Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 30 April 1 >

Purge server cache

March 31[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 (~5 keep, ~13 delete). — FireFox • T [21:23, 6 April 2006]

Not a Number Technologies[edit]

Blender (software) is notable, the defunct company that made an early version is not The company name returns 396 google hits and seems to fail WP:CORP also. JoshuaZ 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it was once notable, since it once was the company that distributed Blender. Many companies that were once notable have articles (ex. Macromedia, which is now part of Adobe and thus no longer exists). Where (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blender isn't quite Adobe. Delete as NN. RGTraynor 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, if their only reason for notability is one piece of software, then perhaps merge any of this info to the software's page? --Deville (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 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!
W.marsh 00:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or merge the article into Ton Roosendaal --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge If all they were notable for was a notable software they should be there, not have a separate article that has no hope of being significantly expanded. JoshuaZ 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:39
  • Comment Er... um... the Pokemon test isn't a real test, and in any event, if we went by that test seriously then it would probably be more inclusive than even the most extreme inclusionists. The relevant test is WP:CORP and this doesn't meet it. JoshuaZ 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. Funnybunny 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is somewhat unorthodox thinking, but bare with me. When we have a band that's a one-hit wonder, WP:BAND says that not only is the song notable, but the band is now notable as well, even if they were to never release another song in their entire career. Along the same lines, I think a company that releases notable software, even if they only last 4 years before bankruptcy (like NaN), is similarly notable. Therefore, I say keep. (However, if consensus becomes to delete, I recommend the merge and redirect be to Ton Roosendaal, as it makes more sense to mention NaN in that intro paragraph than in Blender's.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Ton Roosendaal article is one line, so a merge/redirect wouldn't do any more than a page move. Not to mention, the article has little potential to be expanded. We'd all agree that the Baha Men, a one-hit wonder band that comes to mind, were a little more significant than a startup/bankrupt company. --Jay(Reply) 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. Ifnord 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable, as per Ifnord.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Eusebeus 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting point about bands - but quite a different market. Marcus22 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a graveyard of dead dotcoms. They might even outnumber Pokémons. Sandstein 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Blender (software). -- JLaTondre 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation perBrian G. Crawford. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Blender (software) or Ton Roosendaal. - Drahcir 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once notable always notable. Wiki is not paper. Jcuk 15:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Blender (software). The article has no merit on its own. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 23:47 (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 keep . — FireFox • T [21:24, 6 April 2006]

Stargate: Battle for Mankind[edit]

Cruft mod--Zxcvbnm 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge a notable and succesfull mod for the Battlfield series with thousands players over its lifetime as well as orginal content. Verifiable, notable, and with thousands of hits on google. Kraf 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the above user recreated a deleted page(s) that was deleted for being cruft.--Zxcvbnm 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Funnybunny 01:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to get enough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:30, 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 merge to MediaWiki. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Wikipedia needs not articles about functions in the MediaWiki software. Delete. Off! 21:07, 25 March 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!
W.marsh 00:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Freedman[edit]

Incomplete nomination by Toughlove – Ezeu 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable.--Ezeu 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, as the article currently stands. --Oscarthecat 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cant help feeling that playing to royalty is notable, and that winning the magic circle close up magician of the year [1] ought to be too. Jcuk 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as notable within his field[2]. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus). — FireFox • T [21:26, 6 April 2006]

StreamSQL[edit]

Found this on prod and I think it deserves an afd. This is surely ad copy that needs to be rewritten NPOV. Mentions in popular media: MSNBC/Forbes.com Washington Post (though trivial) eWeek [3] [4] [5] [6] database journal [7] and more on google. No vote yet. kotepho 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Full disclosure - I was the one who prodded it. Now much cleaned up but I find the notability a bit suspect. Dlyons493 Talk 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this article is certainly ad copy. --Deville (Talk) 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised, NPOV, and facts added Updated article based on above feedback.(DMParent 22:02, 28 March 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!
W.marsh 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete I think this article will sort itself out as standardization efforts progress. I killed off the marketing and added more techincal detail. Tibbetts2c 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverting to Strong Delete. Adding The leading company in StreamSQL implementation and standardization is StreamBase Systems. (complete with link) doesn't equate to killed off the marketing in my mind. Note that Tibbetts2c's only edits have been to this article (created by User:Sbmarketing) Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is decent enough for me to vote keep. kotepho 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killed the implementation section entirely. That addresses the above point. There are multiple commercial entities using StreamSQL-like approaches to solving this problem now, so I vote to keep it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, possibly merge. Merging can be discussed on Talk:Lens mount. Stifle 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing lens mount[edit]

Not certain this is an actual term. Seems to be somewhat describing lens mount, which is already covered, but strangely that article was started by the same anonymous user, so I think (s)he intended to describe separate terms. English might not be their first language (IP is in NYC); I suspect that "lens focusing element(s)" might be something closer to what is meant, but can't be sure. Nonetheless, Googling for "focusing lens mount" doesn't seem to turn up much relevant to what is discussed in the article. Anyone with further knowledge, please proffer it! Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know anythign about it, but if it's verifiable, I think it should be merged to lens mount. JPD (talk) 16:26, 28 March 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!
W.marsh 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to lens mount or perhaps autofocus --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as above. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:38
  • Delete Never heard of it, there is nothing of value to add to lens mount and I cannot see the usefulness of a redirect. Egil 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TBC. --Terence Ong 12:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as per Emailuser. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Sandstein 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how are we to merge something that no one yet seems to be able to verify or understand anything about? I'm not against merging, but let's be honest here, who would do this and how? Girolamo Savonarola 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to lens mount. Green Giant 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the idea is to differentiate between lens deigned for use with View cameras were focusing is done by moving the lens mount and a lens for a camera were the lens mount is fixed. This info is already in the Photographic lens article. Merging it into the lens mount article would not make sense because it’s describing a property of lenses and not lens mounts. Seano1 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with lens mount please Yuckfoo 06:18, 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 deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Barnaba[edit]

vanity article Rklawton 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD. dcandeto 01:06, 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 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabula DiBeaumarchais[edit]

Not notable - only a handful of Ghits outside wiki mirrors. Prod tag disputed, so bringing it here. Note I've prodded the site GayCork also.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 combination of A7 biography, A6 attack page and general silliness. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Shoenberg[edit]

vanity article - should be usified Rklawton 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD A7 -- He is "actually a mummy brought back to life" and stole "a space pod". I'd go for creative writing over med school -- Samir (the scope) 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense, non-notable, and vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as per TBC - would make a great Wikipedia contributor/editor, though Rklawton 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. vanity; patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7, obviously. --Kinu t/c 02:02, 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 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kepco[edit]

Delete. Request for significance was removed without explanation. Non-notable company. discospinster 01:26, 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 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Misadventure[edit]

Non-notable comic. 4 Google hits. Speedy tag pulled once and prod tag pulled twice because of added content. Still not notable, though. Delete. DMG413 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo security[edit]

Self-admitted neologism, supposedly invented by one Ivan Scalise. Gets 83 unique Google hits, many, if not most, not directly related to the alleged original meaning or alleged creator. Was prodded, but tag removed by creator. -- Calton | Talk 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, be calm :) I have removed the tag 'cause I have used the term "neologism", and I have seen that neologisms are not always eliminated. I'm present to an university lecture, time ago, and one of the speakers was the "random guy". Some days ago, I was to a lecture on the information security and, in a slide, his thought has been taken back... This way I wanted to share what doesn't seem a "common neologism" with you. I have not created "my personal page", I have shared only a form of thought that I like. Now, if you want, cast the stones! ;) --Torment 12:33, 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 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabal (rapper)[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable - consists only of an autobiography ripped from website Virogtheconq 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable even if the bio was legit. --Deville (Talk) 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's so unverifiable, how do we know it's not a hoax? How do we know that there is no Kabal? Speedy delete as copyvio. Lord Bob 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 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 no consensus--Adam (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hayward[edit]

Vanity article from User:Jamesnice - some of them published by what seems to be his own company LTM (which he's been link spamming around various articles). Other by little-known publishers and with very low Amazon rankings. But I'd like the community's opinion on this one.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of his titles may be vanity or POD, but several seem to meet notability standards, most conspicuously "Myths & Legends of the First World War." Note in particular this edition [9]; very few vanity books are reissued in large print editions. The main publisher of the book also looks legit [10]. Monicasdude 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a hair width shy of vanity per Monicasdude but completely non-notable. Ifnord 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not notable enough. Sandstein 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first two books were self-published, but that is not the same as vanity publishing at all. They have both sold several thousand copies. My later books are for Sutton who are a large UK publisher. Both these books have also appeared in translation abroad, as well as the softback and large print editions. Is the criteria by which a writer or publisher should be judged their 'Amazon ranking'? Surely not. It's pretty naff to have to justify myself in this way, but several of the 'delete' comments are plain wrong. Plenty of other minor writers have written their own Wikipedia entries. It isn't wrong per se. James Hayward. 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC) contribs) 19:40, 31 March 2006.
  • Keep Notable enough, more notable than some writers with articles. Piccadilly 19:51, 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 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jefferson[edit]

nn hoax bio; Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete.  RasputinAXP  c 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research i have done. Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete. color="green">e]] non deletion this could be talking about a youth boys team or matb even a reserve or small team


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Malavalli[edit]

Kumar Malavalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable - no sources - part of the article looks like an ads. -- Chris! ct 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford High School Tribe of Pride Marching Band[edit]

I attend this school and I have to say - sorry if this offends anyone - this band is not particularly notable. They are one of the best in the county, but that's not saying very much to be honest. And for crying out loud, it's a high school marching band that hasn't won any notable awards - we had such an outcry over the high schools in the first place, so... yeah. (by the way if this goes through then obviously I'm notable too - I've won 1st place in national competitions before) – ugen64 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No obvious notability, little substance to entry (nor potential for expansion). Look forward to multiple articles re ugen64's exploits however. Badgerpatrol 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and badgerp Bucketsofg 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. If someone wrote an article on the school, I'm sure it would be worth a mention there though. -Dawson 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; I would support reasonable and non-vanity information in a future article about the school. --Kinu t/c 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love marching band and think high school marching bands are particularly great. However, HS marching bands aren't notable enough to be encyclopedic. As others said, could make a nice section in an article about the high school. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. JoshuaZ 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- into an article about the school if such an article exists. - Longhair 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two line article on small aspect of a single high school. Would support a mention of the marching band's existence and name within the article on the high school. Note: Article on the high school does not exist at this time, although Stafford Municipal School District covers the district it is in. -- Saberwyn 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article I nominated is about Stafford High School in Virginia - that school district is in Texas. – ugen64 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad. It's hard to get it right when the Americans have cities with greater population than my country. -- Saberwyn 23:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable marching band. JIP | Talk 06:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band. All school bands are non-notable. --Terence Ong 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Slightly disagree. If a school band had won multiple national or international level band competitions(presuming they exist, I don't know enough about it) then it could reasonably merit its own article. JoshuaZ 14:45, 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 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EElementary[edit]

Deprodded. This website doesn't register on Alexa. Enough said.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 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 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bradley[edit]

DELETE - County level candidate (who lost) for political office in South Bend, Indiana in 1999? Has a book out from a vanity publisher? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder if the creator of this page and the subject are the same. Looking at one of the editor user names, I would say yes. People, if you want to make a self promoting page, at least choose a user name that isn't in anyway related to your own name. Nobunaga24 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity page. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Montco 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong userfy. This is a really well-written article, although it doesn't have any standard assertion of notability. If this guy is anywhere near as knowledgeable as his vanity article claims, he could be a magnificent editor! Let's give him some encouragement!! Grandmasterka 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy, vanity bio. --Terence Ong 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard yet well-written vanity. _-M o P-_ 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeafSpot.net[edit]

This is an advertisement. Brein 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.--Adam (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and September 11 (book)[edit]

The book has only been published in German, and not in English. I think it needs to be translated and published in English, with the English-language version widely circulated before it meets notability criteria for an article. Another critical issue is Verifiability and reliable sources to really know and verify what the book says. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see hope for salvaging this article and reconciling the issues with notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. Book should at least be available in English before inclusion. Thatcher131 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Change vote to Keep. The article is vastly improved from the original, which was less than stub quality. It now addresses my primary concern, which was notability. Honestly, I would not have imagined that anyone could have taken such a weak starting point and develop the article to its current state. Good work by the editor. Ande B 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) for English language article. Could be mentioned in article about the author Andreas von Bülow. Ande B 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Or Merge with related article(s), as I urged on the discussion page when the article was first posted. Ande B 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realy wish I hadn't listed the "not English" language issue in my comment eariler. I see that it has caused some consternation and was not my primary motivation. The book is simply not notable. It has not had a visible social or political effect that warrants separate attention. It is a valid part of the Von Bülow article or any number of conpiracy articles. I read plenty of books and watch plenty of movies that are in languages other than English, and would have no problem with many of them getting their own articles. But this looks more tabloid, yellow press quality to me. (Sorry, I forgot to sign this before Ande B 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment best seller in a major market. Eivindt@c 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MONGO 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because, quite honestly, we only need one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and this is just a stub for a book that makes the same claim. Why we even have to discuss a book that claims that the damage to the Pentagon was faked by the military is beyond me, but apparently any crazy idea can get in wikipedia as long as there is enough muddying of the waters to close an AfD with "no consensus". Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't Amazon.de. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge (see below) Relevant content will be referenced under the author; this does not warrant its own entry. Eusebeus 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. A extremely notable book by an author with an apparently extensive political background. Language or cultural disparity is never a good reason for to delete an article if it has attained sufficient notability, there is a far-reaching precedent that individual books by notable authors get their own articles, and it's ridiculous to think no-one would want to see info on this. Besides, I would consider this to be more than just a stub now. Grandmasterka 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frage: auf welchem Grund, behaupten Sie eine solche Bedeutung? Eusebeus 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, it should be renamed The CIA and September 11. Since there are no other articles with the same name, the "book" disambiguation is unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is sufficiently confusing that (book) is necessary. Otherwise you get the misimpression that the article is about ties between the CIA and 9-11, not just a book that purports that link. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to its author's page. I don't believe a book or movie must be in English for it to be covered on WP, though the article must of course be in English. dw-world.de covered it (in English) as a bestseller, if you follow the link from the article. Esquizombi 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not notable to the english-speaking world because....guess what? we can't read it. Recreate when a translation is available. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been much improved. --Mmx1 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability exclusively to the english speaking world isn't a criteria for inclusion in WP AFAIK. I don't know that there is a policy on excluding topics that are notable to foreign-language audiences. There are a lot of subjects that are important (even if this particular book is deemed not to be) that have not been translated into English. I don't know if there is a policy explicitly stating that untranslated books or films, etc. can be included (the absence of a policy that they cannot implies than can IMO) but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close I think. Esquizombi 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: And also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations which is "a naming conventions guideline for the naming of wikipedia articles about books" which states "books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title" which would also appear to indicate articles about books that haven't been translated into English are acceptable. Esquizombi 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English mentions a translation should be done independently and sourced, rather than translation by a Wikipedian, so that the article is verifiable. Given this is a highly controversial topic, I'm loathe to take what the article here says about "Contents" of the book, without proper references and preferably an english translation of the book that I can look at. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BIAS is somewhat relevant here. And it is verifiable, because any of the numerous German speakers on this wikipedia can verify it (such as Señor Eusebeus, who responded to me.) Grandmasterka 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Actually, the RS does NOT say that Wikipedians cannot do translations. It indicates they may be "performed by a Wikipedia editor" and that it is OK for "editors [to] use their own English translation." Certainly it is generally better (as stated there) to use outside translations (though sometimes a wikipedian may be able to provide a better translation than the ones available elsewhere). This isn't so much an issue with this article, which does cite to english language sources and external links. Esquizombi 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I would like "the opportunity to verify for myself what the original material actually said". But, I can't do that here. Given the book is so popular in Germany, it's likely in due time that there will be an English translated version of the book. At that time, I wouldn't object to an article here. Until then, I have problems with being able to verify the article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment It seems to me you're cherry-picking that guideline which states "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said" (emphasis added). And again, that's not an issue anyway because there isn't any translation of the contents of the book in the article, rather it appears it was composed by reference to english language articles about the book which given that WP is a tertiary source is acceptable. If there were translated text from the book you could order the book and a German/English dictionary or plop passages into Babelfish and get an idea as to whether the translation may be accurate or not. But again, there's not, so that's not an issue. Would there be a good place on WP to discuss the broader issue of articles about untranslated subjects?Esquizombi 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not giving any credence to its notability when it's not on de.wikipedia.org [13]. The best it gets is a line in Andreas von Bülow [14] -- Samir (the scope) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Using the deWP to argue a topic is not notable is weak, IMO. There are plenty of English-language books, films etc. that meet WP's notability criteria and are not on the enWP yet, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. Esquizombi 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not weak, in my opinion. A claimed #3 best seller in English is probably on the English wikipedia. I haven't been swung over by claims of sales which are unreferenced. Provide a better reference of its claim to notability than german.about.com. Until then, I take the absence on the German wikipedia to be telling -- Samir (the scope) 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I repeat, I don't think the absence of an article on the deWP proves it is not notable, any more than the absence of an article about an English language book on this WP proves the book is not notable. It only proves nobody has added one yet. There's no article on Barbara Hodgson, for example, or any of her several critically acclaimed and award-winning books, one of which is being adapted into a film (I should work on that). Additionally, the dewiki only has "378.316 Artikel" versus the 1,054,498 articles on this one. Look at the article again; there are better references there than the about.com one you singled out. There are other references to it as a bestseller, for example The Boston Globe.[15] Esquizombi 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Put the references in the article. I wasn't aware of the Boston Globe reference, and have to use circumstantial evidence like absence in the German wikipedia, which I think still counts for something (i.e. an article on Barbara Hodgson would be more likely to appear in en.wikipedia than de.wikipedia) -- Samir (the scope) 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to be important in the German-speaking world. en.wikipedia, while based and written in English, is not an encyclopaedia for exclusively English topics. Lord Bob 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above - our ignorance of other languages does not mean we should delete articles about material written in them. For great justice. 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grandmasterka et al., notable book by notable autho, notability is not exclusive to the Anglosphere. There are more than enough really crufty 9/11 POV stubs around, let's have at these. Sandstein 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn in .de (and yes I speak german....) Bridesmill 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (stricken, per Bridesmill's request below. -- noosphere 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment What does "nn in .de" mean? If you're referring to the fact that there is no article on the de.wp, that only means that nobody there has been motivated enough to add an article for it, not that it would not meet their notability criteria. If you're referring to Amazon.de, it appears to be ranked 3,029 there[16] which isn't too bad for a three year old book. Esquizombi 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - please delete my previous Delete - article very much improved, as it is right now it stands as a fine example of critical book review. Still not a particularly notable book here; are we going to do article of every book that has any level of notability anywhere in the world? Bridesmill 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't exclusive to the so-called "Anglosphere;" I quite agree. Its inclusion into Wikipedia.de should take place forthwith, and I encourage those who approve of it so highly to take care of that. RGTraynor 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your seemingly snarky remark is unappreciated WP:NPA. I don't approve of the book, but I do approve of an article about it, because it appears to meet criteria for notability and does meet WP:V. The sources for the article are english language articles by Deutsche Welle's DW-World.de, Newsweek, and the twelve-year old online newspaper telegraph.co.uk which strike me as reliable and also speaking to the book's notability. Esquizombi 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't think that was a personal attack by any stretch, I should observe that, while I would be happy to add it myself, I don't speak a word of German. Lord Bob 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "those who approve of it so highly" is what I objected to. I'm quite willing to vote keep on topics I don't approve of (like this one) if I believe they merit inclusion. The article's content is verifiable with reliable sources and the book appears to be notable. Ich spreche nur ein bißchen Deutsch, so I'm not sure I'd be qualified to add the article to the German wiki, though I had created an account there and have managed to order German-language books and movies from Amazon.de. Esquizombi 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK WEAK WEAK Keep This article is about the BOOK not the CONTENT, if it is a popular book and a best seller in a major market as somsone stated then it should be included. Remember the references have to be in english or translated to english, but the book does not. We are not argueing the content of the book, but rather its notability. Mike (T C) 19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it's number three in Germany with sales of 100,000 (though I'd like to see evidence of that), then it's definitely notable. Not being translated into English is not a criterion for deletion. We have lots of articles about non-English television shows and movies. I mean, what about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for Goo's sake? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has been translated, though. But there are other films on WP that haven't been. Esquizombi 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been translated for tv viewing, but it was subtitled when shown in theaters. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent sources and appears notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ich verstehe nicht: it is not clear to me, nor have I seen addressed in this discussion, why this content is not better considered at the entry on Andreas von Bülow; it is hardly as if that article is so overwhelmingly long that it cannot accommodate more information, and since the book is the vehicle for the ideas of the man, surely it is a better place for it. Why keep this in a separate article? The fact that it is in German, is really a canard. If this is kept this time around, I recommend it be renominated with a suggested merge to the author to avoid an unecessary debate about language. Eusebeus 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Postcscript: WRT several points made above, this is very unlikely to receive an article on de.WP, since their standards for inclusion are generally much more stringent and, per precedent, any such article would almost certainly be flagged for deletion forthwith and the content moved back to Bulow's main German language entry. So inter-wiki referencing here wrt notability is not apposite. Eusebeus 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment In the case of people who wrote only one book, and especially if they are primarily known only for that book, I would agree with you. In this case, since he is the author of at least two books and is known (or at least had long been known) for being in the German government, I'd be less inclined to advocate merging. As it is, it's unfortunate so much of Bulow's own entry is about his 9/11 beliefs. I haven't tried to read the de.wiki's deletion policies, but they do have an article there on the apparently untranslated English language 9/11 conspiracy book de:Crossing the Rubicon, so I'm not sure Bulow's book would be deleted. Esquizombi 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep book seems notable per all above to me Jcuk 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sure looks notable to me. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the book has gotten attention somewhere in the world so we should be talking about it here. That's what we do. Is the nom suggesting that the whole world should speak English and if they don't we should ignore it? Frankly, I think that kind of thinking is dangerous for the spread of knowledge. Language was not a barrier to the exchange of ideas in the 18th century and I don't see why it should be in the 21st century. -- JJay 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable despite the language. feydey 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge'. The article is well organized, and the organization takes up as much room as the content. It's a stub, notable or not. I'm not even sure the book is original. If it ever gets translated, it can be deconsolidated from related articles back into its own.--Pro-Lick 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when does something have to be in English to be notable? As for verifiability, there are plenty of German speaking Wikipedia editors who can do that. -- noosphere 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I am concerned, translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence. The more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest. Without wide distribution then I would look to social or political consequences of the book and I just don't see much in the way of consequences for this particular book, regardless of its origins. YMMV. Ande B 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the first two sentences of the above comment. Namely, that "translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence" and "the more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest." However, it does not follow that just because a book may not have been translated in to English, then the only criteria we can use to judge its notability is its "political consequences". It's not at all clear how one could judge the "political consequences" of a book in a NPOV way. It may be relatively clear in the case of some exceptions like Mao's Little Red Book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and the scriptures of the major religions; but in the vast majority of cases books just don't have any obviously visible political consequences. However, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. I think looking at the sales numbers of the book in question as a sign of its notability is perfectly acceptable, even when there's no English translation. By excluding popular books that haven't yet been translated in to English we're encouraging systemic bias and hampering legitimate research in to a given topic by English speaking individuals who may be interested in how that topic is percieved or interpreted in the rest of the non-English speaking world. Besides, the English language publishing industry is generally not interested in books in translation: only a miserably tiny fraction of foreign language books are ever translated in to English[17][18], likely for business reasons that may have little to do with their notability in the rest of the world. Why should Wikipedia defer to the English language publishing industry to the exclusion of the rest of the world, when we can rely on perfectly legitimate indicators of their notability elsewhere (such as their sales in other countries)? -- noosphere 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this article has come a long way since being nominated for AfD. There are three claims being made about: firstly it is NN. I disagree: it has sold 100,000 copies, which is very large for a "non-fiction" (allegedly!) book, especially in Germany. It was the hot topic of the 2003 Frankfurt Book Fair - and as a book, not just as the work of Herr "Cranky" van Bulow". It is extremely controversial as a book (not just as a selection of views) because of the quality of sourcing - this is an issue about the German publishing industry, not 9/11, therefore we need to consider this book as a book, not just a selection of (what are largely seen as dangerous/bizarre) views associated with one man. Secondly, it not verifiable. I disagree, there are plenty of English languages secondary sources on this book and I have tried to improve the referencing for the article so that it is now clear exactly where each statement in the article can be sourced from. (Haven't finished just yet, will probably take me another hour to incorporate another three English language sources). Thirdly, it is synonymous with Andreas von Bulow and should be merged. Again, I disagree, we need to treat this book as a book for the reasons I have given already plus the fact that Andreas von Bulow has had a long career and is important as a politician in his own right. If we had a balanced biography for him, perhaps the bottom quarter of it would be on his post-politicial retirement conspiracy theorising. However, that is unlikely to happen as in the English-speaking world he is best known for his controversial views on 9/11. Those views do not "define the man" and this article is about more than his views, it also considers the books as a publishing phenomenon, as part of a zeitgeist for similar publications, and as a controversy within German publishing. TheGrappler 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am certainly coming to this late in the day, but this seems to be one of those cases where the nomination for AFD resulting in a much better article. Multiple bases of notability are now laid out with references. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to FA. - Darwinek 11:02, 7 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 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Suzuki[edit]

This page is a super-short stub, and I don't think it has any potential (I've never heard of this guy). The Republican 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary This doesn't have much potential (though I could research it) so it would be better off becoming dictionary material or deleted. Just delete it. Funnybunny 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why Wiktionary? Wiktionary is for word definitions, not biography stubs --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. I edited my vote. Funnybunny 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, only 112 unique Google results [19] --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio-stub. Doesn't even get a good amount of hits on Japanese Google. Wish there was an easy way to filter out Wikipedia mirrors... EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use "-wikipedia -wiki -gnu" in searches to get rid of most of them. If necessary, I also add some terms that are more likely to exclude non-mirrors by mistake. Since you are just trying to determine the number of unique Google results, you could pick a unique phrase from the article to exclude instead. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio. --Terence Ong 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; redirect is not needed, in case nobody has noticed yet. - Liberatore(T) 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC), create a redirect in place. - Liberatore(T) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Store Brand[edit]

Non-notable; clearly doesn‘t satisfy WP:BAND. No Allmusic entry, no recordings listed on Amazon, zero Google hits for “Store Brand” + “Justin Noble” (the lead singer). Prod was contested. Delete. dbtfztalk 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Marudubshinki as an attack page. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan T. Landry[edit]

Non-notable biography of a self proclaimed "Renaissance Man". 14 unique Ghits for "Jordan T. Landry" [20]. A search for "Jordan Landry" reveals nothing related to the article. IMDB shows no Jordan T. Landry on "Fever Pitch" (but oddly shows a Jordan Leandre). That and he "he commands fake army battalions in repeated invasions of Mexico and Canada" -- Samir (the scope) 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the most massive piece of biographical dribbel I have ever seen. K-UNIT 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 03:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, hoax. (BTW, the Jordan Leandre in the movie was a 4-year-old cancer patient who sang the National Anthem at a Red Sox game.) Fan1967 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom GfloresTalk 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real, I've been to a couple Landry's Furniture Barns before and heard about him. Quite talented for so young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs) (creator of said page)

Alright, delete it, but you've got to admit it was pretty good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom pm_shef 03:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also Mr. Samir, if that is your real name, you should know I have a very pretty face. Sorry Samir, I take that back. It should have been aimed at Mr. TKevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Digestive Collectivism[edit]

Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. The link provided has nothing to do with this phenomenon. It's unverifiable. Was prodded and de-prodded. Delete. Makemi 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT and WP:V --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well written, it's a shame. But, per nom, Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. I hope this editor turns to real subjects. Ifnord 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nom; agree that the guys who wrote this should be encouraged to write articles on real topics -- Samir (the scope) 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The movement in question was indeed founded on school grounds, but its members are engaging seriously in public promotion of its ideals. As one of the main editors of the entry in question, I can say that I do very much respect Wikipedia and the fine people who are responsible for its functioning. More work will be put towards seeking similar movements and linking them, for the principles expressed in PDC are certainly not unique. The article has only been in existence for two days. Give us more time to make it one worthy of Wikipedia, please. —This unsigned comment was added by Monsieur Prolong (talk • contribs) .
    • I'd like to say again this was a well-written article, the problem is the subject. No matter how you expand or rewrite, it will still be deleted. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia though, we need good writers. Ifnord 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. Well-written but ultimately pointless.  (aeropagitica)  13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT and definitely unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to the uncyclopedia. Cute BJAODN, if I understand this correctly, these folks have re-invented and re-named an interesting concept formerly known as sharingBridesmill 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But guys, Jim didn't share his sandwich on March 29; surely that's notable, no? Of course, notwithstanding the humor and quality of the article, delete, per Ifnord, inter al., is surely appropriate. Joe 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Ku (film)[edit]

vanity entry about a nn film. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable film --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and jumbled with advertising and self-promotion. Ifnord 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to quote from the article, "too bad"... MikeWazowski 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Piccadilly 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--Ugur Basak 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Cool3 01:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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. JIP | Talk 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoebox Project[edit]

Recreated article on a Harry Potter fanfic, but content isn't similar enough to be a speedy candidate. De-prodded without comment by an anon. -- Vary | Talk 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Cameron (time travel)[edit]

The only sentence that even attempts to establish notability starts with the word "Allegedly" Deville (Talk) 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VANITY, WP:V and likely WP:HOAX --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Google search of name and "Montauk" yields 700 hits. Ifnord 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not clear about whether this man is trying to pass himself off as a sailor who was on board the USS Eldridge. There's not enough information to determine notability, and anyway, it's probably crankery. Brian G. Crawford 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough con man or crackpot. Article should be retitled , current form is NPOV, and evidence of debunking added to satisfy NPOV requirements. Refer to Philadelphia Experiment. If it weren't for the movie and the related X-Files episode(s), he wouldn't be notable; but in their shadow he's notable -- becoming notable by parasitism is still becoming notable (cf Kevin Federline). Monicasdude 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserve comment I would vote keep per Monicasdude if his assertions of notability can be backed up. Has Cameron or his lectures attracted the attention of any notable paranormal debunkers or been covered in any way by independent media? For borderline notabilty merge and redirect to Philadelphia Experiment. Reserving comment per addition of facts. Thatcher131 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly not even notable for being a crank. David | Talk 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable crackpottery. The El Reyko 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless Monicasdude can really prove this guy is also married to Britney Spears. Proto||type 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, hoax unless Monicasdude can verify this information. --Terence Ong 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---CH 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasis[edit]

As mentioned in the article and associated talk page, this is completely unfounded terminology which does not appear in any medical or online resource or publication in the scientific literature. Alsorises 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resurrection of Jesus or disambiguate. This unfamiliar word may have some currency, especially in Eastern Orthodox church, as a theological word for the resurrection of Jesus or the general resurrection of the dead. Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody's using Wikipedia to promote a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google book search shows no hits for Anastasis and radiation together. Anastasis appears to have other meanings including the resurrection, or some part of a church. If someone wants to make a new page with this title, as a redirect or an article, on a legitimate topic like this, then of course that's cool. (There's the additional problem that this incorrect use of anastasis will remain out in cyberspace on sites that have copied the article from Wikipedia... oh well...) --Singkong2005 14:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article outright admits it's not verifiable.George Bluth 16:33, 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 all. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twodeadsluts Onegoodfuck[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've only heard two of their samples so I cannot comment on their music much.. but WP:MUSIC is the issue not if they are any good. kotepho 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Samir. Eusebeus 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, nn band and per Samir. --Terence Ong 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, fails to achieve the level of notability required by WP:MUSIC. Proto||type 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC with a strong push to BJAODN.--Isotope23 17:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom and Kotepho. --P199 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band vanity. Piccadilly 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't get this policy. Just because they aren't mainstream doesn't mean they aren't an interesting, different band. I think it's stupid to judge bands by how popular they are. Twodeadsluts keep it real by staying underground. Also, seeing as they are not a large band, information on them is almost nil therefore making this page more useful than ones for bands that people already know tons about and could find on countless websites. Also, "band vanity" is a violation of the amendment of freedom of expression. If people found their name offensive, they would not be interested in listening to them thus having no reason to look up information on them. The Metro 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has cited the coarse name as a reason for deletion, and I'm sure everyone would agree that the band appears to be "interesting and different" in the extreme. Notability is the sole issue here. If you disagree with WP:BAND, that's fine, but don't attack straw men. dbtfztalk 01:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and regarding the appeal to the First Amendment, see WP:FREE. I'll shut up now.  :-) dbtfztalk 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone stated "band vanity" as a reason. I must have misinterpreted it. The Metro 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another reason I have for this being kept is that while this band doesn't apply to the [WP:Music]] statement, a lot of bands on here don't. Also they have done the following; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Said information can be viewed here. The Metro 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. --Khoikhoi 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ALL, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? Kotepho 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media and tour, and that's without putting much effort in. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the touring. If you look at their Myspace you can see that they are actually currently touring a large portion of the U.S. They can even be quoted to saying "The band is planning on bringing the live show to both coasts in 2006." Also, they have been mentioned in multiple reputable sources of press as stated above. The Metro 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree about notability and don't but the multiple reputable sources of press at all. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are the sources not reputable? They have been reviewed by quite a few places. And they most be notable if they are touring the whole country and all of their old albums are sold out. The Metro 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how they can fail WP:MUSIC seeing as they are currently touring the country. The Metro 1:15, 2 April 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 merge - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UI chrome[edit]

Stub not worthy of a separate article. - Sikon 05:01, 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 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cafarelli[edit]

Delete - vanity, reads like a restaurant advertisement. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. JIP | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:VANITY --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Author, 3623, appears to be Cafarelli or someone closely connected to him. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity w/o prejudice to recreation w/o the puffery and upon a showing of notability. Restaurateurs are notable if followed by the press etc. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I am neither Cafarelli nor closely connected to him. I work for a public relations company in Boston and his name came up on our list of industry leaders. There is no need to delete it as the company I work for, or another one in the area, will merely add it again once he is put on the list again. -C623
  • Do not Delete In addition, Vanity is not a Wikipedia policy. It is only a guideline and therefore neither a violation nor grounds for deletion. -C623
  • Delete promo spam. David Hoag 08:15, 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 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rian1.2[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Also, seems to be crystal ballism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga-Hiti[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is verifiable, as I've added a reference to the bottom. I don't know enough to say whether or not it is notable and bow to others on this question. Bucketsofg 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to 'Tongahiti' . The hyphen is superfluous. Better provenance would also be helpful Kahuroa 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, unverifiable. Bucketsofg 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatu means 'stone' in Māori. To make it mean hail, you have to add the word for rain: ua-whatu (stony rain) or ua-ā-whatu (rain with stones). It makes no sense for the everyday word for stone to be used without these additions and expect anyone to understand it to refer to hail. Whatu is definitely a Māori word, and cannot appear in this form in any other Polynesian language so this cannot be a Polynesian god in the wider sense. Hail is not that common here in NZ, and I would think even rarer still in tropical Polynesia. Apparently hail does occur in Hawaii, but how could they have used a Māori word for it? Kahuroa 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HUH? How can you "Keep as above" when all the entries above are for "Delete"? Looks like this user is adding Keeps to every AfD, as some form of WP:POINT. Fan1967 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'For great justice' means well but his reasoning is hard to follow. (see my talk page). I take it that he is supporting Grutness' intro above where he says 'keepers...deferring to editors...' and means to indicate that he supports what the 'editors' (ie, me) decide. I think... Kahuroa 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Wahieloa. - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wahie Loa[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wahieloa (an important Polynesian mythical figure). Bucketsofg 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wahieloa (an important Hawaiian mythical figure - appears under slightly variant names elsewhere in Polynesia). Kahuroa 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Probably unnotable; clearly unverified. Bucketsofg 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a bit of a scrap anyway as well as a slightly odd mix of locations. Kahuroa 06:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 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 keep - Liberatore(T) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uekera[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I edited to remove the 'Polynesian mythology' category because this is not Polynesian - Kiribati is in Micronesia. An illustration of the reliability of some of these stubs. I now say 'weak keep' because it has references and I am not conversant with Micronesian mythology. Kahuroa 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) edited --Kahuroa 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: Definite Keep - now well sourced by Crypticfirefly below. Kahuroa 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'As above' means as the original poster mentioned ("Some of them may be keepers . . . I'm deferring to editors . . . as to which is which") For great justice. 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I also make it clear in my nomination that most of them are not keepers. Voting keep for all of these irrespective of whether they deserve it is a bit strange, to say the least, and positively misleading in many cases. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go with a Weak Delete for now, unless a better source can be found.--Cúchullain t c 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I'm the one who added the references. (I've added a few better ones as well this evening, after the AfD began.)Crypticfirefly 03:03, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tevake[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no provenance here. What part of Polynesia are we dealing with? Tevake could be in one of several Polynesian languages, possibly Rarotongan or Tahitian or several others (not Māori, not Hawaiian, not Samoan). Gannets are temperate birds, the tropical equivalent is the Booby, so that needs to be changed anyway. Kahuroa 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as above? No one said keep. Anyway, Delete per Bucketsofg.--Cúchullain t c 16:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranga-o-Te-Ra[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've added a reference to Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Unless someone can make a good argument against notability, it should probably be kept. Bucketsofg 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given verification by Bucketsofg. My view is that verifiable gods or mythical figures listed in reliable sources are notable. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tho it must come from a rare version of the story of Māui and so I am not comfortable with it being given the blanket description 'in Māori mythology' as if it were the 'standard' version or something, which it aint. I would like to see a tribal origin traced for this, but in the meantime, fair enough. Kahuroa 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: I traced a further reference, Tregear 1891, possibly the ultimate source.Kahuroa 10:17, 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 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tumuitearetoka[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Bucketsofg's comment Kahuroa 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bucketsofg. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. --Terence Ong 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any information on this being would seem to belong in the article on Ngaru. Crypticfirefly 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:21, 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 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tukoio[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. There is no entry for this in Cragi's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology, but his policy is to mention only tales that include gods and goddesses and such. There seems to be an allusion to this figure here. Perhaps someone else can find a reference. Bucketsofg 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Will add reference sourced by Bucketsofg and edit article slightly. (PS - found and added another reference also) Kahuroa 06:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable legendary figures are notable in my book. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. --Terence Ong 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:44, 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 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-Mea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Bucketsofg 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Bucketsofg.Kahuroa 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. --Terence Ong 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 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 redirect to Ngaru (this would be a merge normally, but there's nothing to merge) - Liberatore(T) 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tongatea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: Assuming this isn't bad data, I think merging all of these would be in order. Rklawton 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with her husband Ngaru (both have entries in Craig's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology). Bucketsofg 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Ngaru. Kahuroa 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ngaru or Keep. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ngaru. --Terence Ong 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 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  (aeropagitica)  17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dannel Gomiller[edit]

Not very many Google hits for a "cult hit around the world." Chick Bowen 05:48, 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 delet as nn-bio and contains personal information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Anant Tayal[edit]

non notable bio of a student, {prod} removed by page author Montco 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of possbile references to music media in the Doom series[edit]

Original Research. One I know is legit. Others seem speculatory at best, without sources. Delete or possibly merge to Making of Doom Drat (Talk) 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and as listcruft --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of possible references..."? That says it all. Delete per WP:NOR. -- Saberwyn 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not encyclopedic. --Hetar 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who comes up with this stuff? Delete. Eusebeus 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it a featured article Delete, obviously. --kingboyk 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, listcurft, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Hetar - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Please Delete non notable 198.178.8.81 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOR, WP:V, could be dealt with in a couple of lines in a related article Aquilina 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the extent it is accurate, with Doom main article or Making of Doom Ande B 06:23, 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 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.John Saw[edit]

Prodded as vanity bio (see WP:BIO). Prod was removed and improperly restored. Moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:23, 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 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve glove[edit]

Very minor piece of technoloy used by a single group of 1,000 men (the Imperial Fists Space Marine chapter) in the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe. Information comes from a single novel, and the device does not receive a mention in any other rules, background, or fiction work produced by Games Workshop or its subsidiariy companies. Use is nowhere near widespread enough in the fictional universe to justify (in my mind) a merge to the Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), an is not important enough to the organisation and doctrine of the Imperial Fists chapter to include there.

I have nominated this article once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerve glove), back in November 05, which resulted in a no consensus keep. -- Saberwyn 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list is currently a general list showing the equipment available to the entirety of the thousand Chapters of Space Marines, along with a wide variety of Imperial military and paramilitary organisations whose memberships reaches into the billions. To mention an item with such a small use would show great disproportion in the level of information conveyed (ie:fancruft). We can counter it by not having it in there, or we can counter it by listing every single special piece of equipment, squad upgrade, character weapon, relic, and rarely used piece of technology covered in the Armoury section of each Imperial Codex, because stuff with rules should come first in an article on a playable game. We're talking hundreds of seperate entries in the list before we get down to the level of player and universe impact this device has. Do you want a list full of 40k-cruft? I don't. -- Saberwyn 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- -- Saberwyn 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the nerve glove really is a very, very minor part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. --Pak21 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing above. And I would add the Warhammer Universe is itself very, very minor. Eusebeus 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a comparison, try imaging having an article exist about the second sentence of the Chance card where it's your birthday and you get $10 in a game of Monopoly. This is the Warhammer equivalent, and that's how crufty and lame this is. Proto||type 10:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My dog is more notable than this, and I have no dog. Sandstein 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. A fine turn of phrase may I say :-) — ciphergoth 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge IT!!!I like to know every facet of [email protected] (anonymous user — ciphergoth)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upalindrome[edit]

Delete - a google search for this turns up nothing. NN neologism. Wickethewok 06:31, 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 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaso Vukotic's Theory[edit]

Not notable. romanm (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most likely a hoax and vanity. Originally entered by user Sova.kuliana and a 'Vaso Vukotic' is using the email [email protected] here. Google hits for this email find a myspace account (now deleted but still viewable from Google's cache) which indicates a 18 year old owner from Nevada. The name Vaso Vukotic doesn't give any physics related Google hits besides this Wiki entry. Gu 08:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax; if not, it's either WP:OR or WP:NFT. --Kinu t/c 08:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete if sources cannot be discovered. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whatever else this is, it seems to be original research. Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 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 CSD A5

Phaneromania[edit]

Dictionary definition transwiki'd in June 05; unchanged since. Tzaquiel 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Is there even any question about this? It's even written up like a dictionary entry. RGTraynor 19:09, 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 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranobu[edit]

Obvious nonsense - Tzaquiel 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense Gu 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 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 split and merge - Liberatore(T) 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Rulings[edit]

This article seems to have an unclear scope or and no particular direction for expansion. It is unclear what an "Islamic Ruling" is – surely the article cannot discuss every decision made by an Islamic court. I suggest that this article be removed, and that the interested contributors focus on more specific, better-defined sub-topics. Twinxor t 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My suggestion is I guess that the artcile can be split into specific artciles. Polygamy in Islam being one. Theft In Islam being another. The ruling on leaving Islam another and then The ruling homosexuality in Islam another. What do you all think? MuslimsofUmreka 11:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content, per Gazpacho. - Mike Rosoft 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the tomato soup man. And MuslimsofUmreka, I don't think we should have an article about "[every word in the dictionary] in Islam". Try contributing to the existing Islam-related articles until they get too large. Sandstein 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who is expected to do the merge? Piccadilly 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here is what I am gonna do. I am gonna merge the artciles like everyone suggested. Before I do it, can somebody tell me the procedures for doing it, and the best method of doing? By best method I mean, which exact article should certain sections be moved too? I know there are some suggestions to move some sections to shariah and otehrs to fatawa. What does everyone think? MuslimsofUmreka 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has four sections that correspond rather directly to the articles I listed. Gazpacho 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Gazpacho. Green Giant 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only the useful stuff. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody else do the merge thing. I'm still kind of new to this site and i'm not sure how exactly I should move the files and if I should change certain content on the other articles to make this one fit. MuslimsofUmreka 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only the useful stuff per a.n.o.n.y.m --Khoikhoi 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes thus far. The homosexualit ysection has been merged with Homosexuality and Islam, and the tehft sectio nis now in the shariah section. Waiting instructions on what to do with the restof the artcile on polygamy and leaving Islam. MuslimsofUmreka 05:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how do I delete the article now. I dont think the rest of the stuff can be merged with anything. I would like to delete the article now. How do I do it? MuslimsofUmreka 20:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An administrator will do it. Twinxor t 10:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAOLI The Single[edit]

Delete - article about an obscure single by an obscure musician, non-notable. Wickethewok 06:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's nice that they wrote it about their teacher, but it's unfortunately nn -- Samir (the scope) 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - No rational reason has been given for deletion! R. E. Denton ... Webmaster at sanroy.com, crawfordcountyindiana.info, www.orangecountyindiana.info, www.paoliindiana.info, and www.gigharborwashington.info 12:20AM, 31 March (PST)
    • Comment - sorry I did not make my reason explicit. The reason is that it is a non-notable song. Wickethewok 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it really seems to fall under non-notable Gu 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as article with little or no context.

Falsifing information[edit]

Unexpandable misspelled dicdef. Prod was removed. dcandeto 06:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - WP:CSD A1/A3 No context, basically a explaination of the article title. MartinRe 13:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete concur, so tagged. Sandstein 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:38, 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDAPL[edit]

Unexpandable dicdef. Prod was removed. dcandeto 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and it looks like the acronym was transcribed wrong in the title -- Samir (the scope) 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand / Redirect, DNAPL has 190000 Google hits and 'Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid' 15800. It has also it's 'own website' http://www.getf.org/dnaplguest/. So there should be plenty of information. Maybe it should redirect to something like Interagency Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid Consortium (IDC) Gu 07:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not only the title is wrong, but also the definition! There is really no point in having the article in its current status. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CapROS[edit]

NN software. Very few google hits that actually correspond to the software, as of the time of this nomination their website returns nothing, its not even significant enough to earn an Alexa rating, and is still under development. Delete --Hetar 07:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in the process of adding a 'Capability systems' category and updating various entries related to capability systems. I created this page as a placeholder for Charlie Landau to edit, and I have emailed Charlie to advise him that he needs to populate it. It is not clear why Hetter believes that the website [21] returns nothing. It certainly responds for me. I did forget to insert the http:// on the initial edit (since fixed). CapROS is an active sourceforge project, and it is currently funded by DARPA.

Hettar may be right that an entry on CapROS is premature. I suggest that Landau should be given a decent interval of time to put more substantial content here before the page is deleted. I'ld also note that when an author is staring a delete notice in the face it tends to be self-fulfilling. Why should they invest effort in improving a Wikipedia entry if the entry is under threat of deletion? If they don't, how can Wikipedia determine whether sufficient content might exist to justify retention?

By all means let us revisit this in a week or so, by which time there will probably be something to react to. In the interim, have the common decency to let Landau edit without a threat notice in his face. shap 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article's nomination is not based on its content, but rather on its subject, which will still not meet WP:SPAM, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:Not a crystal ball and WP:VANITY anytime in the near future. --Hetar 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take these in turn.

  • WP:SPAM: It would be factually inaccurate to fail to mention that the principal force behind CapROS is a company. The article does not indulge in advocacy or sales. The article does not indulge in any other form of SPAM listed at WP:SPAM.
  • The argument for WP:SOFTWARE is stronger, primarily because CapROS isn't shipping yet. However, the simple fact that this system is DARPA-funded in the current funding environment is fairly remarkable, and might be construed as a metric of significance for the KeyKOS/EROS/CapROS path of work. To my knowledge, there are only two such operating systems today (the other, FYI, is Coyotos). To the extent that a brief CapROS entry serves as the endpoint of the EROS work, a brief entry is necessary for editorial completeness. For some other topics, this might be a reason to merge the entry into the EROS entry (which might be appropriate at this point). The editorial problem with this is that it does not sufficiently respect due credit. As the EROS principal I would be very uncomfortable with an editorial presentation that would appear to present Landau's work as mine.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't apply here. CapROS unquestionably exists. However, this may be a reason not to have a stub entry until CapROS actually releases.
  • I may not be independent enough to evaluate the WP:VANITY challenge. My rationale for adding the entry was (a) The EROS work was considered well-motivated by a broad number of people, (b) The current EROS development path is proceeding with CapROS, so if the work is worth mentioning CapROS needs to be dealt with for editorial completeness. (c) The desire to avoid proliferation of articles is overridden in this case by the importance of not misrepresenting credit.

However, I note that Hettar does not respond to my primary original point: the article does not yet have content, and until it has had a reasonable chance for content to be added it is impossible for Hettar to form any useful opinion about it, and certainly not about the spam or vanity points. It is clearly not the expectation of Wikipedia that articles arrive full-formed from the mouth of Zeus. Hettar's nomination for deletion is premature.

I also note that Hetar obviously didn't actually look at the CapROS website. Perhaps he typed ".com" rather than ".org". He has not yet troubled to acknowledge his shoddy archival research in this regard.

The question of Alexa ratings is utterly irrelevant. I know Brewster, and I wish him and Alexa the best, but Alexa's criteria are not those of Wikipedia. Same issue for Google, whose primary consideration is cross-linkage, not merit.

Would Hetar find it appropriate if his current high school faculty made a practice of deleting his term papers summarily at the end of their first sentence on the grounds that they were incomplete?

One more time: the article needs a decent, but not excessive, opportunity to be written before it is evaluated for deletion, and this will not happen if the deletion threat is sitting in the article. In the interim, have the common decency to let Landau edit without a threat notice in his face. 68.33.84.43 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rather along the lines of TBC Marcus22 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding further to Hetar's points:
  • WP:SPAM: There cannot be a sales motivation, because the software is available free.
  • WP:SOFTWARE: Because CapROS is the continuation of EROS, all the peer-reviewed publications regarding EROS apply also to CapROS.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: The software exists, is published/released (on SourceForge.net), and runs now. I have made a minor edit to the article to correct this point. Like all active software, it is under development to improve it.
  • WP:VANITY: I don't see this at all, but if you can identify specific information in the article that promotes the notoriety of the author, I would be happy to edit it out. CLandau 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline weak keep per the arguments of CLandau, if the sources about DARPA funding are added to the article. The reference to WP:VANITY, I think, remains pertinent nonetheless: even if the subject is notable, it is just considered very bad form to write about one's own projects. You would have done better to focus your attention on other things, confident in the strength of Wikipedia's collective mind to eventually identify it as notable and write an article about it. Sandstein 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I'm not the one who added the article. It was added by someone who is not affiliated with the project. I was asked to update it. CLandau 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DARPA funding does not make an item "notable" -- on those grounds, the box of pens some general's secretary bought last week on the government's dime is. RGTraynor 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Clandau and the anon IP adress made some good points, though I still don't think its notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps a merge and redirect to EROS? --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had much to do with Keykos which is an ancestor of Capros. I argue here that Capros, and therefore the article, is important. I hope that such an argument is not out of line. There are several very active e-mail lists on capability based security. The subject is controversial. There is currently little activity in the area of an OS kernel based on these ideas. This seems unfortunate for without secure platforms there is little hope of a secure infrastructure. I think that Capros is probably the system closest to providing such a secure platform, which I supose is the reason for DARPA support. NormHardy 04:42, 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 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle luxury[edit]

Delete - advertisement. Wickethewok 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisment, spam Gu 08:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Henning Makholm 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Clarification or Undelete 12:03, 2 April 2006 - I only created the article as I saw under the term 'luxury_real_estate' the profile of a company I am aware of and felt this was on par with that article. I felt if that article was accepted, this one could be. Could someone at least clarify the difference between the two? I accept and understand and don't want to add untasteful spam and it was not my intent, but why is one company allowed and another not? 'Luxury Real Estate' was clearly written and corrected by the creator of the business "Luxury Real Estate" with an added definition of "luxury real estate" after placing their company information. Also, is there a way to restate anything in the article to make it valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johng7777 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. - After reviewing the spamming policy, I agree this article should be deleted. I do feel that the article 'luxury real estate' should be reviewed carefully as well, as that is where the idea for this article was conceived. I am aware that IBM or Hewlett Packard etc. are large enough for notoriety, but I don't believe 'luxury real estate' would be in that classification as they are not setting any trends per se in the luxury real estate market, nor are they considered a standard by any means. Just an opinion from a luxury realtor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johng7777 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

662 Recordings[edit]

No sources are provided for this supposed record label. Google returns 3 hits for the name "662 Recordings", none of which are relevant. [22] Subject is non-verifiable and does not currently meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. This page should be deleted until verifiable evidence can be provided that this label actually exists. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-company Gu 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single relevant hit? Not even a personal webpage? Probably a hoax, or a misunderstanding... Grandmasterka 09:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article itself states they haven't published anything yet. Celcius 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball.  ALKIVAR™ 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Suge Knight founded it, and all those superstar rappers really were doing tracks for it and it was in the news, this would be an exception to the crystal ball rule because of its vast notability. But it clearly doesn't exist. Grandmasterka 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Grandmasterka. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nn recording company. --Terence Ong 16:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Cool3 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. The El Reyko 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Celcius 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to keep Proto||type 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paperdoll Heaven[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. 30k google hits, though 0 Google Groups hits. Has traffic data on Alexa [23]. The article could be cleaned up, but it looks like it's probably marginally notable at least. --Interiot 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per 2,148 alexa rank and 30,500 google. Comfortably meets WP:WEB. It's got newspaper reports about it, etc etc. Fan sites. Very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, combing through the google results, a large percentage of them look like SEO spam, I was having a hard time finding meaningful links to the site. But the Alexa rank does let it clear WP:WEB. --Interiot 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry? I didn't check through the google too much, just enough to note that all the google hits were actually about this. It meets Alexa pretty easily though. 2,000 while 10,000 is the criteria. So we shouldn't need to worry about the google part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per UncleG, the best use of Google results is to carefully scan through them, and find "other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it". Many of the Paperdoll Heaven hits are either simply links to the site that look like they could have been placed there as part of an SEO compaign (eg. many one-liners from blogspot [24]), or are mentions by blogs (many of them non-notable). I suppose that it's not a subject that newspapers would write about often, but maybe that means its inclusion in an encyclopedia should be borderline, not Strong. Nonetheless, there are a few semi-notable independent links to the site. [25] [26] --Interiot 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And as I said I was doing keep firstly based on its alexa rank. You don't need to think beyond that if it meets that easily. Unless you can somehow fake an alexa rank. Can you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess Wikipedia:Google test notes that the Alexa toolbar allows some websites to skew their own ratings, but I was mainly just nitpicking, because I wasn't convinced that it was a Strong Keep due to large number of low quality google hits. --Interiot 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I call Bullsh*t. No way do I believe that Alexa rank. It's been obviously manipulated to boost ad revenues, which is why those google links are so suspicious. Probably part of the same campaign. Probably used Alexa Booster: [[27]] (This, btw, is why Alexa rankings should be treated with care. Do you really believe that this ridiculous site could reach that kind of rank??????) Eusebeus 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm currently working for the company behind the site. We have not engaged in any SEO or artificial Alexa-rank boosting. Believe it or not, there is a big demand for this kind of content. We're past a million subscribers now and are, at times, pushing out 200 Mbit/s of data. Index Ventures has invested $4 million in the company. I will abstain from voting on this request for deletion since I'm biased. If the article is kept, however, it's quite obvious that it needs some serious rewriting. It should also be renamed to Stardoll. I've been intending to do this, but haven't had the time. We're in chrunch mode now. :) Ehn 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to get enough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Hetar 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep due to Alexa rank and not being able to disprove the claimed 900,000 subscriber base. David | Talk 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Onus is on the author to provide verification. I'm still sceptical about this alexa rank, but I am open to being convinced. Eusebeus 15:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks convincing external evidence of notablity. Scranchuse 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or remove all but the first two paragraphs. Marginal notability, and most of the current text isn't worth keeping. --Interiot 17:30, 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 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kloos[edit]

Only two music related links on google, apparently not well known Ethii 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio, the band Rudy and Blitz for which he played wasn't very successful and widely known according to their own website [28].
  • Delete per the previous vote. Piccadilly 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 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 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axion Quake[edit]

Non notable free game. A google search for Axion Quake, filtering out Wikipedia mirrors only gets 133 hits. Article was created only four days after release. Official website no longer exists, a mere 2 and half months after release.-Drat (Talk) 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, extremely nn. --Hetar 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a free game. For great justice. 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a free game. - Hahnchen 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --ReinholdRimmler 11:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Site no longer exists. As per nom.--Dangman4ever 23:45, 3 April 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascensionism[edit]

It is a spiritual movement, but it only gets 187 unique Google results, many, perhaps most, of which are about an album. Many of the non-album results are not about the movement, either. The article makes no claims as to the number of followers, but I would expect a large spiritual movement based upon technology to have a significant online presence. It is not a notable spiritual movement, yet. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Horak[edit]

Hoax, unverifiable, and been here since September 2005! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Horak, which had been created by the same IP. Creator also added wrong and/or unverifiable info in other articles. Lupo 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, a comedian in Hollywood trying to break in to movies and TV. Such a rare person must be celebrated, eh? Prove he was on Leno or Letterman and I'll reconsider, otherwise delete. Thatcher131 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly vanity (Best known for his Bob Newhart charm and Mary Hart good looks - whatever! WP:VAIN). -- P199 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant comment on whether or not this entry can belong but I can say I saw Steve Horak at a comedy club in Brooklyn and he was great!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essembly[edit]

Nn spamvertisement. It's still in beta, so there is no way it can even come close to WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 08:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? how is that possible...this is a social networking site just like MySpace and Facebook which are both written about extensively on Wikipedia. How can you exclude one like essembly that actually promotes something positive..it promotes thought and discourse and ideas! —This unsigned comment was added by Ndentzel (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete; Alexa rank 111,395. If it does become the next MySpace, then we can always recreate the article (without the POV & advertising). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how dare we indeed! Proto||type 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is so horrible of you people, of all people on the internet I would have thought that Wikipedia would be open to allowing the free share of information..cleary you want to limit the flow of information by not allowing a short piece of information on Essembly. If you all think that it is an advertisement then why dont you check out the site, and then modify the article to fit how you like it. And, if it is indeed an advertisement, then so is EVERY article on this site that gives a thorough explanation of a product, service, site, or good.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schneid[edit]

Unverifiable, very likely a hoax. Same creator as Steve Horak (see above). Lupo 08:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only two google results are from Wikipedia. --Hetar 19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Piccadilly 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 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 page Neil Baldwin was speedily deleted by Gflores with the delete summary (csd A7). This AFD is closed. —Encephalon 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Baldwin[edit]

Not a notable guy. Everyone in Keele Leisure Centre knows Neil, but this has been created solely as a piss take. Funny, but this isn't a comedy site. Not BJAODN worthy. GWO 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already been (rightly) tagged for speedy. Proto||type 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairy nuff. GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous political slanders[edit]

Wikipedia shouldn't repeat slanders, and the examples given are weak. Even the "successful" example "Santorum" gets only 600 or so Google hits without Savage's name attached (search). Phr 09:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (Also, constitutes original research per WP:NOR). Phr 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to document social phenomena, and eponymous political slanders is certainly a real (and ongoing) social phenomenon. And documenting a slander is not the same thing as propagating it; I've certainly attempted, in writing this page, to avoid suggesting that I agree with the slanders in question. -- Meowse

Addendum: I have reviewed What Wikipedia Is Not and the Deletion policy, and I see no elements of either which, singly or in combination, justify deleting this page. Please cite specific elements from authoritative sources which justify deleting this page. Neither of your stated reasons ("Wikipedia shouldn't repeat slanders" and "the examples given are weak") occurs in either source, and thus neither can be used to justify deletion. Thanks, Meowse 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:V for what constitutes usable citations. Few if any of your cites rise to the level required. Also, your cites are merely to examples of this phenomenon, not to published writing about the phenomenon itself ("eponymous political slanders" gets zero google hits right now). If the phenomenon is one that you identified yourself, that's original research inappropriate for Wikipedia, see WP:NOR. I've updated the beginning of the AfD to mention this. Remember that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source. It's supposed to report only on what's already been documented by others. I realize your contribution is well-intended but Wikipedia is not the right place for this particular one. Phr 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does a Google search for "eponymous scientific terms" yield any significant hits outside of Wikipedia, yet there is a page for that. Categorizing instances of a phenomenon is not original research. Meowse 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any page called eponymous scientific terms, and even if there is one, there's no question that those terms (Newton, Pascal, Ampere, etc) are real terms; they have tons of published cites that go back for centuries, and making a list of them is no big deal. The only disparaging eponymous political term that I can think of with that documentable level of usage is Quisling, and I don't think that was coined in order to slander him. The examples you gave as "successful" range from barely marginal (santorum) to completely invalid (someone coining a term on a blog and someone else sticking it into Wiktionary doesn't make it a real word). And the "unsuccessful" efforts are non-notable terms by definition. Did you look at WP:NEO, the part about protologisms? Phr 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 11:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- P199 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable phrases, unneeded flamebait (just wait until the "Bushitler" et al. entries commence). Sandstein 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have suggestions for how the page can be made more opinion-neutral, please make them. I did my best to simply record a phenomenon without weighing in on either side of it. In particular, if you know of any eponymous political slanders of left-wing politicians, I would very much like to add them to the entry. (Note: "Bushitler", while both a neologism and a play on words, is clearly not an eponymous political slander as defined on this page: (1) it's not eponymous, being a portmanteau of two different names, and (2) it doesn't then attempt to redefine "bushitler" to reference an unpleasant concept) Meowse 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for collaboration: I believe that there's a significant social phenomenon occurring here, starting with Dan Savage's coinage of the neologism "santorum", and continuing into the present. I think that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain articles on emerging social phenomena. How would you like this information to be presented in Wikipedia, and what names/descriptions would you like it to be present under? Thanks! Meowse 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentence "I believe there's a significant social phenomenon occuring here", without documentation for the supposedly occurring phenomenon, is a sign that you're engaged in original research. Wikipedia is not trying to stay ahead of the curve. The phenomenon (if it exists) needs to be documented with citations to published sources per WP:V and Wikipedia can report on it after it's established as a real phenomenon, not before. Really, please spend 15 seconds asking yourself privately why you want this entry in Wikipedia (that is, why you really want it, not how you can best advocate it here). Then read WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer and see if item 1 applies. Phr 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should stay. I think entry is a fair description of what a "Eponymous political slander" is. In fact, I was researching just such a word, which I won't repeat here because it is a current event, and I found this entry very helpful. (This is the first time I have ever made a comment in Wikipedia ... so I hope this comment followed proper protocol.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.95.212 (talk • contribs)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, and there's no problem commenting, except please sign your comments by appending four tilde's (~~~~). Also, see Template:AfdAnons which mentions that in deletion discussions, views of new contributors usually get less weight than already-active contributors. Phr 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page has perhaps a single semi-valid entry and some flame baiting doo-doo by a vandal. There are plenty of politically derived eponyms but they are not necessarily slanders, even if they started as insults. Perhaps the weak, single "Santorum" entry could be used in another article related to political eponyms, but I'm not aware of such an article existing at this time. Ande B 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a stretch to call it a list; there's only really one item worth mentioning. On top of that, the title is inaccurate, because the intent of introducing the neologism is to associate the eponymous politician with the connotations of the term's definition, not to assert that they are directly associated with it. --Sneftel 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, see WP:RM or WP:RFC for the issue at hand. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that the nominator tried precisely that before trying AfD as a way to generate interest. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Stephen II[edit]

I want to rename the page Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II, but I need room for it. The dab is already on the article Pope Stephen III, so there is absolutely no need for a separate dab page. You can find a long discussion about this in Talk:Pope Stephen. Maybe this place is not the good one to discuss the issue of numbering popes Stephen, but I've found no other place to launch this debate. Švitrigaila 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For background on this, see the bottom of my talk page; after he tried at various other places to get input on this (up to now, only he and one other user had been interested in this discussion, and they didn't agree), e.g. at the village pump and RfC, we came up with this way of getting more input on it. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an AfD discussion -- merely an issue as to whether or not Stephen (ephemeral pope) counts as a pope or not. Recommend arbitration and speedy close of AfD -- 62.25.109.196 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration is definitely too much, it's not even a real content dispute. The problem is that the usual mechanisms for getting other editors into the fray did not work at all, and I can't very well force a move down the third party's throat only because I happen to agree with Švitrigaila... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... you know, it wouldn't really bother me. :o) Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that you call the Vatican (or better yet, pray) for advice, compromise on Pope Stephen 2.5 or solve this the traditional Wikipedia way by edit-warring until all of you get blocked, and the article is then overwritten as a POV fork of a no-name Norvegian death metal band called Pøpe Stefän 111. But I'm not going to peruse in depth three pages of convoluted historical debates about popes for the purpose of helping you along that path, so speedy keep and get off my AfD, please. (Seriously now, why don't you try to solicit the advice of other knowledgeable editors, e.g. active contributors to Papacy-related articles?) Sandstein 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go on travel on Vatican City next week to make my investigations in the secret archives. I hadn't thought yet thout about Pope Stephen 2.5, but I thought about Pope Stephen π. And seriously I've tried to post this request in some strategical places on WP, with no effect. I'm too shy to ask any user personally. I dared to ask Nightstallion because he likes spetial caracters in titles, but it has no connection at all... Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add something: the issue is not a historical one. I think everybody agree about the facts themselves, so there is no need to find a pope specialist (a papologist ?) The issue is about the better way to name articles on Wikipedia. Everybody can have his word on it. Švitrigaila 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if Švitrigaila's solution were suitable to the problem, the page in question would be needed to implement it. AfD is for titles that should not exist, and even tho they & i disagree about what the content should be, it must exist.
    --Jerzy•t 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have you tried Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Current surveys? Thryduulf 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jerzy. If language is the barrier in this dispute, why is no one acting as a translator? Isn't there some facility for that here? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:51, 7 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)  17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th Georgetown (South) Sea Scout Group[edit]

non-notable local Scout group; vanity jergen 09:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You are a hard man, Jergen. Surely there is somewhere some of this can be saved. --Bduke 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was no content in the article except the weblink when I proposed it for deletion. --jergen 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK. I agree it must go. --Bduke 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a possible copyright violation from </nowiki>http://08online.blogspot.com/2000/01/our-history.html</nowiki>. Thus, as an article created less than 48 hours ago and containing what is largely an un-wikified block of text, it may qualify for speedy deletion, criteria A8. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I reverted it to a previous version. No vote. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally non-notable, uninformative, vanity. -- P199 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Local articles== Generally, an entity smaller than a Council should not have its own article. Districts and troops, for example, should only have their own article if its done something very unique. Council articles should be structured by state/province, etc. (see RulesStandards talk page)

 Having local unit articles is vain and would create too many articles to organize is an effective manner. With the copyvio removal here, there is nothing useful to keep; but if there is something useful, it should go into the Malaysian Scouting article. Rlevse 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously delete per nom and as non-notable club (and, if there is useful content, merge per Rlevse). Joe 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local interest only. Piccadilly 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too local. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too local interest. No one will be interested in this in 100 years and no one outside that area would be interested today. Cool3 22:12, 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 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia[edit]

Notability Yaranaika 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Kcordina Talk 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is an actual company. For great justice. 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. Plenty of "actual companies" get deleted every day, for good reasons. Brian G. Crawford 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A company actually has to do something and gain prominence in order to keep an article. If one does that, that's what we call "notability" here on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not even asserted. Henning Makholm 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kcordina --Khoikhoi 03:18, 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)  17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback[edit]

Neologism based on Brokeback Mountain. Non-notable, unstable, uncommon etc. etc. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but delete recently added neologism part. Brokeback works fine as a disambig, and it shouldn't be deleted just because some anon newbie added something that clearly doesn't belong there. I've been keeping this article neologism-free for a while, but doing this now that it's under AfD doesn't work, so I guess we'll let the process run its course. Haakon 10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not needed as a disambiguation page, either, since there is no article on the band. It could be redirected to the movie, but I don't see a need for that, since it is also a neologism and there is no evidence that the movie is referred to by "Brokeback" alone. -- Kjkolb 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn unverified protologism (and unnecessary disambig page). Esquizombi 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for a disambiguation page, and that neologism business has to go. Brian G. Crawford 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per User:Brian G. Crawford. --Hetar 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no needed as a disambiguation page. Piccadilly 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brokeback Mountain as a potential link for the lazy MLA 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people and characters with premature gray or graying hair[edit]

inane, unmaintainable, listcruft, this is what, 30% of the entirety of all biographical articles about a male subject and some of the females too? SchmuckyTheCat 10:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inane, insane, and nutty cruft. Not only would it be massive (as per Schmucky), it's utterly unverifiable (people dye their hair, which is not a verifiable fact)), it's POV (at what age do you decide someone is prematurely graying, or just graying? 20? 30? 40?). 'Bluuuurgh' is the sound I make as I vomit delete upon its crufty and putrid body. Proto||type 10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ROFL! LOL! Concur, concur, delete! -- P199 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete --Mmx1 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Punkmorten 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as listcruft per Proto. At what point of grey/white to original hair color ratio are are you considered to be prematurely "greying" vs "grey"? Is it premature if your genetic ancestry is such that everyone in your family has roughly 35% grey to color ratio by age 28? No way this could ever be anything but POV opinion.--Isotope23 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not useful. Scranchuse 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto, of course. Never was the template "..you can help by expanding it" more inapt. Sandstein 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply POV (who decides prematurely) Tearstar 18:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. --Lockley 23:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absolutely useless listcruft. When I clicked on this, I knew that Taylor Hicks would be one of maybe a few entries. --Kinu t/c 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, ... Aquilina 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK: Add more and submit it to the BJAODN could have potential to be funny. Walksonwalls 02:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I started going gray at 15. Would that qualify? --Midnighttonight 08:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Lesbian Neutral. All this "this page is useless cruft but per policy we can't make it explode" being stated over and over again makes me giggle. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Fight the moose! --SirNuke 06:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have received much thanks for this article from prominent anthropologists. --Savethemooses 22:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A8 by User:Alabamaboy. Kotepho 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exanimus[edit]

Crystal ball pre-production MMO. First AfD notice was removed by anon - I've reverted it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Doc_glasgow. Pepsidrinka 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia[edit]

Page was recreated as a POV fork of Islamophobia by Germen[29]. Was deleted by consensus before, and no valid reason to recreate. Irishpunktom\talk 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous vote, which resulted in delete, can be found Here.
  • Delete - as nom. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term islamophilia:
    • is notable
    • is used in print
    • is used in several reputable academic publications
    • yields about 1000 Google hits
which all qualify as valid reasions for keep and recreate. The neologism is disputed, as is islamophobia which is part of Wikipedia.
User fails to indicate any POV elements in this article, which makes his claims that the article is a POV fork dubious and unproven.
User "strongly supports" keeping of the POV article islamophobia, which is inconsequent[30] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Germens comments. -- Karl Meier 10:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Raphael1 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a dictionary entry, as manifest by the discussion and the links. As all emerging articles (stubs) it is still concise. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per user Raphael1, although it seems to have been deleted already. Jizz 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy deleted G4 by User:doc glasgow, at 22:53, 31 March 2006. Article was recreated by User:Germen at 23:12, 31 March 2006. I have re-added the AfDx template linking to this discussion, and hope: (1) The discussion is held, to determine if this article belongs on Wikipedia per the various rules, policies, and guidelines, and (2) that all users involved abide by the result of this AfD. -- Saberwyn 12:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets try this again
  • Delete . It's a dicdef. Kcordina Talk 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Possibly this would be better in wiktionary, but probably not needed at all Pseudomonas 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Roland 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's nowhere near as notable as analogous concepts like Islamophobia or Islamofascism, but it has been utilized by several notable sources. I've said before that I would vote keep on "Zionazi", and "Islamophilia" has achieved greater currency than that. NPOV will require describing how the concept is understood by its users, rather than asserting that "Islamophilia" is an objectively real phenomenon, but I think this falls on the keep side. Babajobu 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Grutness' opinion from the old AfD: "Merge with Islamophobia - in the hope that they will somehow cancel each other out and implode. Failing that, delete". Sandstein 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of dicdef? Delete because of neologism? Who cares, just toss it! RGTraynor 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Hetar 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no chance of ever getting any NPOV content under that title. Henning Makholm 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Piccadilly 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another pov fork used to make a point, the neologism is not well known at all. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply isn't notable. Seperate from wikipedia Islamophilia has 714 google hits. For a new term that somebody could make up on the spot without ever having heard before, that's basicly nothing. Islamophobia on the other hand has 1460000 non-wikipedia hits on google. Shadowoftime 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a topic, its encyclopedic. Its a concept that represents a real phenomenon in society. Why all the hoopla? Its a good thing we are not editing a real encyclopedia , cause I think there would be a lot of missing pages in it.--CltFn 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Daily Telegraph did an article on this entitled Islamophilia in 2001. [31]. Let's encourage articles on serious topics. -- JJay 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Irishpunktom. SouthernComfort 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to have been created out of a desire to "balance" Wikipedia with Islamophobia. The real test of whether this article should be deleted is whether the term is in common use. Islamophobia is in far greater use than Islamophilia so those WP:POINT violators, who claim "If you keep Islamophobia, then we should also keep Islamophilia" are not necessarily correct. Some of the "references" in this article link to articles or websites of questionable acceptability and many of them do not use the term "Islamophilia". savidan(talk) (e@) 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable article that should be kept, the mere mention of this term by the british media and political figures should be enough ensure the article stays.JHJPDJKDKHI! 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the article was speedy deleted again by User:doc glasgow (G4) and protected. Now what the fuck do we do? -- Saberwyn 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That sort of action really seems counterproductive to me. Is it too much to ask for an expanation? User:Dr. Glasgow clearly knew this AfD was in progress. It would be nice if he at least had the courtesy to explain why he closed it down. -- JJay 23:53, 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.

Vote tally:

  • Delete: 13
  • Keep: 7
  • Less than 2/3 majority for deleting -> KEEP.
  • Note that the voting process was aborted in a ridiculously short time.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hall, University of Cambridge- Students opinion[edit]

Article {{prod}}ed twice as violation of WP:NPOV. Tag removed by authors with no attempt to improve article. Authors state that the article is trying to encourage applications to the college, which is hardly an encyclopædic endeavour.  (aeropagitica)  10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a terrible attempt to misuse Wikipedia. Get rid of it. --Bduke 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. (Encouraging college applications is considered advertising.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedily as possible. Shocking piece of rubbish. Badgerpatrol 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and wonder why there isn't something on their own web page first. --Pak21 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self admitted advert. But then, I'd be more inclined to stay away after reading it. Kcordina Talk 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Wikipedia is being misused. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, POV. Pseudomonas 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV ad. --Terence Ong 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV ad. Scranchuse 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 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 No consensus/Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

This was previously nominated for deletion last July, but survived with no consensus. No reliable references or sources have been provided since last year. I believe this is not, at present, a tenable topic for a verifiable encyclopedia article: anything we do write will either be original research, remain unverified or will reference only unreliable sources. To quote the Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

  • Delete. — Matt Crypto 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you see the phrases "A game supposedly played" and "However, there is no documented evidence that this game is actually played by anyone", and not a single reference, the WP:V alarm bells start ringing. Not verified, not verifiable, original research, get thee gone! Proto||type 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Strong Keep, per refs below. Name and concept commonly known in the UK, at least. A widely-known urban legend- surprised better sources can't be found. Needs rewriting, but I feel now know can probably definitely (see below) be verified. I get the impression that many of the contributors to this and the previous AfD may have doubted the game's veracity- whether it's ever actually played or not I cannot say, but the concept and name at least are genuine. Badgerpatrol 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - 'can probably be verified' - I tried, and I found nothing reliable. If somebody else can, then I will reconsider my vote. Proto||type 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Referenced in UK national newspaper [32]. This is such a well-known concept that I suspect other printed sources (e.g. compendiums of modern folklore, commentary on public schools etc) would also be available [in addition to those already offered); however, I do realise that strongly suspecting the existence of other references is not the same as having them to hand- hence weakness of keep. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question isn't so much as to whether the concept exists — whether as an urban legend or not: it's clear that plenty of people mention it; e.g. in the newspaper editorial you mention. The issue would appear to be whether enough information about it has been published by reputable sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article about it. My suspicion is that there is not, but it's difficult to prove a negative. — Matt Crypto 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I also note that the Blackadder quote, while it might refer to this practice, does not provide enough information to know that it does. Esquizombi 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in England would already know that it does - the practice itself does not need to be verified, it is a verifiable cultural reference.
  • Weak keep per Badgerpatrol or redirect and smerge (not sure to where) or transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm not sure how much of an Encyclopedia entry this could ever be. I'm curious as to where Cassell's Dictionary got its info, but I suppose it is an acceptable source. I think the unsourced stuff in the article (e.g. the players do not necessarily self-identify as homosexual) has got to go. I found another source of debatable reliability: ""Other popular variations of such games include ejaculating onto food (favorites are soggy biscuits, white bread, chocolate pudding, etc.). The last person to come has to eat it." Garbage, Greta (1999). That's Disgusting : An Adult Guide to What's Gross, Tasteless, Rude, Crude, and Lewd, page 71 ISBN 1580080944 The game also appears in Goats: A Novel by Mark Jude Poirier, page 106 and in the story "Soggy Biscuit" by Barry Lowe in Flesh and the Word: An Anthology of Erotic Writing by John Preston. It's also described in Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit, page 26 ISBN 031226349X. Most of the other references to SBs in books (Amazon search) seem to be to biscuits that have become soggy from more conventional liquids, though some of them allow for probably inadvertant humor by double entendre. Esquizombi 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. WP:V. PJM 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least as a cultural reference. Is noted in Stephen Frys The Liar. For great justice. 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - res ipsa loquitur, as they say. WP:NOT a repository of urban myths, let alone schoolboy myths. Sandstein 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after WP:V provided below (but put the sources in the friggin' article!). Still not really convinced of notability, but well, if we do have all of e.g. Category:Paraphilia... Sandstein 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs a substantial rewrite (to improve style as well as to insert suitable references), which I am happy to do provided it persists past the AfD. Badgerpatrol 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While many editors reject WP:WINAD and think that neologisms are just fine for Wikipedia, WP:V is not negotiable. Brian G. Crawford 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comment I think there is some misunderstanding here. Some voters appear to be objecting on the grounds that the entry is a neologism or 'pure' original research (ie that the original contributor, or a small group containing the contributor and a few friends, made up this term on the spot). Neither is true. 'Soggy biscuit' IS not a neologism. It is a widely-known and recognised name and concept, at least in the UK (as can be confirmed by even a cursory Google search, which returns multiple (thousands) independent hits). One may not have heard of a term, but that does not make it untrue. The question is not 'is this a real thing' but rather 'it IS a real concept, but should it be included in the encyclopaedia'? (ie, can it be verified?). The content is definitely true, but 'actual' truth is not 'objective' truth (ie verifiability). I have provided one ref above, and FGJ has suggested another; there is also the Blackadder sketch. There are numerous pages regarding individual urban legends and modern folklore on Wikipedia. The material should probably be kept in its current form; I feel there is too much for wiktionary, but a move would perhaps be one option as a compromise. As far as I can see, this term now fully satisifes WP:V and WP:OR. Badgerpatrol 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what do these references let us say, exactly? I don't think they even suffice as a reliable source for a definition. — Matt Crypto 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V... references provided are not sufficient. This concept exists; in the days of yore where I came up it was called "Circle Jerk" and the supposed target was a Saltine cracker. The problem is sourcing. We have one referenced article that mentions "soggy biscuit" with the 'wink-wink-nod-nod' that the reader already knows what it is. There is a a mention in a book, and a passing mention on Black Adder. Unless someone can produce a source that verifiably describes the act of soggy biscuit in reference to that name, and the other purported terms used for it, it simply does not meet WP:V's big old bold text: Verifiability, not truth.--Isotope23 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, someone understands what sourcing the article means! Badgerpatrol gets a cookie for making a decent first step towards WP:V sourcing. I'm going to withdraw my opinion for now pending Badgerpatrol's rewrite and sourcing of the article. I'd like to see further sources, or the article strongly based and attributed to the Cassell reference if that is the only WP:V source being provided.--Isotope23 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Stephen Fry novel The Liar, and the article should reflect its existance as a rumour and item in fiction, not claim it is a fact. For great justice. 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned or described?--Isotope23 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Described, in quite some detail. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a novel, yes? We can't really use fiction as a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 06:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if that is the source being used to verify this then the article should read "Soggy Biscuit is an act described in the Stephen Fry novel...etc". At that point I would say this should be merged to The Liar.--Isotope23 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - re-write the article to show that it is a cultural reference. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dosen't appear to be true, otherwise is's funny move to BJAODN Walksonwalls 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No Guru 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is really just a slang dicdef that has been expanded beyond it's usefulness. It is not a neologism but it isn't encylopedic as it's not notable. MLA 12:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for those of you who are not from the UK, it is not a neologism. It is a cultural reference that appears in numerous places. There are articles for fictional places, people and things, the reason people seem to insist on deleting this is that most americans have never heard of it. That's disapointingly narrow minded. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that it is not sourced per WP:V.--Isotope23 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is a WP:V and WP:RS [33], but not enough there-there for an article. FloNight talk 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to nitpick, but that isn't a WP:V source because it doesn't describe what "soggy biscuit" is. The exact reference in that article is: "It could have been more embarrassing only if they'd been caught playing soggy biscuit." Anyone reading that would have to have a pre-existing idea of what "soggy biscuit" refers to. All you can infer from this is that getting caught playing "soggy biscuit" is embarrassing, or would be to a world leader. It could be a collequial reference to Candyland based on the complete lack of context in this article. A WP:V reference needs to describe the game.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I want articles like this on wikipedia. There may be difficulties in getting citations and references about a sex/dirty game but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant, and this game is definitely not made up and is sort of an urban legend. If I want to find out what a 'soggy biscuit', is or what 'hot karl' is or whatever filthy things I hear on TV are I want to be able to go on wikipedia and find out. I can confirm as a UK citizen that this game does exist, at least by word-of-mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.143.187 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep - If "felching" stays in, so should "the soggy biscuit". This is the sort of pop culture referance I utilize the wikipedia for. Settling arguments and such. If I wanted a typically boring encylical, I'd have broken out the cash for a world book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.64.199 (talk • contribs)
    • That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is not reliably sourced. recreate it in Uncyclopedia... or find sources.--Isotope23 13:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NOT. --Hetar 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've even heard this urban legend in Norway. 129.241.127.122 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Verification OK, in a nostalgic reminder of my mis-spent youth, I spent part of today in the library looking up naughty words in the dictionary. The first (and I must confess, only- breaktime is special time!) dictionary I went to ('The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, Jonathon Green, 1998, page 1110) had this to say re 'Soggy Biscuit':
Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
That is surely as exact a definition as surely wikipedia needs? As objective evidence, we now have: the Guardian article, which tells us that a) soggy biscuit is an embarassing activity; b) that it is sufficiently notable as to be suitable for inclusion in a major national newspaper without further explanation, the nod and wink conceit being that the reader will already know what it is and will not require further explanation. We have the BlackAdder reference. We also have FGJ's assertion that the game is mentioned in detail in The Liar. Finally, we have the precise definition in a reference work intended for a mass audience. This, as multiple correspondants above have asserted (not just the slightly unreliable anon. IPs), is a widely notable urban legend. I have no doubt, given the widespread notability of this game in British and Anglophone culture, that many other references are available and can be added to the article in the future. I did not have to look hard in order to find the definition above. I really do feel that we now have enough corroboratory evidence to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. There is no reason why this article should be held to higher standards of notability and verifiability (which surely have now been satisfied?) than any other on Wikipedia. It is a real concept, not a neologism, sufficiently notable for most readers of a national newspaper to be assumed to have heard of it, and can be verified with an exact definition. It is encyclopaedic. Badgerpatrol 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at worst merge - is there a page Stupid games people play, with apologies to Eric Berne, who would classify this one a type 3 game I think. It may be genuine - it has been mentioned in a newspaper, although the journalist didn't say what it was, so assuming that he meant the same thing as someone else is ... and assumption ... but it lacks the minimal element of importance sometimes called notability that distinguishes all-inclusiveness from encyclopaedic. Midgley 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think I've outlined the case for notability above. 'Importance' is a subjective term. Notability... -isn't. Badgerpatrol 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more citations, from NewsBank:

"YOU might think nothing would shock rockers Limp Bizkit but you'd be wrong. The American stars are horrified to discover that their name describes a masturbation game known across the world". The Northern Echo: SLEAZE AND BIZKIT Northern Echo, The (Middlesborough, England) April 4, 2002

"It's a terrible thing to do but it is a TV tradition - as is the biscuit game at public schools". Independent on Sunday: First Up: Close to the edit Independent on Sunday, The (London, England) December 16, 2001

"Reading is for idle fops between rounds of the biscuit game" In your face - Comment, Alan Coren Times, The (London, England) December 3, 1999

All such sources are admittedly hearsay, but they are reliable sources to the existence of the meme. Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - whether or not it actually takes place in real life, the concept is well known and the term is in common usage. DWaterson 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, expand and source. Notable concept. (Note that I am an American who has heard of this term, and it's actually pretty widespread even here, though we call it soggy cracker, not biscuit). --Rory096 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it's the playground equivalent of Keyser Soze - everyone's heard of it but no-one has played it. The article needs to be brought in line with WP:V post haste. Deizio 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Badgerpatrol for digging up a reasonably credible source for a definition. I've reduced the article to those facts for which we have reliable sources. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response- No problem! I have now completely rewritten the article and included verification. It is never going to be War and Peace, but with a modicum of effort it could expand from the sizeable stub that it now is to a minor article. Note that I have included some no-wiki comments in the body of the text that are only visible when editing or in the history (see this diff). It would be great to get hold of some of the newspaper mentions referred to above- if any subscribers can get hold of them and include them as refs that would be ideal. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badgerpatrol. New Progressive 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but don't stop looking for sources - certainly a term I've known for decades, and definitely improving after Badgerpatrol's work on providing some credible sources. Surely more can be found for such a long-time urban legend. - dharmabum 21:16, 7 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 Redirect to Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Proto||type 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier run[edit]

Information in this article was substantially merged into Glacial Lake Outburst Flood and is no longer needed. If the concensus is to delete, closer should also delete talk page to prevent it being orphaned.--MONGO 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect...yes, this would be better than a deletion...anyone who wants to do the obvious, be bold, close this out and do the redirect, please do so.--MONGO 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious redirect, thus retaining all necessary edit history as per GFDL. Proto||type 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glacial Lake Outburst Flood as it may be a term readers try and find Kcordina Talk 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just merged a bit more and Glacial Lake Outburst Flood now contains all information at Glacier run. Kcordina Talk 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as suggested above. PJM 14:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:46, 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 no consensus to delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the United Kingdom[edit]

Would editors please note that there is another discussion for a related article at the bottom of the page! Somebody requested the debate be split and I have agreed. So, please contribute to that debate too as that one is being passed by at the moment. --kingboyk 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page (where there are several comments about the pointlessness of this list), there is in the order of 25,000 schools in the UK. The list is already 177k, which way over the recommended article size. I believe WP:NOT (indiscriminate info) applies. Really a list like this is lacking on context, and it does nothing for the reader that the already quite intricately structured schools categories can't do a lot better.

Please note, this is not an anti-schools nomination (I'm in the "schools are notable" camp), it's anti-listcruft. Second note (very important one) - I anticipate that some editors will say "this list shows red links but categories don't" (and that, frankly my friends, is the only virtue of this list). Wikipedia is optimised for readers not editors, and categories are optimal for readers. If a redlink list is needed, it belongs in the schools WikiProject (see WP:Beatles for how we've been approaching this issue). Delete or move to the schools WikiProject. kingboyk 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. This was previously nominated just over a year ago and the result was Keep. --kingboyk 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added List of UK Independent Schools. This is a much smaller and more specialisted list so it is unreasonable to lump it in with this one, which has been nominated partly for its size, especially after some delete votes have been recorded. I will list it separately. CalJW 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) One delete vote. --kingboyk 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above. Would support a copy of this list being created at the Schools project, where they can use it as a tool to assist in their expansion. -- Saberwyn 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dump a copy in the schools project as required. Good call. I like the point that Wikipedia is optimised for readers, not editors, and will be regurgitating it from now on. Listcruft fans (cruftos?) would do well to remember it. Proto||type 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. A clearly put and well argued nomination Kcordina Talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Send it over to the school project. youngamerican (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, bring this to the WikiProject. --Terence Ong 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It needs splitting up, that's all. Scranchuse 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essential lists. America has similar lists. The point about readers versus editors makes no sense at all: the red links tell readers the names of schools which don't have articles. Lumping a list of a couple of hundred items in with one far larger which has been nominated largely on account of size is unreasonable so I will separate it. CalJW 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old "someone else has it so we must" excuse? (Last seen in a forumcruft debate near you). It's a list of potentially 25,000 articles which makes it indiscriminate information. Why don't we have List of schools in Europe? Because it makes no sense, and nor does this. --kingboyk 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is mean is America has lists of schools and they are useful. A list of schools is not indiscrimate information - look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary. CalJW 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per kingboyk. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Henning Makholm 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert into a list of lists. Piccadilly 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and complete. Obviously, we want this. It's a list of schools and we do articles on schools. If size is a problem it should be divided into a series of lists. -- JJay 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Schools in the United Kingdom does this far better. Can a page redirect to a category?, if so, redirect it as well. --Midnighttonight 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and subdivide list if necessary, but absolutely do not delete this content from Wikipedia. Silensor 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and subdivide by county. Honbicot 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep and divide as necessary, perhaps convert into a list of lists by country and if necessary, by county. Samantha of Cardyke 11:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep At least until most of the red links are gone and even then it is a useful list if divided by country/county--Rjstott 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Independent Schools[edit]

Same principle. More-than-adequately served by categories, redlinks can be tracked in the WikiProject. --kingboyk 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was lumped together with a much smaller and more specialist list, which was unreasonable.

  • Very strong keep. There are only a few hundred independent schools in the UK, and the sector is important in its own right. The categories have been divided by county, which means that they don't offer the alphabetical list that this does. Also there are red links, which encourage the creation of articles and inform readers of the existence of schools without articles. CalJW 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Refactored, as he'd actually struck out my nomination and put his comment where the nomination should go! --kingboyk 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I'm starting to agree with you about bundled nominations, so I support splitting. (but not striking out my nomination and heading the debate with your defence!) --kingboyk 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had to do what I could to counter your manipulative behaviour within the limitations of the software. I am pleased to see that you don't intend to do the same sort of thing again. CalJW 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL please. Adding a late find onto an existing AFD when there's only been one contributor is par for the course. I personally will try to refrain from doing it in the future because it doesn't help the closing admin, and then of course there's people who will moan about process rather than the matter at hand. --kingboyk 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provides access to information on a very important aspect of British society. Piccadilly 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No problem at all here since we have articles on most of these schools. -- JJay 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use a category instead. --Midnighttonight 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the list above. Silensor 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and complete. There are few enough of these that they can all fit on one page. Honbicot 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The task of gathering things is handled by categories. Grouping things like this is messy and not a particularly useful way of allowing readers to find things. Page seems to fall neatly into WP:NOT. The tracking of redlinks should be handled by wikiproject schools, not in an article. Kcordina Talk 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has thousands of lists so it is nonsense to say in some off hand way that they are not a proper part of it. CalJW 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this list is important too Yuckfoo 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Gloucestershire[edit]

Many of the points I raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) apply here too, particularly with regards to categorisation and the redlinks issue. In this case, I believe the list is rather more broken. It omits many of the villages which already have articles, and I don't trust all of the redlinks. The county of Gloucestershire and the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire already have comprehensive and well organised geographical categories (see Category:Towns in Gloucestershire (30entries), Category:Villages in Gloucestershire (111 entries), Category:Villages in South Gloucestershire (88), Category:Towns in South Gloucestershire (11)), and this list serves no additional useful purpose. Delete. kingboyk 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Categories are awesome and are way better for this kind of thing. As long as everything is dropped into the correct categories, and I trust kingboyk to have ensured that, then this serves no purpose other than looking like ass. Proto||type 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. A clearly explained and well argued nomination. Kcordina Talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I tend to like to keep lists like this around until the red links are filled in, as places without articles inherently cannot be categorized and, therefore, the correct namespace for future articles are not as readily available to editors that may wish to create said article in the future (some articles that I have created have been due to stumbling onto red links). I have no objection to future deletion when the categories fill up, I would just hate to lose such a valuable tool for editors prematurely. I would vote delete for when the red links are filled (while I agree that Wikipedia should be optimized for readers over editors, it still is useful to have some deference paid to the people that are actually trying to put version 1.0 together, ie all of us) or if a good wikiproject is started. But for now, the one pro outweighs the cons. I would, instead, rather see the article have a "verify" tag to address concerns in the nom. youngamerican (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) youngamerican (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion - dump a copy in Talk:Gloucestershire/list or somewhere similar, and put a note on the talk page of the article. We get rid of another crappy listcruft article that's of dubious veracity and accuracy (I can tell you for a fact there's a load of places missing, just from referring to my AA road atlas, and I can't find some that are on this list), and a copy is retained so people can 'fill in the red links' (always an awful reason for keeping lists). Proto||type 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Not a bad idea. It keeps the list around for editors without cluttering up the areas the casual reader might stray. If such a transfer was done for all lists worldwide, an AfD calling for mass-deletion of such lists would be in order and would get my support. youngamerican (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur, dump on talk subpage. Good idea for dealing with minimally useful lists. Sandstein 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcurft and per well explained nomination. --Terence Ong 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The categories are specialised. With this you don't have to know whether a place is a town, village or city. Scranchuse 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every county has one of these lists. They are the only overview in Wikipedia of all the settlements in a county. If this one needs a few corrections, please correct it. Nathcer 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having spent all day yesterday sorting out the categories? You must be joking! If it's so important to you, you fix it. Now do you see the problem? Almost every list on Wikipedia is unloved and lags behind the categories because whilst a few people will come here and speak up for them few people actually adopt these articles and ensure they stay up to date and focussed. --kingboyk 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter who fixes it. Most likely someone will one day and even imperfect articles are useful - which is a rather important underlying assumption of Wikipedia. A list of British places won't need much updating once it has been corrected once. Piccadilly 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not quite as good as the school lists but still worth keeping. -- JJay 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Scranchuse, Nathcer and Piccadilly. Simon Dodd 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Arab transference from Israel[edit]

This article is a POV fork of several articles: Israeli Arabs, Population_transfer#Middle_East and Avigdor Liberman Zeq 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also to be considered for deletion is this redirect : Israeli-Arab_eviction.

A quick look at the many (too many) sources listed will show that the author of the article completly misrepresent the truth about Liberman's ideas. (just see the talk page of the article itself for more details) Zeq 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tally[edit]

After 5 days, out of 20 votes we have 4 that voted to keep. Zeq 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

votes[edit]

  • Delete or merge with some Israeli politics article. --BWD (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is a pure anti-Liberman POV push (by a user who admitted he has only found out who Liberman was this week), and a fork, and I'm not willing to work too much on it, although in principle I think it could become a decent article if the approach was changed. For instance, a clear lead section needs to be made, and the article should focus on the 1950s discussions (might be hard to source), and the paragraph about Liberman should be removed entirely. He isn't the only politician, and not the most notable, who has, at some point in his political career, remarked that he doesn't want Israeli Arabs in Israel. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a Liberman article that it could be merged into. Zeq 15:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with the article i.e. it's very CORRECT and exact, backed up by strong evidence, and given the fact that 95% of Israel's Russian immigrant declare him as their idol and savior, it may not be fair to sweep those evidence under the rug. Zadil 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This is an article about supposed public opinion in Isreal that is not official government policy. Toss this on the steaming pile of anti-israeli propaganda. — RJH 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well-sourced original research propaganda, POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please review statements in article and their well-sourced citations. This is not OR.Lokiloki 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Jayjg and others. Zeq 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Vote is by nominator; please don't count user double. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Avigdor Liberman and cleanup from there, if needed. This is about his (supposed) politics, yes? Sandstein 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork, and "transference" is what happens when you fall in love with your psychotherapist. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Lokiloki, but should be expanded to include earlier discussion about transfer, i.e. all post-1948. Huldra 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I am dispaointed from your vote. But maybe it is not your fault. More than anything, this article show how an editor can take a source like "Haaretz" (which has comntators from all sides of the Israeli political map) and use what is essetialy an election time propeganda (of those who wanted to smear Liberman) and use it as "sources" for Wikipedia article.
From the record I presonaly think that Liberman has some views that are facist but that is no excuse to falsify the article about his views. Zeq 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick note: actually, Zeq; my interest is not mainly in Liberman (which I tried to indicate above). But I see the subject pop up again and again through history (post 1948) due to demographics, read e.g. Tom Segev, Binational solution(The Friedlander-Goldscheider study). Huldra 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) PS: have you read Segevs latest book?[reply]
Huldra, The issue is not that "it pops" but "what pops" and "by whom". There was a party in Israel that proposed tarnsfer, It was Kahane party that was outlawed. If Liberman would propose that he will not be able to run. It is aginst the law in israel to propose that. So what ever you think "poped" it is not the same thing as what this article suggests.
Liberman suggests exchange of land for land, same as the Geneva peace plan. Zeq 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, why does even The Times note: "[Liberman]] plans to strengthen Israel’s status as a Jewish state by transferring 500,000 of its minority Arab population to the West Bank, by the simple expedient of redrawing the West Bank to include several Arab Israeli towns in northern Israel. Another 500,000 would be stripped of their right to vote if they failed to pledge loyalty to Zionism." [34]
I am not trying to defend Liberman's idea's I am trying to make sure we have accurate articles that are not a POV fork. Even the London times (which is not 100% accurate) talks about redrawing of borders - so why do'nt you delete this article now ? Zeq 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per all of above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of expelling Arabs is widely notable, as references of it can be easily found using Google.[35][36] -- Dissident (Talk) 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Jayjg. Pecher Talk 10:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) angemessen[reply]
  • Delete or de-POV, merging eventual remains with appropriate article on Israeli politics. --tickle me 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, content covered elsewhere. -- Heptor talk 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zeg. Bill Levinson
  • Merge Any sourced information about expulsion or expulsion concerns can be merged to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Avigdor Liberman.--AladdinSE 19:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJH. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many above: 1)pure POV fork; 2)"transference" misused in title 3)content could be merged to other articles. elizmr 23:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with appropriate articles on Israeli or Middle-Eastern politics. CommonGround 16:20, 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 delete under G1 by User:Dustimagic. Kotepho 01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young man mair[edit]

This appears to me to be Speedy:nonsense. I have marked it for Speedy and for PROD -- in each case the tag has been removed, and the history does not indicate to me that this was done by other than the originator. I am therefore forced to bring this to AfD. Simon Cursitor 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - nonsense. -- P199 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most likely true, but utterly insignificant. Piccadilly 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G1, what is this trying to say? --Kinu t/c 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per P199 & Kuni. --Lockley 23:07, 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 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transtopianism[edit]

The article was created and deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transtopianism). Originally I speedily deleted it; now I am restoring it and bringing it here for more discussion (on creator's request and because the content is different enough to warrant a new vote). However, I don't believe it's notable enough to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no convincing assertion of notability. Sandstein 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems to be a very minor and somewhat shoddy offshoot of transhumanism. (I changed my opinion after a little research.) --70.48.242.224 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any set criterion of 'notability'? If so, let me know. It did seem small to me, but the mailing list has over 900 members. I cant see how including relatively small movements would harm wikipedia. Crippled Sloth 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Productions[edit]

Delete - Non notable company - Aksi_great 13:52, 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 Merge. Note that I haven't gone and done the merge, I'm leaving that to the experts. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Communist Movement[edit]

The article World Communist Movement should really be redirected to History of Communism, since that's what it is actually about, but User:Soman, who appears to be a communist of some sort, won't permit this, so I am forced to nominate it for deletion. There is no such organisation as the World Communist Movement and most of the article is a general (not very good) history of communism since the dissolution of the Comintern. Adam 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

  • Comment: I oppose the deletion of this article, since it is not just a general history of communism, but about a specific current (which is also generally seen as the mainstream current of communism). However, if it is to be deleted, then I'd rather suggest incorporing it into communism directly. --Soman 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Having read the article, it really ought to be merged as suggested. If kept, it certainly needs a clean up. While it contains many statements of fact, which ought not be lost, there seems to be a little too much analysis (and POV) going on.Fluit 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing that the article contains some (though not much) information. I'm disputing that the information belongs in an article of this title, which clearly creates the false impression that there is an organisation called the World Communist Movement. Adam 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adam. Ambi 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, per nom. Simon Dodd 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete, same reasoning. Dr. Trey 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many votes constitute an acceptable consensus? Adam 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A two thirds majority over seven days, though it can be closed early if there's overwhelming consensus (which there doesn't appear to be here, at least not yet). -Colin Kimbrell 01:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does appear to be an overwhelming consensus that the article in its current form should cease to exist, the only question is the remedy (merge or delete), which seems fairly easy to resolve: identify any useful information in this article which is absent from History of Communism, delete World Communist Movement and leave cleaning up the material to editors interested in History of Communism.Simon Dodd 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have a 100% vote for deletion or merger. I will wait until Friday (7 days from the original listing), then do as Simon has suggested above: transfer any useful material to History of Communism (although I hate to think what I will find when I read that article, given Wikipedia's very poor record on communism-related articles), and then redirect this article there. Adam 15:36, 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 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLemon[edit]

As the founder of WikiLemon, I deem the site not nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. Maybe when Neil Cicierega gets famous enough for Lemon Demon itself to warrant an article separate from his, then we'll start thinking about the notability of fansites... AdamAtlas 14:23, 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 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric capacitivity[edit]

Poorly written, badly spelled and titles article name, on information properly and adequately covered in capacitance article. No need for redirect, only link to this page now is another page created by same author tagged for merger. Gene Nygaard 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people come to encyclopedias looking for explanations, I've never heard the term "capacivity" before and I suspect it's a faulty translation. --Wtshymanski 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might suggest a redirect to capacitance if "capacitivity" were, in fact, a word, and people might look for it. But it's not, and they won't. Fan1967
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 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: Speedily deleted as a talk page of a deleted article. - Mike Rosoft 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Direct Method[edit]

This is a talk page for an article that was deleted; Speedy Deletion tag {{db-talk}} was removed. Esquizombi 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy deletion tag - the talk page has reasons why the page shouldn't be there. If this gets deleted, then there's nothing stopping the original spammer from making another page, and my having to repeat all previous comments. I fail to see any case at all for removal here? WoodenBuddha

    • Comment Isn't that what {{db-repost}} CSD G4 is for? Esquizombi 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. No, the talk page does not contain a coherent explanation why it should be kept. In fact it does not contain a coherent anything. Henning Makholm 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Hetar 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Three deletes, including the nominator, one keep (Monicasdude), and some anon votes which are discounted, makes 75% delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Crowley[edit]

This was prod-ed, but the prod was removed without comment. Mr. Crowley has an IMDB page [37], but I'm not sure that his credits are notable enough to merit inclusion, so I'm listing it here. Be careful about taking claims in the article at face-value; I couldn't find any credited connection to "Cops", for instance. -Colin Kimbrell 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything either: [38]. PJM 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Regular producer/writer for TV documentary series that's been running on the History Channel since the last millennium, among many other credits. Here's a randomly selected episode credit [39]. Behind-the-camera craftsworkers are at least as notable as Pokemon characters, NFL taxi squad players, and the inevitably mentioned Air Force Amy. Monicasdude 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Thank you, Monicasdude, for the recommended "strong keep." As for someone that's been involved in more than fifteen years of work in the industry, it's nice to see that others appreciate -- or acknowledge -- their work. I'm sure that Mr. Kimbrell understands that IMDb while being a helpful tool, is not anywhere near a complete clearinghouse for credits. There are literally HUNDREDS of shows that Mr. Crowley produced that are not currently listed on the IMDb database (not an unusual occurrance-- type in other known execs & producers, and you'll often find major gaps in their career timelines). It's curious to note that Mr. Kimbrell doesn't find Cops... the Academy Awards... the Emmys... Big Brother... Headliners & Legends... Trading Spouses... or any other number 'tof listed series, as "notable enough." All seem to represent either major milestones in recent TV history or as standouts in their form. Mr Kimbrell has a page at Wikipedia, yet has but a single IMDb listing. What is the standard for acceptance? I certainly wouldn't judge whether he deserves a listing, but I note the fact for others to see. And, yes, if Air Force Amy has a home here, why not a producer who does a daily battle in the TV production trenches?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Jeez, a lot to respond to there. The events and shows are notable, but not all the people connected with them necessarily are. To put it a different way, Yankee Stadium is notable, but the construction worker who installed the seats may or may not be. Most of Mr. Crowley's credits on IMDB are as a "Supervising Producer", which is kind of the middle management of TV work: not writing full time, and not creating shows, but more the logistical odds-and-ends that need to be done to get the show on the air. It's important work, and probably interesting work, but not in my mind encyclopedic, which is why I posted this here. His credit for "Big Brother" was as a "story editor", which is a position of similarly ambiguous importance, and I stand by my skepticism of his role in "Cops" or "Trading Spouses" (as well as the award shows), since the article doesn't describe his role or cite sources and there are zero google hits connecting him to those in any way, shape, or form. For all we know, he could've been Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4, or the intern they sent out for coffee and bagels. I agree that his writing work for the History Channel is the most noteworthy aspect of his career, but it's still something of a slender reed. Air Force Amy isn't really relevant to the discussion for two reasons: Her notability is grounded in widespread media coverage, which Mr. Crowley doesn't appear to have received, and furthermore, the "cruft justifies more cruft" argument generally doesn't generate much traction here, as it's much more easily turned around to use as an argument to delete both entries. I'm also confused as to your remark about me having a page at Wikipedia, since there's no entry for Colin Kimbrell (nor should there be, at this point). I have a user page, as does every other editor of the site, but that's not really connected to the encyclopedia itself. If Mr. Crowley wants to start editing here, and then adds a few details about his personal and professional life to his user page, more power to him; we've got a lot of work that still needs to be done on our coverage of TV shows. -Colin Kimbrell 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a comment or two about Mr. Crowley's credentials. It's very misleading to insinuate that he was "Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4" on any production, because he is an experienced veteran professional who commands great respect and admiration from his peers. He has indeed been a showrunner and writer for a number of series, and over the past decade has been a producer for many top shows, from Big Brother to World's Most Amazing Videos to NBC's Headliners and Legends. He is so well-known in the television community that he is featured in the FinalDraft script software's "Why I Write" advertising campaign. Most recently, he has made an impact in the Los Angeles media scene with his "Hollywood Thoughts" website, which breaks news about Los Angeles cultural shifts, while adding insight about its history-- from the recent closing of Schwab's, to coverage of the student immigration protests, and over the weekend, a tribute to a newsstand vendor that was picked up by the LA Daily News and has led to a groundswell for a memorial statue (the site laobserved.com links to him regularly). Perhaps Mr. Crowley can post his extensive CV to give a better idea. Strong recommendation to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

The things that you're saying about his credits are interesting and useful, but we need verifiable sources to confirm them if they're going to be in the encyclopedia. Right now, we don't have those, and in absence of proof, it's not trustworthy. That's the point I was trying to make with the "Assistant Monkey Wrangler" remark: Information that's unsourced and unsourcable is pretty much worthless. You seem to have a good knowledge base about Mr. Crowley's career; if you have references that meet the guidelines for this stuff (listed at WP:CITE and WP:OR), please add them to the article, as that's the best thing you can do to swing public opinion your way in a deletion discussion. -Colin Kimbrell 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: See JON M.CROWLEY at IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0189752/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9am9uIGNyb3dsZXl8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1 See: http://www.scriptwritersshowcase.com/speakers.html Jon is one of the speakers featured as INDUSTRY LEADERS at the Scriptwiriters showcase this weekend in Universal City.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

Reardless of how many times you voice your opinion, it will only be counted once. If you have subsequent comments after voicing your opinion, you should use either no header, or a neutral one such as Comment, instead of filling the thread with Keeps or Deletes. The IMDB biography you cite was already mentioned in the nomination, and the link to the workshop isn't very illustrative, since it's just his name on a big list of speakers. -Colin Kimbrell 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. What do you need, buddy... and why do you have it out for this guy? Look, Hollywood is a town of relationships. The guy is well-known and always working because of his pedigree. That's easy for everyone in town to recognize... why not you? This is the problem: The land of skin-ripping LaCrosse players is too far removed from the reality of this industry. Hire someone local to concentrate on these type of entries. Must every single gig have a URL to make you happy... and feeling "Trusting"? He's all over the web-- just google him. I think that whatever anybody says here, won't rate with you (Us: "He's a featured speaker at an event sponsored by big companies" You: "so what." Us: "He helped create a new form of software for TV writers (see Final Draft site)" You: "so what."). Whatever. At the end of the day, You're the guy holding the delete button. More power to you. All we can do is holler at the owners of this site to get people that are better informed in your position. As far as TS is concerned, I know that he helped format the very first show... and then streamlined the field operation on the second season. Day-to-day middle management? In your view of the world, probably so. In ours, No. He helped CREATE the LOOK, PACING, AND VOICE of a top-rated show. Not bad for a seat-installer, huh? As for cops? Hey-- was the 'net around in the first season when he did his time in the old Barbour-Langley Marina offices? Geez. Obviously the guy has a successful record. I've worked for him-- he also created/ produced the Animal Planet show, "That's My Baby" (in both primetime & daytime. Daytime was a #1 hit for that show. Marta Kauffman said several times it was her "very favorite" show. Again, notable that the producer of the nation's #1 show (that's "Friends," Colin-- in case you missed it watching the LaCrosse team). He also helped create the first blind date show on TV ("A Dating Story" for TLC). I know at one point, he was doing, like, five shows at the same time. I think only Bruckheimer has more shows going. Man. It makes my head spin that there are people who live and breathe this net stuff so completely.That some dude -- a student at Duke University -- is sitting in judgment of this guy's career-- blows me away. "Those that do, create. Those who can't..." I guess sit on a computer all day. More importantly, it's amazing to see how easy it is for someone to dismiss the integrity of his peers from the pulpit of his dorm. So be it. The annonimity of the web allows for this to happen on a daily basis. And, yes, the "Amy" argument IS relevant: It's good to know that women who spread their legs in a Nevada double-wide are good enough for the 'ol 'Wik... but a guy that makes millions of people laugh or cry on a nightly basis, doesn't rate. Go ahead, Colin... hit the delete button. It's US... we're all wrong... and YOU are always right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs) .
Why are you talking about lacrosse? Do you mean the town, or the college, or the sport? I'm confused... -Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for some of the other stuff, that's all great if it's true, but none of it is sourced, and most of it isn't even in the article. To re-iterate an earlier point: If you want this article to be kept, the best thing you can do is find a mention of Mr. Crowley's work in a book or a newspaper or a magazine and add it to the article as a citation. It doesn't have to be online; just add it like you would've added a book citation for a term paper back in college. -Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you note that you worked for Mr. Crowley, I should probably also call your attention to WP:AUTO, which states, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." In that spirit, if you do decide to improve the article, please try to keep your work in line with WP:NPOV.-Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (though weak) per WP:BIO, apparently not among "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", other claims to notability unsourced. Sandstein 08:52, 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  (aeropagitica)  16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalendar Koffee House[edit]

Non-notable coffeehouse with aspirations to being a local chain. Also advertising and apparent vanity article, as all but one of the previous edits are by one of the proprietors. An all but identical article was tagged for AFD at Kalendar Koffee House Company a couple of days ago. Because of the time lapse before Bridesmill found this, I'm putting it up for a separate vote. Delete. DMG413 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a Koffee House. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious advertisement. -- P199 17:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable.Obina 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. vanspamvertisment Bridesmill 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VSCA, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu t/c 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Koffee House. - Hahnchen 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as serious spam. Kuru talk 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting Kalendar from the coffee house category is wrong. To claim that Kalendar is advertising is also incorrect. The Kalendar article lists date of opening and location with interior photo and complies with WP:NPOV standards. The so called "vanity" aspects have been removed from the article. Kalendar may not be as "noteable" as the larger chains, but that should not preclude it from listing in the coffee house category. To call this article spam would be to call all listings in this category spam. The previous AFD article was edited down to be considered for inclusion - tis all. No harm intended. Please reconsider. The following is the opening paragraphs of the Starbucks listing. I imagine that all listings in this category are similar to this.EllisCHanna 04:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks NASDAQ: SBUX (SEHK: 4337), is a large multinational chain of coffee shops, often serving pastries, popular in the US especially among students and young urban professionals. The corporate headquarters are in Seattle, Washington. The company was in part named after Starbuck, a character in Moby-Dick, and its insignia is a stylized cartoon Siren. According to the company's fact sheet, as of February 2006, Starbucks had 6,216 company-operated outlets worldwide: 5,028 of them in the United States and 1,188 in other countries and U.S. territories. In addition, the company has 4,585 joint-venture and licensed outlets, 2,633 of them in the United States and 1,952 in other countries and U.S. territories.

  • It's still not notable - see Wikipedia:Notability for more information. Sorry. --Khoikhoi 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition most of the listings in the coffee house category are "non-notable". In fact the majority of the listings are not known outside the constituency where they are established. Being "non-notable" has always been a difficult area for editors. In this instance for example, the band The Pursuit of Happiness wrote a song and video about Kalendar (1996 Kalendar/Gretzky Rocks/In Praise Of (T.W.A.-The World's Address). This by definition makes Kalendar a noteable entity by Wikipedia standards see Wikipedia:Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact". EllisCHanna 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if something is not notable, it is a pretty good reason to delete it; see WP:N and WP:ENC. The comparison to Starbucks is irrelevant, as that company clearly meets an inclusion standard, WP:CORP, based on the second word of its article (NASDAQ). Also, if there are other non-notable coffee houses with articles, instead of those being a reason to keep this article, consideration must be made as to whether those should be deleted as well (i.e, "two wrongs don't make a right"). --Kinu t/c 04:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Cross-post from my talk page.)[reply]
  • Ellis, if it was a chain I'd reconsider, but I just don't see any claims for notability. --Khoikhoi 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Khoikhoi. Point well made. Not being a chain is a very good RFD and this should have been the only point voted on. Claims of being "non-noteable", or "advertising" or my favorite "vanspamvertisment" are invalid. I will respectfully remove the Kalendar listing from the coffee house category until we have a number of locations and qualify for inclusion.EllisCHanna 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A picture does not mean keep. Vegaswikian 00:28, 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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect - Liberatore(T) 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Finlay[edit]

This article admits that nothing more is known so nothing more will ever be added. It's pointless to keep it because everything here is already stated in the John Finlay article. —P199 15:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio; no redirect, there is probably a notable James Finlay around somewhere. Sandstein 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect A disambiguation page can be created when required. Piccadilly 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio, being someone's father is rarely evidence of notability MLA 12:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. John Finlay would be a good target. —Encephalon 22:04, 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 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lioness[edit]

Delete Unidentified Cruft Object, repeatedly refusing to identify itself... -- Mareklug talk 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a profile of an original fictional character. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, now that we're here. A WP:PROD might have worked as well; the creator of the article has no edit history except for this article and may well have forgotten all about WP or his creation now. There are zero (0) non-wikipedia google hits on Liona "mystic lion"; other search word combination turn up a few scattered hits on The Lion King fanart galleries, but nothing that matches this article. Probably someone's RPG character or invisible friend. Henning Makholm 15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you can't tell us what it is, why tell it at all Bridesmill 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teens for Tomorrow[edit]

Delete TFT does not appear to be of any real signifigance Teens for Tomorrow is not a legitimate organization. It is a just a way for high school students to look good for college.

  • Weak keep. This may be borderline notable. In these bleak and harried times, high school students are expected to pad their résumés. I thank God that I am no longer young in so thoroughly ruined a world. Still, this isn't grounds for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep not 'very' notable, but no really good reason to Delete, plus per above Bridesmill 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If kept, it needs a serious makeover. I was unable to distinguish the programme in this entry from other groups calling themselves by the same name or other charities using this as a slogan.Fluit 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This group does nothing notable and does not deserve an entry on Wikipedia.
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claims of notability. While it's certainly a nice gesture, it reads like the group does nothing but act as a middle-man between teens and established charities. - Rynne 19:44, 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 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William McGuiness[edit]

The article appears to be false. I couldn't find any trace of the subject with a web search for the full name. Maghull is not under martial law. Pseudomonas 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Riisa Helgesen[edit]

Hoax, no such player, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of evidence of a Helgesen at St Etienne suggests hoax MLA 12:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of existence. TimBentley (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI'm not going to argue with the facts. Dessydes 08:52, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Kerley[edit]

I can't find any web evidence of this individual's existence, there's none provided, and in any case, I don't think he's significant enough for inclusion Pseudomonas 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have done a press search and can find no mentions. Suspect subject is actually a woodwork teacher and the article has been created by pupils. The claim that he is the most notable son of St Helens is POV. Our article on St Helens lists some other claimants. David | Talk 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, even if he really does have an MBE. --RFBailey 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. Well if you so called researchers did your "jobsworths" jobs properly you would find out who Mr Kerley M.B.E really was and would not disclaim his name with these wild and absurd fallacys that you provide. This seems like another goose attempt of sabatoge on the behalf of the working man and therefore provide basis of your right wing sympathies and other connections. Therefore i would glady appreicate that you leave articles on that have meaning to people who like to appreicate pears and not delete because you never thought of it first. After reading many of your "edits", i find them flawed and half truths. Do not insult my superior knowledge on history and other events. For instance when did the Roman Empire end? exactly.
(comment left by Parkerds, 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • In response to your reply, i find it nothing more than liberal spin and it shows the true colours of this clique which seems to have inflitrated the Wikipedia, i once loved and knew. As none of you are from the area of concern, you would not understand the importance and influence Mr Kerley M.B.E has had on his local society in the Education and Technological sectors, instead of pen pushing your liberal "polices of conduct", do some proper research and you will see why so many people, especially St.Helens regard him as their "finest son". For one personally i feel that the attack on my page is very biast and unneccesary, it is some hidden agenda to remove me from this site. The information i have posted since i joined has been factual and i feel hurt that my information has not been accepted. Therefore it comes to this sad conclusion that i may have to retire and join my good friends Walter Smith 0.B.E and Archie Knox in creating Fylespedia.
(unsigned comment left by Parkerds, 18:09, 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (DOM)[edit]

  • KEEP because information is actually usefull...(aman)
  • Delete because this is an encyclopedia and you wouldn't find this in an encyclopedia.
  • Keep It's true, useful information that various other articles may well link to. Pseudomonas 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a cut and past copyrite violation. Anyone know the source?Obina 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a technical manual of niche software features. Sandstein 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT... not even an encyclopedia article per se. It appears to be WP:OR as well. It's not a C & P copyvio as far as I can tell.--Isotope23 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - if one wants an encyclopedia one shall resort to britannica et al. Wikipedia will never resemble those, no matter how hard one individual tries. One can deduce the cause of this with simple logic. On the other hand the same reason enables it to have far greater virtues. :Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.:Slicky 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "If one wants an encyclopaedia" implies wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The issue is not size limit or notability; the issue at hand is whether or not this is encyclopaedic. Please bear that in mind. Copyvio? --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein's comments above. --Hetar 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Anyone supporting deletion should compare the page to the Wikipiedia's article Comparison of Browsers, which is a very well known and well bookmarked encyclopedia page! The Comparison of layout engines (DOM) article is a table, and last I knew it table data had a place in encyclopedias, regardless of whether some editors see it as jargon or not. --Heyseuss 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sandstein is wrong. This is not a manual, but a comparison table. The article, with its siblings comparing CSS-support, HTML and XHTML supoort, etc, is informative, referenced to and talked about on the Inernet, and very useful. Even Encyclopedias can contain specialised information. Read Encyclopedia Brittanica's articles about quantum physics and you'll see. The article also cites relevant sources, and is not OR. ANd it's definately not a copyright violation. It's a summary of the information available in the sources. Are there anyone who knows DOM-scripting or have read the sources among the people who would like to see this page go? --itpastorn 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extending this AFD to Category:Software comparison and all its contents. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to place the AFD tag on all ~70 of those pages, feel free, but make a new nomination now that this is already off the ground. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite a useful page. Well-referenced. It would be nice, though, to cut back by trimming a lot of useless junk; e.g. in the validation section, how about just writing "none of these products have any of these features"? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:29, 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  (aeropagitica)  16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Per Inc.[edit]

The article has no context as to why the person or organization merits being in an encyclopedia, makes vague references to a Supreme Court case without telling all and sundry what it it about, and is an ad for both the subject's activist legal services and a documentary about same, and has major POV problems. Pat Payne 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertisement. -- P199 16:30, 31 (UTC)
  • Delete -as stated above, this is an advert or proto-vanity page. Ande B 04:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert/vanity/no context. Stifle 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Page is POV, and advertisement and likely a vanity page as well. Glowimperial 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The KOLENDER v. LAWSON case and it's implications sound like it might be notable, but this article have the "wrong" focus. It should have been about the case (under a different title), not the guys "law firm". --Sherool (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kantilal Jivan[edit]

A non-notable local historian who has picked up an local environmental award at some point. That's the only thing verifiable about him, and, interestingly, that's not even mentioned in the article.

Awesomely, the article claims he has been visited (not just met, they have visited him Queen Elizabeth II, Mother Theresa, Ian Fleming (who supposedly featured our megastar as a character in his last Bond novel-oh no he did not!), Omar Sharif, and Tony Blair.

He is supposedly a polymath, guru, historian, natural history expert, palmist, vegetarian cook, photographer, artist and sculptor, agronomist and intellectual. So it asserts notability.

Was tagged (by me) with prod, but this was removed. Delete Proto||type 15:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If they can make it less POV, they're welcome to try it again. But as it is, it seems too much like hagiography to be salvageable. Pat Payne 16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do the Google research, and bear in mind how small the Seychelles is and how seldom news organisations report from there. Kantilal Jivan is probably the most famous living Seychellian (or whatever the term is). I'll add some sources in there later (don't have time now). Vizjim 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) **OK, have added in a couple of sources.Vizjim 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or do serious rewrite: NPOV, references and sources needed for all these gradiose claims. Way too flowery. -- P199 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deletion is not an appropriate remedy for flowery language. For great justice. 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A worthy article with a bit of cleanup. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough and written about often enough, e.e., [40]. Monicasdude 20:19, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Married life in the Qur'an and the Sunnah[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hæstkuk[edit]

Aside from being about a non-English word, this is a badly written dicdef. Punkmorten 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that mention each day of the week[edit]

List with two entries, not useful. Punkmorten 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, totally uninformative. -- P199 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not useful to you, maybe, but I found it useful. For great justice. 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant 'delete. interesting idea but seems the creator meant A day not EACH day Mccready 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not "songs that mention girls' names"? Or "songs that mention candy bars"? Delete, delete, delete. Slowmover 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Obina 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A connection which isn't worth recording. Piccadilly 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Not a bad idea, actually, but as it lists only one song something tells me it isn't going to turn into anything encyclopedic soon. Won't be hard to create a better article if this is deleted. ProhibitOnions 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needed? I think not...yes this is an encylopedia, but we dont need to mention every detail of everything...what next a list of people with X ammount of bodyhair? Walksonwalls 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adios muchachos. --Khoikhoi 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing really here, unlikely to be used much compared to the overhead of trying to make it even cover a reasonably significant fraction of it's potential content. Sfnhltb 20:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put this up for songs and would like to see more put up on this list.RobertCMWV1974 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chedward[edit]

nn micronation, not famous or well-known. Punkmorten 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not famous or well know to you, but verifiable fact, and useful to me. For great justice. 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. OK, one person knows about it. But nomination still true. Garbage article. -- P199 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to pick on new comers, but may we suggest you create an article on something notable? WP:NFT. Obina 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insignificant even by the low standards of micronations. Delete. RGTraynor 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete totally nn, compared even to other micronations - one liner - WP:BAIWP:NFT and if this stays, I'm putting my nation up Bridesmill 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kick ass delete, to put it in the terms of the article. Not even a micronation. ProhibitOnions 23:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (NZ band)[edit]

A "kiwi band with 2 albums and an EP", but it doesn't say whether they were released on a label, or whether they got a substantial following. A search for their second album Pipe Lines Under The Ocean gets, when excluding Wikipedia mirrors, 86 Google hits, many of which are related only to Operation Pluto. Admittedly, this is a borderline case — they did play at Big Day Out last year. Punkmorten 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ignorance of this band is not a good reason to delete. For great justice. 16:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient assertion of notability in the article. Brian G. Crawford 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Either that, or also delete the not-quite-but-pretty-thin article for Pluto (band), which I would also disagree with. (Much to my surprise, the disambiguation page also refers to a Danish band called "Pluto", yet there's no reference to the Canadian "Pluto" [41]). Fluit 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Have released two albums and appeared on a national tour making them notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are definately known and notable in New Zealand. --Midnighttonight 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch potato illustrated[edit]

nn podcast, no evidence of notability. Technically, no claim either, but it's detailed enough that I felt AfD was worth it. Mangojuice 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you voting Keep on every debate? It sure looks that way. Why? Mangojuice 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "potentially useful", but currently useless! Advertisement. -- P199 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of a million non-notable (but probably entertaining} podscasts. No Guru 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising for non-notable podcast. --Kinu t/c 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another podcast. Kuru talk 03:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have disappeared[edit]

  • Delete as listcruft. The topic is so broad that the list can be endlessly long if we found enough people who have disappeared. Furthermore, we already have "Category:Disappeared people" which fits the purpose of this page. Lastly it does not meet WP:V Jersey Devil 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete though I admit that I like the phrase "if we found enough people who have disappeared". Now if we found them all, then this list would be getting shorter instead of longer, wouldn't it? ;-) Maelwys 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good effort, but I must agree with the nomination. -- P199 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful because of chronological reference. If the category "disappeared people" can be listed chronologically, then this page can be deleted or merged. Docether 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and notable. Also, the category for disappeared people is not complete as this one is. This one has mysterious shipwrecks and the like, which the category does not. --Pal5017 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be people that have disappeared not Desaparecidos, is there a better name for this list/cat Category:Missing people?. A list is not the same as a cat though and I'm quite sure you can find sources that say Natalie Halloway is missing. So I ask, what exactly is this being deleted for? kotepho 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I don't quite understand all the reasons given by the original poster -- particularly "does not meet WP:V". If a particular item in this article appears to be unverifiable, then that item should be investigated. I don't see the purpose of saying that the entire article is unverifiable. In most cases, the items have links to the page about the person who has disappeared. Those pages, one assumes, contain verifiable information. Docether 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it disapper...Delete. Redundant with the existing category.--Isotope23 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful to have a chronological list, as categories are alphabetical. Piccadilly 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. For great justice. 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Helpful list but should format the page differently so that it's simpler with dates of dissapearance after name, not as new header.
  • Keep. The chronology helps. Thanos6 05:09, 7 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 page Phil Brown (Nepean) was deleted by User:Alabamaboy with the delete summary (content was: '{{copyvio|url=http://www.jacksonbrown.on.ca/jba/pb-profile.php}}'). This AFD is hereby closed. —Encephalon 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

Phil Brown (Nepean)[edit]

Vanity, NN, violates WP:AUTO. Delete Ardenn 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Author agrees to early deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood Mall[edit]

  • Delete as non-notable mall. It may be the "second largest ... in Western Nova Scotia" but I don't believe that makes it worth of inclusion, as it's just a mall with the type of stores you'd expect in a mall. LrdChaos 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we define our categories small enough, everything will be the greatest in something. Agree with nom. -- P199 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't like mall articles. I love to vote against them. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until guidelines are established. A few people are discussing the topic here. youngamerican (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but obviously needs expansion. -- JJay 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no harm in keeping it, but yes it does need expanding K-UNIT 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing in the artcle to lose by deleting. Vegaswikian 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's bad enough we keep school articles which have nothing to say. If there is virtue in brevity, this article's going to heaven. Denni ☯ 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True it's not quite as long as Kapoot Clown Theater. But Kapoot has had a year to achieve its two lines of eloquence. Greenwood has only had a month. Which brings to mind that saying about glass houses...-- JJay 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a very noteworthy landmark, and I've unfortunately had to shop there many times... Plasma east 02:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Montco 03:34, 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  (aeropagitica)  16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOLE (psychology)[edit]

Non-notable (unpublished) neologism by non-notable academic. Delete. Rockpocket 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: forgot to add, prod deleted without comment by creating editor. Rockpocket 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable neologism.Obina 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism.--Isotope23 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, apparently previously unpublished. Google search for the term and its creator turns up nothing [42]. Fan1967 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable neologism per nom. Kuru talk 03:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO and likely WP:OR. All of its redirects need to go as well. --Kinu t/c 07:20, 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 um... delete? Stifle (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Tune Forum[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, most likely created by a member. Delete. Hestemand 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - it's a unique, notable forum with a popular worldwide following and strong history User:Pickup Stix 01:22, April 2 2006 (UTC)

    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Keep Documented internet sub-culture. Has featured in TV programs such as Nathan Barley. Famous members such as radios Zane Lowe User: Simon Holmes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.138.218.7 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.

Keep. an important community

    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Delete - pointless, only interesting to a minority (even of ninja tune forum users themselves), factually wrong, not as funny as ascii-penii. a waste of perfectly good webspace. greetings, honicz honicz
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Dance While the record spins.berusplants
    • Vote discounted by admin due to not being relevant.
  • Keep Its a constant source of interesting musical offerings searched out by all kinds of oddballs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.173.165 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2006.
    • Vote discounted by admin due to being an anon.
  • Delete forum users are losers, particularly that honicz lad or so I hear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.25.200 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 April 2006.
    • Vote discounted by admin due to being an anon.
  • Delete Inaccurate and embarassing for all members of the ninja forum. Frank_Spoon
    • Vote discounted by admin due to no such user.
  • Delete per nom. Stasomat 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Keep No less a part of internet sub-culture than somethingawful or fark, both of which have entires. Although I agree that the article needs work. Klausk 08:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Well, i dont know how to edit this page properly, so im just going to type

"Delete Inaccurate and embarassing for all members of the ninja forum. Frank_Spoon "

the very fact that someone feels it may be embarressing for the users suggests to be they feel some kind of owenership, therefore it is real.

keep it on wiki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Watson-Smith[edit]

Delete. There's a vague claim of notability here: started two businesses and was interviewed by CNN about conditions in Zimbabwe, but not because he was per se important but for what they call in the media "human interest". Ultimately, this person has to be NN. For another example, consider this article. Prod remover said, "significant player in significant dispute w/worldwide press coverage." Well, no. Insignificant human interest story subject in a significant dispute. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Few googles which do not indicate notability with the first one being Wikipedia [43] and the Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" leads right back here [44]. nn possible vanity.--Dakota ~ ° 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From one of the article's references: "Retired Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu of South Africa is supporting formation of a charity to aid commercial farmers in Zimbabwe affected by the government's controversial land reforms.
The Zimbabwe Agricultural Trust has been established in Britain to "provide a focal point for international support" for farming families and other agricultural workers caught up in the haphazard and sometimes violent land redistribution program. The aim is to alleviate the "hardship and suffering" of those farmers who have been directly affected by the civil unrest, according to Lao Watson-Smith, the trust's administrator.
Tutu, who condemned his own government's endorsement of Zimbabwe's controversial presidential election in March, is patron of the trust."
Land expropriation and redistribution in Zimbabwe may not merit the same coverage Wikipedia gives to Jack Thompson, but it's not a completely dispensible matter. Monicasdude 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrator he is, as is plainly apparent from the ZAWT website. So? The conflict is notable, ZAWT may or may not be (no article), but Lao isn't. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable; the links to Watson-Smith's business websites lead me to suspect that this may be a vanity/advertising article. The ZAWT exists, but it is tiny, with cash funds of less than £10,000 at the end of the last year for which it returned results [45]. I always try my hardest to establish some degree of notability for African AfDs in Wikipedia - on this occasion I reluctantly concede that there is no case. Humansdorpie 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Humansdorpie. I am all about fighting systemic bias on AfD, but a similar figure would be deleted if he or she was from Zimbabwe, Melbourne, or North Dakota. youngamerican (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Humansdorpie. — mark ✎ 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we can't really accept the claim to notability that "he has a job", which is what the claim seems to be here. Jdcooper 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

 (aeropagitica)  16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medievia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep


I feel that this article is generally describing any mu* on the internet and see no reason for a special entry on it, especially with all the controversy surrounding the whole thing. Tearstar 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Medievia is fairly large as MUDs go, and if anything, the controversy only makes it more notable. If any MUD deserves an article, this one does. Ehheh 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Medievia is a very significant MUD. It ranks #4 over at The Mud Connector [46] and has its own version of ZMUD [47]. The controversy is just another reason why this MUD deserves an article. Its case is significant for the copyright precedent it could have on thousands of other similar games. --Hetar 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I am willing to reconsider though if somone can post information meeting that criteria.--Isotope23 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete opinion removed per AfD nominator's request... though I will say that the Keeps did a rather poor job of laying out any coherent or meaningful argument for notibility that would meet any accepted wikipedia guidelines... but if Tearstar wants to let them slide that is Tearstar's business.--Isotope23 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as above. For great justice. 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second the "keep" votes above and, in fact, feel that the article's discussion of the license violation controversy should be expanded, and given greater prominence. I must also question the user Tearstar's motives in listing this article for deletion. A cursory look at his/her list of contributions reveals that he/she has contributed to a couple of MUD related articles, namely Sancara and Legends of Cosrin. "Tearstar", in fact, appears to maintain a website related to the latter. Therefore, "Tearstar" appears to hold contradictory views on the subject of Wikipedia entries for MUDs, unless his/her opinions have radically changed in the last few weeks. Traumerei 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
My opinions are not biased, I feel that this mud should deserve an article, I personally feel that it is a notable MUD, however my problem is the details of the article are very much the same as every other MUD, I could copy this entire article and use it for every other MUD that is out there. My reason for commenting/modifying/monitoring mud articles is because of my deep knowledge of many muds they are what i spend all my time doing. (I have played Cosrin for about 8 years) but I feel that if this article is to be included, then it should have some major points of inclusion, not simply how to play a mud or describing every other mud. If there is nothing of note other than the controversy then I feel it should be removed or somehow listed under MUD, but if someone would like to reformat it, tell us why it should have it's own article, then I would have no problem with it existing, but the article in and of itself needs to tell readers more than what a general mud is. And the criteria it would fall under Isotope23 would be WP:SOFTWARE which I do understand is not policy yet, but proposed Tearstar 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFTWARE is proposed policy; I personally don't apply policies that have not been generally accepted... to me they are meaningless. It is content delivered over the internet, and WP:WEB is the closest policy to apply, though I guess "another MUD with no distinguishing characteristic from any other MUD and no evidence of external notability" would work too.--Isotope23 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tearstar, I believe your comments lack merit. Your statement that you could clone this article to describe any other MUD makes little sense; for instance, there aren't several other MUDs with large playerbases that are also guilty of blatant license violations. Looking at the Legends of Cosrin and Sancara articles, I see nothing particularly unique about those either, they read like advertisements for those games in fact (which is not permissible under WP:WEB). The Medievia article, while certainly lacking in polish, does collate several important critiques of the game, as well as an overview. If you felt that the article needed improvement, you should've added to the Talk page discussion, rather than indulge in this seemingly trollish attempt to subvert the Wikipedia deletion process. If you feel the article deserves to exist, but doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards, well there's already a process for that, and the article had been tagged to reflect that. I look upon this article, in addition to an overview of the MUD, as the kernel of a case study in software license violations, and a general example of how, on occasion, the Free Software community is unable to enforce software licenses due to the cost of litigation. I'd welcome expansion of the article in that direction from qualified contributors.Traumerei 05:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very poor article and needs to be cleaned up in many different ways. Currently the whole article is about how it's based on Merc, with some discussion about how it was claimed to have been "completely rewritten". It leaves out that it was "completely rewritten" multiple times, and generally downplays the significance of any opposition to what Michael Krause says. Since this is an articles for deletion thing, notability is enough for a Keep vote. The content of the article does need to be fixed up, but AfD is not the process for it. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect toGuitar chord - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_major_chord_shapes_for_guitar[edit]

The contents are better explained and described on Guitar chord Andeggs 18:29, 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 was Redirect, somewhat per admin fiat. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_minor_chord_shapes_for_guitar[edit]

The contents are better explained and described on Guitar chord Andeggs 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as this already was done for List of major chord shapes for guitar... just need the AfD closed out so the redirect can work.--Isotope23 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyacinth reverted the redirect. Please can an administrator close this AfD and put the REDIRECT command on the List of minor chord shapes for guitar page. Cheers. Andeggs 09:49, 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 1 Redirect, 8 Keep, 9 Delete, so no consensus, unfortunately. Stifle (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

I don't like nominating this just three and a half months after a keep vote, but this article violates WP:WINAD, WP:V, and WP:OR. Some of you may think that Wikipedia should be a dictionary, and that neologisms and slang are entirely acceptable, but unverifiable original research is never acceptable. I merged and redirected the article to sexual slang, but was reverted. Given that this article is unacceptable as is, and I was reverted after a merge, I bring it to AfD, and I vote to delete. Brian G. Crawford 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as before, with a clothespin on the nose, and protect if necessary. PJM 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD on this and similar topics. There is consensus for now that this sort of common sex slang is individually notable and worthy of inclusion. Istead of having this sort of AfD every couple of weeks, there should instead be a centralized discussion to determine if this sort of thing should have an article, be merged into a sex slang article, or purged. youngamerican (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous nomination of this article had a shaky basis (that dirty topics should not be available on wikipedia which is accessible by minors). Objections to the AfD referred to that, not to the policy violations which have been brought up this time. GT 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea, and here is the original [52]
Consensus does not support unverifiable original research. Brian G. Crawford 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems that, perhaps because of WP:IAR or because of the common use of this and other related phrases in (at least American) pop culture, there seems to be consensus that this sort of thing belongs in the 'pedia. Additionally, do you believe that the entire article is OR, or just the variation crap that I agree should be removed? youngamerican (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using what reliable source to verify it? Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified crap. Esquizombi 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If it needs sources, tag it as such, sheesh. It's obviously quite a notable revolting act, and it's referenced all over the place. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definately a page worth keeping, I googled "define: cleaveland steamer" after my friend said that he did it to his girlfriend (who he loves and respects) and all I got was this. Without this page I (and many others) would have remained ignorant to the meaning of this disguisting act, and may have used the term unwittingly and been made a complete ass of. It should, however, be preempted with a warning that it contains offensive content and should not be viewed by people who do not wish to be exposed to it. Deleting a term that is so commonly used based on the fact that it is not sourced is ridiculous, I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this? Personally, after reading about it I knew I had to run out and try it and it was awesome. Without this article I would have never discovered my fecophilia —This unsigned comment was added by 65.110.26.195 (talk • contribs) .

The above user's only edits are contributions to this deletion discussion. Brian G. Crawford 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The perfect argument for deletion. If Wikipedia is the primary source, the article is, by definition, original research. No reliable sources were identifiedd during or following the previous AfD, none have been identified yet (God forbid that we ever allow the Urban Dictionary as a reliable source), this article is unverifiable and always has been - so it must go. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that ideally there should be some way of warning people who *really* don't want to see this kind of stuff, but then whose criteria would we follow? Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, and it could be the thin end of a very large wedge. Probably better to categorise appropriately and let others develop their own solutions. Fourohfour 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this?" That's part of the problem and part of why it should be deleted. Some people evidently get their jollies out of inventing fictional sex acts and creating names for those acts, and then inventing fictional variations thereon and names for those variations... but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Is the Cleveland Steamer real, and are the variations on it real? There's no WP:V way of knowing that from the article, which is full of unsourced claims and speculation. Actual practices that are actually used, that are preferably documented by sex researchers is what is desireable for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places on the web to develop unencylopedic total BS. Esquizombi 14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be worth your not looking at it from a strictly academic standpoint. It's possible no one's actually performed the Cleveland Steamer. It doesn't mean that the concept didn't make the rounds in, say, a song by platinum music group Tenacious D or in an official FCC government document. The concept may be false, but the usage of the term is absolutely real and encyclopedic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If the unsourced claims in the introduction and the unsourced variations can be pared down to what can be sourced through popular culture references, maybe the article could be kept. Do you think that would be acceptable, or is all the BS going to keep creeping back in? Esquizombi 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously, original research should be discouraged. My point is that the issue for this article in particular isn't that it should be deleted, but rather that it should be cleaned up. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Note that the reference in the government document is nothing more than its presence in a quoted television transcript that the FCC considers obscenity. We've already established that the words have a meaning, so this in no way furthers your argument. GT 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just fixed the article, removing everything I couldn't verify. My reliable source is some guy named Adam that I met at Dartmouth College in 1992. Somehow, I don't think that's how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. If WP:IAR applies, however, then I should be able to reap the benefits of that view as well and do whatever I want with Cleveland steamer. My facetious little point is that you can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim that WP:IAR applies and allows you to keep the steamer, then I can say that it also applies to me and I can edit it, merge it, or redirect it however I see fit without approval from anyone. If this indeed is the consensus, that WP:IAR applies, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination and just merge and redirect as the spirit moves me. Brian G. Crawford 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure how much leeway ArbCom or an admin would give you if you got into a post-AfD edit war by using IAR (which may be your point). As it stands, I am not thrilled with the inclusion of this sort of stuff on AfD, but consensus is pretty clear thusfar, and part of the manner that AfD (and frankly any semi/quasi/pseudo-judicial body) gains credibility is a respect for consensus and precendent. At AfD, we interpret if a given article is consistent with inclusion guidelines or, if no guidelines are explicitly set, past consensus on AfD. This debate should be moved over to a centralized discussion to establish notability guidelines for ths sort of article (where we would likely be on the same side). That is where we legislate guidelines, this is where we follow through with consistency. That being said, your latest stub version is a vast improvement, as sometimes the best edit is a mass-deletion. youngamerican (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assure you, I have no intention of violating WP:POINT. I was just making a rhetorical point. I would like to see all these sexual urban legends moved to a single page where content could be carefully monitored to prevent vandalism, ad hoc neologisms, and endless lists of frivolous "pop culture references." I really don't see the encyclopedic value in noting every time the Dirty Sanchez is mentioned in teen movies and cartoons. Some people, probably mostly children, think that these "sex moves" are the funniest thing they've ever heard of, and seem to want to share this kind of thing with anyone they can. Maybe this sort of humor serves the purpose of alleviating anxiety about sexual activity. Maybe writing articles like this one gives the author the same kind of thrill as writing an obscene message in a public place. I don't know. I could write pages on why this kind of article hurts the Wikipedia project, but AfD isn't the place. I agree that there probably should be a centralized discussion on sexual slang articles. Brian G. Crawford 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Can you please clarify how making a rhetorical point doesn't violate WP:POINT? In addition, whilst I agree that there are too many cases in Wikipedia of "In film Y, X was mentioned", this applies to *many* articles. I've said this elsewhere, but I believe you're focussing on articles for things you dislike personally (which I believe is reflected in your comments above and some others). Regarding this and related AfDs, you make some valid points and I'm quite happy to agree with you in principle on them (regardless of your opinion of me which is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion). However, I believe you're being very selective about the sort of articles you apply the rules to; very stringent regarding the verifiability rules and quite willing to delete material for this article. At the same time, you practically disregard WP:POINT. Fourohfour 12:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOT censored, stop renominating this for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer had a very clear consensus. Silensor 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. FloNight talk 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is accurate sexual slang. Deleting it is neo-puritanical censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.180.51 (talk • contribs) The vote above is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Please refrain from making false accusations. This is not about censorship, but about the issues raised above such as WP:WINAD, WP:V, and WP:OR. If you want the article to be kept, then address those issues — which should have been addressed some time ago. If they can't be addressed, as I suspect, let the article die as it should. Esquizombi 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed the original research template and identified the article as a stub. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but stubs can be dictionary definitions that will be expanded into articles later. The article does contain links to sources, thus making the original research template misleading here. -- backburner001 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has repeatedly accused me of vandalism for removing unverifiable and unsourced material. Brian G. Crawford 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Not one of those "sources" is a WP:RS so OR may still apply. Esquizombi 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue of reliable sources is different from claiming that there is original research in the article. I attempted to change to a different template that identified the issue of whether or not the sources are reliable, but my attempts at doing such continue to be reverted. If the discussion over this nomination is framed correctly, I will consider changing my vote. Until then, I can only assume that this article was nominated in bad faith. -- backburner001 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this user is accusing me of acting in bad faith. I'm sick of his accusations, his rude comments, and his harassment here and on my talk page. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a fictional sex act which, save for its presence on popular internet lists of humorous extreme (and fictional) sex acts, would not have a name. Thus this article will never be able to be expanded to have any content other than what it is and where it originated. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so such entries don't belong here. GT 21:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe me, I hate to disappoint you here, but sadly this sex act is not fictional. There are plenty of internet videos which will, unfortunately, corroborate this. Your opinion that this article cannot ever be expanded is quite limited. Silensor 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice - IE no replacement. The act is one thing which may or may not occur, and has perfectly goodadequate words to describe it with in English. WP is not a thesaurus and there is no need for this paraphilic euphemism to have an encyclopaedia article. If it made it into an article on coprophilia, as a clause in a line, then that might be encyclopaedic, and would properly be a mattter for the editors collaborating on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talk • contribs) 19:48, April 5, 2006
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast83 (talk • contribs) 00:45, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is simply a dic def and does not show relevence. GilliamJF 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is it sexcruft of the worst kind, neither of the cited sources is reliable, so it is unverifiable by policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into sexual slang. bbx 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article is valid. Deleting it is censorship. Manufracture 02:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Sandstein 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article is valid. I have seen it. I have done it. The fact that so many people have had issue with this entry means that it exists. Those who disagree with this entry are censoring because it does not show relevence in Their lives.
Comment, I see this is your first edit. If you realized what AfD were for you would know that they are not about censoring articles. Radagast83 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak KEEP If it needs verification and sources, perhaps we should tag it as such? I'm scared of what sort of sources we'd find on it though. Oh dear God, how I'm scared. Sethimothy 00:41, 9 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)  16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC Caveman[edit]

The editor appears to wish to discuss this deletion issue. AfD is the appropriate forum for that.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clo and Joe Theory of Hatology[edit]

Original Research - close to nonsense.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PN and WP:OR. Perhaps add to BJAODN? --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, it's probably also WP:NFT. --Kinu t/c 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and PN (IMHO, it's not nearly funny/absurd enough to merit BJAODNing). Joe 23:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - silliness CLW 07:51, 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 to delete; merging or not can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Static grass[edit]

NN concept. There are bunches of google hits, but not all of them are about this. Prod remover didn't so much think it's notable, just wasn't convinced it was NN. Now it's all o' y'all's turn :) - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is my vote for now, but I reserve the right to change it to, say, redirect, if somebody proposes a good redirect target. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - static grass really is a tool used by wargamers to make realistic surfaces. You can find a relatively large number of refs searching for 'wargaming' and 'static grass'. For great justice. 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we pretty much know it's a real tool. The better question here is, how widely is it used? Is it written about in the media? Even cruft-media? Is it a big enough deal to merit its own article rather than a redirect into, say, Wargaming? - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë
So you accept that it's real, and used, and that people might come here to find out what it is, and you still want to delete it? That's odd. If you want to merge and redirect it, go ahead. That's not really compatible with wanting to delete it. For great justice. 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; not sure what we conventionally do with obscure things like this, but this should be covered somewhere. Besides the bunches of google hits, there are a number of books on google books that talk about this stuff ([54]) and at least the first page seems relevant. So I lean toward keep but merge (into wargaming or Miniature wargaming) wouldn't be the end of the world. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! Somebody set up us the deletion! Where it go? For great justice. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's back. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All deletions of UKPaulo were destroyed. It seems to be peaceful. For great justice. 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I must apologise for having mistakenly deleted Static grass. I'm not too sure what went on, I was deleting uncontested {{prod}}ded articles based on the highlighted articles on this list. I guess I clicked the wrong link, but am surprised I hadn't noticed that {{prod}} had been removed, maybe I was viewing a cached version of the page :S. Anyhow, I'm sorry about that mistake, and Spangineer has now restored the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, I'm tempted to speedy delete it for no meaningful content and lack of context. Is this something in a game? Is this a real phenomenon of grass? WTF is even being talked about here? At any rate delete whatever this is. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly explains, it's a method of creating realistic looking 'grass' for tabletop wargaming. I'm disapointed that you want to delete it simply because you don't know what it is. See [55] and here for more info. For great justice. 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I don't know what it is as the fact that the article doesn't provide any context for it. I still don't know if this is something fictional or something real. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by that? For great justice. 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn = not notable; that is, the topic isn't important/common enough to warrant a wikipedia article. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? In whose opinion? It's a notable part of table-top wargaming model building, which is important to some people. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Eusebeus's opinion. People have different opinions about what things deserve a wikipedia article, so they all get to discuss the issue here. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to miniature figure. —Ruud 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Ruud. I would have thought merging with miniature wargaming would make more sense than miniature figure, however. I would agree with Angr that the article is lacking context, and is barely more than a dictionary definition at the moment. Whilst I would agree that static grass is clearly real, I'm not convinced it's something sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article in it's own right (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's never got much potential to become anything other than a few lines worth of definition). However, someone looking up Static grass on WP should see something, and thus a merge and redirect could see the defintion remain in place. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that redirection is in order, just not deletion. For great justice. 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Ruud. Sandstein 08:57, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Alabamaboy kotepho 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Scheiner[edit]

Made up vanity nonsense. (Added: he has no WSOP fame. None of it is true. He's just a high school kid.) 2005 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His only claim to fame is from WSOP and it doesn't list when/what event/anything. Google isn't helping me. kotepho
  • Delete Unverifiable, does not google, hoax. Accurizer 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G1 as patent nonsense, since it's not even a plausible hoax. --Kinu t/c 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as complete nonsense. ProhibitOnions 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete verily 'tis not entirely true Gwernol 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under A6 by User:Alabamaboy. Kotepho 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy21[edit]

Personal attack Kammat 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A6. BryanG 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G6. -- P199 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A6 as attack page; I have no qualms about calling this garbage. --Kinu t/c 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Nasty attack page. ProhibitOnions 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Section[edit]

Seemingly-NN Dallas-area band whose prime claim to fame is being chatted up by Wayne Static in a few interviews. Released two demo EPs (the second on "BandBitch Records", which appears to be a vanity imprint of their management team), contributed to the soundtracks of their lead singer's indie movie and a few NN extreme-bicycling flicks. Googling the band + primary composer gives <50 Ghits; no All Music entry. - Rynne 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. - Rynne 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "promoted heavily by Static-X frontman" - and yet couldn't prevent this band's demise. So why should Wikipedia save it? -- P199 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP googling the word as simply "diesection" pulls up quite a few more hits, including reviews on the major heavy metal site "The PRP" and others http://www.google.com/search?q=diesection&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N If other underground techno/industrial bands like The Shizit from the same time frame can remain online then this should too--Thisisnottheway 16:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 march snowfall[edit]

A weather report from the Bay Area, California. Not an encyclopedic entry, and never will be. I'm also very worried about the Pokémon effect here. Eivindt@c 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not very notable, did not cause any serious or important effects. SCHZMO ✍ 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Nothing about this snowfall is particularly unique; it's in an area where snow falls regularly during the winter (i.e., it's not a normally-hot and snow-free area), while March is "late in the season", March snowfalls are certainly not rare. —LrdChaos 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and LrdChaos. -- P199 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-encyclo. Per above. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. WP:SNOW-related joke withheld. --Kinu t/c 23:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 00:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as alluded to in the nomination if we keep this we'll need articles on the friday afternoon it rained in Manitoba and the Sunday morning it was sunny in Seattle and the weather in every place every day. Cool3 01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 04:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above, and a comment: I don't quite know the motivations behind User:Yyyhenry's decision to make yet another snowfall-related article after his first one (2006 San Francisco Bay Area snow event) because neither seem too notable to me. I mean geez, it's just some flurries. It's not like it even caused a state of emergency. Maybe the other one should go up for AfD, too? — Indi [ talk ] 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't you know, people, we have a clearly policy for this: WP:SNOW. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per CSD:G7. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Play Magazine[edit]

Orphaned AfD.

Looks like the article's author, ScribeX (talk · contribs), wishes the article deleted. He's already blanked most of the content. I'm going to mark it as speedy G7. Fan1967 23:37, 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. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The fact that Cantina is a Spanish word doesn't help its case on English Wikipedia. SandBoxer 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Spanish dicdef --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article used to have info on cantinas in the Star Wars universe, but that seems to have been removed earlier this month in favor of linking to Mos Eisley Cantina. I'm not really sure which way is better, so no vote from me for now. BryanG 23:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambig. Cantina is a bar, a chain of restaurants, and a word refering to multiple bars in Star Wars. — Deckiller 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a one line dicdef. Move to Wiktionary. -- P199 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Deckiller, seems reasonable enough. BryanG 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambig per Deckiller. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary and expand or disambig current article. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed FOSS terminology[edit]

Basically, this article tries to tell how the Free Software and Open Source people describe various things. Then it adds "unambiguous terms", "neutral terms" and "common terms" - okay, these may be interesting, and certainly true, but could be construed either as either as pushing a PoV, or as an attempt to try to settle the differences between the camps through the article. (Is peace-building PoV?) Anyway, even if you find sources for this stuff (not much sources here!), and remove the things, you're left with short list of stuff that's not really article-worthy, and possibly not even merge-worthy. Certainly pain to expand and possibly better described in the respective articles. Or do we even need to mention this stuff anywhere? wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing OR cruft. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful summary of many of the disputed terms. Arguments about these terms exist within and across many articles. It's good to draw them all together. As the Free Software terms mostly originate with Richard Stallman, they're easily referenced with the FSF or GNU web sites. The Open Source Software terms can be seen on the Open Source Inititive site. Common terms can be compared with google hits. I can't see how stating a neutral term can be POV. —Pengo 08:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, perhaps "PoV" would be bit strong term for this - think of "siding with". The use of "neutral" and "unambiguous" names should be explained better, as in why they are more neutral and unambiguous, who uses that sort of terms, etc. As for naming, the big naming issues, there's already GNU/Linux naming controversy. My problem is not that we shouldn't explore the issues; my problem is, do we really need yet another article for such minor points? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The aritcle is unsubstantiated, poorly framed ("disputed", "FOSS") and duplicates material found elsewhere on Wikipedia (or available freely from the GNU project!). It may be useful, but utility doesn't make it worth residing at Wikipedia. The following (written by the article's primary author I presume) cinches it for me, "This list is a guide and is not definitive". --64.223.117.120 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle's comments above. --Hetar 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep `'mikka (t) 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment[edit]

This AfD seems never to have been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and this page wasn't created properly. I've now completed the listing process. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to a neologism, with no base in the real world. Its content refers to Original Research. It was only created after its creator engaged in an edit war and then lost a second AfD vote on the Serbophobia article, clearly done as an ad hominem to produce an hostile reaction.

Asterion 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I will not bother to be anything but blunt here: these accusations are ridiculous and reflect nothing more than a personal resentment certain users have against me following previous disagreements. This article was not created in response to the article Serbophobia: An original link to it had been created in mid-January, long before I had gotten involved in the matter. It is not a neologism: it does not refer to any newly created word but is a simple NPOV title that adequately describes a social phenomenon that is very much alive and real in the Balkans today. Futhermore, it is definitely not original research: it does not create primary sources, but is a case of "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources", which, according to wikipeda guidelines, is "strongly encouraged." All the key information in the article is referenced with credible sources (BBC, Human Rights Watch, etc.), and the evidence I have presented and the quality of the work I have done are, I believe, this article's best defense. I resent the allegations made about my supposedly "ad hominem" intent (I had honestly requested User:Dado's assistance because of his calm and rational approach to constructing quality articles on similar subjects, and he has responded positively) as well as accusations that I have engaged in an edit war (On the article in question, I have repeatedly asked the opposing side to discuss matters on the talk page and cite their sources, to no avail). This is a subject that any objective observer will agree has a place on Wikipedia (see precedent of Anti-Japanese sentiment) and shows promise of one day becoming a good article. Should this article be deleted from Wikipedia? With all that I have just said in mind, I think the answer is crystal clear: NO. Live Forever 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I apology for describing the creation of the article as an ad hominem. I now doubt this was your intention indeed. Nevertheless, I still find the timing quite odd but do not assume bad faith. You have shown willingness to edit the most controversial parts of the article to minimise POV clashes. Asterion 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Anti-Bosniak sentiment is definately a real phenomenon in the Balkans. It is not invented original research, and certainly has documentation in a wide variety of sources spanning not only Bosniak publications, but also the works of neighbouring nations. --Thewanderer 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Whether or not the phenomenon exists is not under scrutiny. The encyclopedic value is. There are many things which exist which are not encyclopedic (Anti-Belgian sentiment). The term itself seems reasonably unused, as google returns a whopping 3 hits. The Minister of War (Peace) 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Irrelevent, because the title of the article in question is not a term (like "Polonoophobia") but a neutral title to describe a notable phenomenon. As for its encyclopedic value, I think the existence of social unrest, genocide and terrorism against Bosniaks says enough. Live Forever 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am Bosniak living in Bosnia. Anti-Bosniak sentiment do exist, end of story. --Mhare 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article refers to a neologism, with no base in the real world. Only three mentions in google. This is no place for original research. Asterion 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I have reconsidered my vote and I am willing to give the article the benefit of doubt, even if, clearly, it was created for controversial reasons. Nevertheless, it needs a great deal of work to comply with Wikipedia own standards. Regards, Asterion 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral / Very Weak Delete. Asterion 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It exists, as well as "anti-Serbian sentiment" (named as Serbophobia) exists. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exists and notable in the region. As for Anti-Belgian sentiment, it would be a really intreresting topic if someone can find reputable sources. I've never heard of it, but this may well mean just my ignorance, therefore I would very much like to read about it. `'mikka (t) 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha! Touché! Belgians are often ridiculed as being stupid by the Duthc, though like I said, I'm not sure that warrants an article :-) Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another bit of nationalist hysteria, like Serbophobia; unencyclopædic, but like that AfD this one will doubtless end with it being kept, as nationalists who have no idea about the criteria for Wikipedia, but who are determined to keep their little bit of Balkans conflict going will pile in and vote, giving irrelevant "reasons". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Seeing as I'm pretty much single-handedly responsible for the development of the article at this point, I feel like you're basically branding me a "hysterical nationalist". I've taken extra care to make certain that this article adheres to the NPOV policy of wikipedia, and have tried to answer and deal with all constructive criticism in a productive manner. Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As valid as Anti-Semitism and, for that matter, Serbophobia. It exists unfortunately. --estavisti 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Mel Etitis; this is balkanscruft, inviting over-inflamed passions from trigger-happy partisans who are all too eager to push one or another ethnic bias. This will probably be kept, of course, but at least we can be assured that the content will devolve to such an unencyclopedic level (as with the ridiculously juvenile article at Serbophobia referenced above which should also be expunged) so as to be mystifying to anyone who is not part of the extremely tiny, internecine debate. Eusebeus 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why do you feel "assured that the content will desolve to such an unenyclopedic level so as to be mystifying to anyone who is not part of the extremely tiny, internecine debate," when I see absolutely no evidence for this in the time that the article has been up (There hasn't even been a debate yet!). You are ignoring the tentative cooperation already being exhibited between users of various ethnic backgrounds, as well as the fact that the article is even now in its embryonic stages of higher quality than Serbophobia. Absolutely nothing bad has happened to this article so far, and I feel like you're shooting it down without even giving it a proper chance. I'd urge you, and others of the same mind, to change your notes to neutral and give this article the opportunity it deserves. Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebus and Mel Etitis. Sheesh. ProhibitOnions 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV, I think. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, the article references a variety of credible sources, ranging from European Union institutions to the Human Rights Watch, so could you please explain how the article is inherently POV? And if this article is inherently POV, then why are similar articles such as Anti-Japanese sentiment considered perfectly fine (never even being listed for deletion)? Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After some consideration , I think it might be an interesting article. I would especially like to see it grow as part of a series, possibly with help of the editors on Serbophobia. Would do the entire encyclopedia a world of good. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how can there be anti-Bosniak sentiment when hardly anyone in the world even knows what "Bosniaks" are? Serbophobia is entirely different because it can be argued that it exists due to many people having a negative view of Serbs after the Serbs made international news throughout much of the 90's because of the Balkan wars. Furthermore, "anti-Bosniak sentiment" returns 2 (two) hits in google, and one of them is from Wikipedia. A paragraph about it in "Bosnian nationalism" might be acceptable, but I don't really see the point of a separate article about it. Besides, the examples of "anti-Bosniak sentiment" given in the article (ie vandalism of mosques, grafiti saying "death to Islam", etc) seem more like examples of Islamophobia than Bosniakophobia. Btw Islamophobia is also being nominated for deletion. Edrigu 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yet again, the google search is irrelevent because the name of the article is not a specific term (as is "Serbophobia") but a NPOV title to describe a social phenomenon of encyclopedic value. Also: why does a phenomenon have to be internationally notable to warrant an article on wikipedia? Thousands of perfectly fine topics exist on various subjects that are relatively unknown outside of certain parts of the world. Anti-Bosniak sentiment exists and is quite visible in the West Balkans, and thus deserves a place on wikipedia. Furthermore, your analysis of the examples cited in the article completely misses the point. Religion and ethnicity are closely interwined in the Balkans, and Islamophobic expressions are simply compounded on top of existing ethnic prejudices (as noted in the report for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). This is why there are many instances of "Islamophobic" expression towards Turks and Albanians in Greece, while the country is simultaneously supportive of Palestine in the middle-eastern conflict. Is it fair to describe such things as mere Islamophobia when they are specifically targeted at one ethnicity? I don't think so. Live Forever 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per reasons above. --demicx 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is interesting to see some users who have voted for article Serbophobia and who are now changing their standards to delete this article. Article does need some work but it is a keeper. Also per statements above. --Dado 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as some users (including you) who was against article Serbophobia are for this article. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the standard is that Serbophobia article has encyclopedic value than this one has it too. --Dado 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever, you said that Serbophobia should be deleted as well as that this article should be kept. And you implicitly accuse others for nationalism :)))) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hate to get involved in a side-argument, but I have to point out that there is a BIG difference between "Anti-Serb Sentiment" and "Serbophobia". The very title of the "phobia" article is inherently POV, and if this article was named "Bosniakophobia" instead then I'd be voting to delete it. Live Forever 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to say, I disagree. I still remember, here in the UK, how when Jill Dando was killed, all the papers were going on about it was "the evil Serbs who did it". There are many other examples in the press. Even today, I still get nasty faces if I say I'm going on holiday to Serbia. In the case of Britain, the so-called Journalism of Attachment, is very much to blame for this "phobia" (not in the clinical sense, of course...) Regards, Asterion 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --EmirA 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutral title, verifiable content. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sort of attitudes do exist, and the events described in the article certainly did occur. One more thing- where's the Srebrenica massacre in the article ? Teccen 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral heavily leaning towards Keep Even if it was created as a defence to Serbophobia; so what? All nations are hated by representatives from some nations, including the Bosniak. The only thing that I object is that a total of only 15 Google Search results are presented.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHBRadio[edit]

blatant advertising. doesn't appear notable at all. Sconnie 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't appear to be a notable internet radio station. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information belongs on the station's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting unregistered and new users. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal's Realm of RuneScape[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Current tally of votes:

  • Keep 3,but only 1 if we do not count people who's only edits are to this page.
  • Delete 5

Delete If you search, or know about it, you'll know fansites like this on RuneScape have always been deleted by afd. This is yet another fansite which doesn't deserve anything more than a link at the bottom of the page. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I nuts, or is that actually a fairly decent Alexa ranking? Kuru talk 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was going to include more information, like a history of the site, how it started and other information that may be interesting for the site's users to read. It's a fairly popular site and many people use it, and I don't think the Alexa rank alone should determine whether to keep it or not.—This unsigned comment was added by The Rickster (talk • contribs) .
Comment Above user's only edit is to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as what The Rickster stated, this article is completely factual. Any parts of the article that may be considered as advertising could be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia's neutral stance. It should not be seen as any sort of promotion for the site, but merely an accurate representation of pertinent information. Dissentor 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete it? Im not really bothered actually.. Why am I here? O_O I must be off now —This unsigned comment was added by 60.231.251.71 (talk • contribs) .
This user's only two edits are to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J.Sagnella 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sagnella, I don't see why you're so interested in seeing that this article gets deleted. Any ulterior motives? Well, I don't think that this article is the same as the previous ones on RuneScape Community and RHQ. RSC and RHQ's articles were stubs that barely had any content in them besides unshameful promotion of their respective websites. This article contains factual information that is potentially useful to many people. If you feel that it's written simply to promote the site, I am sorry to have to say that it is of my opinion that you are mistaken. As proof of that, any links, biased opinions, or whatnot may be cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's policies. Dissentor 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it this way. Sal's Realm is by no means the best RuneScape fansite. Even if it was to be kept, articles about tip.it, runehq, zybez, runevillage and possibly others would have to be created to mkae it equal. That would be a big waste of Wikipedia space. J.J.Sagnella 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, define how you rate a fansite as the best or not. What are you using to judge how good or bad a fansite is? I am not saying that Sal's Realm is the best fansite; however, it seems that you came to the conclusion that Sal's Realm is not the best fansite without any supporting information. If other fansites would have to have their own articles to make it equal, by all means, let them be written, as long as they're not partisan pieces of nothing but how great they are and how much other fansites are worse than their's. And as for that being a waste of Wikipedia space, I'm fairly sure you're not paying monthly server costs or anything of that sort. If you think that this article is a waste of space, please do say so in a more succinct manner and I'll spend some time finding articles that have been allowed that are even more useless than this one.
This brings me nicely on to the key reason as to why this should get deleted. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as a kind suggestion, you should probably do a spell check on your comment before you hit "Save Page". The typos made it more difficult to comprehend what you were trying to say.

Dissentor 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I rush. Sorry if it is hard to read. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that traffic and guides are what make a fansite better or worse. I believe that it is the community that truly defines the fansite and what it's about. As for RuneHQ's article getting deleted, if I was around for the discussion, I would've most definitely supported its existance. If it is a well-written article, not biased, and completely factual, then I believe that it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to keep it. That's why the deletionist mantra doesn't make any sense to me. Wikipedia wants to grow, then why throw out articles that aren't tabloids in nature, serve a purpose, are of interest to some, and are not harmful/hatred in nature?
Wikipedia wants to grow. But we don't want to have an article on absoloutely anything. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what makes it and what doesn't. J.J.Sagnella 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a closer look, it is not "the moderators", it is "a moderator". On the lowest rung of the ladder, if I may add. The site administrator is well aware of this article and supports its creation and commented in support of its existance as the Rickster, thereby rendering that argument of your's moot.

Dissentor 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism[edit]

Article is mostly a table of contents (copyvio?). The rest is a personal essay on a non-notable book. Title plus author gets 147 Google hits, some of which are WP mirrors. 16 on GoogleScholar. 70 on GoogleBooks. Keep in mind if researching the author that User:LoveMonkey (author of nominated article) may have written what you're reading. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Armstrong died in 1997; perhaps the article was channelled. LambiamTalk 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either a blatant copyvio, or an ad for the book by its author. Either way, not encyclopedic. Fan1967 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both these comment are false. --FloNight talk 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The book might, possibly, elicit a mention somewhere within the articles on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. But this article appears to be NN vanity. ProhibitOnions 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral No reason to delete. Aspects of the "personal essay" are irrelevant, as that can be corrected. I've seen many references to this book, and am in no way convinced it's non-notable. --DanielCD 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you cite any of those references? Thanks. -- noosphere 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Since I wrote a lot of the re-write of the article, I know it is not a copyright violation. This article was proded by me, then worked on by 3-4 editors. We agreed that it was worthy of keeping. FloNight talk 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never heard of this book. Seems non-notable. Keep if and only if it can be worked into something verifiable. Otherwise, delete. KSchutte 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete The article contains some strong statements ("The book marked a turning point in the discussion on the subject of Neoplatonism"; "The book is considered a cornerstone to dialog between the different scholars in the field of philosophy"). If these claims can be supported by reputable citations — which should not be hard if they are true — the book is clearly notable. Lacking such citations, the article does not establish notability. I must add that the section Current developments appears somewhat speculative and unsupported, possible presenting original research or a particular point of view. LambiamTalk 00:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use some revision and a bit of removal of point of view (use of words like "Our", but just because the article needs work is no reason to delete it. Adam Cuerden 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, original research. -- noosphere 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Has been reviewed twice in professional peer-reviewed journals of history of philosophy. Lucidish 03:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide references to substantiate this assertion? Also, would only two reviews make for a notable book? -- noosphere 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article falls into a common trap that a lot of Wiki articles fall into: The Table of Contents approach to writing. (See also Enneads, The Holy Books of Thelema, etc.) Should we have a wiki policy that articles consisting substantially of tables of contents should include a brief description of each chapter/section, ideally written for a non-expert? It'd make most such articles much more informative. A (Vote is already given above) Adam Cuerden 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is in the process of doing this for this article. They are a student, I believe, and works on it as time permits. This article is a work in progress like every other article on Wikipedia. The book is a collection of pieces from a 1980's conference. If the conference occurred today then it would not be an issue. Most 1980's academic conferences are not going to be found online. FloNight talk 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right'n. As long as it is being worked on, I can't see any reason for its deletion. And things from the 780's are going to be highly under-represented online anyway, so they're no guide Adam Cuerden 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the book info be removed and a stub be created on the topic of the conflict between NeoPlatonism and Gnosticism. There is significant interest on the talk page regarding the topic, but not the book. I would vote to keep such a stub. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if wiki is offering book reviews (this was listed as a topic rather than book review) the article is lacking organization. On the conditional delete comment, I happen to know most of the scholars whose work comprise this book. I wouldn't dispute that this is a turning point, but this is overemphasized (in comparison to the other work in the neoplatonic scholars community). Much work has been done on this topic since 1984. If this article is kept, it only makes sense to review *all* of the ISNS and APS works connecting neoplatonism with other topics (most published by SUNY, more recent works published by University Press of the South), as well as the works lead by John Turner (U Nebraska), Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature on gnosticism. Zeusnoos 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has cost me considerable time and effort and I have been able to have it submitted for peer review by a known member of the International Neoplatonic society. The professor (Professor Moore) has a seat and who is very close to his doctoriate can add a great deal of credibility to wikipedia. Professor Moore has already reviewed the article and stated it was fine. I can forward the email to the admins here if need be. Please tell me why posters on here would rather not discuss these things with me directly. The staff of admins at Wikipedia (who are obviously overwhelmed) seem to be able to find time. Why can not other people. Learning is a process by which one is challenged. Unlike some articles and posters, this article is about the field of study it is so named and this book is the only solidly authoritarian source of the subject. Please post if you guys know any others (pretty please with cherries on top). Unlike some posters who use new age groups to prop up their made up interruption of greek history, words, works and culture. I am doing my best to give the article legitimacy. I believe in wikipedia and I believe that charlatans work can not will not stand up to peer review. I am doing what I can to have the article be about the field of study and to give wikipedia (alittle bit at a time) the type of foundation that states the information is backed up scholars in the respective fields so mentioned in the article. I appreciate all those who have stated that article should stay. I would like to express not only dismay at the disruptive conduct displayed in the request to have the article DELETED rather then reworked, by people who may not have a knowledge of the scholars who work make up the book and conference. Let alone what the book actually states. LoveMonkey 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also to introduce the many scholars (Wallid, Allen, Dillon, Armstrong) and committes (international neoplatonic society) to wikipedia. So that their profiles might also be created. It would be better if people read the works of the middle or later platonic scholars and posted the articles then engage in disruptive behaviour. I have more much much more to learn then I could ever have to teach. LoveMonkey 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Adam Cuerden is right but Flonight beat you to the point. Adam Cuerden please help. LoveMonkey 15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature), No. 12.) (Paperback) by John D. Turner (Editor), Ruth Dorothy Majercik (Editor), 2001. ISBN: 0884140350. Also see individual essays on the topic published from later SBL and ISNS conferences.
On my original statement that the article should be deleted, I will concede that it is an important topic, and should be kept as a topic, but that it should not maintain the format of a book review of one source. As close colleague of Dr. Moore, I do not think he actually looked at the article on wikipedia but a section that you sent him through email. He did not understand the structure and purpose of wiki. We personally talked about this two weeks ago and he never visited this site. I came here partly out of curiosity from our conversations, and was disappointed with the structure of the topic. Zeusnoos 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We would welcome and appreciate any further suggestions you might have. I'm changing my vote to neutral, as I need to re-read the article and think on it some more. --DanielCD 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about an article on the conference, in which we could include material about the book? Does anyone think that might work better? --DanielCD 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that we split the article into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book) and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and move the text of the present article to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book). There's a real topic in classical studies here apart from this one conference. — goethean ॐ 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My recent edits have made that option unnecessary. The book now takes up a significant section of the article, but plenty of room is left for other related discussions. An amalgamated article seems the best route to take, since some agents believe that the book was not noteworthy, and so would surely demand the book's article be deleted once the split were to occur. Besides, the material which is there on the conference does address issues which are of distinct and direct significance to the general topic. Lucidish 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Agree with Lucidish. I suggest we develop the already existing article so that it can include the additional information that Zeusnoos has provided and also include the conference that the book covers and be inclusive to current events. And I graciously request the well connected Zeusnoos to contribute. As I request you Goethean to the contribute to the article as well. The better and more researched the subject matter the better wikipedia. I would like to see Zeusnoos and Goethean publically collaborate. As I would be honored to collaborate with someone as was well researched and up to current developements in the fields of Neoplatonicism and Gnosticism as Zeusnoos appears to be. Zeusnoos appears to be an excellent asset to wikipedia. :)
Woah, hold your horses, Charioteer. Gnosticism is not my expertise - I know far less than what can be gleaned from the books cited in the Gnosticism article. You shouldn't volunteer someone else's time. I'm supposed to be writing something else, but I'm here, dilly-dallying instead. I started to clean up the spelling and some of the grammar, but encountered other problems with the article. Will detail below. Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep For the above reasons. Secos5 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clean up article[edit]

While cleaning, I encountered some problematic statements. One was the claim that the death of Socrates is the reason for the taciturn nature of the Academy. This is conjecture and Socrates was dead long before Plato started the Academy. The more plausible reason is that Plato valued the spoken word rather than the written. He didn't want the dialectic movements to be transfered outside of the context of dialogue with students and codified as doctrine.

Secondly, everything beginning with the paragraph "The Neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus" should be excised unless the link between neoplatonism and gnosticism is worked in somehow. It's off topic.

Thirdly, when you refer to the philsophers of academy (this section is suppose to summarize the conference findings, btw, and does not seem to do so) which incarnation of the Academy do you mean? The Academy during Plato's time and that during Carneades's or Antiochus's times were very, very different in scope and aims.


Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me state-Zeusnoos YOU ARE AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME. Thank you. You and Lucidish are of the finest persons. As for your points I concede that there are differences in the academy as Plato probably dispised pedantry. That makes it wrong to make sweeping generalizations like I did. As has been stated my articulation is poor. I apologize. But as it has been said the richness of work lies in collaboration. I am deeply appreciative of the most excellent editing and work you have done. AAAAAAHHH could I get you to take alittle peek at Plotinus Zeusnoos please ::). My contributions there could use just a tiny bit of your excellent touch. LoveMonkey 01:43, 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  (aeropagitica)  16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (film)[edit]

Delete - Article reads like complete fancruft. After searching IMDB and Google, I found almost no corroborating evidence for the existence of this project, outside of a few fan forums where fans speculated about their dream casts and such. No verification of the actors or crew listed having been officially announced anywhere as being connected to this film. TheRealFennShysa 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until released. Stifle 00:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources given or available. Voice of Treason 10:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. As noted on the talk page, it has pretty blue links.—This unsigned comment was added by 199.74.89.203 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 April 2006 .
  • Delete- cruft.--Toffile 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editor has a history of creating articles for non-existant movies and minor vandalism involving insertion of DBZ references into other articles. Thatcher131 17:38, 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  (aeropagitica)  16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Og[edit]

Non-notable pub/social club performer. Try "Gary Og" -encyclopedia (to eliminiate wp mirrors) - all you get are notices of pub dates, discussion on Celtic F.C. forums etc. Article states "2 best-selling albums". Chart position? Links to "The Exiles" and "The Unity Squad" show dates in local boozers, GAA clubs. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. I've lived in Glasgow all my life and never heard of this character. Camillus (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably close to a speedy. Hell, his band is probably close to a speedy. Stifle 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not close to BIO or MUSIC Deizio 11:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Demiurge 09:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Proto||type 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief[edit]

  • Delete POV article --terrillwhite
  • Delete Article intended solely as POV jab - any useful factual information should be merged into the other relevant articles: the Title itself guarantees a single, particular POV! Any article that ONLY allows critical POV (based on its very title) or ONLY allows supportive POV in the same manner should be deleted. From the outset it assumes by its title to ban edits in support of the topic - only this critical of the topic fit within the article,and therefore can be nothing but POV. --bzehr 18:39, 05 April 2006
  • Delete The article is a POV fork and breaks with WP:OR. Any relevant information should be moved to Charismatic Movement and Pentecostalism.--Jersey Devil 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is so full of POV its almost hilarious. Itake 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork and original research. --Terence Ong 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I am the original creator of the article. Please take time to read the article's discussion page to view the original afd that was done in July 2004 - the vote then was to keep. If you read it you will see that the voters engaged in a very long and detailed discussion. Moreover, I have also noticed that the article is about 20% of the size that it once was and this appears to be entirely due to pov editing. For an example of how detailed the article once was, check out the 10 May 2005 entry. Additionally, I never once used the phrase "critics accuse" or "critics argue" as the current article does. If you examine the history you will see a much fuller, better written, more balanced and more detailed article. --One Salient Oversight 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to page X of One Salient Oversight's choosing, but proabably Pentecostal. Or Keep if X is too long already. But article must be treated as a subpage of X. Articles trying to be subpages are not POV forks JeffBurdges 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Itake Montco 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Controversies about religious movements are contained within articles about the religion itself. See, for example, Scientology, which is arguably more controversial. George Bluth 16:40, 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 merge to MediaWiki. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Wikipedia needs not articles about functions in the MediaWiki software. Delete. Off! 21:07, 25 March 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!
W.marsh 00:53, 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. GTBacchus(talk) 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT Characters in Family Guy[edit]

Orphaned AfD; the first vote below is the nominator. GTBacchus(talk) 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Most of it is speculation, despite the fact that it doesn't say when it's speculation. Serves no real purpose. - RHeodt 15:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Shanedidona 19:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save -- Though it is speculation, it still deserves some credit. And after all, what isn't speculation about a TV show. CaladSigilon 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Deltabeignet 22:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how eminently useless in an encyclopedia. get a life. -66.92.130.57 02:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, pointless. Who cares? Just add it to the family guy characters page under the useless gossip section, because it really doesn't deserve it's own page. --TIB 02:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If wikipedia allows naruto's lame powers to have their own pages there is no reason why this is inconsistent with that. Quite frankly I am sick of Wikipedia acting like there is information that shouldn't be on wikipedia. Because of this I will remain identified by my IP alone. --206.191.28.13 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless and redundant. Jefffire 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I love Family Guy, there's absolutely no point for a list of four characters, where at least one has no hard evidence behind it. ZJP 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Thus is stupid. Articles like this make Wikipedia lame. END TO ALL LAME ARTICLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeANMcBAY (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31&oldid=1116878761"