Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

Purge server cache

March 4[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, only keep votes were based on the condition of an extensive rewrite which hasn't happened. - Bobet 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jrocknyc[edit]

This was blanked and tagged [1] per XCD7. Dispute over this has arisen so I am AFDing this per procedure.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argue that the jrocknyc entry be left up, as the site has been a long standing center of information for the jrock community. As wikipedia hosts several dozen japanese rock entries I feel the inclusion of a news source such as jrocknyc is necessary. *edit* Aye, registered now, not quite sure how to tag my name though, will figure that out soon.
  • Delete per WP:WEB. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced evidence of notability provided. I'd say the same for unsourced Japanese rock entries (or general music entries, for that matter) that can't establish basic notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep To be kept, it needs sources citing notability, and an extensive re-write and wikifying--Vercalos 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is cleaned up very soon. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:50Z
  • Weak Keep per Vercalos. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant Google hits to indicate notability. Fagstein 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jim62sch 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:WEB criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. "The 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." With that advice in mind, the concensus is very clearly to delete. kingboyk 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Revolution[edit]

A non-notable mod that's still being created, not notable outside of creators. Also confusable with Nintendo Revolution. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--PatCheng 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While it's still being created, and not necessarily notable until release, as many mods of otherwise notable scope go unfinished and unreleased, I'd say this mod's scope would definitely qualify it as notable if it was actually completed. Furthermore, some of the nomination's comments seem strange to me - some quick research shows that Project Revolution (apparently founded in 2003) predates the Nintendo Revolution (unveiled in 2005). Furthermore, this material doesn't really belong on GameFAQs, not being a commercial game nor a guide to a game, and I was not aware that similarities in name were a reason for an AfD. -- Imban 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it becomes big after being released, then it'll merit an article. Until then, not so much -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Warcruft mod. Royboycrashfan 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ""Project Revolution" Starcraft" returns many relevant results, in multiple langauges. Being not released yet, it is a slightly week keep, but is encylopedia worthy nonetheless.MadCow257 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, specifically the statement about game pre-release advertising. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, however, allow re-make of article after the project is released, and if it becomes particularly notable(especially if it shows up in a magazine article)--Vercalos 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article author here. To the person who mentioned magazine articles, Project Revolution has already been in several of them, most notably twice in "Computer Gaming World". However, please understand that these articles cannot be pasted or linked to for proof due to copyright reasons. I no longer work for Project Revolution, and if this article gets deleted it will not likely return unless someone else does it. - Siloh
    • Adding a link as a reference is not a copyright violation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, just google for "Project Revolution" "Computer Gaming World" (as one phrase, with the quotes). There are far too many links to list here. - Siloh
        • Which is exactly what people with no real evidence tend to say — they don't need to prove anything. But an argument without cited evidence is just an opinion. Don't expect other people to make your case for you. Show us one or two links you think are representative. Expect people to judge them by the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article keeps repeating that this mod will do something and should not have a certain effect. Also contains rumors. Pagrashtak 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siloh. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cleaned it up (removing a lot of unsourced material). No vote since it's really borderline for me. Fagstein 20:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jim62sch 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am Cooler one of the coders for the Project. We have been in gaming magazines two times as Siloh said. I would have to disagree with the fact that this project is not well known. We have over 1700 fan base registered users on the site alone. As well as our parent site Warcraft 3 Campaigns the leader of the wc3 mod community who has over 10,000 active members we are considered the largest and most famous of wc3 mods to date. We are also have an exclusive deal which http://www.sclegacy.com/ one of the largest SC fan sites who also owns the famous blizzforums who has over 28,000 users and our mod is constantly mistaken by them and the web for starcraft 2. This is one of the main reasons for this article to stop confusion that a starcraft 2 is in production by blizzard. If I am not mistaken this one reasons why wikipedia exists to stop information confusion on the subject if this articles is removed at least put line in the SC one that says and any screen shots of sc2 are more then likely that of this wc3 total conversion.Also how could the article have rumors in it when it comes from the staff who is creating it. So all information is as accurate as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooler2 (talk • contribs) .
    • Just to clarify my rumor comment, this was present in the version at the time of my vote: It is rumoured that Blizzard Entertainment will attempt to shut down the project should it be completed. Pagrashtak 13:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious crystal ball, IMHO. Sandstein 10:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obvious Wikipedia is not this, IMHO. Afz902k 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this article extremely useful - isn't that what wikipedia is for? There is a lot of information here that I'm glad for, and if the mod does get released it will be extremely popular. -- User:Anonymous 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.214.227 (talk • contribs) .[reply]
  • Keep If anyone actually bothered to do an in-depth research about PR, they would find that it won second place on Mod DB awards, a huge mod site, http://features.moddb.com/111/?fpage=15 PR won against fierce competition and only lost the first place to a mod who benefited from Half-Life's enormous popularity. And if that is not enough to guarantee that PR will be a huge success when released, then consider that PR is a TOTAL conversion, one that is intended to make StraCraft 3D that is much like the much-anticipated StarCraft 2. PR also benefits from StarCraft's popularity. PR is seeking multiple large sites to mirror it when released, proving that the staff has reason to expect mass downloading. I believe that a person qualified to vote here should at least know just how anticipated StarCraft 2 is and what PR represents to the SC fanbase. I am CNX, a PR forum user.Elenalkarnur 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edits are for this AFD. Pagrashtak 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of such mods. Stifle 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would just like to note that we are not forwarding people to this site, per "suggestion" of the banner at the top. Most people who have come here have noticed it on their own. Secondly, the fact that you continue to seemingly weigh the worth of a person's opinion on their contributes to Wikipedia shows that we don't really need our article here anyway, as this isn't exactly the mindset that I had imagined to be behind Wikipedia in general - I change my opinion to delete. Siloh
    • Comment - please see WP:SOCK for an explanation of why we're so suspicious of new wikipedians voting in AfDs. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs. Melchoir 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Heres a link for evidence (Computer Gaming World) : http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200602/ai_n16013903 . -- User:Anonymous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drudenhaus[edit]

Non-notable album by a French band. The album doesn't even have a page in the French Wikipedia and shouldn't have one here. A request for notability claims has so far gone answered, so I'm listing it for deletion Cool3 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As best I understand things, albums of notable bands do not have to be exceptional or encyclopedic in and of themselves in order to merit a Wikipedia listing - take this AfD up with Anorexia Nervosa if you feel the entire band does not deserve encyclopedic status. -- Imban 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Royboycrashfan 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into band's page due to nn MadCow257 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Imban. --Terence Ong 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In the apparent absence of a policy on notability of albums, I'd be inclined to accept articles on main albums (as opposed to compilations, unless specifically notable) as long as the band itself is considered notable enough for an en:WP article. Band fans might undermine one reasonable counterargument argument by translating this article for w:fr:Drudenhaus, n'est-ce pas? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge For reasons stated above.--Vercalos 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Established consensus seems to be that albums by notable artists can have discrete pages; aside from presumed notability, the practice keeps the artist pages at more manageable size. Monicasdude 14:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into band's page Jim62sch 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. -Colin Kimbrell 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rocket Arena#Clan Arena mode, but I think only a little bit needs to go there. -Splashtalk 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Arena[edit]

A poorly written article, does not warrant Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--PatCheng 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Commando 99[edit]

Non notable, illegal modification of a game, plus more POV rant. --PatCheng 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Completely nn, has 341 google hits. Page is also not in anything resembling proper Wikipedia format. -- Imban 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivind 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. … AND it has no reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge And mention on Bionic Commando? And the article is actually mostly true, but the wording is POV.--Vercalos 06:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:50Z
  • Merge into Bionic Commando. Perhaps a mod section? and definitely de-POV it. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 15:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Non-notable hack, and article is a NPOV violation. JIP | Talk 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bionic Commando. The latter could certainly use a section on the controversy, which would mention the mod. Fagstein 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pre nom Cursive 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bionic Commando with the POV fixed, possibly in the section regarding the game's censorship for the American release. Being a deliberate reversion of the game to its uncensored state rather than a standard unofficial mod, it is a notable event in the history of the game. Rob T Firefly 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A modification of a game, unless it makes headlines (like the Hot Coffee code in Grand Theft Auto) is rather common place and not notable. Unless Capcom has commented on this particular mod or it serves some historical relivance, I don't think it should be merged, either. --Ataricodfish 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rob T. Kappa 10:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete Inventm 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Mane 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and NPOV. -- infinity0 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Lucci[edit]

Biographical stub of a non-notable webcam girl. It looks like vanity, but it's probably advertising, since it contains a link to her pay website and the pay websites of three other young women who apparently work for the same company. Brian G. Crawford 01:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of old growth forests[edit]

a list of one and already well covered by a catagory."old growth" is a bit subjective anyway. and what forests are supposed to go here, just US ones or others too? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One item does not a list make. Royboycrashfan 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and expand: From old growth forest, it seems like there is kind of a definition for this. There's Category:Old growth forests from which to build a real list. (Not real sure why it wasn't done at creation time...) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steady Keep - I expanded it to be an actual listMadCow257 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MadCow257. --Z.Spy 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it's proper list. Eivind 04:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as list of notable subjects. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless sourced. Do we have reliable sources that say these forests are "old growth"? That might lessen the reasonable concern about subjectivity. (I'm saying "weak" because I'm inclined to give lists more than 5 days to develop sources.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand/Move Should be moved to Old Growth Forests and expanded to include a definition and description of the traits that define an old growth forest.--Vercalos 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but must have a definition and link to Old growth forest. --CrypticBacon 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! CrypticBacon is right about Old growth forest (no "s"). The fact that this article already existed shows how important it is to get capitalization and plurality (or lack thereof) correct in article titles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listmania. That's what we have cats for. As a sidenote, Russia has the largest number of such forests in the world. The author didn't include even the Virgin Komi Forests here. We don't need such silly lists, sorry. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ghirlandajo. The category does the listing automatically. Fagstein 20:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jim62sch 20:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Old growth forest, which has plenty of room for this information. dbtfztalk 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ghirlandajo, no added value over the category. Sandstein 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Old growth forest per Dbtfz. Ewlyahoocom 11:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, verifiable and potentially useful.-Colin Kimbrell 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Not opposed to a merge. Stifle 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existence of category does not make a similar list useless. Dsmdgold 05:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kappa 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to old growth forest. -- infinity0 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JDoorjam Talk 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istory[edit]

A vanity article advertising a service which the creator is a part of. The creator of the article is warning others not to edit the article without their permission. --Tachyon01 4 March 2006 0200 UTC.

  • Comment - I'm sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know that this was against the rules. I will immediatly change both of my pages [iStory and Wikipedia:iStory] and get rid of this. I'm sorry about this, and it wont happen again -- Jazzer2
  • Comment - iStory +iPod gives 170,000 Google hits, so it's a legitimate piece of software, but the quality of this article is atrocious. -- Imban 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per Imban -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. Royboycrashfan 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, CleanUp and remove Ownership Joe I 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I'm going to remove that ridiculous "warning." dbtfztalk 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did anyone notice that the same author also created Wikipedia:Istory? What the heck is that? I've never seen someone create something in the Wikipedia namespace - is that kosher? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed Wikipedia:Istory under MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Istory. Pepsidrinka 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Istory has now been speedy userfied. Pepsidrinka 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 05:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup perhaps an {{attention}} tag would be in order. joshbuddytalk 06:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, remove ownership. I've done a little bit of the cleanup and removal of some blatant advertising. It still needs a lot of work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nn--Vercalos 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this memory-gobbling advertisement. Brian G. Crawford 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I rewrote the article to sound less like an ad, but I couldn't do that great a job, since I don't know anything about the subject. It still doesn't provide context very well, and the article seems more focused on the programs that create iStories (iStorys?) rather than the iStory itself. I can't vote to keep this unless it's rewritten to be more clear to let me know why it needs to be kept. Are Jazzer2 and Jazzer3 the same person? Pagrashtak 16:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry* Thanks for all the editing guys, I'm still new here. And yes, Jazzer3 was me, I forgot that my username was Jazzer2 [I registered as Jazzer3 somewhere and I guess it wasn't here], so sorry about the mishalf. Jazzer2 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup Jim62sch 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way Being new, I don't know how to send messages, and can't figure out how, so I can't reply to any of your guys messages. Could anyone advise me on how to do this? Jazzer2 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The easiest way is to click on someone's user name, click the Discussion tab at the top of their page, and click + to add a new message. You can also enter User talk:username into the search box and click Go. Stifle 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has been cleaned up. Stifle 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jazzer2 has just forked this article at IStory. Pagrashtak 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm unwilling to declare an outright keep on a non-article that noone saying "keep" or "keep/cleanup" has actually put a trace of content-production effort into. At present, this is a speedy for failing to have a)a single sentence in it about the band and b)an assertion of notability. -Splashtalk 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ephesus[edit]

Dear Ephesus is a non-notable, now defunct emo band. This article has been tagged for verifiability of importance since January 12. Brian G. Crawford 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as emptanity (empty vanity). Royboycrashfan 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Band seems to be borderline notable. dbtfztalk 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Two albums on Amazon, AllMusic entry and [2] gives 14,000 hits. I've been routed bringing bands to Afd that were far less notable. If Pretty Mary Sunshine gets an article, so does this band. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I don't doubt that someone has heard of them, I wonder about the rationale for keeping an article that consists of three short lists and one sentence on a band that no longer exists, especially since it's been tagged for almost two months and no one has seen fit to make something out of it. Brian G. Crawford 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wknight94. --Terence Ong 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The All-Music Guide entry has less information than this skeletal article has (except for a song list of 2 albums), which is usually a good indicator of non-notability. Just in case, I've wikified the existing material and added an IMDb link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand Need more information on the band itself, how it started, how it ended.--Vercalos 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand: This band was semi-famous as a Christian Emo band. Surely some Christian editors would be able to expand this article. MikeDockery 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wknight. Logophile 11:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Cleanup needed. per Wknight94 Computerjoe 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets more than one notability criterion for bands; why is there even a discussion? Monicasdude 14:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defunct and not that notableMadCow257 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly notable, as per above. Chairman S. Talk 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope we're not going to have an article for every band that ever put out an album Jim62sch 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has an entry on Allmusic.com, albeit no write-up. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two albums at amazon means they earn a place here. -- JJay 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline, I don't see any evidence that this meets it. The hurdle is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The labels are conspicuously absent from the discography, and the notion that merely having an entry on allmusic equates to a keep is a new one indeed. I note that it's called "semi-famous" and "[f]airly notable" but no evidence of this has been presented. Thus unless material indicating otherwise added to the article, delete as not meeting the widely accepted guideline. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: That two-album/major label criterion is sufficient to establish notability, but not always necessary. There are, for example, any number of artists whose notability was undeniably established by their debut albums (if not before). Jeff Buckley, for example, was clearly established as notable with his debut release, Blind Faith even before it. A single guideline is not a litmus test. Monicasdude 03:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for not being more specific, however I assumed it was clear: The phrase "two albums" appears three times in the above discussion, so I highlighted that it has not been shown to meet that criterion. I also explicitly state that it has not been shown to meet other criteria. The comparisons you've made are facile, as both of them drew large amounts of coverage in independant media. If it's shown in the article that this ban has drawn coverage or that the albums have been released on a label per above, I'll happily change my recomendation. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I meant to says the band was "semi-famous" within the Christian community. I could've been more clear on that. They had a short mention in Christianity Today, which is a large, mainstream magazine in that community. They've had several full-length articles in HM - The Hard Music Magazine. They were featured in Cross Rhythms, a British Christian-music website. I'm not sure what the readership is on these, but I think, combined with the short mention in Christianity Today, it's enough to establish that the band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. As for the label information, the band released albums on independent Christian label BulletProof Music. They were on BulletProof at the same time as, and toured with, Squad Five-O, a band that is notable enough to be listed on MTV.com. What that means for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure, but I think all of this evidence supports the notion that this band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. Whether or not that is notable enough for Wikipedia, I'll leave for others to decide. My personal opinion (as voted above), is yes, it is. MikeDockery 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goron Elder[edit]

Minor character from a Zelda game, not listed. Not notable enough for own article. Eivind 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. kingboyk 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Betty's Cafe[edit]

Non-notable burger restaurant chain with 2 stores. -- Longhair 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitecore[edit]

DePRODed without comment by author. Google hits are scant, and most indicate that this is forumcruft, and possibly even an attack at hardcore punk; at best, it is a non-notable subgenre of hardcore. The only inbound link to this page is from an article about a non-notable band (also PRODed and likely to end up here). Delete. --Kinu t/c 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletion. Tachyon01 4 March 2006 UTC
  • Delete as a vulgar attack page. Or, Speedy delete G1/A6. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No sources, Just Vandalism. --Z.Spy 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this shite - "shitecore" is a perjorative term used to make fun of the latest "(foo)core" term to come up, nothing more. -- Imban 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vandalism, see ^. Eivind 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vandalism. --Terence Ong 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as CSD A6. Note has this not come up before and been deleted? --Blue520 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utter rubbish. Cedars 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncyclopedic at best, vandalism at worst.--Vercalos 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, virtually unknown genre, possibly used only to promote little-known self-described bands. Speedy delete acceptable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:51Z
  • Delete no content that makes this anything more than a dicdef. Unverified anyway. --CrypticBacon 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per That Guy, From That Show Computerjoe 11:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this complete shite, or at least move to uncyclopedia. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete yep, complete shite Jim62sch 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete this one already we have consensus Tobyk777 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cruft Deiz 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to GG Allin. Ewlyahoocom 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Rummel[edit]

non-notable political theorist; greatest claim to fame is a mistaken claim to membership in a non-existent Nobel short list of a hundred or so. He has a friend who is a Swedish politician; there was a mistaken AP story; he has himself retracted. Statement of retraction: [3] Article hopelessly PoV Septentrionalis 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I nominated this because Scaife and Ultramarine were reverting whether it could be speediable. I think it probably claims notability; but that in fact he is not notable, and WP would be better without this article. Weak delete. Septentrionalis 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination of local opponents of the Democratic peace theory. Now one of the great controversies in political science. There are many people who have contributed to the theory but Rummel was one of the earliest and certainly the most well-known. Much of his research is about another subject, democide. This article has been in Wikipedia four years. Google gives over 100,000 hits for "R. J. Rummel" [4]. Very well-known in his field and cited by many other researchers there.(Google Scholar [5]) Has received many honors[6] and nominated for the Nobel Prize.[7] Has written 24 scholarly books and over a hundred professional articles.[8] Certainly passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Ultramarine 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Rummellite opponent. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this is the statement of retraction mentioned above. Tens of thousands are asked for nominations, including many professors, and many of them do nominate. Septentrionalis 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is incorrect. People are not asked for nominations. There may be about a hundred nominated each year and Rummel has been nominated repeatedly. Anyhow, this is just one of the reasons he is notable.Ultramarine 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable researcher, questionable research, way too POV. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good faith nomination. Rummel's contribution to DPT after his initial study is dubious. Most of his "books" and "papers" are only published on the internet, any contributions by him that were published in any major scholarly journal is minimal and absent after the mid-1980's [9], those that do occur before this time are usually pertaining only to quantitative methodology. Any mention of him by any other scholars is usually anecdotal. [10] Finally, to illustrate a point "Ultramarine" occurs 1.9 million times in google, so that is hardly a standard of "importance". --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another DPT opponent. Note that ultramarine is a color so it is hardly surprising that it gets many hits. ""r. j. ultramarine" gets zero hits.[11] Ultramarine 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it gets 10,300 hits. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is outright defamation of a noted researcher. There are extracts from his scholarly books and articles on his website, but they were certainly not published on the internet originally. Many of his works were published in the 1990's, for example Death by Government and Power Kills, often cited by other researchers in this field.(Google Scholar [12]) Ultramarine 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, he has self-published several books since the mid-1980s. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is still defamation. His scholarly books are not self-published.Ultramarine 05:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is [13]. Septentrionalis 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a supplement to his novels.Ultramarine 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Controversial, but definitely notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, but POV, needs TLC to be up to standards. Eivind 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This smells like a bad faith nom. Eivind 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the "professor test" this guy has written several books, it seems likely that he would qualify under the "published a book with an audience of 5,000 or more" test. Crypticfirefly 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A fairly absurd nomination, even I think Rummel is anything but a serious scholar. / Peter Isotalo 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup POV--Vercalos 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of the two publishers that seem to handle many of Rummel's Amazon-listed books, Llumina Press is a self-acknowledged vanity press [14], but Transaction Publishers appears to be a respectable social science publisher (supposedly over 40 years old) [15]. I'd like to see some reliable sources cited for the article, which might help to provide editors with sound information to reduce POV, but I think this guy is sufficiently notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Llumina Press has only published his alternative history Never Again series where he tries to communicate his findings to a wider audience.[16] Not his scholarly works which have different academic publishers. Here are his Amazon books [17] and here are his scholarly works in Google Scholar.[18] Ultramarine 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, meets notability criteria as published author. Monicasdude 14:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published author. Clearly not a boring topic ;) Fagstein 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published author of several works. Capitalistroadster 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable scholar. dbtfztalk 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a notable author with multiple published works. --Elonka 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rummel termed democide didn't he? He's actually fairly notable, possibly not a household name but even my old history teacher had a book of his. Can't believe this was ever nominated for deletion. --Knucmo2 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite my distaste for Ultramarine's Rummelolatry, and the inherent non-verifiability of any claim concerning a nomination for a prize that makes confidentiality a condition of nomination, I think Wiki is not paper governs here. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do note with some amusement that Rummel's article exceeds in length the combined articles for Nobel winner Val Fitch, Field medalist Edward Witten and Nobel near misses David Wilkinson and P.J.E. Peebles, any one of whom is a more significant scholar by any objective standard. None have a dedicated fan who is a Wikipedian, however. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced mathematics and physics often do not receive much attention outside the field since it is very hard to understand. Political arguments and theories usually receive much attention and this is reflected in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, their *theories* are fairly adequately covered under appropriate articles. My point is that I think Rummel's bio overlong, mostly because much of the material looks like advocacy for Rummel's particular position. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has 3 articles about Ward Churchill, so I see no problem with the length of the current article. If you think something is missing, add your own referenced information. Ultramarine 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion belongs on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously. Notable author. --Ragib 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't understand what much of the fuss is about. John Smith's 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. - Bobet 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Brett, R. Brett, Bob and Sarah V.S. Vietnam[edit]

Two articles about a brother-and-sister amateur film duo, and one about their unreleased film. The two bio articles have a weak (albeit grandiose) assertion of notability as filmmakers, so they do not seem speedy-able. Nothing verifiable on any of these per Google. Website is on Tripod. All dePRODed without comment. Delete all. Kinu t/c 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanitising. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom Duckster 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eivind 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are plenty of nn movies on IMDB, and if you're not even on there... -- Imban 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, non-notable--Vercalos 07:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:51Z
  • Delete all per Imban — no IMDb presence for any of these. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete! Ive heard about these guys! theyre legit! there must be somethin wrong with their website or something if its not on google. I know its on the IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.50.176 (talk • contribs)
Above user has only 7 edits, six of which have involved nominees. I, like many others, am suspicious of "Don't delete" votes. Nobody phrases it that way. Royboycrashfan 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "know" it's on IMDb? Give us the link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All They seem to be very concerned about their privacy. Let's help them out. (Seriously, though, non-notable, especially since they don't want to give their names) Fagstein 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete none Im glad theres finally an article about the funny shorts made by this duo. whats with all the delete votes? seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.50.176 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as VanitySelfPromoCruft with a charming newbie/unsigned keep campaign to boot. Deiz 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; nn + puppet swarm = far too high a cruftiness factor for my limits. Bearcat 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newman's Hacksaw[edit]

  • Do Not Delete While I recognise NH's non-noteriety, I would like to express that there are many articles that are far more pointless, badly written, and abhoring for the community than this one. The band simply is not notable for the sole purpose of not intending to be notable. User:CthulhuHax 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable band Duckster 03:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inspiration explanation. Not much more. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Newman's Hacksaw" -wikipedia on Google returns zero hits. "Few" is one thing, but none whatsoever makes it pretty certain that this band is non-notable. -- Imban 04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for something you did in Steven's Basement. Eivind 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 05:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, cannot find any info on them except wikipedia article.--Vercalos 07:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:52Z
  • Delete this U.S. band with zero All-Music Guide presence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will cry if something I didn't even know existed, and didn't even care existed, got deleted! --Captain Cornflake 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWONK TO WONKTIONARY and DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridonkulous[edit]

I prodded which was removed shortly. As I stated in the Prod rationale: Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang --Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the article has been much improved since I prodded, with some links to usage, but all are to dictionary entries --Fuhghettaboutit 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations, neologist. You have just won a trip to Del Eté. Royboycrashfan 03:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neoprotodicdefodonkulism. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone noticed that one of the justifying links is actually to a dictionary of neologisms? -- Imban 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A truly Ridonkulous neologism. --InShaneee 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deldonkete nn, maybe wiktionary-worthy. Eivind 04:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move To wikionary, particularly if anyone can confirm it appearing in newsgroups and tv shows regularly. I've never heard of it myself.--Vercalos 07:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:52Z
  • Move to Wiktionary, it's pretty common at least where I am. Grandmasterka 08:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Only one of the 3 previous external links included source information. Only one of that source's citations is WP-reliable. (I removed the 2 useless links and added the 2 Telegraph.co.uk articles I found that included the term. I left the neologism site link alone because it's informative for editors and source researchers.) Wiktionary may find this meager sourcing acceptable. In any case, it doesn't belong here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as protologism Computerjoe 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, does not belong here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: It's a common term that has entered the vocabulary. It should be listed somewhere. If not here, then Wiktionary. User:DannyAnno
  • Transwidonkify to Widonktionary as sladong termidonkogy. Fagstein 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to wikidictionary. I am unconvinced of the etymology given in the article. JoshuaZ 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to wikidictionary. I can see the word origin working, but wikipedia is not the place for it.Ayreon 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Falcone[edit]

Delete - Does not appear to meet music notability criteria. In addition, the majority of contributions to this article come from anonymous IP addresses with no edits aside from this article; this may lead one to believe that this is a vanity article. JerryOrr 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per above. maybe redirect to Carmine Falcone. Eivind 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - Falcone meets three of the criteria for a musician to be included in wikipedia. (1) Falcone has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Falcone released two albums on Cleopatra's Hypnotic Records (which has been in existence since the early 90s). Cleopatra's roster has included releases by Gary Numan, Yes, Motorhead, Hawkwind, Future Sound of London, and more recently Elvis Presley and The Ohio Players. (2) Falcone leads a number of music projects that contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Falcone leads Spirits Burning, a musical collective that has included members of many well-known progressive and space rock bands (such as Gong's Daevid Allen, Porcupine Tree's Steve Wilson, Hawkwind's Bob Calvert, Can's Mal Mooney). Falcone is also part of Weird Biscuit Teatime (CD on Voiceprint), with Gong's Daevid Allen. (3) Falcone has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. Falcone's Spaceship Eyes wrote the theme for the rave film "Better Living Through Circuitry." Article would be better served to have the above info in its intro. The material about Falcone's hometown, college, and early bands (pre 1990) should be removed.

The informant 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Billboard lists the two Cleopatra releases.The informant 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMDB lists Falcone's Spaceship Eyes as the first track of Better Living Through Circutry soundtrackThe informant 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Falcone work with Daevid Allen of Gong includes recent Voiceprint release of Weird Biscuit Teatime CD. Also noted on Gong site. Amazon has first Spirits Burning CD. Description reads: New project from Don Falcone, the man behind Spaceship Eyes... Includes contibutions from Daevid Allen (Gong, Soft Machine), Steve Wilson (Porcupine Tree) members of Can...." Second Spirits Burning CD editorial includes the following: SPIRITS BURNING is a one-time band made of the best musicians (Ancient or modern), that performs Progressive rock, new musics, neo-psychedelic and Krautrock. The keyboards player Don FALCONE (Ex-TRAP & SPACESHIP EYES) is here accompanied by guitarist Daevid ALLEN (GONG), drummer Gary PARRA (TRAP), singer Malcolm MOONEY (CAN), drummer Paul WILLIAMS (QUARKSPACE) as well as guitarist Steven WILSON (PORCUPINE TREE). Numerous other guests greatly contribute to make even better this adventurous music that re-visits the complete palette of its participants’ original styles. Recorded in 1999 on the label Gazul, "New Worlds By Design" presents an explosive and surprising cocktail ! The miracles of technology allow the participation of the legendary Robert CALVERT, despite the fact that the legendary HAWKWIND singer is now deceased !"The informant 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup Definately notable, despite the fact that I've never heard of him.--Vercalos 07:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless The informant's assertions are properly sourced. The current links all look like promotional or fan sites. In fact, 8 of the 10 misleadingly call themselves "websites" when they're just separate pages on the same Earthlink personal web account. All-Music Guide has an entry for Don Falcone which contains no biography information whatsoever (usually the sign of an unnotable artist), but its long lists of Falcone songs and credits suggest that there should be some real sources of information. As far as Don Carmine Falcone goes, if we keep this article, we should probably add a dab line at the top. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to keep. I'm still not sure about the notability of this guy, but he certainly seems involved in a lot of projects that release commercial CDs (even if I've never heard of any of them). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the extraneous links and found a new one for Spirits Burning. Also adding in Falcone discography from the Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock site.The informant 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This GEPR Falcone discography link is more direct. On the other hand, GEPR's Alexa rating is in the 800K range, not especially reliable, and the SpiritsBurning site doesn't even show up in Alexa. But all the pebbles are beginning to build up some substantial weight in my mind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apparently notable more by association than anything else, but gets just enough legit mentions (e.g., at planetgong.com) to put him over the top. May not "deserve" to be notable, but there are many, many categories of articles whose subjects fall into that category (Serial killers, people on sex tapes with Paris Hilton, fortunate sons who've been undemocratically installed as US President after losing the popular vote . . .) Monicasdude 14:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Has enough recording credits to indicate notability within genre. [19]

Capitalistroadster 22:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

  • Keep membership in several notable bands (with allmusic.com entries). OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBridge Apartment Complex[edit]

I don't think that an article about an individual apartment complex in Orlando, Florida is notable. JeffW 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with some added "Remember that you must be willing to share a room with someone who may fancy some exotic (and disgusting smelling) cuisine, or is foreign to the concept of taking the garbage out before the "roaches" appear to do the job. You must be accommodative and learning how to get along with all the residents in the apartment is one of the most challenging parts of the WDWAI." not seeming to belong. -- Imban 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of adspeak along with the roaches, not notable. Eivind 04:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, WP:NOT rent.com. --Kinu t/c 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, ad. --Terence Ong 05:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert..--Vercalos 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not as per above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 07:53Z
  • Delete advert. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apartment complex vanity, advertising. Way too much detail to interest anyone who does not live or work at the complex. Does not establish any particular notability. JIP | Talk 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad Jim62sch 20:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

Greetings, while I do agree that this article reads like and ad for the complex. I would like to point out that it is valuable as a supporting article for this page, WDWCP. While an article on a random apartment complex in Orlando FL is not exactly what people on Wikipedia want to read, its status as one for 4 housing complexes in an international internship program for a fortune 500 company.... is.

Please consider using your talents to edit the article so that it doth not offend. Shifter55 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shifter. As this is not a general interest for the general community, it is meant for a particular group of readers. The Disney College Program is a very big program and this page supports the topic for that page. Thousands of students research and look up information about the program every semester and a major question that they would like answered is what their living arrangements would be like. Please help in edit the page to help it fit the Wikipedia mold and reconsider the deletion if page is reposed. --Cw532 04:02, 29 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. - Bobet 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion barrier[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (diffusion-barrier) James084 04:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable technique in metallurgy. Kappa 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Terence Ong 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better off as an encyclopedia entry. Royboycrashfan 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone makes it a robust, sourced encyclopedia article before close. If so, I'd think we should lose the hyphen. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. It's not quite as stubby now, but is still unsourced, so I've added an {{unreferenced}} tag. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that hyphen must go; it is not the common usage --DV8 2XL 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphen is gone. :) Royboycrashfan 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For sure it needs more work, I've been at it off and on and will contiue to expand - have to wait 'till I get back to work to cite my references properly --DV8 2XL 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, common application for electroplating. I will endeavor to expand this topic over the next few days --DV8 2XL 09:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expandJim62sch 20:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since people above appear to believe an article can be written about this. -- Mithent 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and expand); this needs work, sure, but AfD is not an appropriate mechanism for cleanup requests. Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DV8 2XL's recent expansion. --Karnesky 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Aristides[edit]

Contested PROD. Author is nn, does not meet WP:BIO. Books chart at rank#2M in Amazon criteria, 512 hits on Google are mainly mirrors of this article. み使い Mitsukai 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Hill Baptist Church[edit]

Contested PROD. nn church, 267 hits in Google. While I have no problem with Churches being in WP, they have to be notable for some reason, otherwise, the millions of churches/synagoges/mosques/temples/etc. are going to swamp the system. み使い Mitsukai 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I only got 102 google hits with "Forest Hill Baptist Church" +Germantown -wikipedia myself. -- Imban 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used "Forest Hill Baptist Church" +Tennessee - Wikipedia, so there is the possibility of a second FHBC in TN, though I doubt it.--み使い Mitsukai 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the second link on that search is to a Forest Hill Baptist Church in Maryville, Tennessee, there does appear to be a second. :) -- Imban 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • After doing some searching, there's at least three (including this one), none of which are notable.--み使い Mitsukai 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 05:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Chairman S. Talk 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The article makes no claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 08:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirimens Copulatio[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (dirimens copulatio) James084 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm pretty sure an article on "a technique in rhetoric" could be expanded with more examples of historical usage, important authors, texts or political speeches which have used it and so on. I see no big reason not to transwiki this at the moment, as long as nobody objects to a future re-introduction of an expanded and referenced version to Wikipedia. u p p l a n d 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should give people a "page not found" message when they search for it? Kappa 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I would prefer somebody either to rewrite it as a better article, using a more complete description, more examples and proper references, or use it as a section in a larger article on rhetorical devices and make the title a redirect. A problem in this case is that it also appears to be a copyvio, see [20]. u p p l a n d 18:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I'm pretty sure this article's title is in latin and means something to do with copulation. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The latin word copulatio does not refer to sex. It may be translated as "union" or "combination". Fan1967 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary entry, not encyclopedic. Fan1967 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important technique in rhetoric. Kappa 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR dicdef. Stifle 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate recovery[edit]

This article has been transwikied to Wiktionary. (corporate recovery) James084 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no self-respecting encylopedia of business would not attempt to explain this activity. Kappa 06:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bloated dicdef. See also Asset recovery, while you're at it. --CrypticBacon 08:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Business and finance are some of the weakest areas of coverage here. The success or failure of corporate recoveries, the ensuing layoffs and restructuring, impact millions of workers, their families and communities every year. This is not a topic that should be hidden away in a one or two line definition. It is a topic that should be explained in depth with a discussion of the techniques used, examples of success and failures, and references. I say give this the time needed to develop.-- JJay 09:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major topic area. Why are some people willing to harm the development of Wikipedia by deleting important stubs? It looks a lot worse for Wikipedia to have no article at all. Osomec 13:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A good encyclopedia article could be written about this. Capitalistroadster 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Insolvency. Ewlyahoocom 11:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs expanding. -- infinity0 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterword[edit]

This article is a dictdef and already has an entry on Wiktionary. (Wiktionary:counterword) James084 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by gory death scene[edit]

Extreme, useless listcruft. This one has been around here for a while, but I cannot see a reason for its continuing. Its 50kb of largely unencyclopedic material. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where else would one find a list of scenes where a character is sliced by such a sharp object, that it takes some moments for them to fall apart? - SimonP 05:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into various articles to reduce size. Royboycrashfan 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gory listcruft. --InShaneee 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. --Terence Ong 06:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. Can be inspiring for RPG Gamemasters... Sandstein 08:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry, but despite not being a general fan of the gore genre, I find this list fascinating. Let's see… what was that film where some guy got his head drilled by a flying ball? Oh, yeah — Phantasm! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Yeah, it's probably listcruft, but there's no stopping that anymore. I would strongly suggest changing the title of this article, however (remove the word "gory"). --CrypticBacon 08:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Royboycrash. --CrypticBacon 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is extremely useful for people who need this info such as film scholars and fans. The list should not be split though. -- JJay 09:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have absolutely no interest in this stuff, but I can see how it would be very useful for people who are interested. Logophile 11:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SimonP. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified original research in which many of the entries apparently don't meet the stated criteria for inclusion (death depicted via "special effects.") And this article includes a woefully incomplete section on "death by gunfire," which will overwhelm the article if taken seriously; a section on "death by blendering", a purely subjective category; and no section on "death by bow and arrow," which I suppose means that Native Americans can die gorily, but not cowboys. But NOR/verifiability is the central problem. Who's to say that a particular death was depicted by special effect or implied by skillful editing. And how can you verify, say, that the character in Ghoulies 2 died from having his buttocks eaten? Has anyone ever died from that? How much more of this silliness can I type with a straight face? Mock article, then delete. Monicasdude 14:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think "special effects" requirement needs to be retained. I don't think any of us want to see any real-life beheadings or baghdad sniper videos showing up on this list. Ewlyahoocom 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, as per Monicasdude. Chairman S. Talk 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not orignial research. Movies are soruces. And this is an impressive compliation of data. Tobyk777 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not enough reason to delete it. Not original research. Aris Katsaris 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't OR for the above reasons and in any case has a book reference which includes many of the listed movies. I wouldn't however object to the removal of the word "gory" in the title. JoshuaZ 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay, lose the word "gory." Maybe "notable death scene" instead?
  • Keep. I completely disagree with everthing the nominator wrote. It is indeed encyclopedic. -- Freemarket 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly broad, totally arbitrary, tenuous theme. (In fact, any one of the subsections would be hopelessly broad on its own.) This list isn't useful for navigation or organization. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article needs to be rethought, but I like it too much to recommend its deletion. Maybe it should just be notable death scenes in film (in which case many of the minor deaths would be removed), but I think gory deaths (or unusual ways of dying) might be interesting also. Fagstein 06:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep gory listcruft. Ewlyahoocom 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather off-putting but if there is some interest then so be it. Probably of interest to some film researchers or psychologists. --JuntungWu 11:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too vague to be maintained. Pavel Vozenilek 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. This is a gory delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list is also hard to verify and is potentially limitless. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man In Black and Stifle. - Rynne 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm, a tough one. I'll say keep on the basis that I will clean it up and try to define some criteria for inclusion, in addition to adding it to my watchlist. I may want to move it to a new title, too. Incidentally, I would be grateful if others could watchlist it too, to take some burden off of me- I am only human (mostly).--Sean Black (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surprisingly useful list, despite the name. Kappa 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is useful, especially if you are doing something on violence in films. That said, I've seen some bizarre entries in here that really do not class as gory. Some kind of objective criteria is needed. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to List of films by death scene; the title is POV. -- infinity0 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klah Korp[edit]

Non-notable web-based group. Fails to meet the WP:WEB guidelines; possibly just a vanity page.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant church sex scandals[edit]

I prodded which was shortly removed. The rationale I gave for the prod follows: This is 100% original research and POV, to wit, no encyclopedic content. While it is possible that a proper article could be created on the sex scandals plaguing the protestant church, this isn't it. Note that the author removed most of the text after removing the prod tag (see history for the full text). I do think an article can be created on this topic, but just because an article can be created is not a proper rationale for rehabilitation of unencyclopedic content. Fuhghettaboutit 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

  • I did revise it and shorten it. It is really little more then a stub at this point. However, there is nothing in it that is demonstrably false. I suggest leaving it as a stub until it can be polished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs)
  • Reluctant keep. Has potential to be a real article. pschemp | talk 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did say I was reluctant. Looking at this again, I feel the title is too vauge. "Protestant church" is just too generic for what would be happening in a specific denomimation. pschemp | talk 20:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not as awful as the prodded version, but still. Still unsourced. Still feels like a POV fork. It's got a quote and that's it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Current stub contains no sourced information except a quote (whose link I had to fix). The general external link provided is a page that starts off "Welcome to a collection of news reports of ministers sexually abusing children". (That's just creepy.) The site has no Alexa ranking. I agree that this topic can be a useful article, but it currently lacks any prose worth keeping. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Un sourced. Not a useful stub since there is no sourced starting point.Obina 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources and unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not clear which church this article is referring to. There is no central "Protestant Church." Brian G. Crawford 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - as above. Also, please see Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal - Ali-oops✍ 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There are 30,000 Protestant churches. You can't write an article about abuse cases in every one of them, so it has to be general. There is one just for Catholics. Why not have one for Protestants? Sections for Jimmy Swaggart etc. can be added. It is POV to delete it just because it's creepy. The one on Catholic priest sexual abuse is pretty creepy to, so shouldn't it be deleted? This gives a starting point to balance the whole issue of sexual abuse instead of making it appear to be solely the perogative of Catholic priests. I think there should also be entries for abuse among Rabbi's, Buddhists, Muslims, and others. It is POV just to have one for Catholics. Let's be fair here. Also I would like to add there is a dearth of information on Protestant church scandals. They are not studied or covered as much. This makes it difficult to write an entry. Let it stand as a stub and be improved over time. Cestusdei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Um yeah, Catholic is *one* denomination, that's why there is an article for that. The term Protestant Church includes tens of thousands of denominations, each of which may or may not have such a scandal. You can't lump these all together. pschemp | talk 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 22 ritual churches within Catholicism. Should I demand that we have a seperate article for each rite? One for the Roman Rite, one for the Coptic Rite etc.? There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant" to cover the spectrum. Otherwise this is simply a pretext to avoid writing about the issue at all (except for when it's about Catholics). If you check the link you will see it covers many denominations. This is the only way to do it. I am aware that there is sentiment to not focus on Protestant scandals. But they do exist and deserve the same treatment as the Catholic ones. It is admittedly harder to do, but we should start somewhere. Cestusdei— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. you wrote: "There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant". Um, yes there is. You say Methodist, Epicsopal, Presbyterian, Lutheren, Baptist etc. Its easy. Besdies, I'd hate for wikipedia to get sued for libel when it lumps all protestants together and says they have sex scandals. And don't confuse Catholic rites with denominations. They aren't the same thing. (although those who recognise the pope and those that don't (Orthodox) *are* different. pschemp | talk 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No meaningful content. Unless a generalization can legitimately be made for Protestant scandals, I don't see how the article can be salvaged. A category of (verified!) Protestant sex scandals might make some sense. Peter Grey 13:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the Catholic Church sued Wikipedia for libel? You cover only abuse scandals in the Catholic Church as if they don't happen elsewhere. Do Protestant children count less? Is their abuse somehow different or okay then if the perpetrator was Catholic? Are you prepared for 30,000 articles each covering a different denomination? And you claim there is no central Protestant body, so who exactly is going to sue wikipedia then? If you check the link you will find almost 1000 scandals with their respective denominations listed. That's pretty meaningful and verified. What I see here is an intense desire to avoid covering an important issue due to POV. If this article doesn't make it then the one on the Catholic scandals should go. Unless you simply want to admit bias. Frankly I don't see the problem with an article on this unless there is bias at work. Again part of the problem is that there are no comprehensive records or studies. No one has bothered, other then that one site, to start adding up the Protestant scandals. The denominations aren't trotting out their records for public perusal. If anyone knows where we can find more detailed info please speak up. But if you look at the site you know it is happening. You say be more specific. I would be delighted to, but the Baptists et al are not being real cooperative. They don't have to be since they are not under the microscope. The Orthodox are mired in sex scandals right now in Greece. Have you heard about that? Probably not, since it isn't a Catholic scandal. Why in the world do you want to keep facts out of wikipedia or should I say THESE facts? Cestusdei— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. pointless... "my church is being blamed, i wanna share the pain" Other churches have sexual abuse scandals... look them up, add them with sources, maybe this page won't just be rampant POV. WookMuff 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ps. start with the churches with young boys in robes... oh wait, there is already a page about that religion[reply]

WookMuff makes my point for me. You can see his bigotry. This is exactly why we need an article that covers the issue in Protestant churches. It gives facts rather then simply reinforcing bias. Cestusdei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

Damn, i am discover ed. Quick, scatter! Tool, i have nothing against catholicism in general or in the specific. The reason i think catholics cop more flack about pedophilic sex scandals is mere opportunity, not the quality or quantity of men called.WookMuff 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article was clearly created as a tit-for-tat measure to attack Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal article. Article contains no useful sourced content; the only sourced quote specifically addresses the lack of information on topic. - Rynne 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's logic. Are you denying that there is abuse in Protestant churches? Look at the link. You have Islamic terrorism and Zionist terrorism articles. Is that tit for tat? Is it an attack to provide information on this issue? If I call the Catholic one an "attack" will you delete it? Probably not. Cestusdei

You're willfully missing the point. There is no conspiracy against the subject matter. We are a cabal, but only to the extent we want this encyclopedia to have encyclopedic content. If you had penned a good, sourced article, we wouldn't be having this "debate." --Fuhghettaboutit 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to the best source I could find. No studies have been done as far as I can tell. By providing at least a brief stub with the link we put as much out there as exists currently. It's the best that can be done at this point and is better then nothing. At least if someone has a question they get pointed in the right direction. We can certainly link to the TV evangelist scandals. I argue that this be permitted despite it's stub form since it seem to be the only information available. The alternative is to simply ignore what is there. Perhaps others have access to more information and can add to it. So why not leave it as a work in progress? Cestusdei

That woud be fine if this was a different type of reference work. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not the venue for news, or original research or academic papers, etc.. An encyclopedia is a compendium of already know information. It is not or should not be a first source but a second-hand source, and good articles are a synthesis of original source material, if you will. I (we?) have no problem with the nature of what you are writing per se, what I object to is its inclusion in this encyclopedia. There is no rancorous intent or hidden agenda. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the problem. What is known is minimal right now. If I had detailed studies I would certainly put those in. I wish I did. All I can do is put in what is available. I can't do the research myself. I grant it is just a small stub with only one link, but if that's all that's out there then that's all that can be put in. But something is better then nothing. Maybe someone out there will see the stub and have access to more information then I do. It won't hurt to let it stay. It may be that someone will find the reference useful. I think I have said as much as I can say about the article in it's defense. I hope that wikipedia will keep it at least until something better comes along. If something does then it can be replaced. I think that is fair and will also shield wikipedia from the claim that they focus only on catholic scandals out of bias. Keep it, everybody wins and no one really loses.


  • Delete per nom and Rynne. Deletion from Wiki is not a denial that the problem exists, it is an acknowledgement that the topic has insufficient information for an encyclopadeia article. JGF Wilks 07:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rynne. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more information and added it verbatim. I think you should give it a look. Hopefully this answers the problems. It is virtually a new article and no longer a stub. Cestusdei 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this self-admitted verbatim lifting of a Northwest Indiana Times article [21]. Editors shouldn't create or "improve" Wikipedia articles by violating others' copyrights. We are expected to write our own material based on sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to improve the article and you still don't like it. You say there is no agenda here, but my doubts are resurrected. I cited the article I used. This is getting ridiculous. I have checked other articles on wikipedia. I find plenty of stubs which are allowed to survive. Other articles contain blatent bias or falsehoods or unverifiable statements and they too are permitted to continue. POV seems to be ignored in many cases. Yet here suddenly all the rules apply. This doesn't seem to be a real encyclopedia at all. Just a forum like any other that pretends to be more. I think that no matter what I do you will not allow this article to survive.Cestusdei 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, your own anti-religious bias is noted. I don't think that anti-religious bigots should be permitted to remove anything from religious articles.Cestusdei 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am not, however, persuaded by the author's comment, since those other articles are not in this debate. This debate is about this article, other debates may be about other articles. -Splashtalk 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kansas[edit]

Unencyclopedic list of red links. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Fightindaman 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACPOC Syndrome[edit]

Article is an unverified neologism. Google produces zero hits for entire term; acronym alone has no hits for legal connotation (chiefly for "Association of Childrens Prosthetic-Orthotic Clinics"). Subject material seems worthy of an article, but should be moved to an appropriate title. Precisely what to call this isn't obvious to me. Delete if we can't source this term or find an appropriate title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and redirect. kingboyk 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Xi[edit]

Non notable winner of a non notable contest. --PatCheng 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Progressive Party[edit]

Contested PROD. Was prod-ed as "Non-notable student organization", the prod has been removed by an editor and the proposed deletion has been disputed. Blue520 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. as "Non-notable student organization" --Blue520 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 06:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orgcruft and red link repository. Royboycrashfan 07:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with its mortal enemy Students 4 michigan (currently under PROD), as unnotable intramural political sport. Google count of 264,000 whittles down to 34 distinct citations, most of which are blogs and UMich sites. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --CrypticBacon 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete red link farm +nn. Eivind 10:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No contest As the article's author, I say "Eh, you're all probably right" -- though I'm not aware of it having an intramural sports team... --electric counterpoint 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, speedy delete at author's request. It's your party, and you'll cry if you want to. :) Fagstein 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Melchoir 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Google is not enough, especially for small but focused online communities (too much intra-community linking biases the results); Alexa ranking of main website > 60,000. I've created the redirect to Bootlegger myself. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleggers[edit]

comment How are they 'way different'?--Vercalos 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Above. Aus 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Delete all the definition: They are inappropriate in Wikipedia. Please have them redirected to bootlegger. COMMODORE64 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bootleggers is a well established online community, a redirect has been created, article has been cleaned up Jules 07:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and condense. ~1500 players online on average does not deserve such a large page. Too much unnecessary detail. -- infinity0 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanger[edit]

A hugely overblown article on a non-notable gaming community. Doesn't seem to have any purpose, and is extremely vanity-focused. The "EvilToastHead" pic serves as exhibit A for this. Harro5 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo homes, i vote we delete harro peace out Haroo is just angry EvillToastHead didn't work for him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheds (talk • contribs)

"Currently over 200,000 accounts have been registered" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheds (talk • contribs)

  • Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheds (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I've updated the article - could still use improvement but should save the page from deletion. Cedars 08:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as probably notable, but delete everything, in particular the image, except for the first two paragraphs. Sandstein 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this appears notable. - Longhair 08:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GameRanger passes the proposed notability criteria in the current revision of WP:SOFTWARE as demonstrated by these statistics. Articles here (IMG), here (MacWorld) and here (MacWorld - scroll down to the bottom) demonstrate that it has been featured - as opposed to merely mentioned in passing - in publications with large circulation. I agree that previous revisions were excessive, but the current revision makes the article worth keeping. — digitaleon • talk @ 14:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have moved the "Gameranger" page to "GameRanger" which matches the title's format on the GameRanger website. I had not intended to do this until after the nomination was complete but as Royboycrashfan noted the previous version of the article contained spam advertising premium services. The article is continually being reverted to a spam version of the article and so to counter-act such things may need to be semi-protected. If it is semi-protected it should be protected with the right title, hence the move. Cedars 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Quite notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. A clear example of what prod was created for. In fact there should be a CSD for this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel pit[edit]

I give you... the weasel pit. This contested prod is a completely unremarkable website with no Alexa rank. Delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. But Alexa does have a rank. She's the "Sexy visual design woman". Hehehe... -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kidswhomadeawebsitecruft. --CrypticBacon 08:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ^. the blonde girl is pretty, though. Eivind 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vsca. Alexa is hot, tho. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website. No Alexa rank at all. WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 16:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gotta give them credit for trying, though. :) --Ataricodfish 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page has copywritten images from the website in name. The information is also misleading as it is not a "for-profit" website, but a casual humor and joke website. It was also created by a 3rd party without express permission from the website's author. Ryan Veltidi 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, borderline speedy (asserts importance but vaguely). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl_Stanton[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. Website for his business Chef Flavor Catering has no alexa ranking, and a google search on "carl stanton" and "chef flavor" yields zero results outside his own website. --Xyzzyplugh 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Xyzzyplugh 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also note that I was unable to find any evidence through a google search what "chef of the year for OSI" might mean. 'The International Who's Who of Chefs' is a book which lists 3000 chefs, which I don't think makes a chef notable. --Xyzzyplugh 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --CrypticBacon 08:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Eivind 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn vanity. --Terence Ong 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyzero[edit]

520 Google hits for this online community forum, 31 pages linking to the website, no mentions in the news in evidence, no evidence of the significance of the site. Ziggurat 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as simply not notable. --CrypticBacon 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable website. Why does the creator insist on naming individual members? Do we look like we care who they are, especially since we don't know their real names? JIP | Talk 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable website, complete advertising. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Angr/talk 15:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team X (developer)[edit]

No google hits. Company this team is part of has no article of its own. I still say delete. The company may be notable but its development team isn't.Fagstein 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per author's comment below. Fagstein 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and also removed the AfD tag from the article. --CrypticBacon 08:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from creator: I am creating entries relating to the company I work for, which has been creating prominent games for 16 years. I apologize if this entry comes off as a vanity page but please rest assured it's an official development team and will be connected to multiple other entries on wiki as I put additional time into this. --AdamTierney
  • Merge to WayForward Technologies, now that there's something to merge. I don't think the article requires deletion, although I will put an OR tag on it. Melchoir 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much appreciated, Melchoir. Now that a decision has been made, can I delete the deletion discussion notice from the entry, so long as I leave the notice of unverification? --AdamTierney
  • Redirect - to WayForward Technologies - the team isn't notable in itself. Cursive 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion upon author's request - I've decided to remove this page. I considered it a valid entry but since users such as Fagstein feel so strongly against this, I suppose it's better to just remove. -- Adamtierney 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diederik Marius[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. Fagstein 08:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HackThisSite[edit]

I think this site is non-notable. It has an alexa rank of around 80,000 and returns no google news hits. There is no other claim to notability in the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep You forgot to mention the 40,000+/-[22] Google hits :) Please note also that Google News does not reflect coverage older than a couple weeks. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this crappy little three sentence entry. Why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find this instead of looking in a search engine? Wikipedia is not a search engine. Compiling a list of all known websites is a task for a search engine company, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia will never be Google, and shouldn't try to be. Brian G. Crawford 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because an article is a stub, doesn't mean it should be deleted. HackThisSite has been mentioned several times on high profile blogs like engadget, and hackaday. It is definatly notable via Google hits, and Internet communities, not JUST one, but many. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any thoughts on what might be added? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per lightdarkness Computerjoe 21:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightdarkness. It's quite notable among the hacker community, and warrants expansion. Rob T Firefly 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fagstein (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per lightdarkness and Adrian. JoshuaZ 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lightdarkness. Kappa 10:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hack 2nd on Google, I confess this article was originally started by a user to poke fun at the site and to throw derogatory comments at the staff, but I'm sure someone could expand and make this a useful article. I agree as it stands it's not worth the space it's taking up, but there's still hope for it yet. IceShaman 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- infinity0 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth Behind Bars[edit]

Found this entry via wrong information put on an unrelated page for a Sarah Hudson album, Naked Truth. Ran a Yahoo search for this supposed CD, and could not find any information about this album (The six links that showed up were either Wiki links or blogs making jokes about Lil' Kim being in jail.) Appears to be a violation of WP:Not a crystal ball, but further, I can't find any reliable sources that verify that this CD or the information within exists or plans to exist. No other wiki articles link to this one. Ataricodfish 08:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crystal ballism. Eivind 09:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should this CD ever materialise, it can get a proper album article. Rob T Firefly 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 17:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nice story about you just happened to come accross this ;-) Carlossuarez46 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Ha ha! Now, what are you saying I use Wikipedia for? :) --Ataricodfish 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted early because the author/subject has requested deletion on her own site, and consensus is clearly leaning towards deletion. Rhobite 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USNewsLink[edit]

Old, but non-notable website. Original version had about 6 external links to the site. Main claim of notability seems to be that it is in the Library of Congress's Sept 11th Internet archive; this is not significant, as that archive contains a large proportion of all sites on the net as of that time; it's no claim of notability, afaik. Also the site has a prominent banner saying that it is being sold; this looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Delete JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP.USNewsLink's main claim to fame? There is no main claim to fame. This website is constantly updated and provides information about a variety of subjects and issues. Jesse's criticism is unwarranted and his summary of the site's importance is petty at worst and inaccurate at best. Jesse does not have a clue about the history of USNewsLink or its "external links.” USNewsLink's US Casualties pages are constantly read. The Archive is constantly read, and re-read. And I doubt that anyone at the Library of Congress would agree with Jesse as to the importance of the Sept. 11 Archive. While there may be many entries in the Archive, they were hand selected by an editorial committee. Every article was read by one or more people before it was nominated for inclusion. The efforts of Jesse to minimize the importance of the selection of USNewsLink's articles and commentary for the Sept. 11 Archive is certainly no reason to delete USNewsLink from Wikipedia. The fact that USNewsLink is for sale in no way implies that it will not continue in its present format because it is funded by my foundation. I will remain a Director and my stock ownership will revert to the foundation for USNewsLink's future overhead. And for the record, Jesse made no effort to notify me of his deletion nomination. I have revised the content to bare bones information and hope that Jesse will remove his objection and allow the content to stay in the directory. Usnewslink 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comment on this. I didn't leave you a message before nominating the page because I noted that you were currently active on the article, and I assumed(correctly) that you would see the message, and would comment if you wished to. Regarding your description of Wikipedia as a "directory", please review the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also Wikipedia:Notability (websites) would be useful, as it lays out some good guidelines regarding the inclusion of articles on websites in Wikipedia. Reviewing the LoC site, I see that you are right - although the total collection is over 30,000 sites ("selected", but mere mebership in such a large list would not be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia), there is a smaller collection of approx. 2,300 sites which were further indexed, and USNewsLink is one of them, which I agree is some claim to notability. I still wish to leave this up for nomination for some more time, as I'm not yet convinced, but I do appreciate the comment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of USNewsLink's articles and commentary in the Sept. 11 Archive ensures that historians throughout the ages will have access to what Americans - in particular this American - thought and felt during the aftermath of Sept. 11. But from your view, people who read Wikipedia would have no interest in such. You think USNewsLink is not relevant or important enough to be included in Wikipedia and want it deleted. But thankfully, the Libary of Congress doesn't share your view. Usnewslink 11:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Barely any Google references. Alexa rank in the 4 million range. The site itself is not notable in any way. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 11:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Your position is well-known. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 11:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shinmawa, click on the THIRTEEN PAGES of Google references and then retract your lie about USNewsLink's having "Barely any Google references". If you don't retract it, your silence will serve to underscore your efforts to willfully mislead the readers of this series of comments. Usnewslink 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. Please keep things civil, assume good faith, and cease making personal attacks. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shimawa, identifying you as the liar that you are is not a personal attack - it is the truth. Do not lie about USNewsLink and expect me to remain silent. Is lying civilized? No it is not. Suggesting that USNewsLink be deleted by lying is unacceptable conduct on your part. Now retract your lie. Usnewslink 11:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • USNewsLink is certainly notable to those who visit it morning, noon, and night - and for those who will read it for centuries to come. LINKS TO USNEWSLINK'S CONTENTand ARTICLES can be found across the Internet including Wikipedia. The US Casualties pages are linked in many websites, including other news organizations. The objections to USNewsLink that have been raised here are empty, baseless, mistruths, and utter nonsense. Usnewslink 14:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Jim62sch 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant self-promotion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Haney as well. Rhobite 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhobite has deleted all of my contributions to this website. The best thing to do in this case is to deal with the malicious defamation and harassment in a court of law which is exactly what I'm planning to do. You each have taken your best shot and now it's my turn.Usnewslink 21:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. --InShaneee 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: The old 'many far less notable topics elsewhere' argument aside, the 600+ goofle hits is marginal at best for a news organization. Ombudsman 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:WEB standards. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. By the way, it now has an anti-Wikipedia spray on its home page claiming Wikipedia claims it is a dictionary. For the record, it is an encyclopedia and there is no evidence that this article is notable enough for it. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete. If the alexa rank of over 4,000,000 were not enough, the legal threats and the slander of Wikipedia on the front of the site's webpage make it clear that this person does not deserve coverage on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per Zoe.  RasputinAXP  c 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per ombudsman. Rob T Firefly 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, website's homepage has nonsense about Wikipedia at the top (though it doesn't seem to be directly related to this AfD). Fagstein 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe. Sandstein 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB. However, Zoe keep in mind that an organization slandering wikipedia is not a criterion for deletion of an article about that organization, nor should it be if wikipedia is to function as an at all reliable resource. JoshuaZ 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and who is 151.213.251.229 who keeps blanking?
  • Delete. Other than inclusion in the Library of Congress archive, no assertion is made of the subject's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (withdrawn by nominator). kingboyk 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sharkey[edit]

Survived the first vote on the condition that notability information be added. In over a month, that hasn't happened. No claim to notability outside of the marginally notable Freeform hardcore. Hence, the reference to him in that article is adequate. No need to merge because it already contains all the notable information about him. Image reeks of vanity, as did the disambiguation page before I cleaned it up. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, anyway...delete. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. Looks like once again I have proven myself horribly out of touch with music. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alkivar below. Fagstein 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up and notability established. Stifle 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • DJ profile link in the article indicates that he has done his DJing in multiple nations. That should be enough to indicate notability, if his appearances w/John Peel weren't enough already. Will add info to the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep EASILY passes WP:MUSIC guidelines:
    1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
      • his track Toytown from 1995 charted at #5 on the UK Dance charts around that period.
    2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
      • all of the Bonkers compilations have certified gold or platinum (worldwide sales), he's on all of them.
    3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
      • Has internationally toured in: US, Italy, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (he's British)
    4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
      • Is clearly the most prominent representative of Freeform Hardcore music. This is easily verified, via a simple google search.
    5. Has released two or more albums on a major label
      • had an album released on Sony Music Entertainment (UK) and EMI Records (Italy) ... thats just two.
    6. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media.
      • Was on a CD attached to the cover of MIXMAG, with a bio inside the magazine in December 2003. That certainly covers "non trivial" and "verifiable media"
    7. Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.
      • CO-HOSTED John Peel Is Not Enough hardcore special on BBC Radio 1 with John Peel. Title of the special comes from a track created by CLSM (another Freeform hardcore artist). I have an mp3 of the show if anyone needs verification of it.
    8. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
      • Founded a genre, is always mentioned by name when genre is mentioned.
  • Speedy keep as a notable figure in the happy hardcore genre and per reasons given in the original AFD nomination. Hall Monitor 22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notability was established in the last AFD, this is a pointless nomination. --kingboyk 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph asserts notability, by the way. 1) "one of the originators of the Freeform hardcore sound" 2) "achieving silver sales status in the" UK 3) "played at most major United Kingdom festivals" 4) worked with John Peel. --kingboyk 07:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar. —A 19:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blork[edit]

Neologism, made up in 2005. NO claims of wide use or notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom.Obina 12:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Made up, Neologism. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Google test miserably. Also, if you know who coined a term, chances are it's because it's not widespread. Fagstein 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica at the 2006 Winter Olympics[edit]

Unlike Morocco at the 2006 Winter Olympics (which is up for AFD), Jamaica didn't, and was never supposed to compete at the 2006 Olympics. I think we should not have articles for every country that did not participate. Perhaps merge to Bobsleigh at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Punkmorten 10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There was a Jamaican at the Winter Olympics. This articles is part of a series in two directions - by Olympics and by country. Deleting it will do nothing but harm. Osomec 13:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting enough and part of an encyclopedic topic. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into canada's article MadCow257 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or failing that reluctant merge per above. Eusebeus 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Chairman S. Talk 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better to be as comprehensive as possible than as patchy as possible Scranchuse 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the ongoing interest in the Jamaican bobsleigh team. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numerous news articles mentioned Jamaican team in their Turin coverage (like this one, notably because a Jamaican-born bobsledder won a medal as a Canadian. Fagstein 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- part of an important series of articles. - Longhair 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jamaica's attempt to quallify for the Winter Olympics is notable. Suggest a change of categorization to note that it didn't make it to the 2006 Olympics. Andjam 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This information is interesting and valuable. -Colin Kimbrell 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not Cool Runnings. Stifle 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is indeed not a Walt Disney movie, but what does this have to do with this AfD? Andjam 08:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia's audience includes Jamaicans, no reason not to serve them properly. Kappa 10:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content could be moved elsewhere, such at Bobsleigh at the 2006 Winter Olympics. The "<country> at the <games> Olympics" ought to be reserved for NOCs that actually competed. Andrwsc 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European superculture hypothesis[edit]

The whole article is original research -- and one of the most vile variations of such original research, namely the kind that doesn't limit itself to one article, but tries to insert itself into a variety of other articles as well (e.g. see creation of articles Celtic Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe etc). There's certainly lots of things that can be spoken about cultural divisions in Europe -- and for linguistic and religions divisions as well. But this overall "hypothesis" that conflates culture and history, objectivity and subjectivity, fact and research into one single thing, and tries to lift artificial concrete border where the reality is much more fluid and abstract -- ugh, this is a horrid and ugly thing; less a description of reality and more of a original-research modelization thereof. Delete. Aris Katsaris 10:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merely tried to create a bridge, with existing information between those 4 "[...]Europe" articles, I know it's far (and further) from perfect, and I wouldn't mind it being deleted but I still think there should be some embodying article between these 4 articles.Any ideas? Sander 11:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture of Europe could certainly be heavily improved (with maps and the like) to include/explain the cultural divisions that exist in the continent. But that's a different thing altogether than creating an article about a "hypothesis" that tries to gather together already flawed articles under one umbrella, thus enhancing their flaws by superimposition rather than reduce them by factuality. Aris Katsaris 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be the best, but do we in fact need these articles? All four of them (to me) are filled with culturalism-nationalism. Shouldn't they be deleted as well. Sander 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research. Your idea of creating a link shows you plan OR. May I suggest you find someone else who has created what you want in print, and then write an article about this work?Obina 12:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, irrelevant data. Behemoth 13:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unsourced. And shouldn't the four other articles, Latin Europe, Germanic Europe, Celtic Europe, and Slavic Europe, all be AfD'd on the seme grounds? Lukas (T.|@) 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article itself says The term is quite inaccurate. Talking about the four language groups separately, however, makes sense. Peter Grey 13:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh , you can stop saying delete, even I (the creator) want it to be deleted Sander 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Slavic Europe is currently quite unsorted rant although there are no fatal errors. Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ;) I don't mean to piss you off Sander, I just wanted to vote. --Khoikhoi 04:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbinlol[edit]

(Listing of orphaned AFD by User:60.224.0.83) Neologism/Protologism. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend jen[edit]

Non-notable organization, possibly an advertisement. This is the author's only contribution. CrypticBacon 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Eivind 12:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless we can uncover these 2 books and they are broadly published.Obina 12:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment & Delete Found the two books, and they don't appear notable. Amazon shows one in stock here [23] and another out of print here [24], both printed by a small press company here [25]. Personally, I think both are non-noteable and the listing appears to be an ad.--Ataricodfish 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 16:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is produced. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Wing[edit]

Non-notable school building. Delete. Oldelpaso 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was listed for proposed deletion, listed here as tag was removed by creator. Oldelpaso 11:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My front lawn entertains mailmen, FedEx boys, process servers and the occasional federal agent every day. Sadly, being a high-traffic area doesn't make it notable, and same goes for this building. non-notable structure, and I think I'll ridiculously stretch WP:NFT too, 'cos the building was quite clearly made and put up in a school :P . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very nn. Eivind 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable.Obina 12:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's one thing to say that all schools are notable... but every building at a school? Come on. --Kinu t/c 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Aficionados[edit]

Most likely a hoax, as this Google search turns up nothing relevant. CrypticBacon 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spazcore[edit]

Delete. The term "Spazcore" or "Spazzcore" is irrelevant and contrived. No one uses the term except for occaisonally those who are far-removed from the DIY hardcore scene, who are unfamiliar with the actual terminology and therefore invent their own. For instance, mainstream rock journalists who have likely never attended a DIY show in their lives may make up their own terms ("spazcore") to describe music that already has a more legitimate name ("second wave powerviolence"). The article is pointless; it's obviously one person's attempt to use Wikipedia to legitimize a silly and non-existant term. Alexanderj 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep googling shows useage, but not to common. Eivind 12:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Broadly a neologism - but in any case a dicdef.Obina 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, dicdef. --Terence Ong 16:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is growing in usage. Possibly rename it with two Z's, as "spazzcore" has approximately 13K Google hits, "spazcore" has about 3K. Rob T Firefly 02:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to power violence. The term is actually in use, but there's no need for it to have its own article. --keepsleeping slack off! 17:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- infinity0 17:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Crossbar[edit]

DeleteThis article is nothing more than an advertisement for a non-notable new book from a non-notable author--TheKvetch 13:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Amateur Telescope[edit]

Delete Article about a proposed telescope does not say where, when, how or why. Prod was removedPorturology 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Eivind 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a notable project from their web site, but fails a Lexis/Nexis search, and web site has not been updated in 14 months. Have they ever been written up in Sky & Telescope or something similar? Should be kept with rewrite to bring in history, photos, progress to date; but might still fail notability if no external write-ups. Thatcher131 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current content is "The Large Amateur Telescope is a large (1.8 meter or 70 inch) telescope being built by and for the use of amateur astronomers." This has not been significantly edited since Mar 2004. The quoted Web site was last updated in Dec 2004. If someone can add to this it may be worthwhile but at the moment it looks like some groups dream project, which has fallen by the wayside. User:Thatcher131, are you volunteering to verify and rewrite this article?--Porturology 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but someone removed the prod tag. Thatcher131 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Removed (with many others) by user:Golfcam Reason: "Vanity not proven" Fair enough, but he is not going to repair it and it is currently devoid of any meaningful content--Porturology 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the site says "Last update, December 30, 2004." - doesn't seem to be active. -- infinity0 17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac renshaw[edit]

non-notable teenager CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete. He is notable down here in AUS! - Maccy

What maccy said. he's a good kid. dont delete it!!! -jamesdale

yep. Heaps of people know him in vic and all around schools in Australia. i mean hes a notable swimmer. - Dom16

I know Mac personally. He's lucky to have his own bibliography on here! Come on, just leave it on! - Frankwaters

  • Strong Delete or speedy per nom. 15-year-old with some very non-specific and non-verifiable claims of athletic awards and such. 6 Google hits, all look unrelated as far as I can tell. Pathetic attempts at sockpuppeting make my vote a Strong Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Swimming Competitions were held incompetecne of the School. they will not appear on any websites from google or anything thats for sure. Mac Renshaw was awarded 3 years ago a Science award. (scroll down to mac renshaw) http://scienceawards.bhpbilliton.com/repository/studentWinners/studentWinnersEncouragement2003.asp He does have a place on this website he is athletically and educationally blessed. - Charlie33

  • Delete Certanly not notable, regardless of how many friends he's got. Vanity page. Eivind 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point there Charlie. it clearly shows that Mac was won an award. And as far as medal tally's for swimming goes, they wont be very easy to come across. Only the Australian Swimming Association will have that data as well as schoold competing. - Bob Barne

I agree with everybody else. I think that it should be left there. I have read paper articles explaining what a true champ he is to his school, family and all his friends. He has put it a great deal of effort and he truly deserves this page ! - Ashlee Heir

I have heard a great deal about this kid and how he swims. Never met him or saw him but he definately deserves this page from what i have heard and read! Frank Frutz

  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Note to author: you are not fooling anyone with these sockpuppet edits. Sandstein 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete I have looked through and all the articles that were written up top, were infact different users and it is not a case of sockpuppeteering Bobet 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above signature by Bobet is forged. The entry was actually by Fredman007 (Contribs), the author of the original article - Fan1967 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please go away Thatcher131 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable biography & WP:SOCK warns against stacking the vote.  (aeropagitica)  16:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless waste of time by some number of teenagers. Fan1967 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete db-bio criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--Porturology 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim is that he is a famous Australian swimmer. A Google search disproves this claim given that he only gets 6 hits, none of which verifies this. [26] A search of an Australian and New Zealand database gets no results as well. Given that prominent Australian swimming meets are shown on primetime television, a notable swimmer would have a much higher profile than that. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll WP:AGF, and assume that when User:Hilbilly blanked the page and forged his vote signature (as User:Cnwb), all in his very first edit, he actually meant to vote legitimately as himself. So, here's what he had to say: "Dont Delete His notable, i have done research using the AUS swimming Carnival access page." That's all. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not verified--A Y Arktos 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm sure he's a nice fellow, but that's not relevant here. Read WP:BIO. Fagstein 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To paraphrase what Maccy said at the top of the page, Delete. He is not at all notable down here in AUS! --Roisterer 11:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The article contains lots of OBVIOUSLY FALSE claims
    • There is no Australian Championships in March - they were in February as the Comm Games are during March
    • He is not on any Australian swim squad for any international meet - go through archives at www.swimming.org.au
    • Getting an encouragement award in BHP Billiton awards is nn

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was about to close this early and delete it, because "Clear deletion concensus, possible speedy (there are claims of notability, which may or may not be hoaxes)." Then I discovered that early closing is not allowed if the result is to be a formal deletion. So, since there's vague assertions of notability, and I can't close early, we have to leave this lying around for a few more days. Isn't process great? --kingboyk 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Croatia[edit]

Reasons for deletion[edit]

Well - over 50% is not original research. However, it deals with information that are not even close relevant to the subject - or incorrect.

For instance, it says Red Croatia (Latin: Croatiam Rubeam, Croatian: Crvena Hrvatska), was a name that several medieval documents designated to the initial Slavonic states in southern parts of Dalmatia: the duchies of Hu===m/Zahumlje, Pagania/Narenta, Travunia, and Duklja. However, as you can see on Pagania, Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje; Pagania is no where mentioned as a part. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duvno field was the site of the crowning of Croatian king Tomislav in the 920s. The town of Duvno in western Bosnia is now called Tomislavgrad in honor of his coronation. Where is the relevancy here? It only refers to the actual city of Duvno - nothing to do with Red Croatia itself. (the subject) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Principalities02.png
this map

...says in the article that it shows the territories of Read Croatia - it doesn't. As discussed, Pagania was never a part of Read Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it says Surbia and Bosnia are used as only geographic locations and not ethnic meanings. The region known as Surbia is divided from Raška and Bosnia, it covers a small area which is on the outskirts of the old Roman providence of Dalmatia. The chronicle does not refer to Serbs or Bosnians in the ethnic sense. That is WP:POV, what says that Croatia cannot be used only as a geographical location? Additionally, the region of Surbia wasn't "divided from", but "composed of" Rascia and Bosnia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He in Chapter 30 also notes Croats setting up a powerful military presence in these regions and extracting taxes from the local populace in the southern Dalmatian dutchies. This is not correct, please see De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 30 - you will see that it confirms no such thing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In chapter 32 about the Serbs, Porphyrogenitos describes an identical settlement of Serbs but specifically notes that Croats settled in these regions first. Porphyrogenitos mentions Serb settlements in Travunia and Hum but makes no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja.

Again - incorrect. Please see De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 32. You will see that there is no mention that Croats inhabited the region first. Additonally, Serbs inhabited Zahumlje and Pagania (as you can see). Also - of what relevancy is no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja to Red Croatia? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio, the description of the Serbs suggests that the Serbs were not regarded as an ethnicity but rather as a social class. The Byzantines regarded the Serbs as social servants and even slaves.

Review that chapter of DAI - it says that Serbs means slaves in the language of the Romei (Greeks) means Slaves and not vice-versa as presented in the article. The other sentence is WP:POV and has again - no relevancy on the actual subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs probably have not been significant in this region until Croat king King Tomislav gave them a refuge to flee the Bulgarians. - WP:No_original_research; and together with Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio suggest that Bulgarian Czar Simeon I scattered the Serbs into Croatia and Bulgaria after an unsuccessful Bulgarian military advance against Croatia. makes no relevancy on the subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Scylitza's chronicle[edit]

The notion of Croats in Duklja is supported with the testimony from Byzantine Chronicler John Scylitza where he writes:

" Dukljan King Michael rules over those who call themselves Croats."

Indeed correct - but has absolutly no relevancy to the subject of Red Croatia. While, The descendants of these Croats are considered today's Bokelji. is Original Research. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References by Stefan Nemanja[edit]

It says here: In Stefan Nemanja's declaration in 1198 he writes how he forcefully expanded the Serbian state to include Duklja. He writes:

"i priobretoh' od' Mor'ske zemle Zetu i s' gradovi, a od ' Arbanas ' Pilot', a od' Gr'c'ske zemle Lab' s' L'planem..." [3]

It has absolutly no relevancy to the subject. AFAIC - he only decreased Duklja's autonomy (which was already subjected "legally" to him). Please see Duklja if you need details. Additionally, that forcefully is - although even true to an extent - WP:POV. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Dandolo's article[edit]

A Chronicle of Dalmatia by Venetian writer named Andrea Dandolo (1300-1354) gives evidence that where geographic Surbia is a geographic designation of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom.

(Keep in mind Dalmatian province extends inland to Bosnia)

Dandolo writes:

"Moderni autem maritimam totam vocant Dalmaciam, montana autuem Chroaciam..." [4]

"The whole Mediterranean coast (Adriatic) belongs to Dalmatia, The mountainous part is Croatia "

That keep in mind is WP:POV (intentional propaganda) and unencylopedia. Not to mention that this sentence to the up has no relevancy with Red Croatia itself - but is actually an incinuation. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and comparison of sources[edit]

I don't want to even get near the Original Research (and unsourcedness) of this paragraph. It also claims that Croat historians and most Bosniak historians put faith in the document especially when it regards distribution of land among the peoples of the early medieval Balkans. If you see Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina - you will see that Bosniak historians discard the document as valuable.

This contrast Some may argue against the authenticity of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. and Many believe that the De Administrando Imperio is written from an obvious Byzantine bias. - is obviously taking a side.

The Priest was not a Croat either but he was fluent in the Croatian language. He lived with Croats and thus was able to translate the Slavic chronicle of De Regno Sclavorum into Latin. The Croatian language was created in the late 18th century - all Slavs spoke the Church Slavonic up to then, and when the article was written, Old Slavic was still in some usage. Additionally, if you see Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, you may notice that it was written in Bar at the very end of the 12th century - If one views the History of Serbia - he/she will notice that Bar is deeply inside Serbia; so he would've spoken fluently the Serbian language - just, like I said - Croats and Serbs didn't speak a different language back then and it is Original research anyway. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old place name in modern-day Bosnia (which part of was geographic "Surbia") has the name Servintium (modern-day Bosanska Gradiška). This name was already designated before any Croats and other Slavs appeared on Balkan soil. This (irrelevant to the subject) - as many of the previously-mentioned - are dealing with showing of the article is to show that Serbs didn't live there - and not Red Croatia - which is the article's subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle furthermore regulates geographic "Bosnia", and part of Raška to the Lipa and Lab (together "Surbia") to the Croatian Kingdom. Bosnia and part of Raška are known as "Transmontana" which is also known as Zagorje in Croatian language. Original Croatian Zagorje included Bosnia (small land in southeast modern Bosnia) and the frontiers of Raška (part of modern Sandzak). - this is - aside from being Original Research - dealing with the Chronicle far more than it deals with Red Croatia. Should the article's name even be "Red Croatia"? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbs under Stefan Nemanja expanded their state to include Duklja (Montenegro) which Serbs named Zeta, Herzegovina, small parts of southern Dalmatia, and half of modern day Sandzak to the Lipa and Lab.

With Montenegro in particular, not even the De Administrando Imperio mentions the Serbs there prior to 1198.

The first is incorrect and WP:POV - and both are irrelevant to subject. Again - not dealing with the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over "Red Croatia"[edit]

Croat historians argue that the De Administrando Imperio gives direct contradictions. Many other historians also agree that the settlements described in chapter 32 of the Serbs seem like a copy of an earlier written chapter 31 of the Croats. Croat historians also accuse the De Administrando Imperio of having a Byzantine and pro-Serb bias in the later chapters 33 and 34 where it designates Hum and Travunia as Serb lands. They also argue that there are no historical documents prior to the 11th century that designate Duklja (large part of Montenegro) as a Serb territory. Croatian historians believe that Montenegro was forcefully conquered by the Serbs in the 12th century and Orthodox religion was forced on the populace. Croat nationalists believe most of the Orthodox Montenegrins and Herzegovians to be descendants of Red Croats and therefore "Orthodox Croats".

Ehm - what does this have to do with Red Croatia - it deals with De Administrando Imperio - and should not be present here (not the subject). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb nationalists declare Montenegrin separatism as a direct product of Greater Croatian ideology. In the later half of the 20th century, a prominant Serb historian Dr. Slavenko Terzic had extreme criticism against his enemies whom he considered "Red Croats" particularly against the work of a Montenegrin Croat named Savic Markovic Stedimlija. Stedimlija between 1941 and 1944 in the pro fascist Independent State of Croatia published several books and articles promoting pro-Croat Montenegrin nationalism as well as several articles on the promotion of the "Croatian Orthodox Church." Stedimlija is accused of the systematic sabotage of Serbian history in Montenegro by Terzic due to Stedimlija's publishing of Red Croatian history which Terzic alleged was made only for the purpose of negating the Serb roots of Montenegrins.

Today, Montenegrin separatism is less based on Croatian nationalism and more due to economic problems facing the union between Serbia and Montenegro. There are still many Montenegrins today who declare themselves Serbs and very few that declare themselves Croats.

Today, Montenegrin... - what does this have to do with Red Croatia? Anyway - the third paragraph to the up mentions that Hum and Travunia were Serb lands (again) - when DAI (De Administrando Imperio) actually says that Pagania and Zahumlje were Serbian lands (like I explained before). Travunia is the area of Serbian rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

  • Keep and rewrite. Delete only if cannot be rewritten. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This belongs on the article's talk page, and not here. The nomination is in bad faith, and doesn't follow regular presidure. Keep and Cleanup Eivind 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a content / POV dispute, not a question of whether an article on this subject should exist. If you think the article is in error, change it. Sandstein 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Arguments are clearly about the content. However, low marks on the Google test, and the article seems to put into doubt the very existence of "Red Croatia" (in a way that suggests it isn't a major controversy either), suggesting the article may be based entirely on original research. Fagstein 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Delete only if cannot be rewritten. Copy HolyRomanEmperor`s comments to discussion page of the article. --MaNeMeBasat 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandstein. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Maguey y La Tuna[edit]

Article about a non-notable resturant, filled with adspeak. Eivind 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 articles. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin_Booth[edit]

Delete. Was prod but dispute has arisen on day 5 so I am submitting it here. Non-notable bio, written by company publicist. Contents not-verifiable. Does not meet criteria for notability: people still alive. At this time there is no indication it will pass the 10 test for verifiability or 100 year test notability. A nice-looking page but not of broad interest. Nimby 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages. They are (respectively) the company page and the publicist's page:

delete. non-encyclopedic. or non-notable.


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

The result of the debate was redirected to Nuclear weapon. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomb[edit]

Dictionary definition. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 14:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nuclear weapon. "The bomb" or "The Bomb" is a very common term for nuclear weapons, for many the first search term they would use for it.--ragesoss 14:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, it was redirected there already, so I've changed it back (which I would have done with or without AfD, so I don't think it's out of order to so now).--ragesoss 14:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV's and Counter POV's on India[edit]

Reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia. Much of it seems to be original research. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember kids, the correct title is POVs and Counter-POVs on India, NO APOSTROPHES! ;P -- infinity0 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Parekh[edit]

Probable vanity lacking neutral point of view and notability Cool3 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The infered notability from the article is unverifiable; his name's appeared in the Indian newspapers all of one time. No further sources were supplied. Metta Bubble 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep had more than 15 minutes of fame. It needs clean-up more than deletion. --Gurubrahma 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no notability established as of yet. Stifle 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get some cites for the assertions made in the article (that span more than one mention, per Metta Bubble) and I'd color this keep but as it is... Delete, as much as it pains this inclusionist... ++Lar: t/c
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his website doesn't gives the impression he's notable. -- infinity0 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darksoft[edit]

Per the original prod: "non-notable company; no products, no notable press coverage AFAICT; fails WP:CORP". I didn't find anything either, but for a company established a month ago, I didn't really expect to. —Cryptic (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm very glad that you do not think DarkSoft Technologies is real. I wonder if you will say that in ten years when your computer will be running DarkSoft-manufactured products. Anyway, Check out website. This is actually only our temperary website because we are literally in the process of buying our new domain www.DarkSoftTech.com from GoDaddy right now. We will be live in a few weeks. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].

I love how Wikipedia people think that just because we need a little bit of time to complete our articles means that we are fake. We actually have lives...--Zooobala 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that the company wasn't real. Please read what people post. The concern is that the company isn't notable. Because there are so many companies out there that are not of general interest, Wikipedia has guidelines to help determine which companies are notable enough to have an article. Please read WP:CORP for the notability guidelines for companies. NickelShoe 16:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm sure the company is great and all, but we'll have an article on it once it's notable (which, for one, requires the release of products), and not before. -- Mithent 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity--Porturology 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 08:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore public gay parties (second nomination)[edit]

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate list. The article represents one contributor's viewpoint on the subject in question. If, somehow, the information can be verified, shown to be notable and trimmed of POV, I would support moving to Nation (party). But realistically, that article should probably be written from scratch. -- Krash (Talk) 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Nation (party), for focus. --Vsion 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Nation (party). "one of Asia's most popular gay and lesbian festivals"AFP. Notable enough for its own article, but needs cleaning. -- Dodo bird 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Leidiot 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and clean up per above. Rob T Firefly 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless referenced and preferably cleaned up in the next few days. Might suggest rename per above afterwards if it survives and gets references, but that should be out of AfD process. 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Vsion. Needs a lot of work, but it's salvageable. Fagstein 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is verifiable, notable and not indiscriminate. As the intro states, the Nation parties "are not merely commercial events held for LGBT recreation but also socio-political statements of significance in Singapore gay history and milestones in Singapore's human rights record.". The article is about the history of the development of the LGBT community in Singapore, through bars and parties. It is also about the repression of the Nation and Snowball circuit parties. Parties and bars (and now perhaps the internet) have generally been the mechanism for the development of LGBT communities throughout the world. The Nation parties are notable, having been mentioned in several national and international news oulets. The article is a useful and interesting information. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly rename), blamed in parliament for an upsurge of HIV infections. [28] Kappa 10:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay literature[edit]

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research and indiscriminate list. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific literature; if any of those redlinks are notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the writeups on them are little more than book reviews. -- Krash (Talk) 15:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Speedy in fact, no reason for relisting immediately. There was no consensus for deletion. --Vsion 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, it only can be renominated after one month. --Terence Ong 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to find a consensus here. Listing all of them together was problematic because there are obviously different opinions on each subject. I've seen many articles immediately relisted to generate a consensus. -- Krash (Talk) 15:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a speedy keep. Please see that page for criteria for speedy keeping. There is no such one-month wait rule unless it's a very recent change. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May I ask for clarification. The nominator wrote that the verifiability of the literature is not questioned, but he later said that "loosely associating them in this fashion is original research". May I point out that: First: most of these literature are of certain genre, so they are closely associated (except probably the section on "short stories" ). Second: compilation of verifiable content is NOT original research. Please refer to Wikipedia:No original research and the discussion in the talk page. In fact, such compilations, in general, are very useful, and especially valuable in this topic. It badly needs a cleanup instead. --Vsion 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see some sources that classify these writings as "Singapore gay literature". Something that shows that someone else has written on the subject of "Singapre gay literature". Otherwise this just looks like original research. I've followed all of the links, but they're about a specific writing, not the subject as a whole. This leads me to believe that the writings should have their own articles and that this article lumps them all together for some unexplained reason. The "internet" section at the end serves as a repository of links of examples but nothing that I would consider a primary reliable source. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Krash argued, the article is just a list of Singapore gay literature rather than an actual article on Singapore gay literature. More notable works can go into Literature of Singapore and if the list deemed useful, put it in List of Singapore gay literature -- Dodo bird 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a speedy keep. Please see that page for criteria for speedy keeping. There is no such one-month wait rule unless it's a very recent change. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The error was listing all these together in the first place. This appears to lack secondary sources. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic and there is enough here to warrant keeping. Referencing should be improved. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leidiot 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs expansion and the red links could use blueing, but it's a viable article regardless. Rob T Firefly 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot of red links, but seems well organized, notable, verifyable, referenced appropriately. AfD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag. Georgewilliamherbert 08:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems worthy of an article. Fagstein 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is mostly verifiable, and it is not indiscriminate. It is about Singapore LGBT fiction and poetry, as well as non-fiction about the LGBT community in Singapore or that is useful to LGBT's in Singapore. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article certainly needs some improvement, but it's a perfectly valid topic and it's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should be doing more of: coverage of non-Western cultures. Keep. And I also need to add my voice to the list of objections to such a rapid relisting. I will say speedy keep too — and frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass what is or isn't a speedy keep criterion: relisting within hours of a no-consensus closure clearly violates WP:POINT. Bearcat 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea how WP:POINT factors into this. Contentiously grasping for straws to build a strawman out of me only detracts from what could be spent demonstrating that the article in question might be worthy of being kept. I'm still waiting for some secondary sources that would totally blow holes through my nomination. -- Krash (Talk) 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original Afd listed 5 articles. Since there was no consensus, it makes sense to relist them seperately. -- Dodo bird 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. Kappa 10:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Mallarme 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Kash 02:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems worthy of an article. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay art[edit]

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". If these artists are notable, they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the present article is nothing more than one contributor's review of Singapore gay art. -- Krash (Talk) 15:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Speedy in fact, no reason for relisting immediately. There was no consensus for deletion. --Vsion 15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion. --Terence Ong 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me but the article has no sources. What am I missing? -- Krash (Talk) 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. This is not a speedy keep. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Leidiot 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect this is accurate, though it needs references and a rewrite to be encyclopedic in sections. AfD is not a subsitute for Cleanup tag or References tag. Georgewilliamherbert 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not indiscriminate. It is about the history of LGBT art in Singapore, specifically the history of censorship and freedom of expression in Singapore in relation to LGBT art. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wuzzy. Kappa 10:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Mallarme 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wuzzy. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay theatre[edit]

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific plays; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the article is little more than one contributor's review of gay theatre in Singapore. -- Krash (Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Speedy in fact, no reason for relisting immediately. There was no consensus for deletion. I hope the nominator is not nominating blindly, there is actually a distinct gay genre in Singapore theatre scene. The article needs cleanup though. --Vsion 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion. --Terence Ong 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rather than red herring, I would hope to have the concerns in the nomination addressed. I won't withdraw the nomination based on derision, but would certainly consider doing so if shown some evidence that the article is better than just one editor's soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 17:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Leidiot 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; needs cleanup, but AfD not a substitute for cleanup and encyclopedic tags (which, fortunately, someone put on the article). Georgewilliamherbert 08:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is verifiable, and mostly not indiscriminate. It is about LGBT Singapore as portrayed in theatre, theatres in Singapore that produce plays on LGBT issues, and the history of portrayal or censorship of LGBT issues in theatre in Singapore. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion -- Dodo bird 08:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion and Wuzzy. Kappa 10:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Mallarme 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion and Wuzzy. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay films[edit]

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific films; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research. -- Krash (Talk) 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "proper month wait"? What official policy is that a reference to? Stifle 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could certainly have a more grammatical title. Perhaps "LGBT-related films of Singapore" (taking my lead from "Category:LGBT-related films") or Singaporean LGBT-themed films. Beyond the fact that "Singapore gay films" is ungrammatical, it's also inaccurate. "Gay" referes specifically to male-male relationships, while the listed films also deal with lesbians and transvestites.
I'd also suggest distinguishing cutting films from other countries that were banned in Singapore, but have no production ties to the country. --djrobgordon 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe not the most relevant article on WP but still worth keeping --Splette Talk 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic and unverified. I can reconsider if references are added. Stifle 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Leidiot 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; could use cleanup but it's referenced and topical and the subject is at least somewhat notable. Perhaps a rename at some point, other than via AfD (talk page discussion). Georgewilliamherbert 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "it's referenced"? Are we looking at different articles? Stifle 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all films are found in imdb. Keep article; instead, remove or tag individual sections or sentences appropriately if there is any remaining concern of "original research" content. --Vsion 09:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is verifiable, and mostly not indiscriminate. It is about LGBT Singapore as portrayed in film, and LGBT filmmaking in Singapore. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notable films in the category. From article: "there is to date not a single film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre". Most films listed either have little connection to Singapore(Beautiful Boxer) or have non substantial LGBT plots(Army Daze, 15). -- Dodo bird 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and not indiscriminate. Kappa 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Mallarme 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and linked. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheophobia[edit]

I first prodded this page and it was speedied, possibly by {{db-author}} After recreate, I prodded again which was shortly removed. My prod rationale was Dictionary/neologism definition; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In the recreation history message author proposed that page be merged with article on atheism, but as I stated on the discussion page, that makes no sense. If the term is to be incorporated into atheism, make the change (be bold); dicdef not candidate for merge with article. Now, new, similar rationale is given in edit history for removing prod. Fuhghettaboutit 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - this article's been merged with the discrimination section of the Atheism article, and the editors there can evaluate the information for notability and applicability. Justin Eiler 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge. It's a non-widespread neologism. --Yath 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism (and I removed it from Atheism - I don't think it's notable to mention there either). Mdwh 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge, with a footnote regarding the neologism - MFNickster 16:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gerard Foley 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to -phobia. It's a legitimate term, I think (though doesn't deserve its own article). dbtfztalk 00:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC). Note that Theophobia currently redirects to -phobia. dbtfztalk 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC). Changing my vote, since the term is not widely used. Does not appear on any phobia lists I can find. Redirecting can't hurt, though. dbtfztalk 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Theophobia appears to be a valid word, unlike Atheophobia - the former having 19,800 Google hits, including dictionaries (e.g., [29]). Mdwh 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... if "theophobia" is a fear or hatred of god, would "atheophobia" be a fear or hatred of no god, or (in its broadest sense) an "absence of fear or hatred of god"? <grin> - MFNickster 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I give up. I don't want to be the only one preventing this from being deleted. dbtfztalk 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I'm sure we'll all kick ourselves when this becomes a notable topic. Fagstein 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge and redirect to atheism. While we may kick ourselves if it does become notable, it isn't now. My delete is only weak because a) it is a term that I have seen used on a few occasions and b) it would be useful when dealing with some of the religious extremist editors who call everyone who disagrees with them atheists a page to point them to other than WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 tending to keep. bainer (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Cinema[edit]

Closer's notes

There was a majority of keep comments in this debate, however the variety of options led to the comments being split, with no consensus for a particular action. The strongest trends were:

  • to keep Debbie Rochon (the decision for that article will be recorded as keep)
  • to relist one or more of these articles separately.

I suggest to those involved that merging these articles may be a good option; merging does not require an AfD debate.

Films are non-notable. Actors are non-notable. Company is non-notable. Grocer 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because: they are expansion biographies from the main article.:

.

Update: An extensive portion of Sideshow Cinema consists of biographies, including subjects of previously deleted articles: John Shanahan / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Shanahan and Robin Gabrielli / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Gabrielli.


The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to one or more living persons. A record of the deletion debate can be found in this page's history.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF? Records[edit]

Delete - NN record company Aksi great 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and their homepage is on tripod. Stifle 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for a consensus. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley book shop[edit]

This was prodded three times. Moving here as a contested deletion. It's a bookstore in Perth, Ontario. NickelShoe 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn business. Fan1967 16:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CORP violation.  (aeropagitica)  17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenn--Porturology 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per nom means for the same reason as the nominator. Do you want to delete all contested deletions or all bookstores, because neither seems reasonable to me. Give an actual reason please. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. NickelShoe 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeez, someone needs to switch to decaf.  : ) Delete as non-notable small business. dbtfztalk 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty, but non-notable. Fagstein 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a nice book store, but seems to lack notability. --Royal Blue 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, small bookstore in a small town — Wikipedia is not an advertising directory. Though it does look like an interesting and lovely store, and if I ever get to Perth I'll check it out for sure. (Though I'd also be curious to know who actually thought Category:Perth would mean the small Ontario town and not the exponentially larger and infinitely more important city in Australia. Somebody needs to, like, click on these things and check them first, maybe?) Bearcat 06:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayski's Silly Season Site[edit]

and it's REDIRECT Jayski added by xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (addition does not imply endorsement of deletion)[reply]

Fails to establish notability of this website, which as far as I can determine does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn (see below) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created the article, and I would like to note that I believe that it meets WP:WEB criteria #3, as it is hosted by ESPN.com. In addition, it is often mentioned and/or referenced on NASCAR television shows by the drivers and teams who visit it. -- SonicAD (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a notable Nascar news site, passes WP:WEB per SonicAD. [30] -- Vary | Talk 17:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Keeping this article will open the door to more spamming articles by NASCAR news related websites being added to the encyclpedia. I am not an authority at Wikipedia, but surely it is not the intention of the founder to have spam advertising running rampant throughout this site. There are a lot of notable NASCAR news sites that have reporters actually at the events covering the sport. Jayski's is not one of them. Thunderroad 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site is a notable resource of all types of Nascar information. The site is notable in that it provides news on almost everything happening in the Nascar world, not to mention resources such as pictures of nearly every paint scheme being run, media news, team news, and more. Many Nascar fans rely on this site for their Nascar information, and it's not like a site like this is commonplace, and no other site seems to have the vast resources that Jayski's site does, nor are any such sites as popular by a long shot. It deserves its own article. --Spring Rubber 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WEB. Kappa 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SonicAD posted this on my talk page:

  • Having created the article on Jayski's, and being unsure whether you've checked the deletion discussion since then, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your nomination. I do believe that, contrary to your nomination, it meets two criteria of WP:WEB: Part 1 (see [31] and [32]), and Part 3 (being hosted by ESPN.com, noted on Jayski's home page [33] and linked to in the racing section of ESPN.com. [34] Thanks! -- SonicAD (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this information, I am happy to reconsider my opinion. It seems I was wrong and that the website does indeed meet WP:WEB, per these arguments, and I thus withdraw my deletion nomination and vote to Keep the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The severe problem with reliability of any of the sources is grounds enough to delete this and recommend its removal from other articles. I note that the other AfD saw this term for what it was. -Splashtalk 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Goggles[edit]

This was prodded, but this is the second or third time this article has been created after being speedily deleted. So uncontroversial it is not. On the other hand, I wouldn't speedy it, because this version is much better than the last one I saw. We do have other articles on sex positions, but I don't know if this merits its own article. I'd be inclined to merge with List of sex positions. NickelShoe 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, it was added to List of sex positions since the last time I checked. I still think leaving a redirect would be okay, though. NickelShoe 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per NickelShoe. -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per NickelShoe. --Terence Ong 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of sex positions; it doesn't require an article itself.  (aeropagitica)  17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article List of sex positions is too long as it is, indiviual sections would be more appropriate seperate. If Arabian Goggles doesn't get it's own article, Oral Sex should be seperated from the rest, as perhaps should all the other main sections, reducing a massive article into chunks. --Calvin.Giles
  • Delete unverified crap; there is no evidence that this is anything but an obscure internet joke, and it shouldn't even be mentioned in existing articles. Melchoir 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified--Porturology 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, nn, WP:WINAD Schizombie 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness to the user who found several references for the article, you guys ought to explain why you find the sources unreliable, at the least so the article creator might avoid similar mistakes in the future. NickelShoe 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, I should have specified that by unverifiable, I meant AG as an actual practice is unverifiable, not that it doesn't exist as a real neologism referring to a presumably novel fictional sex position. Citing to scholarly sex research, or pornos in which this happens would seem to be required for verifiability. Can't say I'd care to see it. Schizombie 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "references" are just websites without any editorial process. They're not reliable sources. Melchoir 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. That's all I wanted. :) NickelShoe 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm pretty sure I voted to delete this at least once before. I don't think it's sufficiently notable, even when compared to other obscure/fictitious sexual practices (such as Cleveland steamer). It doesn't have nearly as much of a foothold in popular culture. -Colin Kimbrell 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since you mentioned it, I looked it up under alternate capitalization: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian goggles. Sure enough, and not so long ago. NickelShoe 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can this be speedied as CSD G4 then? Incidentally, WP's insistance on Caps sensitivity is annoying. Schizombie 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It seems like it could be, but that seems unreasonable if there are still keep votes. I don't think speedy ought to trump AfD. NickelShoe 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

301 Special[edit]

non-notable cocktail inserted by User:GrumF14 (no other contributions), prod was removed by an anon IP. Discordance 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity its just a screwdriver varient using specific brands, the article admitted before it was altered that it was created in spring 2006 by students.Discordance 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Students mixing kool-aid (or its variations) with vodka is not notable. Fan1967 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable outside the 301 area code - not even notable inside it. -- Vary | Talk 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Just zis Guy you know? 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone should note that the 301 area code applies to Maryland, and 202 is the actual District of Columbia, where he said the place of origin is: "Connecticut Ave NW"— Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumF14 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Fraser[edit]

The article is on a local councillor (and failed parliamentary candidate in the 2005 general election). It demonstrates no further notability or significance. There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage. I proposed the article for deletion but this was removed. The article has not been improved since, hence the AfD. Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Sliggy 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note, in particular, that the Guardian link in the article is to an automatic database that included the votes gathered by every candidate in the last election, whether the candidate got 1 vote or won the consituency). Sliggy 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage Coming second in an election and failing to become an MP is not sufficient grounds for notability, even if Ms Fraser took 11% of the vote from Frank Dobson.  (aeropagitica)  17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: There are currently *many* articles on people who have been candidates in various elections aronud the world, and this person is but one. Whilst I see no especially reason to retain this one more than the other similar people I likewise see no reason to delete this one whilst retaining all the others. For that matter, I do not see any urgent need to delete such type of articles generally as these people had a moment of 'fame' that will remain of interest to people interested in politics in the future, no matter that they did not succeed in the election in which they stood. Wikipedia is not paper is relevant here as it does us no harm to retain such reference material and, imho, does us great good. We cannot presume that other data sources (such as the Guardian one listed) will remain free to users. On the one thing There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage btw, she had very significant press coverage as she took the seat she took from Labour (the party in power) in a bye-election victory which overturned a safe seat for that other party, indeed the seat of the Leader of the council. Whilst we would not write an article on these people this far after the event there is no clear reason to delete it after the event/
Could I separately suggest that consideration for any deletions for people who hold council seats in London and the metropolitans (who are up for re-election in May) are held over until that happens as they may sibstantially change what is written in those articles. --Vamp:Willow 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete appears to have received no press coverage. All search hits are either her site, her party's site or election databases. Fagstein 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Gleng 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of significant national media coverage either as a councillor or as a candidate. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "some cruft exists therefore no cruft may be deleted" is not persuasive. Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current practice for failed political candidates with no other real notability is to Smerge/Redirect with the article on the election if there is one, and to create one and then do so if there is not. -Colin Kimbrell 19:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost culture[edit]

neologism? (Requested by User:Adrift* on my talk page, may also break three pillars) Sceptre (Talk) 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, not encyclopedic, mixing a whole bunch of anecdotal items that do not constitute a culture. Fan1967 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above.--Adrift* 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with goth, condensed, and under a new subheading. It's a valid subcultural branch and the term "ghost" is commonly applied to its members, though it may not warrant its own entry just yet. Rob T Firefly 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please cite examples. I have no problem with the article if there truly is a commonly applied membership. And I especially have no problem with a merger with the Goth scene. But as far as I can see, it's simply a neologism for group that does not truly exist. In fact, outside of the Chinese Ghost Culture (which maybe should have it's own article on Wikipedia) I can hardly find any articles on Google that point to a "Ghost Culture" in general.--Adrift* 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the term and have known a number of people who used it, but of course that's not an encyclopedically verifiable source. Google doesn't bring much up which surprises me a bit, so I'll have to change my stance to Weak delete. Rob T Firefly 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research does not belong in Wikipedia Wangfoo 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrowind Man[edit]

Delete. A game get-rich-quick guide is not encyclopedic, and the title "Morrowind Man" is useless as a redirect. Vslashg (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Gerard Foley 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this article has a bad title. Why is this AfD on the page itself? -- Mithent 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Battlefield 2. -Splashtalk 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Eagle : Legends[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 all. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anf[edit]

Delete this involved apparent hoax. A Google search of [monopoly anf "Anthony Nguyen"] returns no hits substantiating the Monopoly records. No such player appears in the top 250 poker players]. Perusal of the season 3 and 4 shows no record of Anthony Nguyen (and indeed, nobody does this well on the tournament).

Note that three user accounts, Hong.mac, Johnaustin, and Ikuztan, appear to be involved.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be part of the same hoax:

And the following redirects to this article:

Vslashg (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All per nom. I have been unable to verify as well. The articles are so POV as to be unsalvageable. Accurizer 17:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. No Google hits in context for any of these articles. Fagstein 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; I haven't personally attempted to verify, but I trust that I would fail. Melchoir 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Unverifiable and unencyclopedaic Dlyons493 Talk 21:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom (I see that the Afd notice was removed by [User:Ikuztan]]). --Phronima 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was lol, delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Wonderful Life[edit]

Article is about a non-existent "fan film;" basically, fancruft Paul 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Organization of Manuscript Preservation[edit]

Hoax. An organization dating back from 1700 and aimed at preserving "ancient digital documents". Was tagged prod. - Liberatore(T) 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax. 0 Ghits. Website link is empty, with a "coming soon" banner. Fan1967 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 -- No Guru 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Fagstein 19:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 Bucketsofg 20:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax Dlyons493 Talk 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rubbish. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cforester. Is a real organization that can be found by looking up founder Ivan Davidovich. Located in Stockholm, can also find references on Sweden-based historical websites. Cforester 10:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; WP:SNOW and no valid cause for deletion given. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden[edit]

Page has become completely scurrilous, has POV too embedded to fix. Subject probably doesn't warrant Wiki entry at all, or maybe a 10-line entry. Now there are TWO entries on Marsden/Donnelly controversy, a 10-year-old harassment case. Artticle is now loaded with unsubstantiated/unproven allegations of criminal behavior. Article appears to be a hatchet job by Canadians against a local pundit. Article is also libelous by innuendo under Canadian law. Attempts to make this article NPOV have been rejected by administrator and two or three writer/editors. See (long) discussion page. Delete -- Ceraurus 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, subject is obviously notable as published columnist alone; this is just another content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Monicasdude 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep clearly notable, per Monicasdude. Fagstein 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I have been involved with the editing of this article and can confirm that this nomination for deletion is the result of a content dispute. The subject is clearly notable--a lexis nexis search produces over 200 articles over 10 years. (Why has the proposer of this deletion, Mark Bourrie, signed himself "Ceraurus" above rather than his wiki-handle?) Bucketsofg 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWHL[edit]

Previously prodded but contested. This article is about a website, it reads like an advert, and shows no evidence of meeting any of the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. JeremyA 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. - Fan1967 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's worth at most an external link from Half-Life. And it's not. Fagstein 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the webmaster there, and I don't see any reason for this article. This is an encyclopædia, not a web directory. 84.12.188.207 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable --Aim Here 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low Down Deeper[edit]

This article has been around long, but the band does not meet WP:MUSIC. They have released 1 EP thus far, and get 486 Google hits which indicate no substantial following. Punkmorten 18:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the off chance anyone who speaks Danish comes along, this link [35] may shed some light on whether the group meets WP:MUSIC. --djrobgordon 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled Jørgen Sharling Rasmussen with this Afd as well.

  • Delete all: Per nom. Rasmussen article appears to be vanity as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 RESULT. Having read the material in the final comment, I am too worried about both the option to redirect and the option to delete. I'd prefer this AfD had no result whatever and was carried out in a more open, neutral manner. -Splashtalk 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Chess Association[edit]

This organization does not exist. It is completely bogus and non-existent. It was incorporated in Nevada in 1996, but the corporation expired only two years later in 1998. Sam Sloan 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mmm, I see a number of references to an American Chess Association founded in 1874, then changed to National Chess Association. That merged with the American Chess Federation to form the United States Chess Federation.[36] So I'm not sure what to believe here. Maybe it should be redirected to United States Chess Federation? — RJH 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite an interesting page at http://aotw.org/officers.php?officer_id=237 I had not seen that before.

If you want to redirect "Amertican Chess Association" to "United States Chess Federation" I have no objection.

Mention of the "National Chess Association" first appeared in the "American Chess Bulletin" in 1927. I believe that it had been newly formed at that time. It merged with the larger Western Chess Accociation to become the United States Chess Federation on December 27, 1939 (note the date).

There were probably other chess asociations prior to that time, but very little is known about them.

I am 100% sure that no "American Chess Association" exists today. Sam Sloan 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is an American Chess Association currently incorporated in Nevada. However, it's not much of an organization. Billbrock 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Note that its "champion" is also its president...so the puffery of the original is a counterargument for deletion. Billbrock 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge (depending on how much information on the club (active or not) is available). Multiple google hits in connection with WCF (both terms fully quoted). MartinRe 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment One google hit seems to imply that nominator has had disagreements with the person who set up the association, which the closing admin might want to take into account: http://www.ishipress.com/pb-board.htm Regards, MartinRe 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vive le Canada[edit]

Site is not relevant to Wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)

First delete vote— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)

--The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)

  • Keep, Wikipedia is not the place for personal disputes, nor is deletion nomination a valid threat. Rob T Firefly 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Methinks this is 'payback' from a user banned by both Vive Le Canada and CanadaKA.net User:Dr Caleb 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob T Firefly. Ardenn 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and read WP:POINT. This site has legitimately notable people associated with it (e.g. Mel Hurtig, Robin Mathews, Duncan Cameron), and therefore clears the bar. Bearcat 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable organization. Skeezix1000 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JKF PREP/SDS[edit]

Much of this is nonsense. A former school/building, apparently. Doesn't seem notable to me. Fagstein 19:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could work on the article.Or there could be some mention of JKF PREP/SDS in the St. Nazianz, Wisconsin of the article about the Salvatorians.The title of the article is wrong:it should be JFK PREP/SDS-the school was renamed after John Kennedy.Thank you-RFD 19:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll need to assert some sort of notability (like press coverage or something) for the school for it to survive the deletion process. Fagstein 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikipedia:Schools: It is tempting for some people to set a bar of notability for schools, such as by age, size or press coverage. However, any such criteria have proven to be controversial. Thus, the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school. Verify it, wikify it, but don't delete it. --djrobgordon 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unless it can be proven that it is going to reopen as a school. --InShaneee 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per djrobgordon. Rob T Firefly 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, former school, per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs MAJOR cleanup. If not then delete it.Gateman1997 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just slander. If you want to level something against the religious order (which was incorrectly named as a school) I suggest you back it up. I could dig up some old documents in my room about the order. But the founder was never accused of anything demonic or pervertive. He was only ever accused of misspending money and that allegation turned out to be false after an independant third party was told to investigate. His accuser was being spiteful.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, although there is clearly laundry lying around this AfD. -Splashtalk 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble[edit]

Not appropriate for the wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)

  • First delete vote— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The site looks legit, and I make certain assumptions when an AfD is submitted sans signature. --djrobgordon 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --InShaneee 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Umm.. I am Trevor May, someone is posing as me, how special. This article should definatly not be deleted! --Canadaka 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) Stop impersonating me, 2) Stop trying to sabotage my site, 3) Sorry guys for forgetting to sign. TrevorMay 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an imposter on the web, arrest that log in! http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=262511#262511 --The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)
  • Comment Perhaps the AfD was in good faith. I could be convinced to change my vote if there was a specific reason listed for the nomination. --djrobgordon 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's a well-known website in Canada. It publishes articles from well-known left-wing activists. Fagstein 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cite your sources. Last I looked rabble didn't have any original articles, they are all "re-prints" which is specifically excluded in WP:WEB ? Oh but you knew that Mr. I have more edits then you. Right? JackassCKA 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable about this site. JackassCKA 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user has a total of five contributions to two apparently related AfDs (see Bearcat's comment below). Fagstein 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fagstein. Ardenn 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's possible that somebody's being impersonated here, regardless of which user is actually Trevor May this is clearly a revenge nomination because of the nominater's personal interest in the Canadaka.net AFD, where the nominating user voted to keep. I'd love to hear a remotely intelligible rationale for the idea that canadaka.net is more notable than Rabble (which, after all, has Judy Rebick, Rick Salutin, Linda McQuaig and Naomi Klein associated with it.) Keep and read WP:POINT. Bearcat 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It has probably become the most influential media outlet of any description among English Canada's activist lefties. Samaritan 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been in the news quite a few times.Habsfannova 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 192.197.82.153 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant site for left-leaning news, as noted above Judy Rebick, Rick Salutin, Linda McQuaig and Naomi Klein are all associated with it. Wiederaufbau 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are occasional original articles on rabble, and the forum itself is one of the larger Canadian-based ones, with >10,000 users. Ianking 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per Samaritan and Bearcat above. I believe this Afd is done in bad faith. --Cyberboomer 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet WP:WEB with some press coverage. Large userbase too. Potential bad faith nomination. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was borderline speedy delete the fact that it is an autobiography tipping it towards deletion. Thue | talk 11:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg prato[edit]

Probable autobiography Molerat 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was formerly deleted. Speedy, please. Tokakeke 19:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why the heck is the going to be deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregp22 (talk • contribs)

Answer Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a glorified blog for everyone to post their list of favorite albums. Fan1967 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Martini Software[edit]

This is a poorly written ad, not an encyclopedia article Jim62sch 19:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, next time PROD it instead of using AfD. Tokakeke 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're notable in the field, though the article needs its ad-like aspects ground or blasted off. AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags..... Georgewilliamherbert 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes Google test with flying colours, especially blue. Fagstein 09:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've cleaned it up, removing a bunch of the adspeak. Fagstein 09:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fastein. Yeah we had to deal with them all the time, they're pretty big I guess. Herostratus 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional battles[edit]

Redundant with Category:Fictional battles, extremely incomplete, links to many things that don't (and shouldn't!) have articles. —Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; it presents formatting and sorting not possible in a category. It may be incomplete but it can be expanded; as for links, I don't feel competent to judge which fictional battles do or don't merit articles. I might support removal of redlinked or unlinked entries, but not deletion. Melchoir 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are lists always getting AfD'd for being incomplete? It's not a valid reason to delete a list, just as being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason enough to delete an article. As Melchoir said, this list does things with formatting that a category can't. --djrobgordon 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A misunderstanding. An incomplete list than can reasonably be completed is not a problem (it'll get finished at some point). An incomplete list that cannot possibly be completed may be suffering from a hopelessly broad scope (e.g. List of villains - which is a blue link for reasons I cannot fathom - or List of places), a problem which can sometimes only reasonably be dealt with by deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, the category and its children have roughly 200 articles, half of which are from Star Wars and might require a list of their own. Either way, I think it's a manageable quantity. Melchoir 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the other hand, if the list is not limited to battles that already have articles, it will become unmaintainable rather quickly; the number of battles invented for various fictional works outnumbers the number of real historical ones (which already compose some five very long lists). —Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly it could bloat to the point where it is unmaintainable, if managed irresponsibly. I'll go trim it a bit. Melchoir 05:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nicely organised list which should be expanded. Scranchuse 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete the list... --Splette Talk 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a useful and nicely done list. Rob T Firefly 02:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important and well done list that relates to other important topics. --Eldarone 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here that can't be accomplished with categories and subcategories.
  • Weak Keep: Unsure if it adds anything to category, but I'll give it benefit of the doubt. Peter Grey 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I was looking for Battle of Cowshed everywhere; could only find it here. Mysmartmouth 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments. The Wookieepedian 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted per A5. --InShaneee 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelophobia[edit]

transwikied to wiktionary. Flying Canuck 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A5 if it already has been transwikied. Pepsidrinka 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 50 Harrisongs Countdown[edit]

A small poll is not encylopedic Geni 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not only small, but unscientific. If the message board that hosted the poll isn't necessary, I don't see how the poll itself can be. --djrobgordon 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Djrobgordon. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, although I think that Googling for this article title is not useful for AfD purposes. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Kids of Atlanta[edit]

Delete Original research; Google=0, and generally poor writing/article. Warned author, listed on Cleanup-Verfiabilty, still no references. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fan1967 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure how relevant a Google search is to this topic, but it's still not notable. Even if it's researched, the fact that kids in Atlanta do drugs isn't particularly noteworthy. --djrobgordon 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not very verifiable/ has not been verified, and much of the information is just outright wrong. That kids in Atlanta do drugs dosen't deserve an article. Hurrah 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article is completely absurd and biased. yes, there are kids with drug problems and that party excessively. but HELLO, there are kids like that everywhere!! not only the kids of the "SKA" (who the heck came up with that lame term anyway) this is stupid, and it needs to be deleted immediately because it is unfairly representing east cobb

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compressionism[edit]

Non-notable vanity neologism invented by the page author. No evidence that this concept has caught on; Google has plenty of hits for "Compressionism" but they don't seem to have anything to do with the article. Melchoir 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a Google search for '"Andrew Lambert" poet' shows no evidence that such a person exists. --djrobgordon 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for giving reasons for proposed deletion of Compressionism. A couple of points: (1)The poem 'The Compressionist' (3 sonnets in iambic tetrameters) was submitted to all British copyright libraries in 1988. It can be found, for example, in the catalogue of the British Library. (2) The terms 'Compressionist' and 'Compressionism' have recently become more common. Since my poem, the terms have most often been used with reference to complicated techniques in the film industry. In the last few weeks Amazon has been offering a novel with the word 'Compressionism' in the title. I would not be at all offended by a deletion but I think that there is a genuine need for a term in aesthetics or literary criticism to describe a standpoint between the extremes of impressionism and expressionism. I also think the numerous and varied uses of the terms demonstrate a need for definitions on Wikipedia. User:ANDREW LAMBERT 5 March, 2006
    • Thanks for chiming in, Andrew. I agree that Wikipedia should explore subtle variations of concepts; on the other hand, you may be interested in the policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can you find reliable sources that discuss the concept of compressionism? If not, it will be impossible to write an article here that adheres to the policies of No original research and Verifiability, and the page should be deleted. Melchoir 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Andrew Lambert Thank you for your helpful comments, Melchoir.
Important articles by Michael Billington in The Guardian on Compressionism in modern drama can be found by searching for 'COMPRESSIONISM MICHAEL BILLINGTON'. "The new compressionism can also leave too much unsaid" (16.4.05). "In an age of dramatic compressionism one wishes that Shepard would get on with it" (6.7.01). "Compressionism is a perfectly valid dramatic form as the work of Beckett and Pinter proves"(9.4.05). "Laurence Kitchin in his fascinating book 'Drama in the Sixties' pins down a moment when compressionism suddenly became all the rage. He defines a compressionist play as 'one in which the characters are insulated from society in such a way as to encourage a maximum conflict of attitudes'. Kitchin also traces the development of compressionism through the plays of Sartre, Beckett and Ionesco and shows how it influenced other forms such as painting through Francis Bacon's portraits..." (9.4.05).
The key book in this respect is Laurence Kitchin: Drama in the Sixties. 11:24 5 March, 2006
User:Andrew Lambert 'Drama in the Sixties' was published by Faber and Faber, London, in 1966.I do not have the book to hand but it may well be that Kitchin (not I, as I thought!) first defined Compressionism. In that case should the article be seen by an expert on C20 drama before deletion? By the way, I would be happy to post a copy of my poem for purposes of verification. 11:39 5 March, 2006
Um... Billington seems to be talking about a meaning of "compressionism" separate from yours. In order to incorporate his and Kitchin's ideas, we'd have to scrap the article anyway. Melchoir 21:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! User: Andrew Lambert 08:05, 6 March 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Determination[edit]

One hit on Yahoo, no reference to it being part of a book, seems to be a waste of bytes Jim62sch 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: According to the first paragraph, it is a camp from the Timeline-191 series. I don't know whether it's notable or not, but Harry Turtledove is one of the most popular historical fiction authors in America. --djrobgordon 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it's notable in its category. Rob T Firefly 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Firefly, probably could be merged into something else. Kappa 10:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Afro. Mass-sockpuppetry aside, there is still no outright consensus to delete here, with many preferring a redirect instead (though relying rather heavily on a previous AfD, when really this AfD is about...this AfD). Still, there is literally minimal support for the article to standalone, so I figure a redirect is likely to displease people the least. -Splashtalk 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jew-fro[edit]

There was already a consensus to have the Jewfro article become a redirect to Afro, to which the contents of the article were merged into. During this process, I made a redirect Jew-fro to Afro. This was back on Janurary 15. However, the original creator of the article, after several failed attempts to erase the redirect on the main Jewfro page, has decided today that the old AFD ruling does not apply to Jew-fro (and only to Jewfro), and has recreated the Jewfro article in Jew-fro as it was before it was merged. I tried reasoning with him, but after facing intransigance and personal attacks on his part, decided to relist it here. Where (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attention two warnings below- please read closely.
  • *Note to closing administrator: this vote is tarnished by many sockpuppets of User:Whoermaster.

Keep. Relevant term, I say to keep. EricClapper No double voting. KI 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Moshe F...The link of Jewfro page should lead to Jewfro or vice-versa.---Whoermaster (talk · contribs)
  • Speedy keep pov attempt at deleting a genuine term. KI 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For values of POV which include a valid AFD with consensus redirect, all encyclopaedic content covered at Afro. Just zis Guy you know? 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep there has been a conspiracy by some including sceptre and where to erase jewish concepts...i wonder if they are holocaust deniers as well...KEEP! jcohen (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
    • Using sockpuppets does not excuse you from WP:NPA. Please note that calling someone a holocaust denier is to many people highly offensive, particularly if they have relatives who died or went through the holocaust. It is not an effective method of discourse. Do not do this again with this or any of your other sockpuppets. JoshuaZ 00:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Please keep as I am familiar with this term as are many others who i know! MattyTheK (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • Speedy keep Very relebent term! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankotler (talk • contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • Comment: I think many of the votes above are sockpuppets. Where (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also note that currently, all the material in Jew-fro is in Afro because of the previous AFD. We don't want to be forking articles here. Where (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Assume Good Faith aside, I suspect most, if not all, of these speedy keeps are from the same person. In any case, they don't adress the nomination. I'm familiar with the term but that's not the issue. This hairstyle can be and is dealt with in Afro, and therefore doesn't need its own article. Redirect, and protect if this persists. --djrobgordon 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous consensus. No new arguments presented above. I think we're being hosed here... Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where, so not only do u seem to have a problem with Jewish concepts, but now you have a problem with democratic procedures? I think we should change this site to "where-pedia" and then people would only print things that Where deems to be okay. Furthermore, if this information is in afro, then depending on the outcome of this vote we will either have to keep it in there or remove it:) .Perhaps they are "sockpuppets", but i don't think there is a way to prove that, so we will just have to rely on good faith. Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!
    • This is a cynical attempt to bypass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewfro, and I don't have to prove anything to see what's going on here. Melchoir 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is in fact not a democracy. See the relevant rules on WP:AFD and WP:NOT. Also for more data about how sockpuppets are generally treated, see WP:SOCK. Furthermore, saying "Sic Semper Tyrannis" may constitute a threat, which if it is intended as such, can get your banned. Between that and your other sock making comments about holocaust denial, you are on very thing ice. Please desist. JoshuaZ 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as Afro has its own page, so should Jew-fro/Jewfro, and the content on the Afro article pertaining to this, should just be transferred to the Jewfro page(s). Thanks. CobraCommander (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • Comment Some may believe there are sockpuppets, and this may be so, but i believe it is just validation of Jewfro's deserving of an article here. CobraCommander (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
    • FYI, people with checkuser status can detect whether they are sockpuppets are not. Where (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect as above.  RasputinAXP  c 21:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known phrase,— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielSON (talk • contribs) 22:03, March 4, 2006 Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • Keep, and add redirect page for the term the hairstyle was described as in the 1970s, the Hebro (no joke). Monicasdude 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I voted keep last time and still believe that the article works fine on its own. Of course, I wrote most of it so maybe I'm biased. Nevertheless, sticking it in the middle of Afro essentially does a disservice to both articles. On a side note, I'm somewhat bemused by the ardent calls to respect the previous AfD outcome. Considering how freqently articles are nominated and renominated, sometimes three or four times, sometimes in the same week, until they are eventually deleted, at which point they become speedily deletable as recreations of previously deleted material, the editors who have waited some months to recreate Jewfro have shown significant restraint. -- JJay 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is this the place to withdraw a previous AFD decision? If this is a keep, then we will have Jewfro mentioned in two different articles. The old AFD is currently under deletion review; perhaps you should consider listing your objections there. Where (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost all the jew-fro content was merged into Afro. It could just be demerged. Also an AfD closed as merge or even keep is not binding. I spend a lot of time fighting with editors who try to redirect articles that are closed as Keep or no consensus. There is unfortunately very little respect for the rules here. -- JJay 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have heard no argument that this article is any different from the version that was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewfro. I see no new evidence nor claims of violated process. We shouldn't even be here. Melchoir 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree we shouldn't be here, but could you explain what you mean by new evidence? Also, why do you feel this article works better buried within Afro? Maybe I missed it, but I can't find where on this page you have provided reasons for your "vote". It would be nice if people made an attempt to explain their reasoning rather than voting "delete" or "redirect" without comment-- JJay 10:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the principle of the thing; AfD is not a game won by the side with the most continues. And I will be happy to explain my original vote above. Melchoir 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that Jewfro should have its own article, and I voted that way in the original AFD. But that AFD is closed, and this isn't the place to try and resurrect it - deletion review is. Even so, I must reluctantly admit that no new arguments have emerged that makes it necessary to reconsider it. Where (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that you nominated the article for deletion, hence reopening the previous AfD, I don't see why we can't discuss the article. It would be nice if people provided reasons why they think this should be merged into afro. Also, as I have stated already, deletion review is not the place to discuss this. For proof, see the discussion concerning this article that is now going on there, where everyone is voting to "keep deleted" an article that was not deleted. -- JJay 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though when I had friends with this hairstyle back in the seventies, we called is an "Isro". I know, that's bad. Fan1967 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Afro, where the topic is already covered. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfectly well addressed in Afro. Speedy Delete CSD G4 if truly a copy of previously deleted material. I wonder if "isro" should have a disambig page, rather than going to Indian Space Research Organisation. Schizombie 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen snd heard Jewfro in many sources, both Judaic and secular. I don't think it should be relegated to just a "blurb" in the afro article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.155.32 (talk • contribs) 00:03, March 5, 2006 Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
    • This vote is the user's only contribution. Where (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I slightly disagree with the previous AfD, this matter is settled. If they want to contest the previous deletion they are more than welcome to do through the appropriate process. However, it is completely unacceptable to simply add a hyphen and argue that the article is somehow different. This seems to be the sort of behavior that would be covered under WP:DICK. JoshuaZ 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing to contest because nothing was deleted. -- JJay 01:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. What do you mean? JoshuaZ 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Ah, I see. You mean that it was merged rather than deleted. Thats still contestable. JoshuaZ 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It's not a binding close. Anyone can undo it. -- JJay 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone can undo page deletion too if they have the article text. That doesn't mean that going against those AFD's can just be done on a whim without going through Deletion Review. Where (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bottom line is that AfDs are really only closed as keep or delete. A close as merge or redirect is in fact equal to keep. I can point you to many Afds that were closed as merge where editors at the target refused the merge and so it was not carried out. I could also point you to many Afds closed as Keep where editors who had voted delete immediately redirected the article. That is actually extremely frequent. Your point about page deletion is not correct. Recreation of previously deleted material can be speedied. Hence, it requires DRV. However, there is nothing to review regarding the close of the previous Jewfro Afd since the material was not deleted. -- JJay 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatever the correct rules are, this behavior still seems to be dicky. JoshuaZ 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's the best summary so far. Melchoir 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, I respect the AfD closes and I'm not trying to justify the actions of individual editors. I'm just saying that there are masses of editors who do not adhere to what is "decided" on AfD. This case does not seem very unusual. -- JJay 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, i am really flattered that i am so hated that i am suspected of having all these sockpuppets...Hate to say it, but they aren't sopckpuppets, as these are all people with their own accounts and who voted on their own velition...It is unfoprtunate that these people and mayself have signed up for accounts and participated in furthering WP, only to be treated so callously by a select group of individuals...For shame!---user:whoermaster
    • Stop deleting others' comments. Melchoir 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Where.[reply]
    • whoermaster, Melchoir and Where are very obviously not sockpuppets. Trying to smear them as revenge for your sockpuppets being pointed out is juvenile and violates WP:NPA. Stop. JoshuaZ 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody hates you. People do hate end-runs around consensus, gaming the system and emptying the contents of the sock drawer to try and astroturf your agenda. I note from my Talk page that you assert some of tese are meatpuppets not sockpuppets. Read WP:SOCK - neither is acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZ. Fagstein 09:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's always the most unlikely things that end up being the most controversial on WP:AFD, somehow. Who knew! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect per AfD on Jewfro and concurring comments above. youngamerican (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and maybe a protected redirect at that, if it's within policy to do so. -Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced neologism. Failing that, return it to its status as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. - Hahnchen 02:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of prior AfD consensus, non-encyclopedic dicdef, arguments of Melchoir above. Support redirect to Afro after deletion. Added afdnewbies template to this page out of sheer annoyance with sockpuppetry. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what you mean by "non-encyclopedic dicdef". If that was true, why do you support a merge? Why is jewfro "non-encyclopedic", but Afro is encyclopedic? -- JJay 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afro describes a hairstyle and its existence in popular culture. Jewfro is "an Afro worn by a Jew" which is a dicdef. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to clarify. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's not my idea, but it's a long-established and repeatedly-affirmed Wikipedia policy. Consensus at prior AfD was that there was nothing to say about a Jew-fro other than to dictionary-define it as "an Afro worn by a Jew." Such Afros are covered already in that article, so the consensus is to redirect inquiries about Jew-fro to Afro. I happen to agree with the prior AfD consensus, but that's actually beside the point; the consensus was strong and in alignment with Wikipedia policy and no new data has come up to controvert it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of the previous AfD, because the result was merge, which is exactly what was done- the article was merged and it is substantially longer than a dicdef. Afro had limited material related to Jewfro prior to the merge. Furthermore, if I add much more to the article, it would most probably have to be demerged anyway because it would overpower Afro. Nevertheless, that doesn't expalin why you feel the need to call it "non-encyclopedic" but also state that you agree with the previous AfD where the material was retained. -- JJay 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where you're confused. Merge here on AfD means "merge and redirect," which was in fact the consensus of the prior AfD. When commenting on an article for deletion, a merge vote means you don't think it's worth having its own article, but that the content belongs somewhere. Where it belonged was determined to be Afro. If you don't understand how redirects work, have a look at Wikipedia:Redirects. You may also wish to consider not removing the afd-newbies template again, at least until you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of the way the process works; otherwise you risk being accused of acting in bad faith. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing Ikkyu's comments above. This issue has already been dealt with and shouldn't have to be readdressed. Eusebeus 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, I move that the whole process be speedied, under CSD G4. This debate has already been done at AfD, consensus was achieved, the same consensus has been re-achieved (barring a bunch of sockpuppets), and it's a waste of effort to keep beating this around any more. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to G4 what exactly, since nothing was ever deleted??? -- JJay 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you read? I want to speedily delete the article Jew-fro, and redirect to Afro, on the grounds that the exact same debate occurred just a few months ago and was closed with an irrefutably clear community consensus. Why do you persistently remove the afdnewbies template? Is there something in its content you don't agree with? -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having two warnings at the top of the page is overkill and absurd. However, since you feel strongly that multiple warnings are required I added my own, to make sure that the admin does not fail to read the other warnings. Maybe everyone should add a warning to the page. And yes, I can read, but I would suggest that you read the criteria for speedy deletion and this does not qualify. -- JJay 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you about the CSD, JJay. The previous AFD closed with a deletion in a figurative sense, but not in a literal sense, and only the latter matters with G4. Regarding the warnings, however, I think we do need two, as each warning serves a different purpose. The first warning (in blue) is addressed to the closing admin, and the second warning is addresseed to Whoermaster (and possible his/her friends). Where (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ikkyu's comments above. Whata crowd, and all about the style. --Mane 08:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim "The Bob" Wyand[edit]

Tagged for speedy as non-notable, some claim to notability, but has already been speedied once as non-notable so it's not that persuasive. I tagged it for cleanup last time I saw it, this time I took the trouble to loko up the "Jim Greco Award". Only one hit on Google: this article. Exact name search gets five hits. Seems popular in the Rochester area, but so is the Rochester Taco Bell... Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per original speedies.  RasputinAXP  c 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Nope, not notable. Apparently only a local comedian. I couldn't even find a reference to a so-called "Jim Greco Award". — RJH 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Alderks[edit]

Non-notable individual MarkS 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Wagner[edit]

Personal vanity page for non-notable person MarkS 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is left blank.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Note that copyright violations go to WP:CP. -Splashtalk 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Exchange[edit]

Was PRODded, but tag was removed. The reason given then was Nonnotable software with no coverage except press releases. That sounds like a valid reason to me, so I'm voting delete. Angr/talk 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Religious experience. -Splashtalk 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual awakening[edit]

This entry, written by an anonymous user and left in stub form since its creation on 18 Sept. 2004, was tagged as transwikied to wiktionary on 10 April 2005. All this entry does is propose that a "spiritual awakening" is a "Religious experience" Since "religious experience" already has an article, I propose that this redunancy be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, or at the least it should be merged with religious experience. WU03 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, I suppose Extraterrestrial life is the better target. -Splashtalk 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial Biological Entity[edit]

A quick dicdef, then a paranoid rant. Unless someone knows of a good place to redirect to, Delete. --InShaneee 21:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. A bunch of allegedly captured UFO's. I'm amazed the article didn't mention Area 51. Fan1967 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as above --Splette Talk 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words The word 'allegedly' in no way serves to give any notability to the claims made in this article. Blank the text and redirect to Greys.  (aeropagitica)  23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to UFO Extraterrestrial life. The Greys are just one species of EBE. Ewlyahoocom 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, or redirect per Ewlyahoocom. (Removing the original research is a given.) Peter Grey 13:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure what qualifies as a neologism but EBE has been around for at least as long as the X-files[38] (> 10 years) which I think had a big hand in popularizing the term (along with the "you-foe" pronounciation of "UFO"). Ewlyahoocom 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it needs ot be expanded on, undoubtedly.
  • Keep - This is a worthwhile article and could be made far better but as stated it does need to be expanded on.
  • Keep It explains the term, which does not qualify yet to the sister project of the dictionary
  • Keep no reason to delete. good info inside. Unixer 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crook[edit]

This article was never created in the interest of accuracy, but of of vengance. This article has numerous glaring inaccuracies. When involved parties have attempted to correct this information, it has been "reversed", thereby proving the lack of interest in accuracy.

This person has no relevance, and is certainly not interesting enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the continuance of this article holds this person up to public ridicule, and therefore could result in civil implications. Other articles do the same thing, completely disrespecting people's privacy. I cite the article on Natalie Portman. She chooses not to use her family name out of safety for her family..her homeland is a lot different than America. Yet, in a total disregard for her wishes and family's safety, her name is listed. It has no relevance.

So it is with this article. There is simply no need to have it. Its purpose is not news, but malice and humiluation. Oneforthetruth 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. --InShaneee 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- not uber-notable, but notable enough. Article needs to be beaten severely with a cleanup stick, though. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs to be cleaned up to conform to NPOV-status. It is hard to see why the subject is notable when one has to wade through reams of POV hatecruft to get at any issue that pertains to the man.  (aeropagitica)  22:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It looks like a NPOV magnet, but that's not a reason to delete. Fan1967 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he got a lot of coverage for some of his antics. I wouldn't call it "POV hatecruft" - this article is a factual account of Crook's various websites and publicity stunts, which cites many sources. Rhobite 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that a guy that works for a year straight to get on Fox news, to get on the radio, to get into the newspapers, and when you Google his name is all over the place, deserves a spot on Wiki. I am not sure what the contention is here... Crook himself is the one that tries to make the most changes,as is evident from his IP#'s based either out of Syracuse, or a nearby suburb. I think it could use some cleaning up by someone that is really experienced at writing wiki, but the guy is a public figure, He gets to live with the fame.. I am not sure what is in here that is so terrible. He is concerned about his families safety???(the question begs to be asked why he started all his stuffin the first place) but he regularly posts the contact information for police, his detractors, and other public figures if he can find it... why does it not apply to him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs)


Well, did you ever stop to think, with your lack of courage to even sign your entry, that maybe there would be no need for him to post his detractors' info if this entry didn't exist? Misery loves company..at least that's my view. Despite what you think, I am not him, nor does he live in New York. If you bothered to do even five minutes of kindergarten-level research, you'd know that. But again, you're after blood and vengence. If that's the way you want to live life, that's fine, but I see this as a vicious circle. There's no need for this article, and it can certainly be considered a threat, a civil implication for Wikipedia, and just plain stupid. And again, if it were to go away, the detractor's information likely would as well. Who knows? It's a crazy mixed up world, but there are lots of people who have lots of Google hits, who don't have an entry. Actress Blaze Berdahal has many hits, but no Wikipedia entry. Why? Oh yes, whoever created this entry did it out of spite and moral outrage. Oneforthetruth 12:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't have an account, but as you can see my IP is plainly logged. Explain how it is a threat, and how there are civil implications for Wikipedia? And if in fact the article was created out of spite and Moral outrage, why has Michael Crook edited and added to his own Wiki... I think you are outvoted at this point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete This article is not relevant. This subject is nothing more than a blogger who doesn't publically display his opinions. He doesn't back them up at protests like Cindy Sheehan or Ann Coulter. He's a waste of air. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.157.29.128 (talk • contribs) .
  • do not delete The article is absolutely relevant, The subject not only has a blog, but anti- troop, anti-police, other actual websites, as apposed to blogs. He did back them up by going on national television, radio, and was featured in News stories. This article is not about an opinion of whether he is a waste of air or not, but whther the things listed happened or not, and they did. (and continue to.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs) .

Well, as "apposed" to doing your research, you slander the subject. He does not HAVE anti-trop, anti-police websites. He HAD them. No blog, either. So, if you can't get those facts right, you've proven this article is full of inaccuracies, and therefore I stand by a delete vote. You've proven that you have no interest in facts, but revenge, and moral outrage.

Ratgirl056 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no justification for this article unless Wikimedia wants to get into the tabloid business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.3.213 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete because:
    1. Does this guy even exist? First few pages of Google brings up a bunch of Michael Cooks who are not him. Not a good sign for notability.
    2. What the hey is this article about, and what exactly has he done? None of this is very clear. I gather that he found a guy's camera, OK. After this it gets kind of fuzzy. BTW I found a camera once! I gather from the pic that he was on Fox News? Who hasn't been on Fox News?
    3. I gather the guy doesn't want the article to exist? Hey, based on Jimbo's appear for reasonable respect for living people, why give some guy pain over a worthless article.
    4. The hair. I'm sorry, but... no. These are not the kind of images we want our children to see. Herostratus 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED. -Splashtalk 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Pacific Institute[edit]

Delete - absolutely nothing worth merging with Mid-Pacific Institute Xorkl000 22:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Note that only the original author(s) can move things to Wikitravel since they use cc-by-sa-1.0 rather than GFDL as their license which is both-ways incompatible. -Splashtalk 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of amenities and links for Vapi[edit]

Delete we don't need a list of all stores in every city in the world. WU03 22:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Belongs in Wikitravel. --Ezeu 00:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm by moving to Wikitravel as per Ezeu. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Exactly Is A Dream[edit]

The only fault with this article is that it's completely, totally wrong. Never, out of any of my sources (and I have many), have I heard of this segment being referred to as a hidden track - it's always been recognized as part of the track Jugband Blues. The album booklet include these lyrics as part of Jugband Blues -- further more, I think it's obvious to anyone listening to it that it's purposefully part of the song. SonOfNothing 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally irrelevant for Wikipedia --Splette Talk 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as unverifiable. WP:V If it can be established that there's notable views that it's a separate song, it still would be best merged into Jugband Blues (which I'm not sure warrants its own article anyway). Schizombie 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Seinfeld and ER[edit]

  • Delete: General television ratings concept that may belong in an article about television ratings and marketing - but not like this. This is just common sense, not a concept that needs its own article. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Knowitall 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Edwin Stearns | Talk 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would say that it is notable, but, per nom, "not like this". Expand it, merge it, something Inventm 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Torrent[edit]

This was speedied and reversed by DRV. For some reason. -Splashtalk 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I recognise that this is a thin debate, but it was previously PROD'd. -Splashtalk 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Haseltine[edit]

Prodded as lacking verification and evidence of notability. Prod was removed and improperly restored. Moving here as a contested deletion. He writes editorials for the Washington Post. NickelShoe 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN. Recreate when he has emerged. --Ezeu 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a bit to Whipps Cross Hospital. -Splashtalk 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whipps Cross Hospital Radio[edit]

Hospital radio station. The one thing that prevents me from using {{prod}} is that is serves multiple hospitals, apparently, but a Google search only turns up 630 results, so it seems that it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. I'll have to say Delete --Spring Rubber 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, it apparently only serves one hospital, which makes it less notable in my regard. --Spring Rubber 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathmaker[edit]

This has been prodded twice (someone forgot to check the page history), moving here as contested. It's some gaming term with no incoming links from the article space. Delete as neologism. NickelShoe 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Mackensen — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Chiappini[edit]

This is a vanity personal article. No citation of sources or evidence of claims.Tachyon01 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_4&oldid=1116878660"