Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 6

< March 5	March 7 >

Purge server cache

March 6[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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gill, M.D.[edit]

An article about a local candidate. The subject doesn't meet the first two bullet points at WP:BIO. Two questions to answer: if he doesn't win, would he still be notable? Would he 10 years from now? --Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He might meet the second bullet point at WP:BIO. That point requires a local politcal figure, not necessarily an elected one and he has stood before. If he doesn't win then he can be removed in a few years. --MarkS 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At any rate, the "MD" needs to be removed from the title. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to David Gill (politician) per MarkS and Zoe -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with MarkS. I also have a hard time calling him a local candidate. Doesn't local imply state or county or city government? He's a candidate for the US House. And the move for sure. -- Superdosh 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkS. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; newsworthy as a candidate, but not of much encyclopedic value if we consider possible that the article will have to be deleted in few years. The article also seems to show problems of verifiability (how can we verify that he donates blood every 2 months? Who verified that? Sounds like something taken directly from his Web site) that are typical of biographies of non-notable people. - Liberatore(T) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It won't have to be deleted if he gets elected. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why can't we wait for an article on him until he becomes notable per WP:BIO? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because as the major challenger for a house seat, he fulfills the second bullet point -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see no reason to delete I Love Plankton 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's vanity. He is a local candidate and is a nobody. Jimboy0 06:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major party candidate in a one on one congress race. Notable for the coverage of the 2006 congrssional elections. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page because David asked me to and someone not affiliated with the campaign or David continues to edit it. David certainly does meet the second bullet point on WP:BIO which by the way states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." You can't make it more clear than that. Whoever you are, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop this witch hunt. If you have problems with David, he'd be happy to discuss them with you- [email protected] As for the name of the article, there already was an article titled David Gill, so I needed something to distinguish the two and MD is what came to mind. Any particulare reason it should be changed? As for verifing that Doc donates blood, I didn't even know that until he told me himself. If you really want me to, I can have him contact the blood bank and post the record on the website or something.jfrank
- The article's current title is improperly formatted according to Wikipedia naming conventions, hence my suggestion of David Gill (politician). If this AfD concludes with the article not being deleted, a disambiguation page will likely be created at David Gill to help direct readers to the appropriate article. As for the rest of your comment, I'm pretty sure that writing a candidate bio as a person involved in said candidate's campaign ranks rather highly on the list of bad article ideas. Perhaps you need to back off and allow for more objective users to evaluate the article and decide what is verifiable and what isn't. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for that. I'll definitely change the name! And I should clarify that I have no problem with others editing the page. What I do take issue with is the Johnson troll who started this whole thing in the first place. That is to whom my comment was refering. I'd venture to say that I know a lot more about TJ than his people know about David, but you won't see me or any of us editing Tim's page or unneccessarily flagging it. Can anyone tell me when we can expect a ruling on this? jfrank

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Helstrom (band)[edit]

I'm moving this from Prod to AfD because I think the band has at least a case, although not a strong one, but maybe I'm missing something. I wrote this article, but only in the process of researching the real Echo Helstrom, and I neither know nor care anything about the band. But they do have two albums out (albeit at least the first was self-published), they have received good reviews (but not, apparently, in really major mags), and they did do the music for a Netscape ad (wheeee). Basically, if there's anyone from Portland that knows anything about this band? Maybe they are better-known than they appear to be, or something. Herostratus 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as nominator. They really do seem to be on the bubble.Herostratus 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMG. PJM 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users voting keep. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums on Atlantic passes WP:MUSIC. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major-label release. WTF is with that "Picture not available" thing, though? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Royboycrashfan, meets the criteria set by WP:MUSIC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes criteria of WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Alpha269 14:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make a disambiguous pageJohnRussell 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the brink of "delete". ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic Records releases. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:49, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinklets[edit]

Delete - The article as written now is either incoherent or at least not written at a level suitable for an introductory treatment of its subject matter. Moreover, it's difficult to see *how* this article *could* be reformed, given the obscurity of its topic (and related verifiability and original research concerns). Pop Secret 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stub with potential. Royboy crashfan 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is just gibberish. Take a look at the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be expanded, referred to peer review, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take a look at the history of the creator, RJBurkhart (talk · contribs). This is pure gibberish, a stream of random, tenuously-connected ideas passed off as a topic, one of several similar "articles" written by this editor. There's no potential for expansion other than more gibberish. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never considered this, and therefore, you may be right. However, for now, my vote is going to remain keep. I believe that there is possible hope for the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a hoax, a parody of business jargon. I suspect the author is just trying to have fun tricking people into thinking that a bunch of gibberish has meaning. Several of the bluelinks either go to redirects or link to articles with no clear connection to the piped link name. The external links that I followed didn't contain the term. Neutral, see below. --Allen 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article does read like a parody of business/computer jargon, but it appears not to be a hoax. See, e.g. [1]. Moreover, the term gets quite a few (seemingly) relevant web hits. On the other hand, it might be neologism/OR. dbtfz^talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, yeah, I guess you're right. Plus, if it was a joke, the author probably wouldn't have made a zillion edits to it. And if that paper is indeed real, it's not strictly OR either. I guess I'd better take back my vote, although I still feel like Thinklets is laughing at me. --Allen 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thinklets don't laugh; they exhibit Actionable Distilled Jocularity. dbtfz ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this is a just a joke. Sentences like "A thinkLet's social capital value proposition may be assessed by its distributed application as either an Actionable Distilled Insight or Reusable Learning Object." sound like something from the Pointy Haired Boss from the Dilbert comic strip. Even if it isn't a joke, it's written like jibberish and has no encyclopedic value (i.e. it doesn't even explain what a "Thinklet" is). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so full of jargon as to be unredeemable. Flush this turd, and eliminate

its stench from Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure whether this is unredeemable gibberish, or a hoax. I kind of suspect it's a parody, but I'm kind of afraid it's not. Maybe BJAODN it? Fan1967 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BJAODN is often thrown around too lightly, but if this gets deleted, I think it would make for a classic BJAODN. --Allen 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to BJAODN. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed.
Keep per Eternal Equinox. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recon0 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been watching this article since it was written, and it has only gotten worse. (Well, not entirely - for a while the term "thinklet" was never even defined.) This is apparently one guy's neologism, and the article was created by someone who attended a seminar where it was mentioned. The chance of expanding (yikes) or improving it appear minimal. -Will Beback 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but extreme stubify or mark for complete rewrite. I find that it is impossible to understand gibberish, but I verified that the Hawaii conference listed as a source does exist and did have presentations on this topic in 2004. So I don't think deleting is the answer. However, Wikipedia should aspire to significantly greater readability so we should somehow "send back" the article for a complete rewrite. By the way, I tried to read the first page of that 2004 presentation on thinklets, and while it is less gibberish than our article, I did not end up any wiser. I still have no idea what thinklets are, and hereby retreat licking my wounds from my attempt to sofixit. Martinp 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: I'm sending this to Article Heaven (or Limbo, or Nirvana, or whatever) and may it find peace over there. "Extreme stubbification" is not an option, given that it's impossible to get anything coherent from this article. Out of respect for serious marketspeakers I won't send thins to BJAODN, though it would certainly fit in there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri Pandits[edit]

Delete -- Article is a poorly-written, non-sourced propaganda piece; a non-demagogic article on this topic already exists at Kashmiri Pandit (singular). Touchstone 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kashmiri Pandit. Royboy crashfan 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. PJM 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Redirect per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination. Kashmiri Pandit is a much better article. Jude(talk,contribs) 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect They are the same topic, should be same article
Redirect per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. utcursch | talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect DevanJedi 01:51, 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. W.marsh 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Gilead[edit]

This is basically the same as the page for The Handmaid's Tale. Almost all of it is copied word-for-word, so there's no reason to have this page up when it adds nothing new. Slinga 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info with and redirect to The Handmaid's Tale. PJM 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep and remove from The Handmaid's Tale, where it bloats that article. The Handmaid's Tale should be about The Handmaid's Tale, not the Republic of Gilead. Melchoir 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the notability arguments below, but I have a hang-up on principle: AfD is a poor tool for resolving merge/split decisions. On the other hand, if this article were deleted and/or redirected, it would hamper future splits, so I'll unweak myself. Melchoir 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable information and then redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing worth merging that's not already in A Handmaid's Tale. Fan1967 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable addition to Category:Fictional countries. Atwood spun together an interesting world with The Handmaid's Tale and it is a notable novel in Canada. If Middle-Earth gets an article why not this? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-Earth exists across several books and media. There is enough information about it per se to justify a separate article.

Gilead, by contrast, exists in only one book and, once you get past "future USA run by ultra-fundamentalist Christians," there's not a whole hell of a lot more you can say about it. Redirect. Daniel Case 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable fictional country. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster, fictional country of note. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable fictional country. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Content will change over time.Vizjim 12:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it's part of a book, the content belongs in the article of that book.
Keep per Capitalistroadster. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better in this context. Honbicot 15:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It can still be listed as a notable fictional country, but it has not existence outside The Handmaid's Tale, so it doesn't need an article outside The Handmaid's Tale, either. --- GWO
Redirect When its the subject of multiple books it may deserve a separate article. Thatcher131 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia is for informational articles about the world we live in, not every fictional world created by novelists. Brian G. Crawford 16:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most editors would beg to differ with you, since we have very extensive articles, character profiles, location articles, etc. on numerous fictional works such as Harry Potter, Animorphs and Star Wars, to name a few. Grandmasterka 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known fictional country. JoshuaZ 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough to have its own article apart from the one on the book, its film adaptations, etc. 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is not needed. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - notable, but a word for word copy is grounds for redirect to the parent. Georgewilliamherbert 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As aforestated, we have plenty of fictional articles. Heck, look at the article for Freedonia. This article does have a place on wikipedia, but I suggest that someone make some attempt to make it different from the other article. Siyavash 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The country exists in 1 (one) book. It's a fine book, but since there is no information about the world outside that book, there is no need for the separate article about the world. Middle Earth, and, yes, even Freedonia, have references outside their 1 source. This one doesn't. When there is another reference to the Republic of Gilead, or when the Handmaid's Tale article gets too long, RoG can get its own article, not until then. GRuban 16:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalroadster. Ardenn 06:22, 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. Textbook example of a good use for WP:PROD. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmugby[edit]

Non-notable to say the least, it's also a biography on how Wikipedia can be used to post useless information. Bladeswin 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 00:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:HOAX and WP:NOT. Alphax ^τεχ 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NFT ("The game "Schmugby" was an idea thought up by a group of friends from Surrey, UK in the summer of 2005.") among others. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. PJM 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Not for things made up in school one day. Green Giant 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alphax. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. dbtfz ^talk 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Bucketsofg 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete, pick your reason. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all of the above and as completely non-notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. -- Alpha269 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "The game 'Schmugby' was an idea thought up by a group of friends from Surrey, UK in the summer of 2005." We need read no more. Daniel Case 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Bob 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:39, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bojo[edit]

Species does not exist. Genus does not exists. Hoax. Joelito 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PJM 01:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Green Giant 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tee hee! Funny hoax. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Allen 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BJAODN unworthy hoax. Royboy crashfan 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the google test. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it's supposed to be funny, I don't get it. dbtfz ^talk 08:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete as hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Jude(talk,contribs)
Delete hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha269 (talk • contribs)
Delete as hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:HOAX. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. incog 21:22, 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) 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howda hoowah[edit]

Original research gamecruft; non-notable with zero hits on Google. I say delete ~~or redirect to Desert Combat~~. Melchoir 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was 1902, would you delete Wilbur & Orville Wright's new article on a so-called "Flying Machine" because people had never heard of it before? Have some vision. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .
- Actually, yes, we would. Melchoir 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd delete their article, too, huh? You are a sad and broken man. You can have your article deletion. I suspect when you're on your deathbed you'll wish with every grain and granule of your being that during your life you were able to have vision and perspicacity about something greater than yourself. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .

Delete as OR and gamecruft. Redirect to anywhere would be inappropriate, as there is no verification per Google that this term is commonly used among the game's fanbase; I am willing to change stance on that if verification is provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, feel free to purchase a copy of Battlefield 1942, install the Desert Combat mod, join an active server on the Iraqi side. Press the F1 key twice in succession and you will hear Howda Hoowah. It's part of the game, okay? People aren't going to make websites about them, they're Howda Hoowahs for chrissakes, why would they be on Google? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .

Redirect. Gamecruft unworthy of it's own article. Royboy crashfan 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. -- Vary | Talk 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, delete per Kinu. (nom) Melchoir 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I guarantee you, this is no flying machine -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one vote needed per editor perhaps? Delete V i r tualSteve 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu. Jude(talk,contribs) 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get this GameCruft outta here Deizio 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alpha269 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Royboycrash. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all legitimate reasons given above plus to make the point that not everything in the world is encyclopedic. Daniel Case 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect would be okay, but it seems like an unlikely search term. --Allen 22:45, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. Mape[edit]

NN vanity at best, hoax at worst – Ezeu 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has to be a hoax, no 12X Platinum album is going to lack a page on yahoo music. MadCow257 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear WP:NFT and hoax. "25 Cent"... right. Not even funny, so no BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User has also created several related hoax articles, such as P-Unit, Bmac (rapper), and Gmuh. I'm tagging those for PROD, though I wouldn't be surprised if they end up here. Whether any action should be taken against the creator is out of my hands... --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Returns no Google hits with the exception of Wikipedia. No album has been certified 12x platinum by the RIAA since Shania Twain's Up! in 2003. As a matter of fact, no album has been certified diamond (10x platinum) since Up! as well. Delete as an obvious hoax. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BJAODN unworthy hoax. Royboy crashfan 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, a very nice try, but it was too encyclopedic-looking to make me laugh. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. It's a pity someone wasted so much time to be so unfunny. dbtfz ^talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete and do not pass BJAODN. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waaaaaay too much time on your hands dude. View other existing and future contribs from this guy with extreme prejudice. Deizio 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax -- Alpha269 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:40, 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Year[edit]

Delete Not encyclopedic SailorfromNH 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or move to Wictionary MadCow257 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SailorfromNH. I don't think it should be moved to Wiktionary, because "unknown year" doesn't have any meaning beyond what you would expect from knowing the words "unknown" and "year". --Allen 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Royboy crashfan 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Apparently this article was created in order to have something an entry in 2040s could be linked to. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Nicolasdz 08:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this just another redlink justifier? V i r tualSteve 10:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Deizio 12:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. -- Alpha269 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really doesn't contain much, does it? -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly obvious delete. An unknown person is someone you don't know! Grandmasterka 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless dicdef. Though it did remind me of "Mmm... unexplained bacon!" --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 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. Those supporting a merge can slap {{merge}} on the article and thrash this out on the talk. Right now there is no consensus to delete, so no decision has been made. Please work this dispute out on the talk, and please do not equate "no consensus" with "keep". If you must oppose a merge/redirect/whatever, please do not cite the "no consensus" decision alone to back up your case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three forms of mathematical induction[edit]

I have refactored comments from this page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Three forms of mathematical induction to improve readability and reduce the amount of space people viewing the entire day have to scroll through. Please use the talk page in future for long discussion. This should not be taken as implying those comments are less valuable in any way, and you are urged to read both this and the talk page. Stifle 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, shouldn't that be moved to the talk page of the article, instead of the delete discussion? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redundant article serves no purpose. (1) and (2) are covered by Mathematical induction; (3) is covered by complete induction. These relationships are already explored in detail at Mathematical induction. In 30 months, the article has accumulated as many edits; I attempted to merge it but was reverted. Melchoir 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Melchoir's hostility seems gratuitous; I don't know where it comes from. His attempt to "merge" material into mathematical induction amounted to (1) paraphrasing a fragment of this article in a way that made clear that he understood none of it and didn't care to; and (2) putting it into a randomly chosen place in that article. Michael Hardy 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why it is necessary to insult me to this degree. I have made nothing but good-faith edits; I understand the articles a little better than not at all, and I make sure that I understand what I'm doing before I do it. You can't possibly think my choice of position was random. And I merged a "fragment" because there is exactly one sentence in this article that can't be found in a more relevant place. Melchoir 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michael Hardy's hostility seems gratuitous. But what do I know? I'm an anon posting from a shared IP. --150.203.2.85 14:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also cool having the 3 types right there clean and consisely MadCow257 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Melchoir. --Allen 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any original information. Royboy crashfan 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Keep Royboy crashfan 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No clear reason for this topic to have its own article. dbtfz^talk 03:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Or delete, if the content isn't worth preserving. (I share Deville's concerns.) dbtfz ^talk 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom, as I don't see anything in here to merge. This may be the first example of mathcruft I've seen. How is (2) functionally different from (1)? Whatever your answer is, then please articulate why there should be the explicit case where one has to prove n=1,2 by hand and then start the induction at 2? And etc.? In any case, this article contains absolutely zero mathematical content not contained in other articles. --Deville (Talk) 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see no difference between (1) and (2), then you're not paying attention. "Why there SHOULD be"? I never said there "SHOULD" be; I said there ARE very many such cases. I suggest if you don't know that, you're simply not a mathematician. Michael Hardy 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content isn't worth preserving. It's just hairsplitting over the initial step. Maths undergrad that DOES understand the material fully and still sees no point in it.--Mmx1 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no offense to Michael, but this just doesn't strike me as an encyclopedia article. It would be a good sort of observation to include in a textbook, maybe for a discrete math course. --Trovatore 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Melchoir. If the article's originator can work up a merge, then please go for it.Vizjim 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. I don't have the expertise to comment on this issue. (BTW, thanks for putting the message on my talk page, I wouldn't have come back here otherwise).Vizjim 09:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparison of different variations on induction belongs at mathematical induction. This article seems like it might be about using induction for a certain group of problems. If this topic really does deserve an article, it probably needs a better title, and it should at least have an introduction which makes the topic clear. JPD (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Whatever new content here should be merged and this article deleted. -- Alpha269 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you can really do that, in general, because of the GFDL. Certainly we wouldn't want to just stick literal text from the article somewhere else and then delete the record of who wrote it. Possibly if the text were paraphrased first we'd be technically OK; I'm really not sure what the rules on that are. --Trovatore 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: This is correct. A merge must be followed with a redirect. Stifle 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MadCow257. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. The mathematical induction article is totally superior in content, grammar, comprehensibility and every other way imaginable. This article is badly written, and contains no new, or interesting, information. It's hardly surprising the nominator "didn't understand" the new article. It's borderline gibberish. GWO
Delete No material seems salvagable for merger. JoshuaZ 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is nothing here that isn't covered elsewhere. Reyk 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Possible merge if someone is up to the task. No question that mathematical induction is written to a higher standard. I also suggest that Michael find another supporter from the academic math community to back his assertion that the "article does indeed contain information not in that other article". Slowmover 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided a source can be cited, per Allen. Otherwise, still delete. Appreciate the perceived good faith edits of the author, so I have conditionally changed my vote. Slowmover 23:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not bad and is understandable, but I am concerned about WP:NOR. I've never heard the term "three forms of mathematical induction". --C S (Talk) 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of no value as an independent topic --DV8 2XL 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This page is really about what it itself calls the "second form" of induction, which isn't really dealt with on the mathematical induction page. This is an interesting topic and completely merits Michael Hardy's expanded content, but there's no reason for it to be anything other than a subhead in mathematical induction just as the "first" and "third" forms currently are. —Blotwell 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that the focus of the article is to present a trichotomy of techniques, and give examples to illustrate the distinctions among them. However, I am not convinced that either the trichotomy, at least as it is presented here, really exists, and I do not think that the examples illustrate anything substantial. Furthermore, as it's been noted, the factual material that's contained here is present in the mathematical induction article, so that the sole original content of the article becomes the uninformative examples. Let me elaborate: sent to talk page by Stifle Ryan Reich 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restructure - the point is actually about a common difficulty in using induction (2). So it could be rewritten into an article about Polya's example (which is quite famous), introducing the stuff on 2nd form to explain the apparent paradox. The discussion of 1 and 3 could be probably merged into the Mathematical induction article. AdamSmithee 08:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~merge~~. Form 2 can be easily be rendered as form 1, by a simple renumbering. Define two sequences of cases: let $case_{A}$ $case_{A}$ the original cases and let $case_{B}(n)=case_{A}(n+1)$ $case_{B}(n)=case_{A}(n+1)$ , be a renumbered sequence. So the form 2 induction for $case_{A}$ $case_{A}$ just becomes a form 1 induction for $case_{B}$ $case_{B}$ , with an extra vaciously true case $case_{B}(0)$ $case_{B}(0)$ . In general induction arguments don't have to start at 1, if you can prove all cases up to m by other means and then prove >m using induction then its just as good an argument. Its a shame we've had to go here, instead of reverting the merge notice, which imediatly led to and afd in retaliation, a discussion on the merge would have been more civil.--Salix alba (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename I now think that this article is missnamed. The key points seem to be more about inductive or recirsive arguments relating to (binary) operations. It does not use the normal definition of induction, interms of a sequence of statements, but instead requires extra conditions linking the statement number to the number of operands.--Salix alba (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the selection of the three forms is WP:OR. (This is an oddity, as I see it. All of the article could be merged into different articles.) My suggestion would be to find a good name for the 2nd form, and keep that as a separate article, merging all the rest into Mathematical induction. Specifically -- forms 1 and 2 are the same type of induction, with the difficulties in different steps, while form 3 is different. They should not all be in the same article without including a number of of still different forms. Furthermore, the triangle inquality miscounts "n". The step that is impossible is 2 to 3, rather than 1 to 2, as the trivial equation is $d\left(x_{1},x_{1}\right)\leq 0$ . (In other words, I agree with AdamSmithee, but feel, in addition, that the selection of items in the article is WP:OR.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge existing text into mathematical induction (if it is placed after the explanation of mathematical induction, the necessary level of marthematical competence may be assumed). But this is a question of ordinary editing. No claim made here justifies deletion. Septentrionalis 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Polya's example and perhaps the product rule example into mathematical induction or some article on logical fallacy or erroneous proof. Delete the rest, as it is redundant or too detailed (maybe put into a Wikibook on proof techniques?). This article is too basic to appeal to readers who fully understand induction already. I also agree about the WP:OR problem; I have never seen this classification before, there are no sources, and there is no reason given to single out these three forms of induction from others possible. Joshuardavis 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The essence of Polya's example is not erroneous proof; the essense is the form of the argument. What is erroneous is there only because Polya wanted to divorce the form from specific cases, and also to set an exercise for students. But Polya's example illustrates the form perfectly. Those who think it's erroneous to say all horses are of the same color are being too literal-minded; sometimes all horses are of the same color. Don't construe that literally. Michael Hardy 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, userfy and potentially move to wikibooks. Article presents an interesting and to me somewhat new perspective on mathematical induction (bear in mind, I have not been an active mathematician for 5 years). This perspective should be integrated into the article on the topic at hand, namely mathematical induction, to the extent appropriate. This will of course involve discussion and debate with the denizens of that article. Beyond this, could become part of a mathematical wikibook of some sort; pending that, should be userfied. Martinp 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would be interesting to hear the perspective of active participants in Wikiproject Mathematics, not as much on content or to give them any sort of veto power, but to understand what has worked in the past regarding interesting perspectives on one aspect of an encyclopedic mathematical topic. Heck, I have all sorts of material from old lectures I gave where I presented something mathematical from a slightly iconoclastic angle, but which is not new research. What is the right approach to judge what belongs on Wikipedia? Martinp 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and articles need to be comprehensible to people outside a narrow field of competence. Not making any assesment about the article here. Stifle 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has certainly never been a how-to article in any of its versions. And I think it is comprehensible to all mathematicians, not just to those in any narrow field of competence. Should all Wikipedia articles that are incomprehensible to non-mathematicians get deleted? What is that -- maybe 10% of all Wikipedia articles, and 90% of the ones on mathematics? Michael Hardy 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete The point of this article is completely lost to me, if it even has a point. I don't see anything significant in the distinctions made. If Polya's example is famous it should be merged to the main induction article. -MarSch 13:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or maybe merge) Perhaps something in this article belong in Complete induction, but other than that it seems to be a bunch of howto and examples, and gets hung up on the point of whether the base case of an induction is vacuous (which might deserve one sentence in the induction article). Rdore 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world does anyone manage to see this as a "how to"?? It skips details precisely because it is NOT a how-to. There is NO mention of whether the base case is vacuous in the examples, but rather only in the case of complete induction, where it explains why the base case is always vacuous. In all three examples, the base case is asserted to be the substantial part--as far from vacuous as you can get. Michael Hardy 03:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

Delete. Humans did not evolve from apes. If humans came from apes, why are there still apes? 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Even if you don't think so, the vast majority of scientists disagree with you, and in any case it isn't relevant to whether or not there should be a Wikipedia article on it. JoshuaZ 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This AfD is utter nonsense. siafu 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and stop wasting our time. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- bad faith AfD -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. --Allen 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Waste of my time. I can't believe this was even listed. --Jay(Reply) 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep JimWae 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ridiculous suggestion - probably a troll - are brand new accounts even permitted to propose this?[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. Royboy crashfan 02:14, 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. W.marsh 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesh[edit]

Is this a real phenomenon? I've never heard of it, it might be very notable, but I'm skeptical of it. Google turns up a ton of unrelated stuff. Delete without some outside evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've never heard this word for it, but I think the fashion trend is real. Googling "hesh skateboarders" turns up some relevant stuff. Keep unless someone knows a more common word for this fashion, in which case redirect to that. --Allen 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Delete. Delete punk culture as well. </sarcasm> Keep, but expand. Royboy crashfan 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Skating jargon. Googling "hesh skating" and "hesh skaters" turns up multiple alternate meanings and many of them are simply someone's name. Certainly much less notable than other skating fashion trends and jargon. Metta Bubble 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Allen and it sounds rather likely anyway --Grocer 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup real term/fashion trend, article needs work joshbuddy^talk 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & cleanup but that's a serious cleanup folks. There should be no hurry to put skating trends or neologisms into WP. It's becoming a bit of a generic skater term, in addition to uses already outlined, a "hesh sesh" is an impromptu skating session where nobody is worried about techical perfection. I'm guessing it gets used in other skater terms too. Deizio 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup -- Alpha269 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. We're not here to provide original coverage of emerging slang or culture. Ned Wilbury 14:59, 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 Delete by User:Xaosflux — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badem[edit]

Author took offense at my earlier speedy tag. Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete barring a valid assertion of notability. Grandmasterka 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems speediable, since article doesn't assert notability, but on the other hand the author sort of asserted notability in an edit summary. --Allen 02:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1/A7. Royboy crashfan 02:51, 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 keep NSL E _(T+C) at 09:16 UTC (2006-03-06)

Mucky_Pup[edit]

Previously speedy-deleted three times, once under CSD A7, the remaining two times without further consideration as G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). At Deletion Review, it was pointed out that the current version of the article asserts notability, rendering CSD A7 currently an invalid reason for deletion. Listing on AfD now; nominator abstains. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if they were self-published, they'd surely have sold WP:MUSIC's 5000 records after seven albums. --Allen 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC by a longshot. Royboy crashfan 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claim of record label signing. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:54 UTC (2006-03-06)
Keep, a reference, to AllMusic.com, now exists. While it may not be 100% accurate, it lists the discography and various notable facts. JohnBWatt
Keep, notable enough, --kingboyk 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of whether the record label signing is verifiable, what is incredibly verifiable is that a song by this group was chosen by Berke Breathed to represent the Billy and the Boingers group from Bloom County, and that song was published in a major New York Times bestseller that was distributed all over the world. And that is verifiable. MikeWazowski 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is above the bar for notabliity imo. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:45Z
Keep as per the above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 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 by User:Cimon avaro — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Price Hurt IV[edit]

Blatant POV-pushing. No google results for "Fred Price Hurt IV" or "Fred Price Hurt". Delete. Fightindaman 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom, nn -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack on subject of article. --Allen 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible - case doesn't seem particularly notable. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A6 per Allen. Royboy crashfan 02:53, 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13-14[edit]

Delete. The {{prod}} was removed, so next step is AfD. My reason is non-notability, as well as no returns on Google. - CorbinSimpson 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboy crashfan 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio --Grocer 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:46Z
Delete NN.! V i r tualSteve 10:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BrandNewGangCruft eh? Outrageous. Deizio 12:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above -- Alpha269 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was started.... Yesterday? --Bachrach44 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author has been blanking and editing the page against the AfD policy. My guess is that he's trying to undo or delete the page himself (assuming good faith...). I have tried to keep the page's original content up there by reverting his blankings...the community should be able to see what they're agreeing to delete. - CorbinSimpson 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a criterion for speedy delete? See:[2] --Grocer 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, doesn't assert importance or notability. --Allen 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:41, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robey Pointer[edit]

author of ~~an IRC script~~ Eggdrop, not notable enough. Grocer 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn bio --Grocer 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Royboy crashfan 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable author of a program that's really notable within a non-trivial field. His software left a lasting mark on Internet Relay Chat, which many of you use for Wikipedia's day-to-day chat. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, there are 843,000 Google hits[3] for his software. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Eggdrop. Adrian, thats why we have an entry for the software. Eggdrop already covers all the notable details. JoshuaZ 17:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. I think he is sufficiently notable. Eggdrop was/is huge. Cyde Weys 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying "author of an IRC script" is like saying Linus was "author of a minix modification". He was the initial author for a now ubiquitous open source program. For the record, it was written in C (not a scripting language by any means) and it 'supported' tcl scripting. Leorg 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (Users 6th edit. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment per my prior delisting, my only vote in this is !=speedy anything. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Eggdrop is certainly notable his bio is not. Anything worthwhile can be merged into Eggdrop. If you asked someone who wrote the linux kernel they will tell you Linus Torvalds. If you ask someone who wrote Emacs they will tell you esr. If you ask someoen who wrote Eggdrop I doubt they would know. I believe your effigy is infact made of dried grass. kotepho 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: The only notable thing about RP is that he invented Eggdrop. The rest of his bio is not only non-notable but also quite boring. Summarized information about RP should be added to Eggdrop if relevant. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris krause[edit]

Delete 18 year old American philosopher (has an s in his name) who apparently has re-established the Platonic school. Vanity. Bollocks. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hilarious vanity by precocious teen. dbtfz ^talk 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it's probably the funniest thing I've seen all day. Worthy of BJAODNing? Cantara 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe BJAODN because it's funny enough. dcandeto 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant vanity, don't BJAODN it. Royboy crashfan 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teenage vanity. Fan1967 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Ritchy 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly - I am not Krause - so this can't be considered vanity, perhaps blind admiration at best. Secondly you're all being very condescending and elitist. At no point does the article claim Mr. Krause has "re-established the Platonic school" or any other claims - if you actually read his work all he does is humble himself and does not even refer to himself as a philosopher but rather someone who is just repeating ancient wisdom. Mr. Krause makes no claims of accomplishing anything and all his works are dedicated to his teachers rather than himself, explaining to the reader that any thoughts must be attributed to them and them alone. Anyway, I wouldn't want this stub, which I was going to expand to include commentary on all his key points being in such a elitist environment so delete. Baalhammon 6 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above, I'll rephrase my vote: Delete Non-notable philospher. Having a blog does not make you notable. Fan1967 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Mr. Krause is not published yet does not make his thoughts any less legitimate, nor does his age. Young people have accomplished great things in the past (See: Alexander the Great). Attack the ideas, not the character. I'd like to again stress that I have no personal affiliation to Mr. Krause. What makes a philosopher notable anyway? The common man wouldn't know the name Nietzsche and of course wouldn't know the name Wittgenstein - but these are giants of philosophy. By another logic, Socrates, Epictetus and other Greeks didn't write down or publish their philosophy, and we consider them classical, if not crucial. Although there is a link to a personal blog on Krause's site, there is also academic essays and a philosophical treatise on ethics. Baalhammon 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to only one of your questions, as it's the only one that matters here: What makes a philosopher notable anyway? To put it simply, a notable person is one that many people have heard of. It is not Wikipedia's task to publicize unknown people, but rather document notable people. Krause is not prominent, he is not well-known. The specific guidelines that Wikipedia recommends are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fan1967 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Bucketsofg 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it'd be mean to BJAODN . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Sandstein 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as embarassing vanity. In any case, "Blind admiration" is as bad a reason to write articles as vanity. Nowhere near as BJAODN worthy as the Bassil Mikdadi vanity/hoax. Deizio 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, vanity. -- Rynne 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be contrarian. I would like to perform an experiment of the contrary method of discouraging vanity articles: keeping them, locking their content so that the author can't delete them, and publicizing them so widely that the author is embarrassed into never ever doing it again. I doubt that will happen here, but it's worth a try. Reading the article was worth enough of a laugh to warrant something silly here. (note: experiment not proposed policy change for WP as a whole, at least not until test results are in...). Georgewilliamherbert 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's cruel. Just goes to show that we will be doing the kind, compassionate thing by deleting this article. : ) dbtfz^talk 07:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides being cruel, doesn't a contrarian "keep" vote violate WP:POINT (State your point; don't prove it experimentally)? - Rynne 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, editors are free to vote and give rationales however they choose, for whatever reason. Votes like this simply won't be considered in the final tally. Nothing has really been done here - creating, nominating (or encouraging others to do so) or otherwise making significant erroneous changes to pages to make a point (aka disrupting wikipedia) are frowned upon. The tone of this opinion above makes it clear it's a bit of fun and I doubt anybody, least of all Georgewilliamherbert, seriously expects it to take off. Embarassing vanity posters is sometimes essential but you do have to remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF Deizio 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable, thank you for the clarification. - Rynne 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With luck, in five to ten years, he will be eminently worthy to place in Wikipedia. Just not today.Pat Payne 23:06, 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) 14:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The modes[edit]

Delete - vanity, non-notable Cantara 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another one of those inspiration explanations. That doesn't meet WP:MUSIC standards. Royboy crashfan 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. A band that once had the potential to become notable in the 80's, but broke up before they ever did. Fan1967 04:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Reads like a (very) poor man's Behind the Music. dbtfz ^talk 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vantiy. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity -- Alpha269 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:42, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boo D. Licious[edit]

Hardly notable. Aside from the fact that her name is a play on words from a Destiny Child song, this performer has not made enough movies to be even considered notable and has no other claims to notability to speak of. Thus Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable. Royboy crashfan 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The IMDB link lists a whole bunch of videos she's been in, way more than enough for any normal actor to be notable. It's possible that every one of those videos is such a tiny niche thing that they don't add up to notability, but it seems more likely that this person really is a notable porn actor. --Allen 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Porn actors can make a movie a week, so imdb count isn't really the best benchmark, doesn't seem to have won any awards for her eh... "performances". Eivind 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a fine example of early 21 century Reality porn. Garnier 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in question does not assert this alleged fact. Care to cite a verifiable source? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--Kross ^Talk 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: Quantity of videos is seldom a measurement for notability when it comes to porn. I mean really. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 14:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RGBGaming[edit]

This group is not notable; there are many game review web sites on the Internet. The article does not assert that RGBGaming has done anything important. dcandeto 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article seems to be an attempt to promote the site; the creator of the article has twice quickly removed {{nn-bio}} when I've added it. dcandeto 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fancruft, Alexa rank of 3,434,551, and 12 unique hits on Google. Royboy crashfan 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article states that it was something made up in school. Delete per RoyBoy. --light darkness^(talk) 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this systemic-bias driven, 10-a-penny GameCruft. Deizio 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Alpha269 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrash --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral Cotranscendentalism[edit]

No google hits for title, appears to be Original Research. Delete. Fightindaman 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Looks like somebody read Emerson and decided to create a religion out of it. The history of stuff he had in there and then blanked makes for amusing reading. Fan1967 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT and WP:NOR -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Last time I checked, WP is not for starting cults. dbtfz ^talk 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CGM Project[edit]

Delete. A project which isn't even done, and possibly wouldn't be notable even if it were. This also flagrantly violates the crystal ball policy, and the article itself sucks. --maru (talk) contribs 04:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and pure promotion. Cantara 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might be speedied. Simply treats wikipedia like a forum post. Metta Bubble 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous --Grocer 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Planned project by a group of people named Krystatos, Gorkab, Look That, Lilice, Zaknafein, Tidus San, Mr Bob and Durendal? Non-notable crystal ball. Fan1967 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Alpha269 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someone will need to remove all the links that someone added to other pages to promote this future project. -Quasipalm 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. K1Bond007 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--Vercalos 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. —A 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This submission is begging for deletion as a multiple violation of policy and guidelines.--DV8 2XL 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, what is with you all? You don't even take a look to the project and automatically want to suppress it? What's wrong with you all? This is no propaganda, there's another page which list all the movies with CGI and what else? You want to suppress it? You think I will gain something by writing it for Wiki? No! This is a fan project and a school one too! If you go on the listed links, you'll see a video of the presentation, which is in an amphitheatre of an university! And those who think my article is a crap or sucks, it would be VERY NICE to tell me WHY instead of criticizing it! Gorkab

I wish the project luck and I'd love to see it when it is done. However wikipedia is not a "working space." I'd recommend you look at this page: WP:NOT, it goes over what wikipedia is not ment to be used for. Let me know when it is finished and I'll help you make an article about it. —A 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can I modify it to integrate it to the existant article "Timeline of CGI in film and television" ? Gorkab

If there is information missing from that article then by all means add it. However, your project isn't ready for Wikipedia yet, so please keep information about it off of all articles. —A 03:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the closing admin: This article violates so many policies I didn't even know what to say in the delete summary to keep it short. To the creators of the project, I suggest: get your own website, put the development info there, get the thing done, then wait until it becomes famous, and then somebody will undoubtedly write about it in Wikipedia. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (apparently). I'm closing it properly now. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstyn_Isobel_Walker[edit]

Delete. Article is a hoax Wraith Daquell 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no Google hits. A fictional fictional character, as it were. Sandstein 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax character in a fictional country. Fan1967 05:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hollow FictionCruft. Deizio 12:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definite hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 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 to delete. Editorial decision taken to redirect; this is not official by any means, so please do not cite this alone as a reason to support or oppose future attempts to alter this article's status. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian immigration[edit]

Advertisement, nonsense, or plain unsalvagable. Prod was removed, so it's here. Grocer 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Grocer 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. There's room for more content on this, but it belongs there. Fan1967 05:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canada's great! I wouldn't merge, the content is spurious. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly Merge per Fan1967). I dont belive the content is unsalvagable, but it needs a lot of work. Countries various immigration policies are interesting enough to deserve an article, but it must of course be better than this. Henrik 07:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice should a decent article be written. Calwatch 09:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Henrik. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Fan1967 -- Alpha269 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is an official government website. Brian G. Crawford 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in merging this, there's hardly anything there. The Disco King 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fan1967. There isn't any information actually worth salvaging in a merge. --Bachrach44 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree there doesn't appear to be any useful info that's not duplicated in Citizenship and Immigration Canada. -- Vary | Talk 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calwatch. Note to Brian Crawford to check before voting (the website is indeed a valid gov't site), and note to Grocer that the content doesn't qualify as "nonsense". Slowmover 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Fan1967. Ardenn 06:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no content worth merging, but the title really should exist as a redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I'm actually surprised it didn't already. Redirect. Bearcat 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada which properly covers everything needed by this article. —GrantNeufeld 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with MADtv recurring characters. Flower party■ 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Hines[edit]

fancruft and would be better suited as a section of the parent article. Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MADtv. Sandstein 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MADtv recurring characters per nom. dbtfz ^talk 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha269 (talk • contribs)
Merge to MADtv recurring characters per Dbtfz and nom, and cleanup. Шизомби 18:54, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji zaka[edit]

User:わがまま小皇帝 has been creating articles on Tokyo streets that do not appear to have any particular notability. He has refused to explain why they are supposed to be notable (see discussion here and here, with applicable policies quoted). That's why I nominate all of them for deletion here: Meiji zaka, Tsuna zaka, Shokouzaka and Sanko zaka. -- Sandstein 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Tuna no tebiki zaka, too. Sandstein 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Brian G. Crawford 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless creator can reference his claim that Sanko zaka is an important place in the history of Japan. Googling it gives me only the Internat. Directory of Odonatologists. Can any Japanese speaker help here? Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's documenting the streets in his neighborhood in Mita -- and not even the most important streets, at that. I actually recognize Tuna no tebiki zaka: the Australian Embassy is on it. There might be some historical import along one of these slopes (one of the local street maps, as I recall, mentions a famous suicide in the vicinity), but until some English-language verifiability comes out, delete. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly, these slopes of Tokyo are not as famous as the Seven hills of Rome, but that's no reason to delete them. Move, of course, to titles with the Wikipedia Hepburn spellings. Fg2 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you mean that we should have articles on every road, slope, street, alleyway etc. in the world? If not, what notability criteria would you apply? Sandstein 11:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize Wikipedia had a relevant notability criterion. If you could provide a link to it, it might merit a change in my vote. Fg2 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try here: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Random information on random slopes in a city is pointless: these articles taught me nothing and I used to work in that neighborhood. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not convincing, but having thought some more about this, I suppose merging all the nominated articles into a new "Neighborhoods in Shirokane" wouldn't be a bad idea, or merging into Shirokane to make a substantial article out of a collection of small ones. Fg2 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, redirect Meiji-zaka to Shirokane, merge what's necessary. I was going to vote keep, but I checked JA and there is actually no article there either (their article is on Shirokane, and the slope is a feature). The pictures to these -saka in JA actually link to the English articles, so it seems like there is no great need for these articles in JA either. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently my edit yesterday didn't come through. Tsuna zaka makes legitimate reference to notability, and it has it's own article on JA Wiki. It should NOT be included on this AfD as the other 2 make no claims of notability. I now vote keep for the sake of Tsuna zaka. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I can't read Japanese, but the English version of Tsuna zaka makes no substantial claims to notability. It talks about the origin of the name, which is that of an ogre-slaying samurai, but that makes the samurai (slightly) notable, not the street. Or is every place named for a notable person automatically notable, too? Sandstein 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English version doesn't explain it very well. The ogre-slaying samurai is considered to have been born in the area of Tsuna zaka, which is why, I assume, the article was deemed worthy for JA. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then why not correct the English article accordingly? I still won't consider the street notable until the samurai himself has a stub showing why he's notable, though... Sandstein 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) My bad, he has an article. OK, no vote on Tsuna zaka, if y'all consider it notable for the sake of this samurai. Sandstein 11:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Information Clearinghouse[edit]

Delete: This page is nothing but a description of a site on the web and an external link. The site does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:WEB, and users would be better served if there were simply a link to the site from the Ada Prgramming language article, rather than a link to our own summary of the site. This is my first time suggesting an article for deletion, so I would appreciate it if senior Wikipedians would take the time vote, even if this request seems uncontroversial. Joebolte 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This website may be prominent enough to serve as a source for the Ada programming language article, but it doesn't warrant its own page. Bobby1011 06:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ada programming language if it isn't already there. Haikupoet 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge with Ada programming language and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already see a link to this site in Ada programming language (the .org and .com domains appear to be the same web site). Should this article still be redirected to Ada programming language, or can it be deleted? --D e athphoenix ʕ 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the info's already there, just Redirect Fan1967 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Deathphoenix. -- Alpha269 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) .

Myst:_Adventures_in_the_Dungeon[edit]

This is a NONEXISTANT Myst game... and therefore should be removed. GermanShepherd 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think (though I'm not sure) that this is what Wikipedia calls patent nonsense. Certainly no such game exists, the entire article (and related edits made on other Myst pages) is fictitious.

Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not patent nonsense, but it's a hoax and should be deleted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- hoax indeed, and a rather childish one.Cactus Wren 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lame attempt at a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no Myst VI. Grandmasterka 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fictitious. ComputerSherpa 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax JohnRussell 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria for speedy deletion are you invoking? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Make that Speedy, but thanks for the laugh. How bizarre. -- Vary | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but it was a good laugh indeed!!! ~~
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete and utter fabrication. The MYST series ended with MYST V.
Speedy Delete hoax MystRivenExile 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned beforehand, plus taking a look at the authors user page might give you an idea of whats going on. "Hello, my name is Hijoli Cribi!. I like to vandalize the Myst Wikipedia pages." Foo 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Foo[reply]
Delete. I think this article is meant to be funny, but I don't think it is. And even if it would be, it's about a game that does not exist... --Marein 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (*waves at Foo*)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) .

Ages_of_Myst:_Adventures_in_the_Dungeon[edit]

A list of Ages for an NONEXISTANT Myst game... and should therefore be deleted. GermanShepherd 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like its parent article, this article is entirely fictitious. Delete it, please.

Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not patent nonsense, but it's a hoax and should be deleted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a hoax indeed, and a rather childish one.Cactus Wren 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, no Myst VI. Grandmasterka 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely fictitious.
~~Delete~~ Make that Speedy for this, too. Weirdness. -- Vary | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete and utter fabrication. The MYST series ended with MYST V. And, honestly - Akakkkakakakakakaka<snip>? Cyan would be mortified!
Speedy Delete hoax MystRivenExile 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria for speedy deletion are you invoking? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:45, 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, possible speedy. kingboyk 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbabyte[edit]

No google results for this article - may be a speedy delete candidate as patent nonsense. Either way, it doesn't measure up to Wikipedia standards... I cast my vote to Delete --Viridian || (Talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Invented word, and not even a clever one. Fan1967 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Under which criteria for speedy deletion? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most likely under "patent nonsense" (CSD G1) -- I had considered listing it as a speedy candidate under that criteria, but decided to err on the side of caution and list it here instead. --Viridian || (Talk) 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as Patent nonsense. Fan1967 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it's Patent nonsense - it's got things like subject-verb agreement, and as a whole it does make sense while being completely unencyclopedic. Though if you were to tag it {{db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if it's not Patent nonsense, it's still wrong. I've added an Accuracy tag on the page. Fan1967 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "derived from a chat I had with my friend". I don't think I need to say where I stand on this. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I won gold in Athens for sticking my foot up my own ass might be chock-full of verb-subject agreement but it would also be patent nonsense. Deizio 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. -- Alpha269 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense --light darkness^(talk) 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 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 ridiculous made-up neologism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endopanerium[edit]

Delete. neologism without any evidence of widespread use. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Is it sad that I've got that whole phrase memorized? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invented neologism joshbuddy^talk 06:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism, A proposed name Fan1967 06:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 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 to delete; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affric Lodge[edit]

Although described as a village in the article, it is actually just an old hunting lodge turned into a holiday cottage at grid reference NH185225 JBellis 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although I believe it is AffricK Lodge, and should maybe redirect to Glen Affrick. --MacRusgail 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Glen Affric (which is the correct spelling - see that article or the map link JBellis provided). It is just a fairly unextraordinary hunting lodge, so their's not much that can be said about it. --Vclaw 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Vclaw. -- Alpha269 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sake, it's one sentence! Get rid of it. Brian G. Crawford 16:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 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 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Ruthless Boys[edit]

Delete. It appears to be a vanity page of a street gang and, at the very least, Original Research WilliamThweatt 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I like that they point out how very not a joke they are. Because Wikipedia is totally hardcore, as we all know. Cantara 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - the gang does get a number of credible google hits, but this article is horribly written -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup as per Thesquire. The article is poorly-written but the phenomenon of street gangs is notable and this appears to be one such notable gang. (aeropagitica) 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Absolutely hilarious. I can't believe this is real. Still, the gang doesn't seem all that notable--not clear that it merits its own article. dbtfz^talk 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't resist BJAODNing this. Hope the ORBs don't beat me up. dbtfz^talk 07:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry we got your back.
- Changing vote: Merge to newly created Hmong gangs. dbtfz ^talk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unfortunately. Their apparent main rivals Masters of Destruction also have a page. I don't think these sorts of things are especially notable but we tend to apply media coverage criteria and street gangs attract media coverage much more readily than their scope might suggest. MLA 10:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of Destruction - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MLA. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on media reports that turn up on Google. Edgar181 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article doesn't have refences when this afd closes a rouge admin *cough* like me *cough* might delete it. When recomending "keep" and citing sources located elsewhere, unless you actually cite those sources you're not providing evidence, you're stating opinion.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of cleaning up, including the most obvious source.Vizjim 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the opinion of Brenneman, there is extensive news coverage of this gang dating back to the early 90s and they do have an established presence in various states inclusing NC, CA and WI among others. If every serial killer qualifies for an article, based largely on the news coverage surrounding their crimes, why not gangs? They collectively kill a lot of people and are frequently in the news. They also have a far greater impact within defined ethnic communities.-- JJay 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point he's trying to make is that it is no use running around yelling "we have sources, we have sources!" if 1) you don't show us discussing the deletion what they are, and 2) if you don't show future readers of the article what they are. Slapping weblinks to one or more prime examples of these sources, on the other hand, is the metaphorical Good Thing. -- Saberwyn 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could do that. Of course, so could Brenneman. In fact, so could anyone who takes a gander at the top of the page where it says "credible google hits", which is a link to numerous articles discussing this gang. Those links just representing a small proportion of the news coverage. -- JJay 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. So sayeth one of the most important principles on which Wikipedia is founded. If you want this kept, you do the work. Period. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you might want to keep something. Thanks again for the helpful link regarding the foundations and all that. Should I show you a link to IAR or can you find your own way? -- JJay 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create Hmong gangs, merge and redirect this and Masters of Destruction. See the MoD AfD for more on this thrilling debate... Deizio 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest the same thing. If the consensus is that the information in these articles is needed here, this seems the best, most concise, solution.--WilliamThweatt 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmong gangs is live, so be bold Deizio 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect does it for me.Vizjim 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn gangcruft. Eusebeus 12:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not already there to Hmong gangs and redirect. Angr/talk 15:38, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Net Mission[edit]

Fan-made game, not yet released, and Google turns up nothing about it except the project's own sites. Delete. --Spring Rubber 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crystal Ball - Fan1967 07:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — TKD (Talk) 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. PJM 12:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinky Celine[edit]

Delete Fictional character from no longer existant web porn site--Porturology 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator said it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porncruft. Brian G. Crawford 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Шизомби 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jimboy0 06:58, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Familia Rodriguez[edit]

Delete non-notable band. Proposed a delete with {{prod}} but it was reversed. No information has been provided to satisfy WP:MUSIC. A Google on "La Familia Rodriguez" Peru -wikipedia yields nothing (that I can see) relating to this band. Bruce1ee 07:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-notable and only one sentence long. Brian G. Crawford 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no Googles Defunkier 19:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:55, 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 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardknox[edit]

Article fails to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Dismas|^(talk) 07:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lindy Layton. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) The information I was referring to was merged to the Lindy Layton page after I voted, and therefore Delete, folks. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stumason -- Alpha269 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing here to merge, folks. Brian G. Crawford 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:55, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Original Content appearing in Doctor Who (2005-)[edit]

Delete as fancruft and too idiosyncratic to be useful. Essentially, this wants to be a listing of all previous continuity references to the old series of Doctor Who in the new series. In the new series episode articles, we (the Doctor Who Wikiproject) have actually noted these numerous references as and when they appear, and there is no real need for a central repository, especially one with such an awkward name. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Khaosworks. Angmering 07:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Saberwyn 09:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see your point of view, and at the end of the day I can see that this content can be included in other pages, the name was my major concern it's too awkward. I made this page and I agree it should be deleted -- Foxearth 06.18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not the way to present Dr Who stuff on Wikipedia. Deizio 12:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree 100% with the nominator, plus I see the creator of the page is also supporting it's deletion. 23skidoo 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obvious stuff anyway.--Bjw e bb (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brian Olsen 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-selective abortion and infanticide[edit]

Delete, It is feminist and blaphemous Pʰil 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep --Midnighttonight 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; sounds like a bad faith nomination to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, unless "feminist" and "blasphemous" are now grounds for deletion. dbtfz ^talk 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
feminist and blasphemous are point of view and therefore are unaccepteblePʰil 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are points of view. They are your points of view though. The article itself is not. If you feel it is, then tag it with being NPOV or improve it, don't try to get it deleted. --Midnighttonight 08:39, 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. Deleted by User:Geogre: FICTIONAL club; hoax. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MEUA[edit]

Disputed prod. Prod was "not notable (fictional?) group, + is WP:NFT". Original author notes "Please dont delete this article.I will delete it in a week." Royal Blue 07:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per prod. I also find it hard to have good faith in the author puting it up for CSD G7. --Royal Blue 07:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7. I see no assertion of notability for this self-proclaimed "fictional alliance." --Kinu ^t/_c 08:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. PJM 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable Edgar181 12:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not claiming notability. I should have put that tag on when I deprodded it as already deprodded, sorry for not paying closer attention. NickelShoe 15:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:19, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waikouaiti Domestic Airport[edit]

Delete - Complete junk, Waikouaiti is a very small town that perhaps has a grass strip and a windsock somewhere. Certainly no airport, no airlines, unlikely ever to be notable - SimonLyall 07:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. - SimonLyall 07:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Waikouaiti Domestic Airport is situated two Kilometres out of the town centre yet is basically non functional. Very few flights, mainly small engine fixed wing aircraft associated with agricultural spraying operate from the airstrip which is not suitable for commercial passenger use." from the Waikouaiti article. The airport article though states it flies to Australia. Yeah, right. Hoax. --Midnighttonight 07:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only airstrip in the vicinity of Waikouaiti shown on the official LINZ mapping data is 234 Metres in length, and is approx 7 km south of the township. International Jet flights would have to be diverted to Invercargill, Queenstown or Christchurch, even Taieri airport at 700 Metres length wouldnt be suitable, and its only 13 kilometres north of Dunedin Airport. Now thats objectivity and diligence. However, if you are in a small aircraft running out of fuel and your pda finds this article, the lat long coordinates might be helpful.. Long 170 37' 18.8 Lat -45 38' 33.48. Personally I would would like to see all airstrips in NZ logged, but I'm picking theres some reason to establish a threshold... is it lack of funds and therefore server space / bandwidth? how is the threshold determined? moza 14:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As for the comment by moza, maybe we could start a new page for the life-saving potential of Wikipedia! Slowmover 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete bollocks. My uncle used to like in Waikouaiti, and I spent some time in the town last month. No airport - a small airstrip used by local farmers for topdressing flights, yes, but little more than that (BTW, Waikouait' has a population of 800). Never used as a redirection from Dunedin airport - nothing larger than a Cessna would be able to land there. As for linking to Sydney and Brisbane, well, work it out. It doesn't even link to Oamaru and Dunedin. As Moza says, Dunedin flights are diverted to Invercargill or Christchrch. Oh, just correct a couple of Moza's comments, BTW - it's closer to 50km from Momona (Dunedin airport). Momona has, to my knowledge never been closed through congestion, only through flooding or fog (though if Momona was out of action for those reasons, Taieri Aerodrome would be too). Perhaps the coordinates of the strip could be part of a List of airports and airstrips in New Zealand, but that's all that would be needed. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/ I believed that the discussion was to be on the articles' talk page, and then the vote moved here. Anyway, relax, 2/ I am a digital cartographer, I do have the official licensed data, I was diligent in my measurement, and it is only 13km to Taieri airport, from Momona, aka Dunedin Airport. The subject was diversion from Dunedin International. The Waikouaiti airstrip is close to 45km from Momona, but now we are wasting energy. Its clear now to all, and just process from here to end of story. 3/ Wikipedia has done well in recent testing for accuracy, compared with other information sources, but none of my pilot friends would need to use it for navigation, we use the latest released charts of course. I do mix up a bit of tongue in cheek, sorry. However, one of the primary activities in the cockpit of a single engine aircraft, is to scan and identify potential landing sites in case of engine failure. Vigilance and knowledge does save lives. 4/ I have driven through there many times, (but never spotted any planes, although one time there was a breath test bus in the middle of nowhere, and they told me of reports of red glows in the sky, aurora australis, my core passion) I spent a night in Waikouaiti back in 1993, on tour with the Jodi Vaughn and Eddie Low, true, maybe my pics could go on their articles, perhaps thats worth noting, lol guys. moza 05:19, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SERENATA[edit]

Prod removed. Non-notable. Compu terjoe 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep need rewrite, one culture in another cultural world, that's notable. I hope for "Cultural Survival" --MaNeMeBasat 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jankowski[edit]

Non-notable person (676 Google hits, some look questionable). x42bn6 Talk 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the History department chair at Brandeis University[4] and has two 'notable" books published.[5] Not sure if he meets the notability guideline thou. -- Dodo bird 08:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The books make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent writer and historian - Skysmith 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Googling does not mean everything. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ter. Vizjim 12:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. -- Alpha269 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass the professor test. - Fan1967 18:15, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pay Day Loan lenders in Canada[edit]

Apparent advertising. Irishpunktom\^talk 09:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn list. If anything on the list were notable, I'd say its a job for a category, but its not. Kcordina 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is more ourageous ListCruft. WP is not a collection of links etc etc Deizio 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 12:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yellow page entry. -- Alpha269 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or the yellow pages. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. John Reid 04:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Ardenn 06:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. —GrantNeufeld 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CPU. Assume newbie test. -- RHaworth 10:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPU (heart…[edit]

Delete. Author deleted speedy tag. Copies of stuff from CPU article. Wickethewok 09:56, 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 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Courtois[edit]

I'm not at all convinced of the notability of this person. His first published paper appeared in 2000; he has 17, according to MathSciNet (or 20 according to a bio online). I believe the length of time has not been enough to make him truly notable. Even if he is an up and coming star (although this is not at all clear to me), can't we wait until he's won some awards or something? I wish to encourage some discussion and establish his notability and so I'm nominating the article. I'll start with saying I favor delete although I may change my mind based on discussion. --C S (Talk) 10:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Gamaliel 10:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I first heard of Courtois in connection with the XSL attack. Whether this makes him notable enough to deserve his own bio is questionable, but he is a genuine academic cryptographer with a publication record. As are, of course, several hundred other researchers in the field, and we probably don't want a biography article for every one of them. — Matt Crypto 10:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable -- Alpha269 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Redirect to XSL attack, I'm worried that we will have to recreate this article in a year or two. JoshuaZ 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Chaning vote to keep per Trovatore. JoshuaZ 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to me. He's been "in the news". Paul August ☎ 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hell, I've been "in the news" more than once, but that doesn't mean I deserve my own article. Brian G. Crawford 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep I think Chan-Ho's standards for bios of academics are too restrictive. If musicians get kept for putting out two albums on a major label, then I think seventeen papers in six years listed on MathSciNet ought to do it. My only reservation is that the article itself doesn't mention any actual accomplishments. --Trovatore 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His main claim to fame, I think is the XSL attack, I've added a blurb about that to the article. Paul August ☎ 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [6] is plenty of hits for me. How many published papers do you want? Not even mentioning his attack on AES. kotepho 16:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the number of papers in my criteria for notability. I merely listed the number above for those, such as yourself, who feel it is important (since MathSciNet is only by subscription). Rather, I go by criteria on whether he would be considered notable by his peers. I rather suspect from reading the XSL attack page that his peers would consider him a good up and coming researcher but not particularly famous, and his future fame would seemingly depend on how this XSL attack turns out. --C S (Talk) 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is not really Courtois, but the standards for bios of academics. I think yours are too high. In my opinion it would be fine if every bio of a tenured full professor in a PhD-granting program at a research university, were kept. That doesn't mean we'll actually get a bio of every such person, just that they shouldn't be deleted. (BTW I don't think Courtois is a full prof yet, but he clearly meets that level of notability.) --Trovatore 00:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Nicolas Courtois works in industry (Schlumberger Smart Cards). — Matt Crypto 10:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and insert redirect. No encyclopedic content other than that in XSL attack. WP is not an assemblage of resumes. Septentrionalis 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bri'kerzz[edit]

Originally prodded; disputed by the author so I'm bringing it to AFD. This is an article on a character from a non-notable internet novel. --Muchness 11:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Muchness 11:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --CrypticBacon 11:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kcordina 12:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Edgar181 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Followign the crowd. -- Alpha269 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:56, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soukou[edit]

At the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese mythology, it has been established that this article is factually incorrect; the article is about a supposed creature in Japanese mythology that does not exist. We think it is likely that the information on the page is from an anime (possibly Naruto) or a videogame, but it is presented as an actual Japanese myth. {{prod}} was added to this page, but the page was edited by an anon. editor, who removed the tag and also added some poorly formatted additional information (which makes it more obvious that this is something from a game or anime, although it is still presented as an actual Japanese myth). MikeDockery 11:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The anon. editor who removed the {{prod}} tag has now registered as User:Raze lb and presented additional evidence for the article's merits at Talk:Soukou. I am still not convinced, as the information is unsourced, but if the user can provide sources for this information, my opinion on this article may change. MikeDockery 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could only find one entry on the wiki project cited which says that they think it is a computer game creature, but nothing to indicate that it has been established as such. However, it is likely that the nom is right, so delete. Kcordina 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We haven't firmly established where the information came from, only that it isn't information from Japanese mythology. If we could find out specifically where the information is from, we would move or merge the page. However, since we can't establish the origins, we decided to list for deletion. MikeDockery 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To Kcordina: The project discussed this at length, but you'll have to visit Talk:Soukou to see this. Check that out, and any fears you have should be put to rest. BrianSmithson 12:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NickelShoe 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article itself sounds like a hoax, perhaps a mockery of said mythology? Grandmasterka 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As BrianSmithson said, we discussed this at length on the Talk:Soukou page. --日本穣 17:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know know what the hell this is all about, but I am pretty sure it doesn't belong on wikipedia. --Descendall 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peepy[edit]

Unverifiable [7]. - Liberatore(T) 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably hoax, definitely unverifiable. Not a single Google hit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. PJM 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Extremely obscure" claims the article. Edgar181 12:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above -- Alpha269 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. dbtfz ^talk 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Mushroom (Talk) 18:58, 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 and merge Robert Merland Tollefson in to Tollycraft. (aeropagitica) 18:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tollycraft and Robert Merland Tollefson[edit]

Delete Fails wp:corp guidelines for notability--Porturology 12:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The nom has to do way better than cite some guideline page to justify deleting a yacht manufacturer that operated for 60+ years. Thousands of Tollycrafts exist and are bought and sold by boat enthusiasts worldwide. The company obviously had a great story and one that was important in the the state of Washington. I see no reason to weaken the coverage of boat builders at wikipedia as seen in category: boat builders. -- JJay 12:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I strongly support an article on the boats and their designer/builder but this article is a stub of corporate history that basically says the company has been twice bankrupted. Therefore it should be judged on WP:CORP. If the article can be changed to reflect the story of the boats and their place in Washington State history I will gladly withdraw the nomination. As user:JJay has defended the article here and at prod perhaps the onus of improving the article should fall on him--Porturology 13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm sure you are perfectly capable of improving articles to fit your personal criteria. I've added a reference now it's your turn. I would point out, though, that the history of the manufacture of the boats is intimately linked with the history of the company. You should also know that this was a publicly traded company, it's stock having been listed in 1959. By the 1990s its largest yachts were selling for upwards of $1million and its production was exported to Canada, Europe and Japan. If you need more info, try google [8]. However, Afd is not cleanup-- JJay 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yeah, those pesky guideline-lovers and the wild and crazy guidelines they spout on about! If this was an important business there should be more references availiable, particulary along the "today X number of jobs were lost..." genre. While it won't ever meet the guideline for inclusion of a business and as it stands I'd recomend deletion, given two or three more citations in Wikipedia:Reliable sources I'd probably be swayed. - brenneman^{T}^{L} 13:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also added it's founder to this afd. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on your comment, can I infer that you have spent time looking for references for this article? Also please explain, given the extensive news coverage of Tollycraft and its boats, why you feel this company does not qualify per wiki guidelines? -- JJay 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No inference is required to see the giant bold letters on the box on one of the most fundamental and foundational principles upon which wikipedia is built: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 14:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. So when you wrote "it won't ever meet the guideline for inclusion" (emphasis added), you were in fact just speculating and your assertion was based on no effort on your part, because hey, why make any effort, when you just want to remove content. Thanks for the clarification. -- JJay 14:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tollycraft and merge Robert Merland Tollefson. Not being a boat enthusiast, I hadn't heard of Tollycraft, but google brings up a few independent articles about Tollycraft, and the link of the Tollycraft boat club was enough to clinch it. I think it meets WP:CORP, albeit barely; but the founder should be merged. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable enough, but in a boating as opposed to business context. Honbicot 15:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tollycraft and merge Robert Merland Tollefson per Samir. --Craig Stuntz 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not enough text here to be encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 17:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per Samir. It's small now, but that's why WP has stubs. Thatcher131 20:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep advise nominator to rescind nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Mirasmus 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really too much to ask that people put all these amazing references into the article? - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:23, 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 Delete all four articles. (aeropagitica) 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers Computer Society, Jan Nordén, Olle Wikström, Björn Ahlén[edit]

One member tagged as speedy, tag removed by me and brought here. All others sucked in for consistancy. Abstain for now. brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. -- Alpha269 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability whatsoever. A club that was formed because it was offered and then didn't receieve a computer in the 1970's. sigh. Delete the people too. Deizio 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it all, as non-notable. Brian G. Crawford 17:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a speedy. --kingboyk 07:37, 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, no consensus on redirect, but anyone can create it so I'll leave it up to you guys. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny programming languages[edit]

This article has been a stub for almost a year and nobody has done anything with it. As currently written, it's pretty much of a disaster. ~~Perhaps it should just be redirected to Domain-specific programming language?~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first proposed this, I wasn't sure if delete or redirect made more sense. Based on the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that Delete is the right thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there will be someday when a user expands stubs. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is "tiny programming language" an established compsci term? ~~If it's not, I vote delete as WP:OR/defining a new term.~~ --Muchness 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an established term. Delete as neologism. Fan1967 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Domain-specific programming language. The article is unverifiable original research made up in school after the first class of Compiler Construction 101. I doubt the described language exists or has a chance of existing other than as a joke. Little languages do exist and there is an article about those. Weregerbil 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Weregerbil. -- Alpha269 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domain-specific programming language per above. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a neologism, then it seems to me delete would make more sense than a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess "small/tiny/little (programming) language" are all the same, none of the terms is any more "official" than the others. IMHO delete as unlikely typo is just as fine, especially given that the title is plural. Or create all redirects: small/tiny/little/wee = 4, with "programming" or not = 2, plural or singular = 2, total = 16 variants :-) Weregerbil 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget small language (computer science), plus all the combinatorial varients on that :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting; I voted redirect because a) redirects take up minimal resources, and b) this is a plausible phrase, so a redirect would aid searches. --Muchness 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as worthless. This has looked virtually the same since July 5 of last year. There is absolutely no indication that anyone will take an interest in it and expand it. The original author probably thought this was a good article as it is. Just get rid of it. Brian G. Crawford 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note There's a semi-related discussion going on at [9] -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term doesn't exist. —Ruud 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect. Would anybody want to redirect Tiny dogs, Tiny mathematical formula or Tiny atoms? EricR 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GRuban 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --MaNeMeBasat 15:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Destruction[edit]

Article currently totally uncited. Google news shows one hit and vanilla google shows nothing to indicate they are encyclopedic outside being one of over twenty gangs mentioned in a local paper. Delete. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources are cited. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Alpha269 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gang is mentioned this gang identification website, this local news comment piece, this reputable local newspaper, and generally all over this Google search]. They are real and like the hilariously inadequate Oriental Ruthless Boys they should be kept, but the copy should be edited mercilessly. Vizjim 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim. JoshuaZ 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pathetic nonsense. Today seems to be GangCruft day. It's an encyclopedia folks. Deizio 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally understanding your logic there, Deizio. This encyclopaedia contains information on many topics. Why should verifiable gangs not be included? This information could well be of use to researchers in the future.Vizjim 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them noteworthy? We're not talking the Crips or Bloods here. Existence does not equal notability. Nothing in the article is verified. Of your poorly presented "sources" we have something called "gangsorus" which I am not convinced is verifiable media coverage, an article from the Sacramento Bee with the line: "He worked as a cook at Burger King and ran with MOD (Masters of Destruction), a Hmong gang whose influence has spread from California to the Carolinas." and another local paper which merely mentions the name of this gang in a long list of gang names. The Sacramento Bee article is undated, but from quotes like "..is scheduled to return home by 2002" and the 1999 data in the included grapic we can also surmise that this is not recent media coverage. Please familiarize yourself with WP source, citation, general style and especially notability guidelines. I would also recommend you improve the article instead of blowing hot air on the AfD vote. The indiscriminate extension of the "Fresno Bulldog Gangs" walled garden is not, IMO, a desirable road to go down. Deizio 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, no need to be rude. This really isn't that important an issue, surely? I have tried my (limited) best to improve the article already, as well as "blowing hot air", a phrase for which there seems to be little need. If you care so passionately about this, well, crikey, I'll just walk away. My understanding is that non-notability is a point of view issue and not necessarily grounds for deletion.Vizjim 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is exactly the determiner of retention or deletion. Everything else including content, style, popularity, tastefulness etc. is secondary. If you thought the "blowing hot air" comment was rude, I apologise. Then again we are discussing an article about people who apparently commit forced rapes, violent thefts and lots more non kitten-and-bunny-stroking related activities. Deizio 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. As I understand it, Wikipedia is not paper, and obscurity is not necessarily a deletion criterion. See Notability page. In this case, a gang operating over several states, for whatever reason, seems to me a sufficient phenomenon to be worth recording. The article could do with a clean-up, but not deletion.(Oh, on the rudeness thing, apology accepted.)Vizjim 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. But what is not entirely true? I didn't say anything about obscurity and could not agree more that Wiki is not paper. I said "Non-notability is exactly the determiner of retention or deletion". That's a fact. An article can be about an obscure, tasteless or useless subject, as long as it passes the notability criteria. You've quoted WP:N but I think you could give it another once over. Deizio 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that I need to recommend this to an experienced editor such as yourself, but maybe you should check the Deletion policy? Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion, and, as the notability page establishes, it is controversial whether it should ever be such a criterion. Therefore in the case of a gang which has been the cause of multiple serious assaults (and is therefore notable to the person who created this article, researchers into Hmong immigrant experience, researchers into gangs at the turn of the millenium, etc), I'm surprised to see you mention it as your core reason for voting a certain way. That said, it seems a good compromise to merge and redirect. By the way, you might also want to take a wee glance at (WP:Civil). Oh, and maybe think about the reasons why people might offer arguments and votes on an AfD without having the core knowledge necessary to improve an article.Vizjim 09:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the meeting where "Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion" became policy, truly I did. Look up and down the AfD page and tell me how often you see the word (non) notable and the abbreviation "nn". WP:N is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And get outta here with the WP:CIVIL stuff, this is about the tamest discussion I've been involved in. Finally you can thank me for sorting out this little episode by creating the Hmong gangs page, we're past this now. Deizio 10:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is what I was pointing you towards, does not list notability as a core criterion for deletion. However many times it is used on the AfD pages, it is still not the official policy of Wikipedia to limit itself to what its most vocal users find acceptable. Vizjim 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a police database. Brian G. Crawford 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real gang, frequently in the news, particuarly in Wisconsin, for murder and other mayhem. Definitely deserves inclusion here. -- JJay 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. Jjay, your cleanup of the article and inclusion of sources which back up these claims will be a shining example to Vizjim. Thanks in advance. Deizio 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I missed the part where I have to clean up articles to please people who use terms like "pathetic nonsense" or "cruft". If you need help editing, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Also see WP:Civil . -- JJay 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would prefer it if people could back up their claims of notability with facts and sources JJ. That's all. The article doesn't really have any right now, you see. If they are "frequently in the news", why did Brenneman have so little luck in his googling? If your vote came from a new editor it would look like sockpuppety. As for my earlier comments they related to the article when I first saw it and the available info at the time. Deizio 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. To help Deiz add sources to the article, I thought he might want to start with these related to Wisconsin/Minnesota cases [10]. -- JJay 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As JJay is presumably well aware, that link leads to headlines and the full content is subscription only, hence not really useful for linking. However I have found some recent press coverage and linked accordingly. I'm satisfied there is notability here but am voting to create "Hmong gangs", then merge and redirect this article, Oriental Ruthless Boys (also currently an AfD) and allow scope for the addition of others without ending up here again. My annoyance with editors who consistently vote to keep articles but show no interest in, knowledge of or willingness to save such articles remains undimmed. Deizio 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vizjim. There is plenty of precedent for articles on notable street gangs. (See List of street gangs.) And this gang is clearly notable. For example, the Sacramento Bee refers to it as "a Hmong gang whose influence has spread from California to the Carolinas". dbtfz^talk 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to a newly created Hmong gangs article would be OK, too. dbtfz ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. And what are forced rapes anyway - theres some other kind? Defunkier 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Vizjim and JoshuaZ Cantara 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not already there to Hmong gangs and redirect. Angr/talk 15:38, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Mistress[edit]

Freeware "MMO" with a single developer. GameSpot, GameSpy, Netjak, Adrenaline Vault et.al. have never heard of it. While it has an entry at mmorpg.com, it is only the barest of information and could have been entered by anyone. Does not appear to be notable in any way nor does it appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. -- Alpha269 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while my usual hunches are based on "if I've heard of it somewhere else besides Wikipedia, it's probably notable", in this case the other site was somethingawful.com. =/ While even that doesn't make the thing too questionable, I think the lack of other stuff does. I'll say delete unless someone can provide some figures on how many players there are around. The message board has 1,747 members, which doesn't prove much about the game of course (multiply by n to get the real player count)... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoot and Snout[edit]

Non-notable characters in a series of non-notable shortfilms, by non-notable filmmakers. Nothing on google [11] Eivind 13:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, nn -- Alpha269 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:04, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morals mangler[edit]

Partly a how-to guide for a non-notable cocktail, and partly a vanity article on Durham University students. Not encyclopedic material as it's original research, not verifiable and vanity. Delete. Sliggy 13:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, unverifiable, vanity and last of all, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ non-notable, zero ghits. The article seems familiar; is it maybe recreation of deleted material (and thus speedily deletable)? Weregerbil 14:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material: Morals Mangler AfD. Weregerbil 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College students mixing a bunch of spirits together and getting really, really drunk on the mix is not notable, and there is no point in cataloging the endless possible combinations they might use. Fan1967 15:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Heh, Fan-1967, hillarious comment. -- Alpha269 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went to college, too. Believe it or not, even back during the Ford administration, we got drunk on ridiculous mixtures of awful stuff, and they hadn't even discovered Jagermeister yet. Not notable then or now. Fan1967 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity, OR, unverifiable... sounds like a poor man's Long Island iced tea. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:04, 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 merge; this is not binding, as AfD has no real jurisdiction over article mergers, but using common sense, it is presumed that this article should be merged. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isis in literature[edit]

Probably already covered at Isis. Someone, maybe me, could work any new material into Isis. Mikereichold 14:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom -- Alpha269 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:05, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of physically unusual fictional planets[edit]

Was PROD-ed, but removed as "has huge potential for literary scholarship" by user JJay . Poorly entry criterion of "considerably different", "fiction" here appears to apply to video games as well as novels, and tantamount to original research. If and when we can assemble a list of fictional planets that ware refered to in reliable sources as "physically unusual" than this will need an article. Right now, it doesn't.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 14:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful and encyclopedic to Planets in science fiction. Daniel Case 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (let's remember GFDL) everything to Planets in science fiction, although the result is going to be quite long. -- JJay 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, merge with Planets in science fiction. Good material but largely duplication of Planets in science fiction. Easier to maintain in one place. Weregerbil 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Planets in science fiction. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and this wouldn't be worth keeping even if the planets weren't "physically unusual." This is some of the cruftiest cruft I've ever seen. Brian G. Crawford 17:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also List of fictional planets by medium, List of socially unusual fictional planets, List of sentient fictional planets. I think possibly the list by medium is the one to keep, since there are fictional planets in other genres than science fiction. All the others, I'm afraid, should probably be merged. Шизомби 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Honestly, if this is kept we should all just bite the bullet and call this site Cruftipedia. Reyk 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per Daniel Case -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE every fictional planet is physically unusual, even Earth clones (being Earth clones makes them unusual). 132.205.45.110 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or define "physically unusual". Average Earthman 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete Is this a joke? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I originally prodded. Can anyone convince me when a fictional planet would ever be notable enough to have its own article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyO (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2006

See Krypton or the 121 articles in Category:Fictional planets -- JJay 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep != Lowest Common Denominator. That kind of logic means that until every single unencyclopedic article gets deleted we can't even delete one. Unless someone goes on a mass nomination spree... *rolls up sleeves*
  brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the keep vote. In response to your question, obviously we can delete fictional planets if they don't exist. The real fictional planets should all be kept though. -- JJay 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Planets in science fiction D e nni ☯ 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail consensus for that, I will support a merge. Eusebeus 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of trivia is not an encyclopedia article. Ned Wilbury 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trivia lists is a good place to start. See also List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia, List of John Lennon Trivia, List of silly, pointless lists on Wikipedia (a redirect but I couldn't resist) etc. -- JJay 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Denni. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Somehow interesting but hard to define and hard to maintain. I can imagine that in the future, when (if) Wikipedia will provide more advanced tools such list could be created and kept. Now it is just text waiting to accumulate cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. I created this page out of a very lengthy section on physically unusual planets that had already existed at Planets in science fiction. But everything in that section either has already been moved to PiSF or soon will be; and it really has no need to exist independently IMO. The same thing goes for List of socially unusual fictional planets and List of sentient fictional planets, both of which have similar origins.RandomCritic 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Oaks[edit]

This page is nothing more than an extended advertisement for a gated community in Florida - First delete vote Trevormartin227 14:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional. Daniel Case 15:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. -- Alpha269 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:05, 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. Punkmorten 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnaville[edit]

Prodded, deprodded, prod improperly restored. Moving here as contested. It calls itself an "internet cafe website". NickelShoe 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, only a few hits in google, mostly forum talk. -- Koffieyahoo 14:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn -- Alpha269 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:06, 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.

Restore Hi I just saw that my page was deleted. I never got an email about this discussion nor the deletion of my page. Right now the web site exists, but it's in the middle of development so the only chatter on the web site will be in the forums. We have planned for a big interactive web site. Do I have to wait till it's in its prime.. only to have someone else start a wikipedia about it? I'm trying to secure my wiki by putting it in now. -- Fergatron 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLAFAR[edit]

Non-notable group of three people. Was {{nn-club}}'ed and {{hangon}}'ed with request to keep in talk. Weregerbil 14:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KLAFAR is the best thing that ever happened to me. 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.237.172.60 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Important group, meritous contributions to society. 19:06, 7 March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.237.172.184 (talk • contribs) .
Delete. Non-notable group, CSD A7.--Royal Blue 15:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn --Alpha269 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sandstein 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:06, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kublles[edit]

Delete non-notable band. Only released 1 demo of 2 songs. A Google on Kublles yields 5 hits. --Bruce1ee 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Brucelee. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, two songs, these guys hav cojones. Defunkier 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:06, 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 with 75 % consensus. Punkmorten 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that do not have freeways or expressways[edit]

There had been no edits since this list, which has only two countries and is unlikely to grow much more, was created three months ago. I put a prod tag on and it was removed without explanation a day later, so here we are. Daniel Case 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Three months is nothing. Honbicot 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically a list of the two smallest countries in the world, and unlikely to grow, unless you can add Andorra. Fan1967 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I dunno, I like this list. Do Nauru, Tuvalu, Maldives have freeways? I'll add. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the CIA world factbook page [12], there are many countries listed "including ### km of expressways". Are the other countries lacking expressways? -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 15:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. -- Alpha269 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic. I hope each and every one of you voting to keep this is prepared to bring it up to Wikipedia standards if it is not deleted. Also, there's no evidence that User:Nintendude was notifed that yet another one of his efforts is up for deletion. I'll let him know. Brian G. Crawford 17:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It can be inferred from the size of List of countries and outlying territories by area if people are really interested in this subject, which I doubt. See List of countries without an army for an example of a more valuable "List of countries that do not have" list. Шизомби 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very pointless list that could grow only with the addition of the likes of Sealand. If that is encyclopedic, we'll have zillions of lists in the style of "_____ without a _____". Sandstein 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like lists, but this one's just too arbitrary. dbtfz ^talk 20:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Reyk 21:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. And per it's a worthless article. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very tempted to keep this just so as to add Blue Volkswagon Island Dlyons493 Talk 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN - This made me laugh. Similar to the "List of IMAX thaters with trees at the back" article. - Hbdragon88 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PandoraPublisher[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. The author agrees. Maxamegalon2000 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Maxamegalon2000 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as in, since the author himself agrees it doesn't meet our criteria, any need for further consensus here is moot. Daniel Case 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:11, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor management[edit]

A subjective dissertation on the subject of management, the examples given are arguably incompatible with a neutral point of view. Kurando | ^_^ 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research (and not very good) Fan1967 15:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. -- Alpha269 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All-Wrestling Talk[edit]

I have no proof of this so maybe an admin can check the deletion log, but this page was on my watchlist for some reason, and now it's been recreated. It was probably on my watchlist from before because it was probably previously deleted. Besides, it seems to just be an advertisement for a message board. I say to Speedy Delete it, but I wanted to run it by people first. tv316 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find previous AfD but it might been speedied before and I didn't look too hard. Agree with nom. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sounds like advertising to me. Jazzy joe 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad. -- Alpha269 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreation of previously-deleted material. User:Mushroom put a prod tag on it on February 16 and User:Philwelch deleted it on Feb 21, with no objections made prior to the deletion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't de re-eleting things that were "prodded" as recreations. The point of prod is that if anyone objects, the article goes throught the normal process. By re-creating this person is objecting... just after the five days. Delete anyway, of course, just not a speedy. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 08:37, 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: Speedily deleted - hoax, useless article with no context.

Glochowsky's law[edit]

Probable hoax. It was prodded but the creator removed the prod tag and the hoax warning without adding sources or anything. Delete as unverifiable. (Note that as much as I like prod, it doesn't work so well for bad-faith articles, since the creator just removes the tag, so hoaxes should probably come straight here anyway.) NickelShoe 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No relevant Ghits. Fan1967 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, nothing on google. "A device can't be smaller than its parts", color me unsurprised. Weregerbil 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or possibly crankcruft. JoshuaZ 16:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. dbtfz ^talk 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's kind of obvious anyway. -- Mithent 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as hoax. --Trafton 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as WP:V, has a verifiability problem. Strong possibility of being a hoax.--Royal Blue 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on search engines Wangfoo 00:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even funny. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 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 speedy delete. Deleted by User:Dbiv: A1 patent nonsense; also per AfD. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angkan[edit]

Nonsense. Probably patent nonsense as well. Both prod and speedy tags have been removed. I won't protest speedying it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Deli nk 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, probable attack page against acquaintance. Fan1967 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense, probably attack. Weregerbil 15:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delte as patent nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it should have been from the first. Daniel Case 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. -- Alpha269 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted by me, seems as though a consensus to do so is already established. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:18, 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 both articles. (aeropagitica) 20:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebrightside and The Bright Side[edit]

One album, apparently self-released. Thus do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, nn. -- Alpha269 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added The Bright Side to this discussion (similar content). - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Defunkier 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; fails WP:MUSIC per nom. (Also see related AfD for Tom Churchill.) --Kinu ^t/_c 23:22, 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. Flower party■ 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinsdale's Digest[edit]

About a non notable amateur web-radio show. I'd like to see this speedied, actually, along with the article about it's nn creator, Gary Dinsdale. The JPS 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yahoo search shows only 2 links to this show, both within the NoDQ.com website. Not at all notable. --Xyzzyplugh 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:18, 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. Flower party■ 02:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Mujaddid Alfi Sani[edit]

plus redirect at Al-Sheikh Ahmad of Sirhand

~~Prod was removed, improperly restored.~~ ~~User:RHaworth~~User:Sandstein's prod reason was: "Textdump from a book (see WP:NOT); probable copyvio (WP:C) and notability (WP:BIO) issues." I'm withholding my vote for now. NickelShoe 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (edit 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

- I don't appreciate my comments being edited. You could simply comment that you disagree instead of changing my words. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether it was improper or not, it's here now. NickelShoe 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (edit 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Apparently the prod removal was simply a result of merging page histories, so I've struck that claim. NickelShoe 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio unless the author can provide evidence that the book is public domain. Admits to be copied from a book. I searched worldcat and couldn't find it, but that may be a problem with the westernization of the arabic title. Otherwise this appears to be a hagiography of a Sufi Imam. Although I can't tell if the article is talking about the person named in the title, it's that poorly written. I don't know what makes an Imam notable. If kept, the article badly needs re-translation, cleanup, context, NPOV and assertion of notability. Thatcher131 16:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original PROD. Sandstein 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To Sandstein's reasons we can add WP:NPOV - paragon for the Awliya-i-kiram, etc. What does quddisa sirruh mean and do we allow it in Wikipedia articles? -- RHaworth 18:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quddisa sirruh literally means may his soul be blessed and is used for Islamic scholars etc. Do we allow it? Yes, I think it's a valid extension of WP:Civility Dlyons493 Talk 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown not to be copyvio, also needs major rewriting. Dlyons493 Talk 22:34, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts III[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Currently this article contains a single quote on this unconfirmed game. Delete for now, and re-create when there is more information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreleased game. Never heard of the first two either, so it's not particularly culturally significant enough to allow for attempts to produce it to be important (and even then it should be confirmed news rather than wild speculation - e.g. if a series of big name writers had contributed scripts to an eagerly anticipated film in long time development) Average Earthman 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kingdom Hearts 2 just came out and was the Japanese top selling video game for a while. However, this is just a crystal ball article. It may will become an official game in the future but it is too early to create an article. --J. Nguyen 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is really known about KH III yet... --tinyboy21

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan_McNeill[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Non-notable person, appears to be a singer in a garage band. Only reference I could find on him in a google search was to his myspace profile. Xyzzyplugh 16:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the only thing you can find is a myspace, that pretty much settles the notability question. Daniel Case 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is the guitarist/singer that used to be in The Danes (who used to tour with Tripping Daisy) he may not be Neil Diamond but us Danes fans like to keep track of the Danes off shoots and reminisce about that night in Altamont, 128.206.119.146 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only Wikipedia contributions to date are to this AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. I believe this information regarding Mr. McNeill is possibly the result of a project my eight year old son was doing for school. The project was on the unsung heroes of the entertainment industry. My son contacted the Discovery Channel with questions and they forwarded them to several of their producers, camera men, make-up artists, etc. Mr. McNeill was one of the individuals who received my son's questions and Mr. McNeill was more than willing to help him out with his report by providing his personal experiences and stories, not to mention some pictures and memorabilia from the Discovery Channel (my son is a big fan). The outlook that my son, with Mr. McNeill’s assistance, was able to give to his classmates challenged what many minors view as a glamorous entertainment industry. I believe information for Ryan McNeill is important for children who are aspiring members of the entertainment industry so they will not have a false impression of what TV/Movies/Magazines has given us, but also as a testament to never give up. --Abbryan 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what challenges did this person overcome which have been mentioned in this article? Fame too large for Oklahoma and free lance visionary don't seem particularly challenging, to me. Delete, vanity. Followup: artistdirect and allmusic never heard of him (though allmusic has basically-empty pages on Ryan McNeil and Ryan MacNeill), nor do they know The Danes. And we don't have an article on them, either. Ten Google hits for '"Ryan McNeill" "the danes"' Two Google hits for '"Ryan McNeill" "Debate Team"', both myspace pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article he stated that "..his growing level of discontent took him on a dark path. One that would lead him to seedier parts of Dallas, TX and eventually land him in a minimum security detention center for advanced learners." He had not mentioned this to my son, but he told my son of some struggles with alcohol, drugs and sexual deviance. I was monitoring their correspondence out of protection for my son, but I did not get involved because I wanted him to grow through the experience. Mr. McNeill did not go into much detail regarding the alcohol, drugs and sexual deviances, which I appriciate due to the age of my son. At no time did I question the credibility of Mr. McNeill until this "Articles for deletion" was brought to my attention by his second grade teacher, who was so impressed by my son's report that she wanted to get more information on his sources. I assume it is possible that my son, not to mention his teacher and I, have been "Oprah-ed" by a possible James Frey wannabe. Possible, but not likely. Mr. McNeill was pleasant and helpful to my son. He did not have anything to gain, nor did he appear to have motives other than sharing his experiences to assist my son in earning an 'A', not to mention growing in knowledge. Has anyone attempted to contact Mr. McNeill personally? I prefer to honor his privacy due to his willingness to assist my son, but it is odd to me that the jury was quick to convict without a statement from the suspect.--Abbryan 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only Wikipedia contributions to date are to this AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who originally sent this to PROD. Regardless of how "fans" may feel, this fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC, plain and simple. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he moved to The Dreaming from The Danes. But you get to see both for $3 so that says it all. Maybe hes great but fames a bitch [13].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defunkier (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I recognize the name and his history from his days with The Danes. The Danes toured the country and thousands and thousands have seen Mr. McNeil play - remember that the rule regarding the WP:MUSIC test is the following: "The fact an article doesn't meet guidelines on [the WP:MUSIC Page], does not necessarily mean it qualifies for deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." Obviously, it looks like Mr. McNeil has several other fans besides me that recognize his success and contribution to the music and entertainment scene. Don't punish his achievements because they happened before such achievements were published on the Internet - today, with the Internet the way it is, the Danes would be all over it. 207.218.180.163 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only Wikipedia contributions to date are to this AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can actually prove that the tours were at all significant. Wikipedia isn't here to create notability, no matter how deserved that may be, it's here to reflect it. If there isn't any success or influence, there is nothing to reflect. A band that is only ever heard live by a thousand people total, but they all go out and form bands may well be notable. A band that plays to hundreds of thousands in total, but does it by being 'live music' in a range of local bars night after night for years isn't. It's like comparing a three-Michelin starred chef to a burger flipper and saying the flipper is more notable through sheer numbers fed. Average Earthman 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the MidWest editor for my magazine (can't legally say its name on this site). It's a well known music publication. And these guys are legit. The Danes were really significant in the MidWest music scene back in the post-Grunge 90s. Why else would I be looking him up by name? HuskyB 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprisingly, user's only edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Churchill[edit]

Drummer for nn band whose article is also up for deletion. Daniel Case 16:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted as I have had many inquiries as to the members of the band. They have music for sale at more that 30 digital sale locations on the web and have cd's for sale throughout New England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkchurchill (talk • contribs)

Delete The band does not meet the criteria in WP:BAND. Sigmalmtd 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. If he's really that cute, I'm sure he'll make it back on eventually anyway...The Disco King 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like his band doesn't meet WP:BAND, either. --O bli (Talk)^? 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete authored by, surprise, surprise, Tkchurchill no wonder hes the nicest of the band. Defunkier 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before his bandmates ask, "What are we? Chopped liver?" Also, band is not notable outside of New England. --E lkman - ^(talk) 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local band member. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise, so since the only reason for keeping yet seen is to advertise them, that rather suggests the band isn't notable. Average Earthman 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA and failing WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 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

Slavim (Myst)[edit]

Delete Article is part of Hyjoli Cribi!'s fictitious Myst: Adventures in the Dungeon series. ComputerSherpa 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JoshuaZ 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Holy fancruft, Batman! Brian G. Crawford 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete! as hoax JohnRussell 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this silly and pointless hoax, definitely.Cactus Wren 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - anon is populating a number of Myst articles with fake games ... sigh. - DavidWBrooks 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I think they are resourceful, not silly :P Pictureuploader 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete and utter fabrication. The MYST series ended with MYST V.
Delete - What is the point in having a ficticious entry?
Delete - What is wrong with this guy?! Davidson88 20:26, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Blue Alien[edit]

Non-notable website. Article has been speedied and recreated so have sent it to AfD. Delete as nom. Hynca-Hooley 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. dbtfz ^talk 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously nn. Sandstein 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not meet WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 15:44, 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. (aeropagitica) 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RabidFrog Productions[edit]

NN ad. Draeco 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - spam. Hynca-Hooley 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google returns 8 hits for "Rabid Frog Productions" and returns 243 for "Rabidfrog Productions." JoshuaZ 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:28, 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 Flower party■ 02:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zamoranoes[edit]

NN band. Draeco 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under {{db-band}}. Hynca-Hooley 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would normally consider this a speedy candidate as well, but nommed it under normal deletion because I felt that I know too little about the musical genre to make that decision. Draeco 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:28, 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. Punkmorten 00:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonslys Borough[edit]

Moving from prod where the tag was improperly being added back on. The prodder calls it a non-notable website. NickelShoe 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertisement. JoshuaZ 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad for nn website. Doesn't appear to be notable even among Pokemon discussion groups. Fan1967 18:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertisement for a web site; used to be listed for speedy deletion. dcandeto 03:00, 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

79th Academy Awards[edit]

This article was marked with {{prod}} immediately after it was created for a second time, but it was disputed. The question is whether there is enough content on there so it does not qualify for the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule on WP:NOT. I abstain Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who's kids are going to be killed if we keep the page? or will it result in the destruction of the world? I for one couldn't care less if it gets deleted or kept and I find it pathetic that something so insignificant is even being disscused. I submit a new topic for disscusion, "How to get a life and not care so much"

Keep After my recent additions, [14] I believe I added enough content on there now that it does not fall into the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I don't think it hurts to have an article already, I mean the 78th Academy Award has already been held. --Snailwalker | talk 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see going thru the trouble of deleting it if it'll be recreated in less than a year with good reason. NickelShoe 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is a page for upcoming Olympic Games, surely there can be a page for upcoming Academy Awards. Maaya まあや 18:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment That's because we actually KNOW something about the next Olympics. --Bachrach44 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason for this article until nominations have been announced. We don't have a confirmed host, no nominations -- the only thing we know for certain is that it'll be held at the Kodak Theatre. I have no objection to a redlink being in place in the succession box, but I see no need for this. This isn't the Olympics which have numerous news stories and other notable information years in advance of each event. 23skidoo 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article for the 78th Academy Awards was created in January of 2005, OVER a year before the awards show, and there was no objection to it's creation. I don't see a problem in having this article, as long as crystalballism doesn't get stuffed into it (AKA: I think Chris Rock is gonna host again!). Even still, if it gets deleted once again, it'll just be re-created by someone who doesn't know. How soon is too soon? I think less than a year is fine. --light darkness^(talk) 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightdarkness, if only to avoid having this debate every month until 2007. Sandstein 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein. The article is going to continuously be recreated, and continuously brought back here. Let it rest until next March. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per I disagree with nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no content to the article right now. Wait till there's at least some information available to put down. Right now we could wright this same article about the 100th academy awards if we wanted to. --Bachrach44 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightdarkness. --Tone 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NickleShoe. Lawful Hippo 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh for cripes sake! Keep the stupid thing on. I mean they have a page on the olympics thats being held 8 years from now! --Koolgiy
Keep per supporting users. Deckiller 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going to happen anyway, people who come across Wikipedia hoping to search for the 79th Academy Awards won't be too disappointed, even if those facts are not a lot, but it will continue to expand as time passes. Kahlen 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed some wording in the article ("will be held" to "is scheduled to be held"). We might as well have this page, it will be recreated within a month anyway if it's deleted (not that that's a good reason for "keep", but still). --CrypticBacon 05:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable upcoming event occurring in one year's time. *drew 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable upcoming event, article includes useful and verifiable information. Babajobu 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No point in deleting it now. Gflores ^Talk 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You also have my permission to add this vote to the 3rd, 4th and nth times this gets nominated. Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Długosz
Keep, per the reasons listed by other users above. Other events have articles created years in advance of them (see Super Bowl XLVI for an example). Spicy 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI created this article and I agree with most of what has been said here. Looks like we're keeping it. Bremen 09:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- one doesn't need a crystal ball to acknowledge the present fact that a certain event has been scheduled for a certain time. --Christofurio 14:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment there's also going to be a 100th Academy Awards show - should we have a page on that too? --Bachrach44 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one future occasion of any major periodic event. Ardric47 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does need to be expanded (list movies to be released and posssible candidates?), but as has been said many times above, this page will be necessary eventually anyway. Inventm 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's fine, it doesn't do any harm. And it is slightly informative. True that there is no remarkable reason why we need an article yet. But it's more helpful then most of the other articles that really need to be deleted. It's fine. The Filmaker 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it'll end up being relevant soon. OsFan 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Shouldn't we conclude there is concensus to keep the article and then remove the delete box from the page? --Snailwalker | talk 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, even though debates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and others can have unanimous results, we generally do not close them until the full seven day period passes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:49, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopia[edit]

The author has put some work into this article, but it's still a nn website. Very few legitimate hits on google, and the website in question appears less than a year old and boasts a total of 6 users signed up. Draeco 17:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why would this be deleted? it's factual info about a game written by one of it's users... (posted by Chrisinajar at roughly 17:40. -Draeco 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Chrisina, in order for something to stay on wikipedia it must be notable. See in particular WP:WEB this website does not meet the necessary criteria. JoshuaZ 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely too few users; non-notable. ~ Booyabazooka 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as game/forumcruft; fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:18, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MNOnline V3[edit]

Non-notable fanclub. DeleteJaxal1 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn-fansite, forums have 650 members, alexa rank of 1.5 million, 2 sites link in. Not notable, simply advertising. --light darkness^(talk) 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lightdarkness —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 19:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, another forum that wants to add an article on Wikipedia, simply because they think it'll bring them fame. --E lkman - ^(talk) 21:09, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research on Research[edit]

Delete As it stands, this page is nothing but the bare skeleton of a potentially good article; it's only been edited by one user, and has been neglected since. (This page also seems to make up all of that user's contributions.) Recommend deletion and letting someone knowledgeable on the subject start anew. --Impaciente 17:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well Delete. Potential for a decent article here, but if no one's going to pick it up and run with it, may as well get rid of it. Just a stub now. Fan1967 18:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:30, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kreb scouts[edit]

Not notable or encyclopedic, tagged for cleanup since 11/05 with no results. Brian G. Crawford 19:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Pete&Pete part of the article, if notable, can be merged into the main article. The band linked too seems NN, delete regardless. --light darkness^(talk) 19:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Hedvicek[edit]

Several editors suggested nomination in RfC. Reason would be: not notable Wikimol 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (note: I personally decided not to vote either way, reasons follow Wikimol 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete according to nomination. Brian G. Crawford 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for keeping. The subject of the article seems to be notable enough to be a target of hateful campaign by some heavy-duty non-NPoV from Czech Republic. YanYeoman 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am my own best friend, afterall. Ross.Hedvicek 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vote - I decided to leave it to others. My thoughts on the topic
- On one hand, in principle, I like to think about Wikipedia as about one project with different languge version. In an ideal utopic Wikipedia, every article would be in all langugaes. Czech Wikipedia community allready voted twice (I did not participated in the votes), and the article survived. As the topic is mainly Czech related and he is considered notable enough on cs:, I'd respect such decision in almost all cases. Other point is I personaly also think Ross Hedvicek is Wikipedia notable Not by wide margin, but notable, mainly because of spamming and trolling fame. IMO in an ideal asymptotic Wikipedia he would have an article. (And we allready have articles about famous trolls such as GNAA) One of problems is that "fame" is mainly related to Czech language, and hard to reference in English.
- On the other hand, pragmatically, the effort connected to maintaince of the article, constant attacks on Talk:, etc ... make the "cost" of the article overwhelmingly improportional to its "value".
- so, why I'm nominating it? 1) It has been suggested by uninvolved ediotors coming through RfC request 2) If the ultimate destination of the article is deletion, better delete it now, before more effort and time is vasted. On the other hand, if the result of AfD would be keep, the article will probably exist permanently, and the effort makes at least marginal sense. --Wikimol 19:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Wikimol 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I attempted to summarize various claims of notability here. I'm inluding it here, as the presence of that information in the article is disputed / subject of an edit war. --Wikimol 19:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be meet Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eternal Equinox. -- Kjkolb 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – this is very good contrabalance against lies in cs:Ross Hedvíček, which no one who disagrees with Czech postcommunist clique may edit. -- V. Z. 08:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think there could be an article about this person in English wikipedia. But this version is just advertisement for his book and to fight about the content of the article with Ross.Hedvicek, V. Z. et al seems to be only waste of time. --Radouch 09:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radouch is the one who hade made NPOV about controversial topics at cs: impossible. En: is very lucky that his power doesn't extend here. -- V. Z. 11:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. The articles Hedvicek authored are really just blog entries. This page is little more than a battleground for a flame war that's spilled over from the Czech WP. --djrobgordon 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- Note the only "keep" votes are to 'balance' the author's dissatisfaction with the Czech Wikipedia. English Wikipedia does not exist to "balance" the Czech Wikipedia. If you have a problem with Czech Wikipedia, resolve it over there like a big kid. Non-noteable outside of Czech and certainly doesn't warrant an English entry.--MattShepherd 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable for en:wikipedia. Cinik 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and userfy per V. Z.'s request). Hedvicek is notable in Czech. I believe he is nn outside Czech. Agree with MattShepherd. Martinp 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC), who lived in Czech for a year.[reply]
Strong keep as inclusionist for keep. the article won the "election" in czech wikipedia, this person isnt "good" but notable --Nolanuss 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because: (1) it is not that unique to have strong opinions on Czech politics as RH has, (2) maintenance of the article here is impossible (it is target of constant edit wars on Czech Wiki), (3) the article here edited by RH himself (user names YanYeoman, Ferdinand etc), (4) this vote already became proxy battlefield for the long war on Czech Wikipedia over V. Z.
I would compare this vote to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bowery (aka Baldrson), except that Bowery actually had (technology related) claims to notability than mere being a troll.
If the page is kept it will become heated discussion forum and I do not think this is what WP needs. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your marxist friends stayed on Czech Wiki and did not start arguments here - it would nice and quiet around here. Ross.Hedvicek 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Ross Hedvicek was polite... (unsigned comment by User:CHeese)

It got noticed, it resulted in edit war and these wars can take months and years (judging from the situation on Czech Wiki). To keep the ship afloat it is better to get rid of the page. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly disagree with the above representation of the history of the page. As at least one side was quite unwilling to fight in revert war, the page was reverted little (compared to real edit wars). The dispute soon moved to Talk:. There, the disscussion is poisoned by personal attacks by Ross and attempts to divert the theme to some complains regarding Czech Wikipedia, but it does neet seem it was succesful. --Wikimol 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the result will be to delete, please move Talk:Ross Hedvicek into User:V. Z./Talk:Ross Hedvicek. Thank you. -- V. Z. 08:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point out that the fact that somebody is not known outside one country is not a deletion argument. Wikipedia is global in scope; the English version uses English to convey that global knowledge. The problem with the current article is that it doesn't make a good case for how or why he is famous in Czechia or among Czechs, beyond the "internet community", whatever that is exactly supposed to mean (Usenet? Forums?), or even within that community. Has he, for instance, been mentioned or interviewed in mainstream Czech newspapers or other periodicals? u p p l a n d 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers are in another version of article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_Hedvicek&oldid=42129560 . Occording to my search he is mentioned in one of most popular newpapers Mladá fronta DNES only once as one of thirty signers of a petition in 2001. --CHeese 09:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etrunker[edit]

PROD tag removed by author, so here we are. The article and the, ahem, very trivial website ("This will be the OFFICIAL SUPPORT SITE for the xTrunker program") gives no indication that the proposed notability standard WP:SOFTWARE is met, or that the software even exists. Wikipedia isn't Sourceforge. Sandstein 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and, apparently, crystal ball, possibly vaporware. Fan1967 20:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Find ALL the frequencies for the system from just one control channel!" 'Nuff said. Daniel Case 20:23, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strangeways forum[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Additionally, some users may recommend deleting a page based wholly or partially on the fact that a large number of new or anonymous users recommend keeping.

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

Non-notable website. Prod removed twice without significant change to content. Delete. Hynca-Hooley 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though they've already announced the article on their forum. This will probably go as badly as the AfD for Spinnwebe. --E lkman - ^(talk) 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should have looked at the page history and AfD'd this rather than {{prod}}'d it for the 2nd time. My mistake. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alright folks. I run the forum (but didn't create the article), and can understand why it's being deleted. I don't get your in-jokes, but be assured that this article wasn't created as advertisement.....or vanity. Someone just enjoys the site and decides to put a page up about it. -- barafundle 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity. Slowmover 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as forumcruft, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:19, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew corkal[edit]

No google hits for Andrew corkal or Traditional Métis Association. I believe this is not a notable person MarkS 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Geogre's Law. dbtfz ^talk 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ardenn 06:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uknighted[edit]

Delete advertisement of nonnotable website; no Alexa data. Postdlf 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable ad. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 21:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ansell 00:16, 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 Flower party■ 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

~~Delete~~ because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this contains no information about this future Olympics beyond year and game number. If this is enough, every Olympics that will ever be held would have its own "article" just because we can count forward into infinity. Whee. Until there is actual documented planning and bidding, this should not exist. Postdlf 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my delete vote in light of the expansion of the article. I still tend to think it's still insufficient, but I'm simply indifferent now. Postdlf 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too far in the future, too little information known. If we're eleven years away from knowing where they are, I don't see having the article. NickelShoe 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Summer Olympic Games. --Revolución hablar ver 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JJay. --Revolución hablar ver 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete this given that 2024 is part of the speculation and planning among potential bidders. When I see phrases like: Lamour said France would not bid for the Summer Games before the 2024 Olympics but said a Winter Olympic bid at a nearer date might be considered [15]- I know we need the article. If that is crystal ballism, then perhaps we should have a group nom here for all future sporting events, i.e. 2020 Summer Olympics, 2016 Summer Olympics, Football World Cup 2010 etc. -- JJay 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but there's no such information in the article...I reviewed the 2020 Olympics, and it actually had information in it. So I wouldn't vote against it. If somebody put some information into the article, that might be different. NickelShoe 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep True, but that doesn't mean that the 2024 article can't have such information in it. Wikipedia isn't really in the spirit of deleting articles because they aren't good enough. Why not keep it as a stub, to encourage anyone with relevant information to put it there? I acknowledge that there must be some sort of limitation (as one could apply to same reasoning to justify the 2876 Olympics), but 2024 isn't all that far off. ~ Booyabazooka
    - Comment There is no need to keep the article just incase some information becomes available. When it does the article can be recreated. A deletion is not always a forever decision. Ansell 00:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This limit should be 20 years into the future in my opinion. --Revolución hablar ver 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if merely wild speculation. Non-existent articles can be created when they're needed. Deletion does not preclude recreating when there is information to add (e.g. as soon as there is some official or at least verifiable announcement that a city is at least considering a bid). Average Earthman 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Philadelphia...[16]...or Copenhagen [17] -- JJay 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Ansell 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per JJay. --Rory0 96 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JJay and changes in the article. NickelShoe 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice job to whoever just added the info on Australia. It's bizarre but a lot of cities are thinking about this already. -- JJay 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just took it from 2020's article, since it applied to both. Olympics are planned very far in advance, so even though it may seem really far away to us, some people are already thinking about it. --Rory0 96 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely nothing beyond a single case of wishful thinking in this article. Other than stating the obvious, the article does nothing to inform potential readers. Howzabout we leave this until, say, 2020, at which point it might actually be relevant? Denni ☯ 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously forgot that Olympic bids are decided seven years in advance, and the date at which the Olympic bid for 2024 would be decided would be 2017. (e.g. London 2012 was decided in 2005). --Revolución hablar ver 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those opposing this article ignore the fact that there are articles 2287 and 2401 that won't be updated in centuries. Why are those allowed to exist and this not? Surely, this is more deserving of an article. --Revolución hablar ver 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep talking like that and those articles will end up here. I don't see the point in finding one article that hasn't been deleted as a defense for another. NickelShoe 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not they end up on AFD I don't care. I am merely showing that there are articles which won't be updated for CENTURIES, so why delete this?! --Revolución hablar ver 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think those are distinguishable, as one documents a rather ironclad astronomical prediction, in contrast to speculation about human or governmental intentions or hopes. Even when that speculation has been expressed in a verifiable source, I don't think it's substantial enough on which to base anything more than a news article, because its importance is far too ephemeral. Once the bids actually occur, who was maybe thinking about bidding at some point is too irrelevant to be documented in an encyclopedia. The other future year article, while a little crufty, still documents unchanging facts about what works of fiction have depicted about occurring in that year. I still think both of those are of little value, however, so I'd err on the side of deleting those as well if there is a genuine issue of inconsistency with this decision. Postdlf 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said they wouldn't be updated for centuries, I never doubted the importance of the topic (astronomical events). My point is, many people here seem to be using that same reason (won't be updated for years) to justify deletion. --Revolución hablar ver 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. android 79 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball. Ned Wilbury 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Above account created today. User's 12th edit. -- JJay 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The world will have come to an end well before then. ;-) — RJH 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this a serious vote? --Rory0 96 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't look like one to me. --Revolución hablar ver 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article now has 2 cities listed as bidders for the host city. My opinion is that Olympics articles should be limited to 20 years in the future. The Olympics are an international event, and while an article for an event 18 years into the future may seem ridiculous to some, the notability (and now the content) of the article instead should convince them to vote keep. --Revolución hablar ver 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2020 or 2024 will be the next Games in Europe and are on the mind of a lot of major cities there.Hektor 13:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the nominator: the article is now about documented planning and bid consideration, and it should be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing wrong with this article. Inventm 02:29, 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 speedy deleted per A7. Angr/talk 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Kozub[edit]

Brief bio of non-notable high school chemistry student. Speedy tag removed by author, so hey, here we are. Speedy Delete. bikeable (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7, clearly. Toss that picture too. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nn. -- Vary | Talk 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice A teenager gets good grades in an AP course and this makes him notable? Uh, no. Fan1967 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speeedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:36, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Ridge[edit]

delete, advertising Magdela 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Blatant spamvertizing "Probably the closest snow to your home"? -- Vary | Talk 21:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant, I mean really, really, really blatant, ad. Fan1967 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current article is marketing, and a cut-and-paste from here and here. It may be possible to create an encyclopedic article about this ski resort, but wiping the edit history and starting from scratch would be a good starting point. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising. Sliggy 21:30, 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 delete. Flower party■ 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George McAlister[edit]

The first sentence says it all: "George McAlister is a new professional wrestler breaking into the indie circuit in the UK. As of now, he has only wrestled for extremely small companies, but he could be a future star." Not yet notable. howch e ng {chat} 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not claim existing notability, merely speculates that it might be possible. No crystal balls here, please. Average Earthman 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn-bio. jni 08:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Holt Scientific Consulting[edit]

Taken off prod. Originally listed with the reason, "advertisement for a company to new to have a major impact yet." howch e ng {chat} 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad for nn company. Article about Jason Holt. Created by User:Jkholt510. Looks like vanispamcruftisement. May be eligible to Speedy. Fan1967 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Fan1967. Only 1 year since it was started. Also looks like vanity. Ansell 00:14, 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. W.marsh 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klinz's Kooldron[edit]

Prod tag removed without any comments, so sent here. The phrase 'Klinz's Kooldron' returns zero hits on google and the sole link on the page goes to what seems to be an unnotable forum. Henrik 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some random website. Ned Wilbury 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Delete as well. (If it was unclear from nomination) Henrik 13:57, 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. Punkmorten 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rancid Roleplaying[edit]

NN web forum with 27 members. howch e ng {chat} 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Muchness 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rewind News[edit]

I've proposed the article for deletion.

A google search [18] produces no notable hits. It's only a school newspaper and unless it has received notable mention in mass media or the like, I see no reason why it should be considered encyclopedic content worthy of its own article. Jens Nielsen 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Jens Nielsen 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as made up in school one day ("The Rewind News was formed in 2003 at Mill Valley Middle School..."). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:22, 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. Punkmorten 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbah Conjecture[edit]

I don't know what this is, but since it was just created by "the paleoanthropologist Hassan i Sabbah in March 2006" I don't think it's a scientific theory that has gained widespread acceptance or even notice as of yet. howch e ng {chat} 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research, even if it were a genuine piece of research it wouldn't have had the time to undergo proper peer review. And no, it doesn't become notable as soon as someone cites it. Average Earthman 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, it even states that it was made up in March 2006, all of 7 days old now. Ansell 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. The article would presently have the reader believe that this brand-new conjecture has already been modified by no less noted an academic than Harold Bluetooth. NatusRoma 03:00, 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 delete. W.marsh 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch Rugby[edit]

Neologism whose popularity is debateable. Google search brings up one result, the externally linked geocities page in which the term debuts. Other references include directory service adverts. Article externally links to one article in an e-zine, but the article only mentions the word in passing, and is about a totally different subject altogether. Kareeser|^Talk! 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as above Kareeser|^Talk! 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Don't think we need a special phrase to describe sitting on a couch, drinking beer, eating chips and watching a ball game. Fan1967 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Two new external links were added. One links to a "links" section of a rugby website, and refers to "Couch Rugby" in a website name sense (Falls under WP:NOT). The second link refers to an article which mentions the words "cough rugby", but does not carry the same meaning as in the article! Kareeser|^Talk! 06:24, 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 delete. Mushroom (Talk) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Quach[edit]

This page was deleted before and has been recreated. A non notable city councilman of a small city. Old discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Quach Obina 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G4 as recreated content. No more notable now than he was then. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:21, 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. W.marsh 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape news[edit]

While RuneScape is notable, not every website associated with it is, especially one described by an article full of gamecruft. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[19] look there and you can instantly speedy it. J.J.Sagnella 22:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wait, why does that link make it speedy-able? --Rory0 96 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because this article is just a copy of something we already have in RuneScape Portal. J.J.Sagnella 07:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your link clearly says that this article is more expansive. --Rory0 96 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Recently got chnaged. ;-) J.J.Sagnella 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways I say delete as if it can't be put in the link I shown they can just look at it through the real runescape webpage. In fact this could be a copyvio. J.J.Sagnella 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the original reason for deletion (fancruft), as that is not a good enough reason for deletion, and that's the lame excuse that almost got the whole series deleted. But this article is unecessary, especially since we have it in the portal. So I say delete.Dtm142 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light-transfer versus heat-transfer of radioisotopes energy[edit]

Rather large original research paper, I'm also pretty sure the vast majority of this stuff is on here Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as submitted scientific paper -- wikipedia is not original research. bikeable (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very epitome of original research. Looks like decent work, too, but not for WP. Fan1967 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Source abakharev 00:32, 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 no consensus. Flower party■ 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Winter Olympics diploma count[edit]

This page is being nominated for deletion because it is a direct violation of the following new policy (which I will summarize) that the Olympic page-editors have adopted on Wikipedia:

No top-8 placements -- Since this is a medal count, there can be no top-8 placements; if removed, the table would be exactly the same as the one currently at 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. Therefore, since these tables were in effect banned from wikipedia by consensus of this collaboration, this table should be deleted and not reinstated.See the debate archive here.

Also note my comment below which explains that the Wikiproject Olympics created this policy long before this top-8 debate began.

Delete as nom.--Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears to me that the reasoning behind the new policy is essentially that a "medal count" should specifically count medals. However, this page does not claim to be a medal count; it clearly states that it is a diploma count. It looks to be properly-sourced and verifiable. It seems that the real question is whether a page titled "diploma count" should be subjected to a policy which is specifically tailored to pages titled "medal count." Though it should be noted that the diploma count appears to be constructed specifically to flaunt the new policy. - Rynne 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I got the impression from that debate that a diploma count would be welcome to a good portion of the users there, so long as it was separate from a medal count. I don't think there was a consensus about whether or not it would be okay to start a new article about it, but it certainly doesn't see to violate policy. I'd like to hear from someone more involved before I make a judgment. NickelShoe 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this states clearly that it's a diploma count, not a medal count, and states exactly why eight (because that's the places that get diplomas). If these are genuinely being handed out by the IOC (which I believe they are), and the standings are readily available and verifiable (which they are), then what exactly is the problem? The previous discussion was specifically about medal tables - this isn't a medal table, so the previous discussion does not necessarily hold. Average Earthman 23:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There hasn't been any good reason given to delete this. It's verifiable, has context, etc. NickelShoe 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see all of your points, but why do you think that Wikipedia should have two versions of this, and perhaps all future tables? Don't you think that if everyone got their way and got thier POV across, there would be atleast twice the number of pages on WP? It just doesn';t seem right to have all of these tables floating around just because someone else likes it. The fact that the majority of people dislike them should be enough to sway your decision, though. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, it not only counts diplomas, but it counts medals, too, which is redundant to the original page. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: By the Olympic Charter, the first, second, and third place medalists recieve both medals and diplomas (source). That simply suggests that the medal icons and "total medal" column should be removed, but not that the article is strictly redundant.- Rynne 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also take into account this, which is an excerp from the WikiProject Sports Olympics:

The medal count section should give a table with the medals won by nation, sorted by gold, silver, bronze. Template for the table is given below.

It blatently states how the medal count should be created. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. To put it very bluntly, one small group of editors can't establish a "policy" preventing an even smaller group of editors from creating their own articles on subjects that are appropriate under Wikipedia's real policies and guidelines. If you don't like that, you can always set up your own page on geocities and exclude whomever you like (or don't like). Monicasdude 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you didn't take into account the WikiProject. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think he was rather clear that that WikiProject has no authority. --Rory0 96 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what gives you that notion? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? --Rory0 96 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even having said that - regardless "This is NOT a medal table", doesn't call itself one, doesn't include one (might need to remove mention of medals - but that would be just picky). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After consideration, I think that the page should probably be kept. However, the diploma chart should be reformatted to remove the references to medals but not the first, second, and third place diploma counts. - Rynne 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. I cannot believe that after a concensus was already reached (see Wikipedia:Olympic conventions) that we are revisiting this issue. Those that support this so-called "diploma count" should have been present at the Olympic conventions debate, which I may add, was well publicized and well marked on Wikipedia for all interested parties to participate in. Most articles on the Olympic Games were marked with a template mentioning this conventions discussion and many participated. As far as I'm concerned and as far as the record is concerned, Wikipedia has already decided upon the appropriate templates for medal counts and this type of count was found inappropriate. Again, I point all interested parties to Wikipedia:Olympic conventions to see the voting process and which conventions were cleared. This is a non-issue...delete this article. The actual vote can be found here --Caponer 01:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was my original post for a vote on top-8 count templates. I noticed that the 2006 Winter Olympics medal count not only has medals won by each national team but also includes "Top-8 placements" (fourth through eighth places). I believe the article is named "medal count" for a reason. These tables are not named "honorable mention count." Medal counts are for medals, period. --Caponer 03:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The issue here is that in regards to the page in question, "diploma counts" are not "medal counts". However, WikiProject Sports Olympics does specify "medal counts" are to be used in general Olympic articles, so this debate would seem to have no influence on any article except this particular one. I don't think anyone is suggesting the guidelines set up in the WikiProject and Wikipedia:Olympic conventions should be changed; we're just trying to figure how they apply to this specific page. - Rynne 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, and that is just what we have to do...to me the evidence is overwhelming, but I guess it is up to you to decide. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: There is no policy involved. There are no guidelines involved. This is how you create policy, and you certainly didn't do that. And the document you base your argument on is as explicit as it can be about not being mandatory; it says These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. Now stop harassing people whose ideas don't line up with yours, withdraw this nonsensical nomination, and do something encyclopedic.

Monicasdude 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently you don't get the picture. The Olympic conventions page is just a guideline, as you explicitely stated above. I've been saying that all along; if you don't believe it should be followed, don't follow it. This debate is about whether or not this page should be deleted, and after seeing the overwhelming amount of evidence against having this page, you should be sure that a DELETE vote would be best. What should there be 2 tables for anyway? Could you answer me that please (taking into account that Wikipedia is not the place to voice whimsicle opinions and points of view). --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where exactly is this 'overwhelming amount of evidence' you speak of? Mlm42 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. This pseudo-policy makes sense to me. Who cares about 4th through 8th place at all - let alone a total of 4th through 8th place finished for every country? I'd be as interested to see a list of all blonde left-handed female athletes with halitosis... totalled by country of course. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a rather insulting remark towards the top athletes in the world.. if you finish 8th at the olympics, surely that's worthy of some respect. Mlm42 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Insulting" has nothing to do with anything. I've got lots of insults for John Wayne Gacy but that doesn't mean he's not notable. My point is that this table doesn't offer any useful information. This doesn't even give a hint to how high 8th place is in some cases. In the Alpine Skiing article mentioned below, 8th place doesn't look so bad because 60 people were involved. In hockey and curling, 8th place is actually 3rd or 4th from last! To me, this list simply looks like a way to get an olympic mention for Moldova. I also don't see where the concept of diploma gets much coverage in the world - I'm reasonably knowledgeable about sports and I've never even heard of the concept. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: so first you compared olympic athletes to blondes with halitosis, and now you're comparing them to a serial killer? take it easy.. i'm just reminding you to be nice, that's all. Anyway, I'd never heard of the concept either until i came across this table.. but that's certainly not justification for deleting it. are you disputing the notability of the table? since the olympics are such a high-profile event, i would think that even qualifying for them is a notable feat.. Mlm42 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Come on, are you reading every 3rd word of what I write? In my first statement, I was trying to simply make a point that showing the total of all athletes from Iceland who came in 7th from the Olympics sounds like useless statistic-cruft to me. I wasn't comparing the athletes, I was comparing the usefulness of the data presented (sheesh). Then you accused me of being insulting so my second statement was saying that, not only wasn't I trying to be insulting of the athletes themselves but that, even if I was being insulting, that has nothing to do with notability - i.e. I think you're confusing two separate concepts (sheesh again). If I'm insulting anything, it's how little the data in this table is actually showing. I don't mind the lists that show who came in 48th in Alpine Skiing because you're right, just making the Olympics is noteworthy. But that's not what this list is showing - it's showing a giant total of all of the 7th-place finishers grouped by country. Not interesting. Is there some big study I'm not aware of that's relating the number of 7th-place finishers from Scandinavia to the phases of Jupiter? I don't think a list of people from Hungary whose name begins with J would be very interesting either - that doesn't mean I hate all people from Hungary whose name starts with J. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        yikes, sorry.. i know you meant no harm; i guess i was just put off by your 'who cares' attitude towards to athletes. no hard feelings.. and i know insults are separate from notability, but that doesn't mean i can't address them. as for notability, a tally of medals for each country is clearly a very notable table; and although a tally of these lesser known diplomas is less notable, i still feel it's enough to stay. but i suppose that's what this vote is supposed to decide. Mlm42 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As this is Not a medal table the policy (which is only from a small group of editors) doen't even apply. Ok it mentions medals (maybe it shouldn't just 1 to 8 placings) but the level of restricting infomation available is almost censureship. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So based on the above thinking all the recent 2006 articles like the following Alpine_skiing_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics_-_Men's_Combined should be bined. I certainly don't hink so. !! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not necessarily because they were voted down for the medal count pages where indeed this doesn't belong but delete because the diploma counts are wholly non-notable. No-one ever reports on those except maybe some very local media when their hometown athlete returns with their 8th placed diploma. I don't want to see dozens of articles with these counts that very few will ever look at. People can look at results pages to see who came in fourth etc and draw their own conclusions.--Kalsermar 15:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But have you looked at the page I mention just above. The way this debate is going it will jepadise all results past the first 3. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is proposing to delete pages like Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's Combined. I am arguing that we don't need another table in addition to the medal counts and the results. We will end up having diploma count of the British Virgin Islands at the 1984 summer Olympics and the like if we aren't carefull.--Kalsermar 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those pages are just for information about the specific evnent....at those pages, it is beneficial to have a through 8th place count. but on a main page, it is not necessary to have two or more pages. Can someone give me a valid reason for why 2 or more tables would be productive and benefit the wikipedia viewing community. Its a prepoeterous idea that will cause upset for future olympics if it not settled now. I agree with Kal because that is qwhat's going to happen if we're not careful now. Jared 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks, Jared. Now that someone has given a reason, I can see the point. There really is no need to classify this information in one table for the entire Olympics. It does belong in more specific places, like the actual sports, but an overall table isn't necessary. NickelShoe 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether the Olympic guidelines are policy or not aside, it just doesn't seem like anyone ever talk about the "diploma count". We certainly should have the information of who got a diploma, which as Jared said is mentioned in the articles about the respective events. Having a medal count article would be original research too, if not for the fact that the medal count is published in a wide variety of media... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All during the games, Canadian announcers made mention of countries' past performances included places beyond medal rankings. Interesting historic information to be kept. --Walter Görlitz 09:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also simply to look at pages like Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics will show you that places beyond the official rankings are recorded. --Walter Görlitz 09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the point we were trying to make; that the individual pages show the top-8/7/whatever to why do we need the information reiterated in yet another table. I agree with Can atr the X Olympics or Skiing at the X olympics having a top-8 count, but not the major medal counts. No. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The supposed "policy" referred to in the nomination has no force, and the WikiProject discussed above, regardless of consensus it might or might not have reached, is at best a suggestion. So I could wikilawyer and vote "keep" based on invalid nomination alone. But I dislike wikilawyering and support process only as far as it supports content. On that count, I'm not sure how notable 4-8th place finishes are, but clearly some people keep track of them. So I'm inclined to say notable rather than nn, which also suggests "keep". Martinp 04:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting info. Nationalparks 07:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interesting the reason you vote keep? I think they're interesting, but having 2 tables is outrageous! If it is kept, there will be 2 tables for all Medal counts from now on. That wouldn't be a great idea. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that would certainly be terrible. It might cause Wikipedia to run out of cyberspace a week or two before the heat death of the universe. Write back when you have a definite timeline on that point, and I'll reconsider my "vote" then. Monicasdude 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monicasdude, I am not prosoping the Wikipedia Apocalypse here, I am just saying that Wikipedia can't include everything; let's say I made a webpage titled "Jared's Web" located at jaredsweb.com. Would this be an acceptable article for which to make a Wikipedia article. No, of course not. So why should we have 2 medal counts for the same games, especially if contains information that most people wouldn't want to see/understand. I'm sorry you misunderstood my comment. Jared 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, I don't understand what you've got against this table.. is it offensive to you in some way? I personally like it because it gives country comparisons more depth - and in particular, if you count fourth place finishes, Canada beats the USA.. being Canadian, this makes me smile; but i can understand an American possibly wanting to gloss over this fact - which probably shouldn't be done on wikipedia.. and i mean, yes, there are two tables.. in fact, the information in one table is entirely contained within the other (which suggests to get rid of the smaller one! but that would be silly).. so although aesthetically it may be nice to have no duplication, i don't see a problem with sacrificing some aesthetic value for knowledge.. this is an encyclopedia, after all. Mlm42 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at all of the comments and we're just about split between keep and delete. I think that the main reason for the Keep votes is because the table is a nice suppliment to the main one; and I agree that is a tad interesting to look at. But what I'm trying to put across is that one table should be enough. People should come to Wikipedia knowing that they will get one type of medal count for each past, present, and future games; this will lessen their confusion. Further, while it would be possible to put up for this and all future games, the diploma count is blatently shown on all pages like Speed_skating_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics_-_Men's_500_metres, which should be the place for the more specific counts. I hope you realize that I am not opposed to the counts I proposed for deletion, I just don't think they have a place in Wikipedia. Might I suggest a link to a page that shows one of these counts? Jared 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a little strange arguing about this, because what I disagree with most is your philosophy of wikipedia. I think people should come to wikipedia with some question they want answered, and then become pleasantly surprised when they get more than what they asked for. I certainly hope there aren't too many people out there thinking "i hope this article has only the information i'm looking for, and nothing more".. that wouldn't be in the encyclopedic spirit. I mean, it's nice if articles fit together in a beautiful and consistent way, but our primary goal should be providing relevant, quality information. and since you probably won't find a table like this elsewhere, I think wikipedia is exactly the place for it.. it's verifiable content, and as i mentioned, makes country comparisons a lot easier.. say, for example, you wanted a list of all countries that had fourth place finishers; without this table, how would you do it? you'd either have to go through every single country page, or every single sport page - that's a lot of work! a lot of work that is already done for us with this table.. and if that isn't a reason to keep, then i don't know what is.. Mlm42 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mlm42 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in a perfect world, who's going to be coming to WP to look for medal counts anyway? I know that sometimes, the more the better, but I have to disagree with you here, for reasons stated above. To top it all off, who out of all of the people here who voted keep could hold to it right now that they would and could impliment a diploma count for every olympics AND the total counts (total, winter, summer)? I myself would not be willing, nor do I have the time, to do such a thing. The idea in theory is good, but the practice will be much more difficult as we all know will come down to: I don't fell like doing it because it is too hard. I hope you took this into consideration when you guys voted keep. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, the beauty of wikipedia is that you don't have to worry about things like that! Somebody will do it :) did you check the edit history to see who was updating the tables? a good chunk of them were from anons that did nothing other than edit the medal count.. that's something anybody can easily do, and they will do it.. you shouldn't burden yourself with things you don't want to do - you are just a volunteer, after all; so don't be afraid to relax and let things take their course. Mlm42 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If optimistic is your attitude, right on! But optimism might not get pages made. Just because people do edit those pages doesn't mean that they will want to create new pages for all of the 50-some-odd olympics pages that don't have diploma counts. I'm trying to be relaxed, but you guys are proposing a policy that probably won't get implimented because of a lack of motivation, and it will come down to having some pages with a count and others without. Thinking ahead is what will get you far in life...not just a whimsicle thought of optimism. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's okay to have some pages with a diploma count and others without.. wikipedia will never be finished, but one of the driving forces is hope that in the future it will continue to get better and better. people create stubs in the hope that they will be expanded.. if everyone had your pessimistic attitude, we'd probably delete all the stubs.. reason for deletion: "well, i don't want to expand this article.. better delete it!" oy, how did i get into this discussion.. i guess all i'm saying is that you just have to have faith in the world sometimes :) Mlm42 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree, but I'm not going to stand down from my vote. Let's just stop this nonsensical "fighting" and get back to editing pages that really matter. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've gone back and forth on whether or not to even vote or comment on this issue. I've decided to vote for keep because I feel that if someone is willing to create the page, than it's worthwhile to have. We have country pages that have top 10 lists in addition to their medal counts, it's definitely worthwhile to hear. A fourth place finish is often brought up as it's just outside of the medal count. Sue Anne 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fusion[edit]

A company which is in the same building as monster.com, DEC's former headquarters. And those are the big claims to notability. Of the 500-odd Googles for "Support Fusion" software, the majority are for something else. Private company, no names of major customers, no details of turnover, no evdence presented of significance or innovation. Created by User:Jcuoco, company run by James A Cuoco. I call vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per VSCA. Fan1967 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fusion is in the same facility as Monster and it is DEC's former headquarters, this is not a claim it is a fact. If for some reason this is offensive to someone we can remove it, but it is true. If a more detailed listing of products and customers are required we can do that as well. Please do not down play our company because this article is not completely populated yet. We are a valid entity and while our presence on the web is not dominate as of this time it is growing rapidly. If you search Google for Support Fusion we are the first hit, so I am not sure what the reference above is suggesting. -- Jcuoco (Talk)

Comment What the reference above is suggesting is that your company is not, at this time, notable, and your only current claim to fame is being in the same building as some notable companies. The guideline for Wikipedia (WP:CORP) is to document companies that are notable, not advertise companies which hope to be. Fan1967 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand, but that line was not meant to give our company notability, but to merely give notaility to the location. Since that appears to be a problem, that line has been removed. I find it interesting how you can pass judgement on something when you know so little about it. This article has been out there for a very short period of time and has not even been expanded yet. Jcuoco

I am sorry you take this personally (I should have predicted that I guess) - the point was that if the article leads with that, it does not bode well for the rest of it. Do you see what I mean? Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but you are correct, it is taken personally. If you have ever started something from scratch you would as well. When you have been working hard to create a company and a customer base and then have some anonymous person tell you that it is not notable, what do you expect? I think your criteria for putting companies on Wikipedia should be more black and white. Maybe don't allow any Private companies or only allow companies with revenue over a certain dollar amount. I just find it frustrating to have someone on a free site make a subjective opinion on something and virtually eliminate your entry based on that. Jcuoco

I am sorry if you feel the label of "not notable" is in some way a disparagement of the quality of your company or the work you have put into it. It is not. It is simply an opinion that your company is not well-known or prominent. I also work for a software development company with many excellent offerings and several very well-known clients. I recognize, however, that we are not prominent, though we hope to be someday. We are not listed in Wikipedia.

Your reference to Wikipedia as a "free site" might seem to imply that you view it as some sort of bulletin board. It is not, nor is it a directory, or a vehicle for advertising or self-promotion. It is, in fact, intended to be an encyclopedia. I feel that the standards for inclusion are fairly clear. Fan1967 04:37, 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Efe (Turkish)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, English or Turkish... Booyabazooka 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I think the ellipsis should be used at the end of more Wikipedia articles...you know...to keep the readers coming back for more. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. James084 03:14, 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. W.marsh 01:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog (drink)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a drink recipe book · rodii · 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ISNOT (a recipe book) and List of cocktails: "As a normal matter of course, only cocktails with a particularly significant history are assigned encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia. Recipes should be moved to Wikibooks." So transwiki to Wikibooks maybe, I dunno. This seems pretty non-notable to me, but it's hard to google properly. If deleted, delete dab page too. · rodii · 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the recipe has no place here. The prevalance of weblogs makes googling for this an impossibility, however, so I find myself unable to vote. I'm curious as to its so-called science fiction origins; if some historical background can be provided, I'd say it can stay. ~ Booyabazooka 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this reference, this reference, and this reference in regards to a drink served at science fiction conventions. Oh, and this one too. That said, I don't think the article really makes much of a case as far as why "blog" is important in regard to science fiction fandom. --E lkman - ^(talk) 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd like to petition for it not to be deleted. I think it is interesting to note that the term "blog" as used for a drink pre-dates the same word as used for a weblog by about 25 years. I'd be happy to remove the actual recipe and add more cultural background as per ISNOT if you guys feel that that makes it an appropriate article. Strait 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still skeptical, but cultural background instead of a recipe would be step in the right direction. I have to say though, I think the fact that "blog" predates blogging is interesting but not noteworthy, as it were. · rodii · 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the whole encyclopedia/recipe book thing, this lacks importance. -- Krash (Talk) 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Assuming they want this kind of thing . . . ? Crypticfirefly 04:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. incog 21:20, 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. Punkmorten 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-accelerator[edit]

This page seems to be some sort of advertisement for a nonexistent webpage. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've added a link to Google's first search result; something called e-accelerator seems to exist, but is non-notable. ~ Booyabazooka 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and possible self-advertisement. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 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 to delete. W.marsh 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Declassified episodes[edit]

and the following episode articles:

These were tagged with {{importance}} on the 1st and watchlisted. A bot has just visited them, which realerted me to their existence, but otherwise they've not been touched. I nominate these with a heavy heart, as a lot of work has gone into them - although sceptical editors who analyse user contributions and edit histories might not be so generous, especially given that some haven't even aired yet! I have only nominated the episodes and not Declassified.

The nomination: A list of TV show episodes and an article for each episode. Some of these have not even been broadcast yet. Of those which have been broadcast, it's way too early to assess if they are to be considered notable in their genre, and no such assertion has been made. Of the others, they're non verifiable. Strong delete all.

kingboyk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep importance is a tricky thing when it comes to TV shows. We have List of This American Life episodes, List of Doctor Who serials and List of episodes of Garfield and Friends. By precedent, it would seem then that there's nothing wrong with episode guides and lists of wikipedia. --Bachrach44 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who is the very essence of notability! Some of these programmes haven't even been broadcast yet. WP:NOT ought to say "Wikipedia is not the Radio Times" but it doesn't yet. --kingboyk 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the individual episodes, keep the list. +{{cleanup}}. Maybe if the episode articles were more informative/cited/asserted importance I could see keeping them. There's nothing wrong with an episode guide since it is a television show and, as such, probably notable to somebody. -- Krash (Talk) 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we must be burdened with episode guides for America's Funniest Home Videos, then it seems we must suffer with these too. After all, it must be important to at least ten people here. Oops- did I see you leaving? Make that nine. D e nni ☯ 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bachrach... it's notable enough for me. Gflores ^Talk 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep episode guides of notable shows. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:07, 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-ly deleted. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 08:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Towel Boys[edit]

The page says, "Still by many, the band is yet to be discovered." Sounds like an admission of WP:VSCA or a lack of notability according to WP:MUSIC. E lkman - ^(talk) 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely WP:VSCA and failure of WP:MUSIC per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-band. "LOL Isn't Funny (2001)" is one of their singles? Sounds like it could be a hoax, too. --Rory0 96 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nn-band, tagged as such. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:38, 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.

Discussion continues on the talk page. --kingboyk 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete at request of article creator ([20]). Will userfy. kingboyk 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday[edit]

He appears locally notable but I don't think this passes the international-online-encyclopedia notability test. He's a local politician who runs his own business and the fact that the article was started by User:Hayday makes it look like vanity, too. Francs 2000 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (i.e. delete from main space). nn. --kingboyk 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable. Vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Ned Wilbury 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday comments: I am the person (human being) that started this page & I have since read the smaller print to what can & what can't be written. I agree that I shouldn't have written it. I thought that being an elected Councillor, doing voluntary charity work, helping the less fortunate and having the great honour of being my home-town Mayor was an achievement, especially living in days that people are turned off by playing a role in politics and caring about there local community. Also because I am a young guy, I would very much like to encourage other young people to get more involved in politics and to help in their local community.

I can understand about the business part – I could have been asked to remove it. I am also proud of my ancestors that helped to form my own political ambitions. However, I don’t agree that my whole site is to be removed by a bigot who is against my own sexuality & choice of politics. This was only marked for deletion because I dared to write a stub on Sir Nigel Crisps. Why should my whole site be removed because of that? I enjoy making research and helping to grow Wikipedia – why should you have the right to stop that? I will take out all references to my own business activities and the site will stay, do you agree with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.241.203 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 March 2006.

(wikified the above) Userify Please don't be insulted that people are suggesting deletion and referencing the WP:VAIN guidelines. Give them a read, and also please read Assume good faith. in general we tend to say that if a person is encyclopedic, someone else will write the article, and if they are not, if no one else wrote it, it's probably not a good idea that they write their own article. Users who contribute to other articles here are given wide latitude in what they can have in their userspace, subject only to good taste and civility, so if you are a contributor here, Userify-ing the article is a good outcome as it keeps the material here. If and when someone else decides that you're notable enough to write an article, you can then point them to the info saved and they can validate it for inclusion. Hope that helps and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday comments: Thank you, that was a fair comment and I totally agree! I was not happy in the way that User:Francs2000 approached the situation, it seemed that he had a grudge against me. Thank you for being polite.
- Comment I was doing what I thought was the right thing. You are more than welcome to challenge my opinion constructively in this forum, and I did invite you to do so on the discussion page of the article itself. However when you vandalised my user page was where I lost all respect for you. You'll get more respect in discussions like this if your actions are above reproach. -- Francs 2000 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  PS being homophobic about your opponents in debate is generally considered a political no-no. -- Francs 2000 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err... I received a message from Darren Hayday - as did the other contributors - to come back and look at this debate, which I have done. However I'm not sure what I'm looking at. Is it a request to userfy and close the debate, a complaint, or just a headsup that new comments have been posted? --kingboyk 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy seems like a reasonable suggestion, to me. PJM 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Flower party■ 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Youngish Conservative Foundation[edit]

Non-notable organisation, founded by Darren Hayday (see above). Article was started by User:Hayday. Gets zero google hits. Francs 2000 23:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable. Vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 00:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. dbtfz ^talk 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources means no article is possible. Ned Wilbury 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --kingboyk 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle surface diving[edit]

When google doesn't return anything, I get suspicious... seems to be a made-up sport. Booyabazooka 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, at very least. Any individual sport awarding "treachery points" strikes me as being made up—who is treacherous to who? - Rynne 23:47, 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.

delete

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Flower party■ 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy_Z._Brite[edit]

Not Notable Magic5227 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. - Rynne 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination. Very bad faith. Monicasdude 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Magic? Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't know about bad faith, thus not speedy, but wtf? Famous writer. · rodii · 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Strong Keep Poppy is extremely notable in speculative fiction. Not sure where nominator is coming from. Georgewilliamherbert 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith AFD nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:49, 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 MuSE. -Splash^talk 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MusE[edit]

Sounds interesting, but I can't find any evidence of widespread use, coverage in neutral reliable third party news sources, innovation or other claims to notability. Not to be confused with MuSE, which undoubtedly is significant. Just zis Guy you know? 09:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MuSE. Proto||type 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MuSE per Proto. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to MuSE. This particular software seems non-notable per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:00, 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 delete Flower party■ 00:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a Glory of Katie[edit]

Delete: This is an unverified, rumored first EP by NOFX, not acknowledged by any official website (i.e. it is not listed at the official discography at nofxofficialwebsite.com), there exists no cover artwork, and no mention of it can be found except on unreliable fansites or fan-controlled sites.

Delete: I've not been able to verify it in the past. mat_x 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not exist, see NOFXwiki - Rynne 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Flower party■ 00:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword breaker[edit]

Thoroughly unencyclopedic, un-Wikified, and unreferenced substub. Hasn't grown or improved in 7 months. There isn't much to scrap here, so if such a weapon existed a better editor might as well start over. Durova 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It sounds like someone made up a concept and then imagined how it would work. Wikipedia minus RPG cruft would be a beautiful thing. Brian G. Crawford 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is indeed a real weapon, and I would call the article more than a sub-stub. Verifiable. Grandmasterka 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That really doesn't verify the claim of the stub. These are weapons of modern manufacture and many modern manufacturers create "replicas" of fantasy weapons that never really existed. I came across this while I was categorizing weapons for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force and I honestly don't see any way to save the stub. Durova 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If this is verifiable, someone can create a proper article on it sometime. Ned Wilbury 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unreferenced and comes across as original research and opinion. — RJH 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:27, 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.