all of it after a deletion. However, the article should certainly be renamed as the current name is both non-distinct (what does "ultraviolet map" even mean?) and incorrect (it's blacklight, not ultraviolet). Maelwys 13:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, blacklight and ultraviolet light are synonyms. Stifle
  • Delete A map that appears for 20 seconds in one episode of TV series is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Rillian 20:12, 6 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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nephri[edit]

Game is still in beta stage with no release date. How is this notable? Thunderbrand 18:50, 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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PALMSIDE[edit]

I suspect a hoax here. But if not, this is a non-notable development - nothing relevant on Google. And if it does turn out to be notable, then it's advertising. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:49, 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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDWGCB[edit]

Suspected hoax from the author of PALMSIDE. If not hoax, non-notable Google has nothing relevant. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:51, 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:Speedy deleted as a non-notable band. --InShaneee 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Silent[edit]

If it does not meet the criteria of notability, delete. Alexander 007 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete a7, nn-band, tagged as such. --Rory096 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Should I remove the previous tag? Alexander 007 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it should be kept on there so the admin knows to close this AfD. --Rory096 19:16, 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 keep, but with a merge tag added. I would have tried it myself, but despite reading both articles, I'm not familiar enough with cricket to figure out if there actually is anything not in outswinger. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdipper[edit]

Terminology not in use, topic covered under outswinger. As mentioned by some other users this term along with indipper is not used and is covered in the entry outswinger. -- The Cord 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Vote I don't think anyone unfamiliar with cricket is going to be able to help to resolve this issue. --Hyperbole 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with outswinger if possible. Otherwise delete. See [36] for some help. Slowmover 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 19:39, 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 - after discounting sockpuppets/unsigned. Stifle 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mylifeoftravel.com[edit]

Only gets 500 google hits, half of which don't even refer to this site. Alexa rating can be found here. Appears to be nothing more than a nn advertisement. Delete. --Hetar 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How does 500 hits make it any less of a quality blogging platform? Surely the quality of the publishing platform would enable it to maintain a page as do the competitive platforms?

Alexa ranking for Vogue.com, possibly the best known fashion magazine worldwide, is almost 2 million positions lower. Would that suggest it shouldn't be classified as a relevant fashion publication? Find the Vogue ranking here here. Calanh 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue is notable as a magazine not a website, so Alexa rankings don't apply --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, at the moment; low on the barometer with that Alexa rank, and I'm not finding any non-trivial media mentions of the site. (For the record, the Vogue comparison is irrelevant: Vogue is a magazine first and foremost, and that is what makes it notable. Its website, whether it meets WP:WEB or not, has no influence on its notability one way or the other.) --Kinu t/c 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Netimperative is a leader in UK IT News and hardly trivial. I do not believe a site which has a strong userbase and unique blogging technology should be discounted purely due to it being relatively new. There are 3 technology process patents being filed for the MLOT technology and the company has been made several acquisition offers. Considering the number of blogging sites maintaining pages, I see no reason for it not to be included. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.92.162.108 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete: smells like Spamvertising. Stev0 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam and non-notable spam at that. Fishhead64 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fishhead - Perhaps reviewing the site yourself is slightly fairer than your insulting dismissal of a unique product that a team of developers dedicated 2 years of their lives to producing. The most advanced interactive map of its kind, a sharing system more advanced than any other and a comprehensive information resource is hardly 'non-notable spam'. I won't reduce myself to your level but with editors like yourself on Wiki I would question your motivation or rather, your comprehension of user-generated content and its value.
      • What's insulting? I was being descriptive. I could spend two years polishing a turd, but it would still be a turd. Fishhead64 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I must say, the fact that one has to register on the site in question in order to view the "sample" blog linked from the article is an ingenious method of advertising. --Kinu t/c 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. --Kinu t/c 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you don't have to log in to view the sample page. I made a mistake and put a forward slash at the end of the URL.


  • Keep - I am one of the directors of MLOT and poster of the page and I take offense at being called spam. You have a list of [social networking websites] on Wikipedia which include sites with far small userbases and which are not comprehensive products, let alone have unique patented technology offering products that no other blogging platform does. Delete this if you like but you are using Wikipedia as an anti-competitive platform when you discriminate based on the opinions of a few people who have probably not taken the time to explore the site themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calanh (talk • contribs)
  • As is, this reads as advertcruft. Does not (as yet) appear to claim notability on account of the to-be-patented technology, but rather on the basis of its content. -- Simon Cursitor 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair comment except we cannot disclose the technology as yet.
    • If you remove this page I would like clarity as to why there are 1940 social networking sites, many of which are poorly developed, unknown and contain no Google rank, listed on the Wiki site? MLOT is a reputable product with a growth of nearly 30 times its expectation for this early in its lifecycle. I am not a spammer and I am sure anyone researching the site will understand its popularity.
      • Please provide examples, as if they are in fact as non-notable as you claim, those should be considered for deletion as well. --Kinu t/c 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Probable vanity. Stifle 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable and Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.64.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Verifiable and Notable.It is oustanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.94.223 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Verifiable and Notable -- MLOT is a reputable site which provides a great service to both registered users and visitors. It enables people living overseas, travellers etc to keep people around the world updated on their latest movements. The map facility is a great tool which I have not seen on any similar site. I don't understand how anyone could classify a site such as this as SPAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Engaging site. Very easy to use and manage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.151.99 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Does anonymous sock puppetry ever work, especially the kind that comes in a flood and doesn't even attempt to address the problems cited by others? I'm going to guess and say "no"... --Kinu t/c 17:38, 6 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.
  • Keep - The site is an excellent source of travel information, very informative, easy to use and great for when you are travelling.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horny teen[edit]

Colloquialism. Original research. Generally not encyclopedic. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete??? Abc85 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. --Hetar 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I usedd scientific terms to denote a non-scientific term Then one should also delete the article on the word "Fuck" according to that logic.Abc85 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is basically a dictdef. A horny teen is a teenager who wants to have sex. No shit, Sherlock. JIP | Talk 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary definition of non-notable combination of words (is not even really slang -- it means just what it says it means). --Fastfission 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. feydey 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, face-value definition, unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What next, "Hungry teens"? Stev0 23:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. (and unencyclopedic) Bucketsofg 00:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fastfission. --Allen 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steve0 - maybe bored teens or enraged teens. Fishhead64 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But "horny teen" is a very frequently used expression such as "Germanophobia". Google gives wasy over 1000 hits : [37]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-skill[edit]

This page reads a lot like an ad for something that's not really defined well (ICT; the entry on the disambig page for that is two red links and a poorly-written description). Google search turns up about 650 hits for the query ict "e-skill" -wikipedia and many (most? it's hard to tell) have no relation to this usage. —LrdChaos 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the disambig page again, this seems to make a little more sense. The page doesn't really provide any context (which, I know, isn't grounds for deletion), but this still seems like a non-notable term/concept (< 650 Ghits for the search string '"e-skill" ict -wikipedia'). —LrdChaos 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm hearing this term a lot these days, and it gets a lot of Google hits. --Allen 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "I'm hearing this term" doesn't say much for its verifiability. Stifle 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just a heuristic I use. I don't know that it's verifiable, but things I hear a lot about, that aren't closely related to my own life or work, are often verifiable. For me, that's enough to keep the stub around for a few months, in case someone can verify it. I don't care much about this particular article, but since you commented I wanted to explain my thinking. (Also, I just noticed that the article has been around for six months already, which does make me feel less strongly about keeping it.) --Allen 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it's a term growing in popularity, it's still a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fishhead64 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle 00:16, 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 now being dealt with by WP:RFD. Proto||type 09:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pengulin[edit]

I'm actually rather stumped at this one. It's a penguin with an 'l' in it, but I'm pretty sure no such creature exists... I've Googled it, no luck. Looks like some strange vandalism. And judging by the taxonomy, it should be a mammal, right? Spiffy42 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is an obvious joke, and not a very funny one at that. JIP | Talk 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the Deal Rimsy, who is a known vandal, initiated a move of Pangolin to Pengulin then undertook what appears to be a BJAODN attempt at vandalising the existing article. I've moved back to Pangolin and reverted to the last good version. I recommend Pengulin be listed on redirects for deletion, a block on Rimsy for a while, and this AfD can be closed.--Isotope23 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the actions of Isotope23. --feydey 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Isotope23 said. ~MDD4696 02:56, 6 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 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta National Socialist Party[edit]

Delete, non notable; fails google test; never contested electionsMaltesedog 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any clear verification that this party exists much lesss is notable. Bucketsofg 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 04:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was part of a series of trying to fill the redlinks over on List of fascist movements by country. There are two references in the article that show they exist. I admit they are minor but similar groups from other countries have been kept in. The artcile also hepls to show the extent of neo-Nazism in Europe when even Malta has a group that espouses this doctrine. A minor party, yes, but one that I feel deserves inclusion. Keresaspa 12:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Malta has a population of around 400,000, it is quite impossible that someone living on the island has never heard of such a party. Therefore I still suggest deletion. Maltesedog 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've searched the internet up and down and I now accept that, even though they seem to have put a lot of effort into their site compared to other, bigger movements, this group is very unimportant and probably just a handful of guys. Therefore I'll concede deletion. Keresaspa 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4, reposting of deleted content. Stifle 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Ritter[edit]

This page was just voted to be deleted under the name Christina Ritter. Self/promotion - non-notable actress.

Delete per above. Maltesedog 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-posted content. Makemi 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G4.--Blue520 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4 per above. Royboycrashfan 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete so I can further justify removing unsourced casting speculation from The Lovely Bones book and film articles. Daniel Case 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete She's a real actress, and so what if she only has six sites found on google? I mean, she's still cool. Why delete her just for not having a big fanbase like some other stars? I think we should allow the page to remain because as editors it is our goal to maintain updated and proper info on this site. That info is true(I checked the sites as well) and it's not obsene or otherwise because it's a simple little page. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete Christina is just starting in the business so don't delete her just because she only has six sites. Wikipedia is a vast growing database and this is just another new piece of info. I mean, if you have proof(which six sites to me is enough) then go with it. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete As per above. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: This user removed the above votes by TBC, Maltesedog, Makemi, Blue520, Ryboycrashfan, and Daniel Case. And is also trying to ballot-stuff - the above three votes were added in one edit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as reposting. The alleged credits still are unverifiable and almost certainly false. Fan1967 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and Protect once deleted. Last time, on Christina Ritter, the article was recreated within 18 hours. Fan1967 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another vote-stuffing. The user added four of these in one edit. User:Fame live4ever deleted most of the above votes. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry The above four comments were all added at the same time by 67.111.134.249 (talk · contribs). Recommend that this IP, as well as Fame live4ever (talk · contribs) be blocked. Fan1967 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Do I smell sock puppets? Somebody has been tampering with the votes for this entry. Will have to keep a watch... I could not confirm any of the information on this page. Even if true she appears to have only played bit roles. Non-notable/likely vanity. — RJH 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following entries were apparently deleted by Fame live4ever: (Snip, see below -w4) — RJH 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored all of the stuff the anon people tried to nuke. Nice try. Too bad we have this thing called "History tab". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fame liver4ever I see you all are judging based on very little evidence. You haven't clearly stated your reasoning, and reports of her being false...I'd like you all to back that up. Show me firm evidence that this actress is a fake, which you have failed to do so far. The reason I have bent some rules is the fact that almost everyone on here is being inexplicitly rude to me in their consideration about this page. I have been almost cornered as if you were all a pack of dogs and I was an innocent newbie. Yes I've done bad deleting some comments, but it was because you all did not fairly consider my proposal. I wish you all could see how unfairly you have treated me, and at least consider my arguing case. (By the way only two of those are my puppets, not all) Also you saying she's played bit roles, doesn't mean she shouldn't be on here at all. Again with your lack of consideration. Try to be fair, please.

Please sign your messages properly. Regrettably, we have certain notability criteria, and that means we can't include every bit player just because. We realize having an article you've worked on slated for deletion may cause some stress; please let this be a lesson and always approach the deletions with calmness, rationality and present objective proof on why the subject is notable. And if you have no such evidence, don't take undue stress if the article is deleted, consider if it is notable to warrant a mention somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policies Information for Wikipedia must be VERIFIABLE. It is not up to anyone to prove the entries false; you must be able to prove them true. You claim she's in the new Pirates of the Carribean movie. IMDB lists a dozen major cast members and 73 supporting actors. None of them is her. Every piece of information you have posted about her (about yourself?) has proven impossible to verify. Your actions in trying to pretend to be multiple people, and in repeatedly changing and vandalizing entries in this discussion, cast serious doubts about your honesty in general, so your unsupported word doesn't count for much. This has gone on long enough, and I recommend a Speedy close to this debate. Fan1967 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. We should post Suspected Sockpuppet notices on these latest voters. JackO'Lantern 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete We are forgetting this is a nn actor. We are forgetting this is reposted content. Let's not forget to delete this, but make sure the deletion is quick and fast. J.J.Sagnella 20:35, 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 article was boldly merged. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official hijackers of the 2001 attacks[edit]

POV fork of Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The list of persons here is already listed and the title of this page is too POV. I already moved the page to a correctly spelled version as the first one had the word Official spelled as offical. Delete--MONGO 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since i created the article, i decided to go ahead and merge the article. Feel free to revert me if you dissagre. --Striver 11:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frogmore amateur cricket club[edit]

Not notable cricket club (if it even exists). No google results for "Frogmore amateur cricket club"[39]. feydey 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, maybe {{db-club}}? Royboycrashfan 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable club, reads like a substitute for a website (WP:NOT a webhost) and vanity page. "The cricket club was formed by entrepreneur Sam Carpenter in early 2006" says it all, I feel... WP:CHILL applies. --Kinu t/c 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable club. Something's seem a bit strange. The club started in early 2006 and has never lost a game, easily plausible, but is not cricket a summer sport and England in the northern hemisphere?--Blue520 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When I was in high school, we had shirts that had our school name, with the words "STILL UNDEFEATED" and a picture of a football. Those who didn't realize that we did not have a team were in awe of our "perfect record." This "invincibility" might be based on the same logic, given the (lack of) match information in the article. --Kinu t/c 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Logic can be pretty funny sometimes. feydey 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Bowman[edit]

Dear editors- yes, I entered the article myself, but I need to learn the proper Wikipedia format, relevant links, etc... in my defense the entry is as relevant as Logan Whitehurst or Jim Shelly (musician). I undertsand if you have to delete the current version. Thanks- MJB

  • Good on you for not trying a "keep" vote. AfD-nominated articles are judged by the existing policies and guidelines, including WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. As there are a lot of "a topic is notable if ..." type clauses, and no two topics are identical, it's always best not to try and compare pages, especially ones with borderline notability. I hope you stick around, if you are indeed MJB you should have a lot to contribute Deizio 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Please don't take the vote as a commentary on you. It's very big of you to cede to wiki consensus and I do hope you stick around and contribute what you know. --Mmx1 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this is out-and-out non-notable bio; but there's a lot of bio and I fear some notability I can't see lurking in the article. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete As A7, doesn't assert notability. --Mmx1 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe just avoids speedy but google for "Michael J Bowman" +punk [40] goes for 61 unique / 88 total. Deizio 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About as notable as I am. Fishhead64 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Heck (producer)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pressman[edit]

Most of it's a hoax, and the rest is unsalvagable. Ral315 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please present some evidence of the falsity of the entry, as the man is my uncle and I can attest to most everything on the page. Your smugness offends decency. talentlesshack (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just admitted this is a vanity page. Delete, because he is non-notable. Royboycrashfan 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in my last statement did I admit this is a vanity page RoyBoy? Mr. Pressman was a huge force in the design community in the 1970's and 1980's who fell out of favor after a severe break with reality. I think that is pretty fucking notable. The fact that I am a relative of the man proves nothing.talentlesshack (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that I can see to keep this link around is its mention within google_bomb. I am going to check and see if that was just planted link.--68.226.22.177

  • Delete Hoax. The onus is on you to provide sources; I am not obligated to provide negative proof. Google comes up with an architect and an actor. kotepho 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google bombing victim verified, rest is unverifiable through Lexis/Nexis.
Adam Mathes, a blogger and computer science major at Stanford, is generally credited with having coined the term "Google bombing" almost three years ago to describe the practice of manipulating Google results through seeding the Web with links. Mr. Mathes started a Google bomb as a joke at the expense of a friend and graphic artist, Andy Pressman, managing to get Mr. Pressman's blog listed as the first result for the phrase "talentless hack." New York Times, Jan 22, 2004, pg G2. Thatcher131 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User Kotepho has proven with his lexis/nexis search that Andy Pressman is clearly a graphic designer. It doesn't seem to me that User talentlesshack has purported anything else. As to the work on Michael Moriarty's Presidential run, it seems to me that this is inherently true solely based on the design example on the Andy Pressman Wikipedia page. This rush to judgement makes it all too difficult for new members to add pertinent and justified information to this encyclopedia. Give authors a reasonable amount of time to prove thier sources. RichieValentine
Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your FIRST EDIT!!! <fireworks> Deizio 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me. At least, not this time. kotepho 00:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T'was I, and I now say, delete. I also suggest there is something fishy in that the creator of the article, TalentlessHack (talk · contribs) is also the phrase that was linked to Pressman by the original google bomb. Thatcher131 02:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I speedy deleted this last night when there was nothing but an illustration. He has written a book on design which has been reviewed. [44] There are also two Wikilinks one from Googlebomb. A search of verifiable sources comes up with articles such as a review of his book from the Architectural Record. He is notable enough for mine. Oops. DeleteCapitalistroadster 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article from Microcontent News confirms his role as the first person to be Googlebombed see [45]. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cappy, you've got 2 Andy Pressmans confused. The architect has written many books and appears to be notable as an author. The graphic designer (subject of this page) was the subject of the googlebomb and is otherwise nn. The only one of the 11 unique hits on google [46] for "andy pressman" +"graphic designer" with direct relevance to the subject is to his personal blog. The nominated page is otherwise a hoax (have you seen the page? the artwork?) and the author has not only included nonsense about the death of the pizza delivery guy here, he put it on Pizza delivery as well. He's been spreading other cruft as you'll see from the diffs above. On the Pizza deliver page, it says that Andy Pressman shot a pizza guy called Sanjay Maryani (he redlinked him for good measure) - guess how many googles for their combined names? [47] Kinu caught it and reverted. Deizio 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can also confirm that Andy Pressman the architect is not the same person as Andy Pressman, graphic designer. Thatcher131 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Stifle 00:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only verifiable and potentially encyclopedic notability is per the Google bombing affair; a one-line mention there is all that is warranted. --Kinu t/c 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user also keeps adding a "political poster" (read: unsourceable, poor looking Photoshop job) to the Michael Moriarty article. Rather than engaging in a revert war, I'm bringing it to attention here, so that it can be dealt with properly. --Kinu t/c 01:57, 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 Stifle 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keele Rugby Club[edit]

Delete, non-notable sports group consisting "of two men's teams and a women's team". Only 11 hits on Google. Royboycrashfan 21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --Irishpunktom\talk 21:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a club/non-varsity sport at a university; every university has them. Does not seem particularly notable. --Kinu t/c 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : I don't know what non-varsity means to you, but they do compete in the major BUSA championships (the equivalent of NCAA), as part of Keele University. That puts them on a par with Kentucky Wildcats, for example. Having said that, what little content here should be merged with Keele University. (Full disclosure : as a staff member at Keele University, and a rugby referee, I've had a fair number of dealings with Keele Rugby) -- GWO
  • Delete per nomination. No Guru 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn club Deizio 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or else delete all equally minor sports teams, such as GWO's example of Kentucky Wildcats. Simon Dodd 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, the Kentucky Wildcats page is (theoretically) about all of the university's notable varsity sports teams and not just the basketball, and the school has produced multiple professional athletes and other individuals notable in sports. (In that regard, I would likely support an article about athletics at Keele along that line, as long as it meet all other inclusion standards.) --Kinu t/c 05:33, 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 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA'S PROJECT BLUE BEAM[edit]

UNconfirmed, unverified, possibly hoax conspiracy stuff. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted as unconfirmed and unverified in the second sentence. An article about the theory and its history as opposed to an article supporting it. After all wikipedia does host an intelligent design page. Google turns up 500k of results, it is worth mention. I think it is worth keeping but that is just my opinion. --Meawoppl 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Flores[edit]

seems to be nonsense or an experiment, and after 4 months has not been improved IslandGyrl 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: G1 as patent nonsense with no salvageable content. Not even funny enough for BJAODN, I'm afraid. How this has survived for so long, I don't know. --Kinu t/c 22:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense or joke too lame for BJAODN (though probably more funny to the author). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 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 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condoleezza Rice visit to Blackburn and Liverpool[edit]

  • Delete: Can't make an article for every cabinet member visit. Especially since it's only a two day visit that might not occur. Chuck 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Incorporate in Condoleezza Rice article Would be of better use there for people are unlikely to go to this article. --Horses In The Sky 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and take any info that is relevant into a one sentence summary in her article (if that). Batmanand | Talk 20:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something really significant happens on the trip. Sapient 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason why we can't have articles for "every cabinet member visit", because Wikipedia's greatest strength is being able to record unlimited information if it might be of interest. This visit may well be, so it should be kept, but obviously rewritten from stratch when the visit has actually finished! 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because this doesn't appear to be very significant. joturner 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errrr. Press releases? This information is readily available from the media. TreveXtalk 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT for people to make up their own press releases. Deizio 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the creator of this article, I would point out that there are less notable articles than this on Wikipedia. The visit is significant for the region and is receving strong coverage in the British press. The article is also likely to expand as the visit progresses. The strongest reason to keep this article, however, is that the visit merits inclusion in the Blackburn, Liverpool and a brief mention in Condoleezza Rice. Rather than duplicating all this information, wouldn't it be better to keep this information in one place? TreveXtalk 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If there are indeed less notable articles, we should delete and/or merge them, too. Fishhead64 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or at best Merge) - unless there is some significant event associated with the visit (unlikely) in which case the article would presumably be renamed anyway. Would be better merged as a one ot two line summary in Stop the War Coalition, Condoleeza Rice or e.g. Special relationship, Jack Straw or similar. Badgerpatrol 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful material with Condoleeza Rice or related articles. Fishhead64 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not Wikinews, unless, as Sapient said, "something really significant happens on the trip." --Kinu t/c 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn diplomatic trip. This isn't exactly the 1972 Nixon visit to China or anything. I wouldn't oppose a merge, per Badgerpatrol, however. youngamerican (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to transwiki to wikinews? -- Astrokey44|talk 16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and Wikinews uses a CC license so we can't transwiki. User:TreveX is encouraged to submit it there. Stifle 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We shouldn't have an article on every diplomatic visit unless they are of remarkable historical significance. Coverage of this trip would have been fine on Wikinews, but not in the encyclopaedia. — Trilobite 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we do not have articles on every diplomatic happening.--Jiang 11:01, 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 deleted as neologism - we don't take words as they develop, only after they've finished developing. DS 15:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaloogian[edit]

  • KEEP Preserve it, will live on similiar to a spoonerism

Why delete it? I vote to preserve.

neologism makes it original research Xander76 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted because it's not a word that is being used widely (or even narrowly) with that definition. According to the page on deletion, neologisms are candidates for deletion because they constitute original research, and the fact that there are no citations in the article arguably breaks verifiability. The incident with the photo that this definition refers to was publicized within the last 48 hours; I would argue that this article is an attempt to create a new word. That seems like reason enough to delete to me. I am, however, very new to this process, so please forgive me if I am mistaken/stepping on toes. Xander76 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No reason to delete. IT's a new word, but certainly could enter the lexicon. yawanur

If wikipedia is to be the encyclopedia for the new century, it has to accommodate innovative and catchy slang as it is developing. We should keep the word. And honestly, since the congressman is a lying shmuck, who cares?

Personally, I don't see this word catching on, but whatever. Maybe include a NPOV note up top, but it's a bit early to delete it. - HG

Agreed -AS

There are a lot of words that could enter the lexicon and haven't. I could make up a few right now. Until it does enter the lexicon, though, why should Wikipedia cover it? Doesn't that amount to suggesting new words and conducting original research? Xander76 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it -CBH

I agree that there should be an NPOV note--but this is clearly not original research. Blogs are already using this term, and a friend of mine referred to something as 'Kaloogian' today as well. Let's keep it.

Interesting; I would have thought this would be a pretty obvious delete, but as I say, I'm super new to this. Can anyone who wants to keep it explain to me why they think the article is not original research? The guidelines for deletion indicate that "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)" is a valid reason for deletion. Thanks. Xander76 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, the only example of this usage I could find was in a blog referring to the Wikipedia entry, which raises the odd possibility that the Wikipedia article might actually create the word and thereby justify its entry in Wikipedia. Makes my head spin. An NPOV note might be a good route (especially given that the example sentence seems to me a little snide), but if the word is in use, there should also be some citations, yes? Xander76 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and you would have though right Derex 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a slang and/or idiom guide. Also, if blogs are being considered as a valid source, its time to review WP:VERIFIABILITY again. --Hetar 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the slang/idiom debate for a bit, it's being used on blogs is kind of irrelevant. That has nothing to do with verifiability. The definite article is also used frequently on blogs, as is the past tense of verbs, and their credibility is not in question.

There are two problems I see right now: one, if it does exist around the blogs, it's unsourced. Two, how is this not a dictionary page? Why Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Notapipe 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it.--Dickius 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition appears OK. This incident has been reported by the AP, not just by blogs. The word may or may catch on, but there is no reason to delete it. -JAR

I say preserve. Preserve with extreme prejudice. - WRD

This is not a discussion about whether the incident itself should be included in Wikipedia. It in fact already is in the article for Howard Kaloogian. The question is whether an article about the very new slang term "Kaloogian" merits an article. I say no, for 3 reasons: (1) As Hetar says above, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and entries that just define a word do not belong. WP:NOT also specifically says articles defining slang terms are not appropriate. (2) There is no sourcing in the article, and WP:VERIFIABILITY says that sourcing is considered to be the burden of those who include an entry in Wikipedia. (3) The article feels NPOV to me, especially given that the example sentence has a partisan tinge. Any of those reasons seem to me reason enough to delete. All that being said, if the word actually becomes widely used in the blogosphere, and we have good sources for that usage, I could agree that it might merit a sentence in the Baghdad Photo Incident section of Howard Kaloogian. Xander76 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. I am personally politically aligned with the left, and thus hope this word catches on and takes root. However, I support deleting this page, for the following reasons: 1) it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. 2) it is a clear violation of the "neologisms" section of the Deletion Policy 3) the only arguments for keeping it are partisan.

If the word catches on and gets citable use, then this entry can be re-created in Wiktionary with appropriate references. But as it is, I'm not willing to tolerate left-wing political slander just because it aligns with my personal prejudices, just as I don't oppose right-wing political slander just because it conflicts with them. - Meowse

Delete. This bozo was at 7% in the polls and was not a serious contender to become his party frontrunner even before this particular episode. I disagree with the argument over blogs: TPM, Kos and Atrios all have much larger circulations than most regional newspapers. Medium should not be grounds for disqualification, notability of the source should. If this became an established term even if only on the left there would be an argument to be made. As it is the subject matter is simply not botable. This pipsqueak is not worthy of the contempt. -- Gorgonzilla 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it. The closest equivalent term I can find to this is Santorum which is in Wikipedia on the page for Savage_Love. I think the content needs to be changed, but not removed all together. Wiktionary would be the appropriate place for a definition, but the background of how the word came to be would seem appropriate here. - sterno74

  • Delete as nn backdoor attack on the guy. If the term gains traction in the long term as Santorum has, we can revisit it at that point. --Sneftel 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have created an entry Eponymous_political_slanders which describes the new trend of attacking a politician's reputation by defining their name as referring to a negative or unpleasant topic. It addresses the commonalities between "kaloogian" and "santorum". However, I still support the deletion of this article for the reasons I mentioned above. -- Meowse
Uhhh, I think Eponymous political slanders needs to be AfD'd, no disrespect intended. The examples (even the "successful" ones) are not all that citeable, and Wikipedia shouldn't be repeating slanders. Phr 08:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if you sock puppets want to put in your two cents, you should learn how to vote properly. Stev0 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionable delete this whole Kaloogian thing took place this week, and it's covered in his article. This is absolutely absurd; it is not a word in wide-spread use. This article is posted on a very well-known blog, which is where all the anon's are likely coming from. Derex 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it wasn't clear from what I've written above (and the fact that I proposed the article for deletion), I am in favor of deletion. Apologies for not being totally clear on the official voting procedure; this is the first thing I've done on Wikipedia as a registered user. (edited to reflect the fact that I am was mistaken in calling myself a sock puppet; an idiot for not understanding the term, maybe, but a sock puppet, no.) Xander76 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the word comes into common usage, or even becomes persistent internet slang, then it might be appropriate to give it a definition. But it's been less than a week since it was coined, and odds are the guy'll be forgotten in another week. Evan 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This word MIGHT eventually enter common usage, in which case it MIGHT be eligible. But the word has not entered common usage at this time, so it is not acceptable.

Delete as unverifiable, unless, prior to the end of the AfD comment period, someone provides a good, verifiable source citation, from some source that isn't in Kaloogian's neighborhood, that shows that the term is in reasonably widespread use. And the source should not be the coiner of the term, because it is important to show that the word is being adopted. At the moment, as I write this, the article contains no source citations whatsoever and thus completely fails the verifiability policy which is linked at the bottom of every edit box. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another neologism that nobody actually uses. Fan1967 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly this neologism is too young and does not pass the common usage test - Maximusveritas 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents- preserve it. The methods and degrees of lies/subreptions we're seeing from the Republican Party with regards to the Iraq War are nearly unprecedented in human history, so of course there are few words to adequately describe them. I believe this term should be retained. It seems clear that it will be widely accepted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.41.89 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is clear that it is widely accepted—and that acceptance can be supported by verifiable source citations—then we can and should have an article on it. Not before. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn nonsense neologism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlnguyenMontco 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Howard Kaloogian, which already mentions the photo incident. Phr 03:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's been cited by Josh Marshall at TPM[48] - if it was the other way round it might count for something... Guettarda 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bloody funny though. --jacobolus (t) 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd say shunt it to BJAODN - but I wouldn't mind its being left up until after the April 11 election for yucks. Major Danby 04:46 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism Nothings 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On the grounds that it belongs more in Wiktionary than Wikpedia.
  • Delete as a neologism and a dictionary definition. Fishhead64 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the kind of "benign vandalism" that makes Wikipedia look bad. --Dhartung | Talk 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-neologism and dicdef. Too many newbiepuppets ;-) Grandmasterka 09:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutton Chop Productions[edit]

Non-notable production team based in Vermont. Article indirectly advertises itself. Put up it's alternate article, Mike Littlehale, for speedy deletion; db-bio. Same person who created Mike Littlehale is the same person who created this article. Moe ε 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Production company created by high school students...while I admire their initiative, that doesn't make the company notable. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on! Why delete this? I just started it, so I dont have a lot of information in it yet but it will come soon. And why would we advertise ourselfs on it if we are not selling anything/making money in any way? Anyway, Please reconsider this deletion. We are legit, just been busy, check out our site here.
  • Delete as nn group of schoolkids, per article and response here. Good luck with all this guys. Deizio 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT DELETE Why bother? They are trying their asses off to make inform people about champ with their film company who made a documentary on them.. no need to delete in my honest opinion.. hope more people support— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCProductions (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn. (By the way, "Moe ε" is the name of the user who nominated the article for deletion.) Fan1967 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing personal against the author, but notability is the key, not the information (or lack thereof) Wikipedia is not a place to inform people about their film company. Montco 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ahh whatever I dont really care anyway.. Do you guys enjoy getting things deleted anyway? Is that what you say each morning "oh man I need to get my Wiki Deletions fix". Sweet guys. When im making 50 million dollar movies i'll give you guys a shout out.
    • P.S. my bad onthe MOe. thing read that completely wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCProductions (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, not notable. --Kinu t/c 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. Fishhead64 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'm happy they got an "A" on the Champ project. -- Samir (the scope) 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Taipei_American_School_Superintendents[edit]

Merging into main Taipei American School article. BenjaminTsai Talk 22:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket packet[edit]

Non-notable is only the start. The article was created by the "inventor", and therefore is unverifiable original research. Deltabeignet 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply from the creator of the article: Of course. But it's a sweet little idea which is catching on in London. It's a very modest, pro-Wikipedia microproject which has people reading Wikipedia articles at all times of day. I have contributed to a range of Wikipedia articles about serious artists and philosophers, etc; this particular entry is less serious but is, as I say, a little project promoting Wikipedia in London. So I suggest we don't kill it now but at least let it live for six months, then the community can decide to get rid of it then, if necessary. Davidgauntlett 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am happy with the suggestion to Move to Wikipedia:Pocket Packet and then I can link it into other Wikipedia project pages a bit more (minor adds only) and ... if it's still unloved in a while i can get rid of it again. Davidgauntlett 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:Pocket Packet - If we want to reference this, thats great. Just put it in the wikipedia space. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as above. --Sneftel 23:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Space Cadet 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But seriously... Move to wiki-space at will. Deizio 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or Userfy, unless references to use of this term on the web/academic publications/etc. can be shown (than keep). I would expect this will be eventually moved back into the mainspace as it gains a notability. Nice idea, David!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Interesting if this takes off. I had thought it was an April Fools joke at first, tho'. Sorry, David :P The JPS 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the solution is to move to Wikipedia:Pocket Packet, then? - Davidgauntlett 17:50, 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 Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} Stifle 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pfeifer[edit]

Completely non-notable vanity page. Chairman S. Talk 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is def. not a non-notable vanity page. while he might not be notable now, he is an up-and-coming actor/skier that you will be hearing of very soon.

  • Speedy delete a7. Just because he might be notable in the future doesn't mean he deserves an article now. --Rory096 23:00, 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. BD2412 T 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

John Conner[edit]

This article has been recreated and deleted a couple of times as have related items.

This appears to be a one-man "movement" eager for self-promotion. There is already a short mention at Georgia Guidestones, which should be sufficient. Will Beback 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. --Hetar 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous AfD discussions.  (aeropagitica)  22:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe even speedily, as a recreation of deleted material. --Elkman - (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete. Sapient 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a nut. But is his a notable nut? He did get in the news for his criticism of Jessica Simpson, but by itself I don't think that's enough. Bucketsofg 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The big inclusionist in me has won this round. The article is pretty well sourced and I think he is a (barely) notable enough nutcase. Grandmasterka 09:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Connor (the character from Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) The current subject of this article is a nn bio and people are most likely to search his name when looking for the movie chacater (even if it is the wrong spelling). No objection to deleting history and having an admin lock the redirect to prevent reversion/recreation. youngamerican (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is a 'one man movement' like a voter alleges, why are there over 300 members in The Resistance forums? Why has John Conner made international news numerous times? (ie NYPOST, Rollingstone, MSNBC, SmarMoney Magazine etc) John Conner has become a common name in the anti-new world order community,and is a more relevent topic than MANY pages on Wikipedia which have been online for a LONG TIME, with no 'votes to delete'. —This unsigned comment was added by Wikipediareader (talk • contribs) . (the author of the article)
  • Comment The subject has now placed a link on his home page asking readers to participate in the AFD. -Will Beback 22:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to my own mistake in listing this AfD, the link from the article, which was copied onto the subject's website, pointed to the old AfD. Some votes were placed at the incorrect page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner#Votes intended for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2. I am not moving them here because the editing record would get muddled. -Will Beback 22:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references in the article don't really establish notability. There's a small town newspaper in Georgia. The infowars.com link is broken, the Smart Money article only references the piece in 'The Inquirer'. I am not familiar with the Inquirer or how reliable or how many hits it gets a day.Montco 03:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIARS! The Infowars link is NOT broken, you forgot the NYPOST, Rollingstone, Mike Walker Show, MSNBC, Pakistan Daily News, CNET, etc, and make it seem like 'a small town newspaper in georgia' is the only reference. You must be a bunch of homos.

UMMM....AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE OTHER VOTES?? INCLUDING MANY, MANY KEEP VOTES? AAAAHHHHH REMEMBER? IS SOMEONE TRYING TO SWAY THE 'ELECTION'  ????

  • KEEP, Let's see the 911 truth movement has Alex Jones, John Conner, many local access channel patriots, Hollywood movie stars, family members of 911 victims, former intelligence/cabinet members in both Britain and the US - but the Delete people still think its a hoax! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.47.157.200 (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 Speedy redirect to Canadian College of English Language Rob 09:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian college of english language[edit]

Completing AfD. Appears to have been AfD'ed by the author (User:Ccel) who first tried blanking it. User's only edits are in this article. Fan1967 01:38, 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 Selfdelete :P. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablospeak[edit]

  • Delete per nom.Tombride 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not vaguely encyclopedic Deizio 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate to delete articles that clearly took quite a bit of effort, but this is unencyclopedic garbage. Grandmasterka 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article doesn't even address more complicated acronyms and such used on trade forums. as a diablo 2 player i don't think it's very helpful.
  • Comment If it's removed then it is probably worth moving the link in references to the parent article(s) - either as a link in a short section culled from this article or whatever. Sfnhltb 21:08, 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. BD2412 T 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don Croft[edit]

not encyclopaedic

Comment. Was that "sounds as though he is a notable..." or "sounds as though he was a notable...". Am I being unreasonable in thinking that an encyclopaedia article should be clear about whether the subject is alive? Midgley 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External links don't look reliable. Also, the article isn't really claiming that he invented anything, just that he has one design of a pre-existing invention (and whether an orgone generator constitutes an invention is debatable). --Allen 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Reliable sources needed. Stifle 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is poorly-written needs to be replaced by a new article. The current article is written in the past tense about a living inventor. None of Croft's inventions are listed. The invention which he calls a "Croft cloudbuster," commonly called an "orgonite cloudbuster" or a "chembuster," is not even mentioned. This is a unique invention that invariably differs from a Reich cloudbuster. Reliable sources are also missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.214.164 (talk • contribs) at various times
Comment. THat would be "delete without prejudice", IE if someone writes a new article then there is no reason it should not be good and be kept. THis one is too bad. Midgley 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that merging with orgonite is not workable, as that article is itself a copyright infringement. Regards —Encephalon 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't support merging because there obviously is no article at this time and I am sure Don Croft is not the only thing to talk about under that subject.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DÅÅTH[edit]

Seems like an nn-band at the moment. HappyCamper 23:34, 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 speedy keep, bad faith WP:POINT nomination. Proto||type 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Philips[edit]

Meets none of the guidelines for notability listed in WP:BIO. The hundreds of thousands of stand-up comics out there do not each merit their own pages. A few guest starring roles on old TV series and unnamed background roles in a few independent films do not constitute merit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Deathntaxes 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP! I love this guy. He is one of the best comedians of all time. A definite keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.115.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. He meets several notability criteria in WP:BIO. IMO, you're not going to be able to get this guy deleted. Sorry. Brian G. Crawford 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry. This page is the most patent example of nn fancruft. Induction
This user's only edit is the vote above. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: If he's considered a non-notable comedian, then the Beatles should be considered a non-notable band. Stev0 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Exactly which of the notability criteria in WP:BIO does this meet? I see none. ReekerReaver 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ReekerReaver's only contribution is the above vote. Looks like we have some sockpuppetry going on. Brian G. Crawford 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Has appeared in multiple general release movies and TV shows. --Sneftel 00:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sneftel's only contribution is the above vote. Looks like we have some sockpuppetry going on. And BTW, comparing a relatively obscure stand-up comic to the Beatles is a ludicrous argument and you guy(s) know it. ReekerReaver 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'm sorry. What? --Sneftel 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Emo Phillips is routinely played on XM Radio's comedy channel...and in several other outlets I'm sure. I wondered where all of those socks went... --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has enough name recognition and enough of a cult following to warrant an entry.Fluit 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notability seems clear: successful comedy album, occasional work as actor/producer, new act reviewed by the BBC. Bucketsofg 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep One of the most annoying people on the planet (I'd rather be locked up with Pauly Shore and Gilbert Gottfried) but he's notable. Fan1967 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Given that the nominator and the only voters for Delete are users with no history, I recommend closing this AfD as a bad-faith nom. Fan1967 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Emo has been around for a while. I don't know if he has done anything lately, but he certainly is notable enough.
  • Speedy keep per Fan1967. Nominator Deathntaxes (talk · contribs) and naysayers Induction (talk · contribs) and ReekerReaver (talk · contribs) have no other edits. Someone is trying to make a point.Thatcher131 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, clearly notable. Beatles comparison a bit extreme- maybe e.g. Dead Kennedys :-) Badgerpatrol 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, but not "Beatles-notable." Fishhead64 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Someone close this already... Clearly a bad faith nom (although I still don't know what motivated it.) Grandmasterka 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I've heard of this guy in the UK, so he must be fairly notable :-) Stephenb (Talk) 09:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete - among established Wikipedians, the vote is about split. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Inside_Carolina[edit]

Message boards are not suitable for Wikipedia joekiser 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory, but your statement is false; it does cover message boards which are notable (compare Slashdot, Fark). --Sneftel 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Modified vote to) Keep and rewrite, per kotepho. Article is as bad as it gets right now, but if it's notable it's notable and deserves a better one. --Sneftel 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Message boards are suitable for Wikipedia. Joe Kiser is insane.Stunnaman2k5
  • Keep InsideCarolina's message boards are notably influential at the school and often are referenced elsewhere. In fact, a very high selling book (To Hate Like This is to be Happy Forever) spends a great deal of time talking about the goings-on at the IC forums, and it makes sense to have an entry for people to reference. 24.163.67.42 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Scott O[reply]
  • KeepInside Carolina isn't a "normal" message board. I don't know of any other message boards that have been alluded to in such publications as Sports Illustrated, "To Hate Like This...", etc. IC is a great message board with a rich history. There is no reason for this entry to get deleted. It is merely a collection of articles from IC's beloved fanbase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goheelsduksux (talk • contribs)
  • Keep SI/Book reference kotepho 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IC is probably beyond a message board, and is an online community. Members share a common interest in University of North Carolina and the virtual community provides unique experiences and connections. Beyond the avatars are real people, sharing their wit, wisdom, opinions, dumbness, humor, and emotions. IC has been referenced in books and in the media. Wikipedia entry could be very useful in explaining to newcomers and the rest of the world (1) what is in Roy's little finger, (2) who "I'm Stephanie, my name is Stephanie", (3) the legend of Manhattan Heel, (4) the correct spelling of dook, and (5) that Tar Heel must be two words (don't even ask). brewguru
  • Speedy keep and close I tried to close this, as it's a bad faith joke for some schoolkid trolls, but was reverted by User:Isopropyl. Could an admin step in and just get make this go away, please? It's not a valid AFD, there is no valid reason given for deletion, and keeping it open is just troll-feeding. Proto||type 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Inside Carolina is not a forum. It's a magazine and website that happens to have a forum (well-stocked by trolls, it seems). Proto||type 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm very sorry Proto, but regardless of your opinion of the nomination, this AfD will remain open until there is a consensus or five days are up, whereupon it shall be closed by a closing admin, not us. I do agree that this is a troll magnet, but the article itself is rather inflammatory. Perhaps tidying up the page a bit would be more useful than trying to close this debate. Isopropyl 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it was a bit premature to be thinking about WP:SNOW with only a handful of votes. kotepho 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the information is accurate and infomative, I see no reason for deletion
  • Keep; I very nearly closed this discussion as a speedy keep, but I don't think this is bad faith on the part of the nominator. It will, however, be a haven for trolls, but that's not his fault. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reference to Matt Doherty is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion and reads as though it were written by someone with a personal and rather petty axe to grind.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_30&oldid=1142647184"