Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mathematical Formulas[edit]

This is a list that merely lumps together and explains formulas that alread exist elsewhere on wikipedia. Whoever started it only placed a few on, but if it were to enumerate every formula in the same manner it would become huge, unworkable, and entirely composed of content that exists elsewhere on the site. Indrian 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're right about the article as it stands now, but what if was a more traditional Wikipedia list, and simply listed each Wikipedia article that's about a math formula? It would still be kind of odd, but then a lot of Wikipedia lists are. --Allen 00:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would depend. I am not against such lists in principle, but prefer categories to lists when feasible. If a list would be a better way to accomplish that than a category, then I would be fine with it. However, if no one changes this list to function in that manner I would still wanted it deleted, as the article as it stands has issues and it would be easy for someone else to create a proper list whether this article exists or not. Indrian 02:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, that makes sense. I can't see any reason this would be better as a list than as a category. --Allen 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a potentially infinite list. If no category exists for this sort of thing, one should be created. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 02:12 UTC
Delete. Nice idea, but purposeless. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As worthless --DV8 2XL 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete must be a repository of formulas. This can serve as a reminder note for the mathematical formulas, though. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 02:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we perhaps make a Category:Mathematical formulae? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, a category will be good. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the list would be good for Wikipedia (if a list of mathematical formulas does not fit in an encyclopaedia, I don't know where they could be placed), but as is, it is no use. If this were a list I would have suggested to move it all into Wikiversity. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There can be useful lists on specific areas, and in fact there are, for example List of trigonometric identities and List of integrals of trigonometric functions, and there are even useful lists of lists: Lists of integrals and (less useful but not useless) List of mathematical identities. Although the present article is useless, it would actually be nice if Wikipedia had a "superlist" article on these repositories of mathematical formulas as a navigational aid to what the reader is looking for. A starting point for constructing this might be Category:Mathematics-related lists. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a collection of information; mathematical formulae belong on the pages related to them, where they can actually be explained. A category of articles which explain math formulae, though, sounds like a good idea. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I'd say that Wikipedia is a collection of information. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the correct quote is: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --Tango 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A typing error, my apologies. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category —M e ts501^talk 12:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category is a good idea. Kudos. --Ton e 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A category "mathematical formulas" is NOT a good idea. Mathematical formulas have only meaning within a context, which is given in the articles in which they are presented. Only very rarely will a formula be the focus of an article. It is pointless to have a category of articles that contain an important mathematical formula. Basically all mathematical articles do unless pure definitions or stubs. Without further organization, which is much better possible in articles like the aforementioned Lists of integrals than using a category, the effort will be useless and wasted. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a second thought, you're right. There are really no articles that would consist only of formulas. Maybe on Wikisource but not here. --Ton e 21:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would not be acceptable at Wikisource, please read the inclusion guidelines.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Osbus 18:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. All I see is a tiny list of geometrical formulas. Maybe some other article would see this as valuable, but this one needs to either be eliminated or go. -Tracker 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that a list seems to be unncessary and if all were included, it would be huge. Matterbug 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Wikisource: Please note that both the English and the multilingual Wikisources no longer accepts reference data such as this. This transwiki would be deleted as beyond the scope of the project. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 23:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category No need to have a long article for this. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this had substance, it could go to Wikibooks. But I don't see why we should make them delete it. Septentrionalis 01:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd support some targeted formulae, but not an indescriminate list of all formulae. Ted 01:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not create category. Lambiam ^Talk 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy mandates that we nuke it from orbit. I don't think a category should be created, either. It is easy enough to search for something (eg. "distance formula", which redirects to distance). --Kooky (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Beno1000 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (article was blanked by only author). I'm not going to create a redirect from this typo to anywhere, but I have created Yokota Air Base Friendship Festival to redirect to Yokota Air Base, and marked {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yokota Air Base Friendship Festiival[edit]

Short, unencyclopedic article with misspelled title referring to a local event created by User:Picturetokyo, whose only other contributions have been links to the user's own site Ianb 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yokota Air Base. Though it seems to be a well-attended and notable event, all this information (word for word) is already in the main article. Redirect it there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after moving to get rid of the spelling mistake - I agree with the above author. - Richardcavell 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes, it may be a notable event. Please redirect. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 02:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per Starblind. -- ReyBrujo 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yokota Air Base. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys i dont know how this works. I would like to make the page better and i have lots more content and pictures i could add for it. I just thought that people would like to know more about it.--Picturetokyo 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yakota Air Base, as per all of the above. Content can be added and expanded on that page, and pictures added. Perhaps later, if the section is too large for the article, it could be moved into its own article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedirectSo you are saying edit the Yokota Air Base page and not make a New page?

I also have 2 images starting out i would like to add.

[1] [2]--Picturetokyo 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The pictures are good, they're already in the base article and look just fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect —M e ts501^talk 12:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Sorry Guy 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Starblind Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can be speedily deleted because the author has removed the contents and written "delete" in the article." Also, if you have more photos, why not put them on Commons. The procedure is very similar to the procedure for Wikipedia. Commons wants people to put together galleries of photos. Any photo on Commons can be used on Wikipedia in any language. It's fun to look at an article on Wikipedias in other languages and discover that they use your photos! Just be sure to grant an appropriate license like GFDL or Public Domain. Commons does not have an article named "Yokota Air Base." You can create the article and put lots of good photos in it! Fg2 01:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and other comments. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Points Bulletin[edit]

Could this ever be more than a dicdef? Chick Bowen 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that it could evolve. - Richardcavell 00:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - so do I, although it's a poor article at the moment. Badgerpatrol 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in any case, I've removed that sentence about the album. There's a redlink to All Points Bulletin (album) at Dispatch (band); if that is ever written a disambiguation link can be added. Chick Bowen 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. It might be expandable. However, it should be moved to all points bulletin. -- Kjkolb 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dicdef, and there's nobody here jumping at the chance to make it an encyclopedia article, if such a thing is even possible. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Wiktionary Wiktionary is a wiki for dicdefs, and this article should be moved there. As for my delete part in my decision, this article is very short. May be expandable, but I have doubts. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 03:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary, I can't think of anything you would add to this article, except for the history of its use, which I'm not sure exists. Consequentially 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary and Delete per FunnyBunny and Consequentially. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly belongs on Wiktionary. I'm not sure that it could really be expanded beyond an actual definition, perhaps if it were to go into notable APBs, the APB process, etc. As it is, Weak keep, or, failing that, Transwiki (though somebody needs to create that definition on Wiktionary). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, probably expandable —M e ts501^talk 12:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expandable; the concept is notable enough (it even inspired a famous arcade game, to which this name should be redirected if the article is deleted), so it seems unlikely that there's really nothing to say on the subject. — Haeleth Talk 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wiktionary -- dicdef Fnarf999 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary The ideas mentioned in the article are already on APB, it's not neccesary to have the same exact thing, unless the article is expanded. Matterbug 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable enough that if someone wrote more it would be a worthwhile article. Sorry Guy 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Delete and move to Wiktionary I can't see it as being more than a Wiktionary entry.*User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, and separate entry to Wiktionary Wiktionary can have a definition on it, but I think a decent article can be made from this (i.e. descriptions of famous APBs and such). Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicdef. --Knucmo2 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I have mixed feelings about deleting it myself, since it's so heavily linked to, but I spent about an hour today doing research trying to find out at least the history of the term, but to no avail. The only thing I found that was sort of interesting was an anecdote that IBM had once set up an electronic APB system in Mexico, and when it didn't work several of their execs were indicted by the Mexican government. That's here if anyone thinks it's worth adding. You all say "expandable"--I don't know folks, I really don't. Chick Bowen 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same position you are, honestly. I know it's something that could get a lot of traffic, I just don't know how to make it any more than what it is now. The Mexico incident is interesting, but it seems an awfully small point to pin an article on. Maybe if there's some verifiable history out there, or enough interesting notes and links to give people a starting point. If not . . well, it' just kind of sitting there. Consequentially 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's the kind of thing that people might come looking for, and should be expanded. For great justice. 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please review this again - I have added two other meanings as a disambig. For great justice. 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand the entries other than the game need articles. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After FGJ added other meanings, I, per the MoS and acting boldly, reformatted her entries as a separate dab page (even as I think one to be rather crystal ballish), viz., All points bulletin (disambiguation). If this article is deleted, we'll have to decide whether to leave the dab page (with two red links and one blue) or simply to redirect All points bulletin to the one blue link. It's a very close call for me as to whether this is anything other than a dicdef, but , inasmuch as we already several articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=All_points_bulletin linking] to this page, I conclude that keep is probably in order. I concur in the assessments of Chick and Consequentially; I'm typically a categorical participant at AfD, but this one truly vexes me. Joe 05:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAADUC[edit]

Original research, if not patent nonsense. Stormie 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks bogus, unencyclopedic.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could almost have been speedied as nonsense. Kevin 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons in related AfD below. TheProject 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- MarcoTolo 01:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense, plus "do not remove...without express written approval"? Here? Are they kidding? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable conspiracy theory. See discussion with author on her talk page. Fan1967 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1-million-mph-Speedy Delete I had no clue people can patent on Wikipedia... Wikipedia is like a park, and lets say that trees, benches, etc are articles. Can a visitor protect one of those objects in a public park from being removed? No, I don't think so. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Array for the Abatement of Drugs and Underage Consumption[edit]

Original research, if not patent nonsense. Stormie 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks bogus, unencyclopedic.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a bogus organization, 0 Google hits. SCHZMO ✍ 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could almost have been speedied as nonsense. Kevin 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Metamagician3000 01:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also looked up the address, and it seems to be a personal address. TheProject 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- MarcoTolo 01:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as NAADUC above. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable conspiracy theory. See discussion with author on her talk page. Fan1967 02:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete just like NAADUC; can i be any more obvious? it's obviously the same M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense, google turns up nothing, Ms. Edwards works for the Crimson Flacon Press? Good grief. BigDT 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, for the love of Pete! Per speedy deletion of NAADUC above. Hoax or patent nonsense, one of the two. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel (song)[edit]

This page links to nothing else, and it is a song that did not reach any charts. Non-notable The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible rewrite?~~ As I recall, there'sa song by that name by Bjork which was a single and reached the charts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, that's at Isobel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note- this article was written by Maoririder, who has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and trolling. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, it should be speedy deleted per G5, which I have tagged, unless there's a distinction between "blocked indefinitely" and "banned" which I haven't quite picked up. TheProject 01:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ikiroid. It looks like the page was created before he was banned, so it cannot be speedily deleted that way. -- Kjkolb 02:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Delete, songs fit Wikipedia. However, the article needs MUCH improvement, and since Isobel isn't a single from Dido, there should be a very good reason of why the song has its own article. -- ReyBrujo 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Album tracks are ordinarily better covered in album articles. This isn't a particularly notable song. --kingboyk 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No Angel. In regards to the above comment about speedy deletion, G5 applies to "Pages created by banned users while they were banned". As far as I'm aware, this doesn't apply retroactively, and according to the block log (for User:Maoririder, 03:07, 17 March 2006 Hall Monitor blocked "Maoririder (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Maoriride}), and for User:MaoJin, the actual creator of the article, and tagged as a sockpuppet of User:Maoririder, 03:07, 17 March 2006 Hall Monitor blocked "MaoJin (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Maoririder)) he was blocked on the 17th of March, while the article was created on the 31st of January. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with a redirect to No Angel. Dido's song is not the best-known song by this title. Bjork's song is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a well-known song —M e ts501^talk 12:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter when the article was created (or, I should say, by whom it was created), it's a completely non-notable song. It's not even a single, much less a well-known single. Even a redirect is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 14:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no point whatsoever having a redirect from a disambiguated name; nobody is going to type "Isobel (song)" into the search box when Isobel is already about a song. Perhaps the Dido song should be mentioned for disambiguation on that page (with a link to the album). — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like a notable song. The album page itself should cover it. Matterbug 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to merit its own article. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big Dido fan, and Björk just leaves me cold (sorry!). But it is pretty clear to me that Dido's song is not notable under our guidelines and traditions, and Bjork's is. The Isobel entry should have a dab to point to No Angel with a mention that there is a song by that name on that album. Isobel (song) should be a redirect to Isobel. I think all that could have been done without needing to AfD anything (and people ought to give some thought to whether that's a viable approach, save the traffic on AfD...) but since it's here... Delete with redirect ++'Lar: t/c 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've set up the dab to No Angel at Isobel. Revert me if you disagree. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Montemarano[edit]

non-notable -- few hits on 'net Jim62sch 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find a thing about him, aside from self-promotional items Consequentially 03:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn bio. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MSJapan 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what more can i say? M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, he is the lead singer of Autobomb. Few hits in Google, but if the band is notable to belong to Wikipedia, Tony is also. The band should have been included in this afd. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the band might barely be notable, but the individual members not. As a whole they might be worth one article, but might still not be worth 2. --Tango 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. —M e ts501^talk 12:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is hardly notable. --so U m y a S ch 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --GTubio 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Band not notable enough, per nom. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletesubject well covered at Autobomb. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there any reason, why the other band members aren't also up for deletion? Falphin 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webmama[edit]

It's a PR piece, PROD contested by article writer. FCYTravis 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic PR ranting. Kevin 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam-vert. -- MarcoTolo 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, advert spam vanity - Richardcavell 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first notability, then Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell. DarthVad e r 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above. Interesting, but non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. --ManiF 09:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nn + spam. — G a rykirk | ^talk! 17:18, 06 May 2006 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Fnarf999 19:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a side dish of spam. per nom. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad spam. Rense 19:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the Regular Grand Lodge of England (RGLE)[edit]

The main article: Regular Grand Lodge of England had been deleted. So should this list page that derives from it. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard. . Delete and protect Blueboar 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Delete per WP:NOT. -- MarcoTolo 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DV8 2XL 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and protect. -- Ardenn 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per nom. Looks like article Regular Grand Lodge of England has been deleted 7 times [3] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and protect. DarthVad e r 09:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Mason-cruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article was deleted because in the first instance it was a copyvio and has not been recreated using non copyright material since. Its deletion has no effect on this discussion, as its notability has not been challenged at all. In response to the allegations, this article does not seem to fit the criteria below indiscriminate collection of information, it is a well defined grouping of organisations. Free web host does not apply in this situation as it is a simple list of information. Propaganda relates to biased material, this article does not seem to have serious problems in this respect, and if it did the appropriate action would be to be bold and make it fit NPOV. How original research fits into this I do not know. The information just needs to be sourced, that is not cause for deletion. Ans e ll 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ansell, "free web host" does apply here: a single website on a free webhost does not constitute a reliable source. Therefore, this information is unverifiable and may be original research. Therefore, it should be deleted in accordance with policy. — Haeleth Talk 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source that I put on the page is from their official website. It is not a free web hosting service, and as such is verifiable. I dont see how this would be original research, it is sourced from their site. Ans e ll 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their own website is suspect, so how can it then be considered a verifiable source? Ardenn 02:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ansell Jcuk 23:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subjects website is usually not a reliable source. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ansell. Good, well-ordered list of organizations. -- JJay 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT the RGLE's website. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteALR 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Arabia Campaign[edit]

A stub about a military campaign in a place where no military operations took place, telling us just that. Frankly useless, in my opinion; should we have articles about all the other places and circumstances where fighting didn't happen? Kirill Lok s h in 01:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for precisely that reason. Author was probably eliminating a redlink (see edit summary of creation). - Richardcavell 02:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the problem is that the redlink comes from Template:WWITheatre. If there wasn't a campaign in Aden, we should edit the template accordingly and delete this article. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page about something that didn't actually happen. Unlink from Template:WWITheatre, too. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I or Move to South Arabia during World War I. According to this official despatch and this regimental website, there were some operations and battles, albeit on a small-scale (capture of Kamaran Island, battle at Lahij, etc.). SoLando (Talk) 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless expanded then move to the suggested title by SoLando. Falphin 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Falphin Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense. --Knucmo2 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge any content, remove from template Guinnog 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead city records[edit]

Label shows no bands that meet WP:Music guidelines, and draws few (no more than ten) Google hits, and that includes its own website and MySpace links. Recommend delete. Consequentially 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertispamvanitynotfreewebspace - Richardcavell 02:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is basically a copy of the about page of the company, so I would add advertisment and copyvio. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement for a label that consists of bands that don't meet the notability guidelines... Also, copyright violation. Definite delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one artist, Toilet Boys has an existing entry but the article on them is so poorly written than it probably isn't worth a merge. Ac@osr 11:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Emc² (CONTACT ME ) 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- spam, promo material, "contact me", terrible grammar. Fnarf999 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spamlicious. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was {{deletagain}}. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Canty[edit]

Seems non-notable, and seems to be written as a campaign advertisement. If she wins, then she'll be notable. (Or if evidence turns up that these books she's written are notable) Allen 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Fire Star 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: it's been deleted before but the creator didn't appear to get the message that time. -- Fr a ncs2000 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's been created and deleted before, and if that's not enough, it looks to be POV and copyvio all in one. Note the lack of formatting. MSJapan 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect and tagged per A7 and G4. TheProject 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Le-Surf[edit]

This and other articles nominated below are part of a larger group of articles relating to councillors and candidates in Brentwood, Essex, England, seen at Category:Brentwood. I would happily nominate all of them other than those who have been leaders of the Council or are otherwise notable. The presence of the first few seems to spawning POV articles essentially reproducing election biographies, and could get too much to handle.

However, those which I am nominating now are just those of losing candidates - they have not held public office and no wider notability beyond local campaigning is asserted. We cannot have hundred of articles on failed local politicians on top of articles on every successful one. Perhaps the other articles can be considered individually.

Michael Le-Surf, failed candidate, nn
Antony Williams, failed candidate, asserts local notability but seems vanity
Doris Suckling, failed candidate, nn
Deborah Wood, failed candidate, nn

Mtiedemann 02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per Mtiedemann. I wish there was a speedy delete criterion for failed political candidates and non-incumbents currently running for office with no other claim to notability, except candidates for head of state. -- Kjkolb 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - nn, vanity (esp. Antony Williams). -- MarcoTolo 03:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom, plus suggest {{db-failed-politician}}? (j/k) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually, I think they could be speedied per CSD:A7, as they fail WP:BIO for political figures: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. and Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I would speedy them, but I think that being a failed candidate is a claim of notability which would prohibit speedy deletion. TheProject 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Even though nominating multiple items at once is slightly confusing, I don't think any of them are notable enough, except perhaps Antony Williams. Even then, delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete all. None are notable. --A bit iffy 10:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flush 'em all. per nom. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - While I agree with the point that articles about failed politicians are of ponderable use, if any of these people are still standing in elections then I think they are relevant. StephenN 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The election was on 4 May, so it's all over for the year. Mtiedemann 08:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all constituencies have elections at the same time, have all elections for the articles in question been held? StephenN 13:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local elections are always on the first Thursday in May unless there is a by-election. I think that Brentwood is on a three-year cycle and next year is their year off, with elections for the Essex County Council level instead, so it would be two years until these seats are contested again, but that needs checking. Mtiedemann 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onishi Satrou[edit]

Can find no references to a Japanese war criminal named Onishi Satrou (or Onishi Satoru). David Kernow 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. David Kernow 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's impossible to say 'Satrou' in Japanese. - Richardcavell 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment:I've found only one legit link here (the rest aren't old enough), but Onishi Satoru was only a major in Singapore, so he certainly does not qualify as notable article material. MSJapan 03:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, regardless of notability. I can't find anything pertinent in Japanese, either. — Haeleth Talk 15:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also worth seaching for Ohnishi, Ōnishi, Ônishi. There is a Tokyo politician with the same name (大西さとる), lots of Google hits related to debate about Yasukuni Shrine and war crimes. This article might be spite against him. Fg2 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove linked text from Lim Bo Seng. --Kunzite 04:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have replaced "Onishi Satrou" with (non-wikified) "Onishi Satoru" in Lim Bo Seng. David Kernow 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per A6. TheProject 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fogel[edit]

Vilification page only. Possible libel. Remove it --Light current 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless it can be rewritten as an NPOV article. Zaxem 10:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Williamb 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a NPOV entry --Biggfishny 12:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - attack page BigDT 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. --Metropolitan90 17:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - attack page, notable for spelling "divisive" two different ways, both incorrectly. As per Zaxem, reestablish if written neutrally. Fnarf999 19:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. -Tracker 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged per A6. TheProject 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete; this is something that is already handled using redirects. RasputinAXP c 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operas by original title and English title[edit]

It seems to me like this article is pointless. If you want to note the original title of an opera, it should be on the article for that opera. Quite why anyone would want to look at a simple list of operas with their original titles, I don't know. I think my problem then is that this is too idiosyncratic to be encyclopedic mge kelly 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created a month ago and still has just two entries. Maybe the creator gave up? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should probably create redirs from the less common title to the more common one. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do it then. mge kelly 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Question: Of course all notable opera entries should have redirects from their original and English titles. But is it technically possible to assign a category to a redirect page, so that both title forms would show up in a category listing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is possible. See this test that I just made. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless article. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Operacruft? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are such lists out there, and this one could potentially be of some value. --Arny 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --GTubio 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create redirects. Imagine a similar list for Chinese films with their English titles. An article like that would be pointlessly long. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about Chinese films. It's about operas. The standard repertory is not a long list. See List of famous operas. Fg2 03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what a list is for. Actually, a list of Chinese films with English names would be awesome ;) 11:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm aware of that. I was using an example under similar circumstances. If it doesn't work in the example, it shouldn't work here. → Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. If you know the title in the original language or in English, you can look up the other. Helpful for searching for recordings, books etc. Useful index to knowledge. Fg2 03:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see how this is helpful. If you are looking for an opera, you can look up the specific page of that opera and find out its alternative title. If you look at a single coposer's page too, that would normally have the original and translated titles of all major works. mge kelly 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Kelly. Can't see how this can ever be useful. Rense 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problem I can see with it is that it's a stub. It would be nice to expand it, actually,to include date and place of first performance.Apollo 11:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was that as very few people want these articles to exist separately (and the consensus cited on the talk page for the split is rather underwhelming, consisting of "Why don't we..?" and "Yeah, I'll do that"), both redirected to All your base are belong to us. If any more examples are wanted for that article, follow the redirects back. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references, List of "All your base are belong to us" print and electronic references[edit]

These entries are indiscriminate collections of information. Brian G. Crawford 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I want to like these articles, as they at least show that AYB has entered mainstream cultural conciousness somewhat, unlike the vast majority of internet memes. Unfortunately, most of the references are sub-sub-trivial at best... typical example: "The Suburban Jungle, a furry webcomic, made use of the line on November 25, 2005." Delete, though maybe some of the more notable ones could be merged with the main AYB article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - this was a major internet fad - maybe one of the first that made it outside of the IT community - it's worthwhile to have the list, but it doesn't take two articles to do so and some of the more worthless / non-notable entries (like the furry webcomic) can be removed. BigDT 03:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the main All your base are belong to us article already has a section on media mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's a major internet fad. That's why it has its own article, and I'm not suggesting that All your base should be deleted, nor would I ever consider proposing it for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, the main AYB article isn't going anywhere. I was responding to BigDT, who I think is suggesting that the lists be merged with each other. Instead, I think thay shuld just be deleted, as the notable ones (like the Fox Trot strip) are already covered in the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The suggestion I intended to convey was to merge these two with each other (not into the main article) and then chop out the non-notable entries. BigDT 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is definitely a violation of WP:NOT. Aplomado - U T C 03:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pointless. We already have an article on this. All your base are belong to Reyk _YO! 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If deleted, move to AYBABTU main article first. All your listcruft are belong to BJAODN. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, these lists used to be in AYBABTU, they apparently were splitted due extremely long article. While AYBABTU is notable, I don't think it is necessary to keep separated lists. -- ReyBrujo 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all back to All your base are belong to us, if there are any that aren't already there. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge back. First read this: Talk:All your base are belong to us#Wow. It was removed from the article for a good reason, not contested by the main contributors. Lambiam ^Talk 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Andrew Lenahan. -- Voretus the Benevolent 10:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as suggested by BigDT but cull NN examples. I'm voting to keep since this was material spun off from another article upon request. 23skidoo 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point to such a list. Alternatively Merge somewhere if an appropriate article found. --Arny 17:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --GTubio 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - adds nothing to AYB, belongs THERE. Fnarf999 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe a few notable ones can be merged back into AYB, but we don't need lists of every time it's referenced. BryanG 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few notable ones should be added to the main article and the rest can just be trashed, the AYB article cannot and should not be all media references and it's counter productive to have an article entirely made up of external links. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article. this material is worth keeping for ayb. giving the material their own articles is perhaps problematic, and if the inclusion in the ayb page is as well, one page would suffice. (p.s.- you got the policy garbled. wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not the articles. this is clearly relevant to a high profile internet fad.)
Delete or Shorten and Merge with All your base are belong to us, this is way to crufty. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. AYB is quite notable, and this can be a useful list, but it violates WP:NOT. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep, but probably Merge If I found the AYBBTS phenomenon interesting, I'd also find the list of references interesting. It likely could be merged into the main article with no harm done, however. KP 02:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When will these lists end? Next, it will be List of all commercials that have ever used modem tones. Ted 06:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is a helpful list maybe merge to the main article tho Yuckfoo 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School (Harper Woods, Michigan)[edit]

Nonnotable, and now-closed, high school -- WP can't and shouldn't list all the closed 50-yr-old high schools in the USA NawlinWiki 03:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brace yourself for the WP:SCH references. Keep due to the controversy Andrew mentioned, but only because of that. Aplomado - U T C 03:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ It's closed, and it doesn't inherit notability from Dave Coulier. Brian G. Crawford 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I'm neutral on the issue, after reading what Andrew had to say. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Though closed, it looks like there's a charity set up to revive it, with involvement from Bill Cosby, believe it or not. Found a few news stories on the whole mess. If anything, I'd rate this as more notable than most of the average high-school articles we see. Update After further research, I found a press release stating that "Friends of Notre Dame Inc", the charity I mentioned above, actually sued the Diocese and alleged that the school was closed down illegally, as well as accusations of other financial shenanigans. Changing vote to a solid keep, as the school seems to be the center of a major (if local) scandal and uproar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete See Andrew's comments, but then we would also have other closed schools too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are the centre of a major scandal and uproar, with lawsuits, allegations of illegal close-downs and financial shenanigans, and all that, and involvement of major celebrities to boot, why not? Lambiam ^Talk 10:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem. Does controversy make something notable? Do lawsuits and celebrities establish notability? Those, I think, are the real questions being discussed here, not whether this article deserves to stay. This will have probably an impact on AfD's to come, so I'm watching this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, due to the controversy. Carioca 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 09:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article alludes to the impact of the closing on the local community. If the impact was more fully explored then it would be encyclopedic. Ans e ll 11:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a newspaper so closure does not affect eligibility. CalJW 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is accepted on Wikipedia that schools are notable. No one is forced to read the article. Markb 11:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it is established that high schools and up are notable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'High school'? What definition of high school are you using? What about countries that don't use the term? Please remember this is a global encylopaedia. Markb 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, whatever is analagous to a U.S. high school, I guess. Are there countries that speak English but don't call a high school a high school? BTW, does secondary school count as high school? Then secondary schools should be immediately notable too. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. --so U m y a S ch 11:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody is actually going to bother to write an article on the subject. (Have those who are voting "keep" even looked at the so-called article? If that's the kind of education the school was giving, it deserved to be closed.) — Haeleth Talk 15:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Give me a day to fix this article up. I'm going to take a shot at it. Aplomado - UTC 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the articles I found would be helpful to you in your efforts, here they are: news page w lawsuit and Cosby info, alumni association, Detroit free press article, Diocese's rebuttal, Save Notre Dame website, currently down, Google has more cached pages tho. Of course, there's more on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, I cleaned it up some. Aplomado - U T C 03:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable enough for an encyclopedia. --Arny 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It [the context] doesn't appear to be useful enough for an encyclopedia. --Pilo t|guy 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --GTubio 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom has not tried to make a case for deletion. The school existed and is thus worth keeping here. -- JJay 20:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something that was notable enough for an encyclopædia when it was standing doesn't lose that notability just cos its no longer there. Jcuk 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above althoiugh cleanup has was. Kotepho 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are notable. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH 03:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if all High Schools are notable, this one is closed. And the drama for closing is no different than hundreds of other school closings. Simply not notable. Ted 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. --Rob 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- being "home" for many young people and generations and generations of them make very school notable enough. Luka Jačov 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind and Jcuk. BryanG 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, also appears to comply with WP:SCH. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear precedent on high schools and deleting them because the school is closed makes as much sense as deleting biographies because the person is dead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We haven't deleted an article about a factually verifiable secondary school, defunct or otherwise, for going on two years now. Silensor 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied A7. Tawker 05:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoganas[edit]

Vanity page. The page has very little content and poorly identifies the subject. Clubmarx | Talk 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason state above Clubmarx | Talk 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clubmarx. Reyk _YO! 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From the article: "Chuck Norris has nothing on Sifu.". *rolls eyes* Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged per A7. The Chuck Norris reference makes it patent nonsense, practically. TheProject 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 04:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

splinter dice[edit]

notability, no hits on Google or Yahoo KsprayDad 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND. Reyk _YO! 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: it was turning into complete nonsense before my very eyes so I nominated for speedy and it was done. KsprayDad 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for deletion or merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Railway Bibliography[edit]

Just a list of books, possibly cut-and-paste from an electronic catalogue. Tagged for wikify and clean-up, which I've made a start on, but seems unlikely it could ever develop into anything encyclopedic.➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This actually looks like it might have been meant as references for History of rail transport in Ireland that got spun off because the list became quite large. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. San Saba 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply not the place for bibliographies, even comprehensive ones. Eusebeus 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bibliographies certainly are encyclopedic... most if not all print encyclopedias include extensive bibliographies, sometimes even in their own volumes. The closest encyclopedia to me right now, Man, Myth & Magic, has a full 50 pages of bibliography in volume 24. For those saying bibliographies don't belong in an encyclopedia, which encyclopedia have you been using? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply a gross inaccuracy. Please point me to an encyclopedia that consists of ehxaustive bibliographies. True, encyclopedias point to principal works cited or important to the subject at hand, but they are not exhaustive repositories for sources pertaining to a subject. For example, a comprehensive bibliography of Marxism runs to many hundreds of pages (including propaganda and "motivated" articles it could extend easily to thousands). Please direct me to this encyclopedic reference you have found that has 500 pages devoted to nothing but books and articles on Marxism. You have conflated directed references with exhaustive bibliography. Eusebeus 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above, although I am still unsure. -- ReyBrujo 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Delete, or merge into whatever article it is a Bibliography of. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a bibliography is certainly encyclopedic, this one is useless... It's supposed to be used as reference for History of rail transport in Ireland but there is no citation of any of the books listed. The books used as references in History of rail transport in Ireland should be listed as in Wikipedia:Citing_sources and that list deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam67fr (talk • contribs)
Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into History of rail transport in Ireland. Wikipedia is not a list of reference works, any more than it's a collection of external links. Sources should be cited in the articles that draw on them; useful books that are not cited should be listed in the relevant articles as "further reading"; everything else is no different from linkspam and should be deleted accordingly. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge the refs used in the main article. Moving a list of refs into the article namespace just screams WP:NOT to me, even if the mother article is too long. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Starblind; also unsure (like ReyBrujo). Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James_Pojman[edit]

Non-notable bio, borders on adcruft. One hit on Google, and all links point to his business website. --ES2 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google for Jim Pojman. Books do exist see e.g. %22 James Pojman %22&hl=en&gl=ie&ct=clnk&cd=11 India Woman Photographs Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The links that come up from the above search are on the author's own page...no mention of these 'books' exist outside of these pages. KsprayDad 13:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --MaNeMeBasat 10:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, promotional. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the article and in response to one of the above comments I would note that I have no "business website" and photography is not my business; i.e., I do not generate any siginificant income from photography. Jpojman 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A website with the TLD .biz is generally assumed to be a business website. ES2 14:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the ".biz" URLs are merely aliases for longer, less friendly (i.e. less easily remembered) URLs. Jpojman 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of this article is not self-promotion. Wikipedia has relatively few entries for serious, living photographers. This is an attempt to rectify that a bit. Jpojman 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is stated. Subject appears to be author. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Get a myspace account and put your biography there. Aplomado - U T C 04:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete, unless someone can verify that his book sold enough copies. -- ReyBrujo 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As the author of both books, I can verify that most copies were sold or otherwise distributed in India and the United States. Jpojman 12:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Userfy, since the creator of the article is the main topic of the article. -- ReyBrujo 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn-bio, self-promotion, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 10:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very few living photographers (and here I mean serious photographers) are "notable" in the sense that their work is available for public viewing and/or comparison to that of other photographers. Jpojman 12:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't list every non-notable photographer in Wiki. Non Encyclopedic. The above comment is nonsense. What defines a 'serious photographer'? Are we going to start having lists of 'serious photographers you have never heard of'? To me this seems like a Vanity page and not a very well written one at that. KsprayDad 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The purpose of this article is not to list every photographer, notable or otherwise, but to provide information and links to photographs of one serious, published photographer. A "serious photographer" might be defined as someone who uses photography as a form of artistic expression, as opposed to someone who photographs for the purpose of recording events such as birthdays, weddings, etc. Jpojman 20:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims that he published two books, but neither is listed at Amazon.com, which suggests insufficient notability. --Metropolitan90 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No doubt there are many "notable" books that are not listed on Amazon.com for a variety of legitimate reasons including that they are no longer available (i.e., out-of-print) or of insufficient interest to Amazon.com (i.e., they don't think selling them would be profitable enough to be worth the effort). In this case, both books were published in India (not a major market for Amazon). Also, the books are out-of-print although they are still available in a number of bookstores in India. Jpojman 16:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable; spam. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Dying[edit]

nn-band, "experienced a good deal of local and some moderate regional success" only Spearhead 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, according to this has quit (which would be why their website doesn't work, I assume). TimBentley (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real claim they have to notability is opening for bands that are barely notable themselves. Aplomado - U T C 04:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn band. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to flood. Mailer Diablo 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Damage[edit]

A very faint whiff of notability under WP:BAND but very faint. Enough for me to divert from speedy to here just in case, anyway. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flood and delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Titoxd. The band doesn't quite live up to WP:BAND and anyone looking up "Flood Damage" is a million times more likely to be after information on damage caused by actual floods. Reyk _YO! 04:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. TheProject 04:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Appears to be nn. --kingboyk 05:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Flood. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above as well. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flood. Beno1000 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I'm not doing it myself, however, as I don't know which game should go in which list. A lot of the games are already in one or the other, but not all. Merge tags added. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freely downloadable game software[edit]

This page is a fork of List of open source games and List of freeware games created by an anon IP from the 86.* IP block. The reason given was that "there's really no reason why people should have to look at 3 different articles because of legal technicalities. To the vast majority of people, a "free game" is something that can be downloaded and played for free." [4] This is contrary to Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:NOT (in that Wikipedia is not a links directory). It is also impossible to keep in sync with the original lists. So, it should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to both of those above articles if required, depending on which game belongs to which article. --FlyingPenguins 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Free games is a disambiguation page that links to those lists, so it may be appropriate to make it a redirect there. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this should either be split in two articles, or become two categories (which I believe they exist already). -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per FlyingPenguins. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant lists, and redirect to free games. -Sean Curtin 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball-Net[edit]

This was a "graphical MUD" that has not existed for 6 years. No independent/reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The only thing the game's website says is, "Paintball Net is coming..." and it has an Alexa rank of 3,365,697. I am recommending delete. --Hetar 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's research, especially the Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the author hasn't even bothered to assert notability. See: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles, item #7. Aplomado - UTC 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, that still only applies to people and groups of people... --Rory096 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think there is a speedy for software. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on No speedy. I didn't write it. I saw it on prod. I'm digging up some old reviews of the game. Alexa rank is biased toward current items. --Kunzite 06:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As a former member of another paintball MUD, I know that this game was really the forerunner of the rest of them, but it's still not really that notable. --Rory096 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and that incredibly low Alexa rank. -- Kicking222 14:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, the game wasn't actually on its website, it was downloaded. --Rory096 20:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense, intentional hoax/vandalism, etc. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spankles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; prodded, but contested. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost no unique Google hits. Possibly a hoax. Aplomado - U T C 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems a slang definition, as much it could be moved to Transwikied to Wikidict. -- ReyBrujo
Transwiki. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious nonsense/hoax. The original editor's username is "Spankles," and said editor added "Historical Context- Coming Soon!!" after seeing that the article was up for deletion. Hell, User:Spankles's edit summary when he added that section reads "in the process of drafting the historical context"- you know, like how the Constitution was "drafted," a.k.a. "made up." The fact that no web resource exists that backs up the editor's claim is further proof that it's just somebody messing around. -- Kicking222 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment I'm not claiming that the Constitution doesn't exist or is a farce, just... well, hopefully, you get the idea. Just kill this "article" on "spankles." That's the point. -- Kicking222 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Transwiki to Wiktionary. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist imperative[edit]

Original research. The article gives one external link as a source, and that link is broken. "Feminist imperative" gets 136 google hits, most of which do not seem to be about the definition of "feminist imperative" given in the article. Thus my suspicion that this was original research was confirmed. Delete Catamorphism 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually get only 69 hits. While it appears the term is used, it looks to me like simply another way of describing feminism rather than a philosophy unto itself. The article is blatant original research either way. Aplomado - U T C 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would go with the WP:OR definition here, unless a good resource is provided. -- ReyBrujo 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. TheProject 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Is it possible to keep it for a while and see if the author can provide sources? But I agree it does look like original research. Beltz
- That's what the five day AFD period is for. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Yes, I got a hundred or so google hits for it, but none of those on the first page were related to it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR. CalJW 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was After doing some googling and finding the special issue of Management Today, keep. RasputinAXP c 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Plumb[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BIO. Also, I want to mention that the creator of the page, Charlieosmond (talk · contribs), appears to be Charlie Osmond, co-funder of FreshMinds with her [5], thus I believe it can also be considered vanity. ReyBrujo 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article has non personal business related notability as described on the page. I edited the page to remove what looked like excessive advertisement of the aforementioned company. May have been vanity. But with the recognition and editing of other editors can easily be made NPOV. Ans e ll 11:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She is sort of notable as written in the article. —M e ts501^talk 12:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails independent sources test, fails autobiography test, fails notability test Crum375 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sounds notable enough. Needs some cleanup though. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ansell. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, passes WP:CORP and information is easily verified. RasputinAXP c 14:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreshMinds[edit]

~~The company seems to fail WP:CORP for both companies and services.~~Also, note that the original creator of the article, Charlieosmond (talk · contribs), appears to be the co-funder of FreshMinds [6], and is also the creator of Caroline Plumb's article, the other co-funder of the company, and about Business research, the main topic of his company. I qualify this as vanity, hidden advertisment, or both. ReyBrujo 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apparently the company is notable enough according to the Talk:FreshMinds. However, I still want to hear the opinion of the community about the apparent founder of the company creating the article himself. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this strikes me as a case where WP:VAIN isn't useful. The article is factual and NPOV and is about a notable enough company. Just because the founder of the company wrote the article isn't in itself enough to delete it. True vanity articles are essentially POV, this is not one of them. All "IMHO" of course, Gwernol 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep As above, VAIN is not useful for articles which can easily be critiqued and made NPOV by outside editors. As long as the original information was not COPYVIO, I say that it is notable enough given its revenue and number of employees to warrant an article on it. Ans e ll 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reviewing the "in the news" links used to rule out WP:CORP, I believe FreshMinds still fails the test. The only article specifically about FreshMinds was an early press release that got published within months of starting business. The other articles were not about FreshMinds at all but included brief employee quotes or references to the company in articles about something else entirely. Several of the links were also dead. Rklawton 19:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rklawton, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is little doubt FreshMinds meets WP:CORP. Articles about FreshMinds have been published by the Financial Times, The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. These are the UK's leading broadsheet newspapers and the articles are about the firm, it's not a simple side mention. In addition the relevant UK trade press have all commented about the company. Evidence of this can be found at the "press" section in the website if you care to read it. I can understand the claims of WP:VAIN, however the listing exists in order to ensure simple, factual information is present about this firm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.156.122 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. RasputinAXP c 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Charles Prevost[edit]

non–notable person . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think being a British admiral makes him notable enough. Weak keep per Dlyons493. Aplomado - U T C 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, apparently the author just wanted to remove a red link from Fairfax Moresby. NN. -- ReyBrujo 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep per Dlyons493. Please add those references to the article, and put as many expand tags to it as possible. -- ReyBrujo 00:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suppose what is 'notable' depends on the interests of the reader. Consider the hundreds (thousands?) of articles on appalling singers, obscure bands, and forgettable movies in this Wipipedia, also innumerable American football players and other sports people. I read one usertalk who had the ambition to see an article on every major or minor ship in the American Navy. Consult the category 'Royal Navy admirals', over 200 entries, most of whom have done no more than Admiral Prevost. Why pick on him? I hope it is not racial. Are only American themes to be preserved?Ruszewski 07:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Google seems to show a significant place in Canadian history for him [7], [8], [9] Dlyons493 Talk 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, barely asserts notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Terence —M e ts501^talk 12:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough IMO. --Ton e 13:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand, according to the article he was a British comissioner and admiral. Deleting this article would set a poor precident. Falphin 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruszewski. --MaNeMeBasat 08:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough - more detail as per Dlyons' links would be interesting. --HJMG 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlyons493, appears to be a notable figure in Canadian history. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlyons493. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as withdrawn. Kotepho 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Ke-ao-ua Ke-kua-oka-lani[edit]

The creating user doesn't exist anymore. No edits were made by the user aside from the act of creation. There are no references. If referenced, I would suggest merging it into the History of Hawaii or some such article, but in this case, I think deletion is the best idea. Xaxafrad 05:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) *Delete if nobody can provide references. The article is not being linked from any other relevant article in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak Keep, the article still needs to be linked from other Wikipedia articles. -- ReyBrujo 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This Keaoua was a nephew of Kamehameha I who opposed the Ai Noa, or free-eating, the abolition of the kapu system. He rose in rebellion against Kamehameha II, or Liholiho, and was killed in battle. The rebellion, and the battle, take several pages in Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawai'i. Suggest that we just move the article to his name, Keaoua Kekuaokalani, and I can add the info. I've pulled the book from my shelf and can add the info easily. Zora 08:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Zora's offer to add more information. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Take a look. Dang it, I should have been doing something else :) Zora 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Could use a bit of cleanup to make it read better —M e ts501^talk 12:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as to what is required? Zora 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reworked, thanks to Zora. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I also suggest to speedy close as nominator has retracted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--GTubio 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to Zora's input. Very nicely written, now where's the thumbs up smiley? ;) Xaxafrad 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AndyZ 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey News[edit]

Relisting as original nominator didn't do it correctly. This is an obvious delete. Aplomado - U T C 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't do it correctly because I can't create pages. Anyway, it's blatently obvious as to why you'd want to remove it. --69.145.122.209 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're here, would you mind listing this vanity page as well? Sorry, I hate that anon Ip's can't do this. --69.145.122.209 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just get an account? Aplomado - U T C 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, actually. I know I will at some point, I've just never gotten around to it. --69.145.122.209 05:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is some reference as to where this script belongs to. Even if it belongs to something, it may be a copyvio. -- ReyBrujo 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm --Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure rubbish. DarthVad e r 09:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic content, possibly a copyright violantion, but more likely vanity. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Zaxem 10:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Voretus the Benevolent 11:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki Wikipedia isn't for scripts. I am not sure of the Wikisource criteria, but it may be applicable there. Ans e ll 11:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we should make a speedy policy for random transcripts; they come up every so often. —M e ts501^talk 12:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ਵਲਕਿਕ ਲੁਤ[edit]

Left untranslated after two weeks. Discussion from WP:PNT follows:

The language of this article is unknown. --Nationalparks 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Punjabi. Kirbytime 09:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what it's about? Grand master ka 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't speak Punjabi. In any case, when I google it, the only results that come up are the Wikipedia artcle. So, it seems like it isn't notable. Delete. Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah. Delete. Grand master ka 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't the Punjabi Wikipedia. Aplomado - U T C 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless someone can verify the accuracy of this article. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I would suggest trans-wikification but there doesn't seem to be a Punjabi Wikipedia here [10]. Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 05:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. Maybe someone there can tell us what this is? Grand master ka 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wonder why I couldn't find it. In that case, I would change to a Delete and Move to Punjabi Wikipedia.--Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the user's contributions page, maybe it's a translation of the user's data mining article?
Delete unless the article gets translated, and soon. I'm assuming Punjabi Wikipedia doesn't have a working Transwiki system yet. TheProject 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article here, and we can leave it to them to worry about it. If it gets notable enough, they can bring it back. And no, I don't feel bad about dumping the problem onto them ;) --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't do that to a small project unless you know the content is good. It might just be garbage and wasting their time too. I've asked a Panjabi speaker to check it out and see if it is worth translating, hopefully he can get to it before this vote is over. Or people could try contacting a couple others. - Taxman ^Talk 03:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly shouldn't be on the English wikipedia. DarthVad e r 09:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. It's been moved to the correct wiki, and can be dealt with by them. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. An article that's very obviously in the wrong place. Zaxem 10:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suspect it is a translation of a copyvio article DATA MINING 1 and therefore itself a copyvio. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's been untranslated for so long it probably won't for a while. If it's notable enough, somebody will eventually create it in English, anyway. -- Voretus the Benevolent 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move it to another Wikipedia. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Terence —M e ts501^talk 12:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no wikilinks in this article and no sources cited, so we shouldn't assume the Punjabi Wikipedia would be interested in this. If Americans started writing low-quality English-language articles in the Punjabi Wikipedia, I wouldn't want the Punjabi editors to transwiki them to the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Punjabi Wikipedia (is there one?). Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely 100% Delete! This is something no anglophone can understand what it means. Georgia guy 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't be in the English version of Wikipedia without translation. Ted 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can read and write Punjabi and this text does not make any sense. It is just garbage.--Tejinder Soodan 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tejinder Soodan. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also a Punjabi reader but cannot make sense of this article. Sorry for replying a little late, but it should be deleted. Gsingh 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm an administrator on the Punjabi Wikipedia and I concur with the two comments above - it makes absolutely no sense. And on a side note, if either of you guys wish to contribute to the Punjabi Wikipedia, please, please do! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfaroshi Ke Tamanna[edit]

Left untranslated at WP:PNT for three weeks. Here is the discussion:

The language of this article is not known to me. --71.28.250.126 19:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some song lyrics in some language of India? Kusma (討論) 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be deleted. Grand master ka 05:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is being linked from List of patriotic songs. Someone should confirm if this song is really a patriotic song for India. Found this, which may appear to point so. -- ReyBrujo 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would make for an article if it actually contained encyclopedic information about the song. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling for the first line results in this, which implies that it's the lyrics of a song from a Bollywood movie. If this is the case, it's probably a copyright violation, unless the song is in the public domain. Either way, the content doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and should perhaps belong on one of the Indian Wikisources. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not English. If a description of what it was and what it means and why it's important was included, fine, but it's not -- the tag at the end is nonsensical. Fnarf999 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song lyrics with virtually no context don't constitute encyclopedia articles in any language. --Metropolitan90 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jude. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if nobody's translated by now it can't be all that important. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fails WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. RasputinAXP c 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSpot[edit]

Self-promo page to a for-profit company that was started in only 2005. No pages link to this. Clubmarx | Talk 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, site with Alexa rank 49,179, failing WP:WEB. Site claims to have been featured in some sites, but I am not sure if any of those are notable enough. Without this, fails WP:CORP. If anyone can correct my assumption that none of the sites where the product has been featured are notable, I am willing to change my vote. -- ReyBrujo 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 10:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. This is a factual article about a valid company offering a valid service in an emerging area of technology. The Wikipedia offers a disservice by denying a factual entry such as this one. -- frankatca 12:00 EDT, 6 May 2006

Wikipedia is not many things: not a search engine, not a index of "new-and-exciting" technologies, and not an advertising forum. Delete as failing WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zaxem. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarcoTolo. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason Wikipedia can be great, is its potential for being timely with new, valid information, a criteria that might well be added to WP:CORP to improve it. Less than three months after coming out of stealth mode, GOOGLE now (May 8th) shows 756 links to "www.eyespot.com" and a GOOGLE search on [eyespot 'video editing'] produces several pages of references. Since this entry is factual and NOT promotional, and provides valid information, I suggest this one needs some time for the for the greater evidence to build that is recommended by WG:CORP. frankatca 19:22 EDT, 8 May 2006
Comment There are only 112 sites linking to www.eyespot.com, counting blogs and forums, according to Google. Although it may grow fast, as I always say, first notability, then article. It needs more time for sure. But first gather the evidence and then build the article. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, belongs at WP:MFD.. --Hetar 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammerfist0[edit]

User is perminintly banned -- Heltec 05:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, this should be on WP:MFD. --Rory096 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as per User:Rory096. This belongs on WP:MFD. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not an article, therefore it was listed incorrectly. Ans e ll 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, wrongly listed, user space, should be at MFD. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im new to wikipidia... What is WP:MFD --Heltec 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kusma (討論) 16:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erie problem[edit]

There is already an article on the Erie doctrine, thus the page is an unnecessary duplicate. --Eastlaw 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per nom. Aplomado - U T C 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Speedy Redirect if there is anything in this article that is not already in Erie doctrine. -- ReyBrujo 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content not in Erie doctrine (there doesn't seem to be much), delete, speedy redirect, and Erie doctrine could use a few more wikilinks. TheProject 06:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and speedy redirect Identical subject matter for both articles, therefore, unnecessary to duplicate. Ans e ll 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Jim Baen. - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Baen's UNIVERSE[edit]

Google search yields a good number of hits, but it appears that vast majority are "you can buy this magazine here" links. Delete (but if kept, should be renamed to "Jim Baen's Universe," as it does not appear to be capitalized "UNIVERSE" in these links). --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. According to the home page, it will premier on June 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I would not have nominated the article myself, since it had been recently created and it had a {{underconstruction}} tag. -- ReyBrujo 05:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ReyBrujo. Non-notable anyway. Aplomado - U T C 05:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jim Baen, along with Eric Flint, the apparent creators of this magazine, are both notable entities. Failing keep, it should be merged into either Jim Baen, Eric Flint, or one of the Baen Books/Baen Free Library articles. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jim Baen. Given Baen's reputation and influence in his field, this will almost certainly become a notable magazine, but it isn't one yet, since it hasn't even been published. But there's no reason not to keep the information in a section about Baen's current projects or something. At a future stage, a new article can be hived off when and if appropriate. Metamagician3000 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jim Baen. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forsaken Archive[edit]

Fails to establish notability Dismas|^(talk) 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page displays a fine example of history of this rather popular site, i best think it stay. --JLJeremiah 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"At the beginning days of Forsaken archive, the first conversation on it was started with a conflict that Aljade (adrian laurenzi) had stolen Stick slaughters flash portal source." I hate articles like this. Delete as non-notable. Aplomado - UTC 06:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "When anitude closed down, forsaken archive was in close union, thier total members skyrocketed from about 200 to 1000 in the forums. The forums were constantly busy with several pages of topics filled a day. The community began to expand and is still expanding" ... Too funny. Aplomado - U T C 06:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 10:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy sweet lord, there's no notability whatsoever here. Not to mention that the article reads like such an advertisement that even tagging it as such probably wouldn't make a difference. In addition, the site has no Alexa rank. -- Kicking222 14:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alexa took like 10 seconds to load the information. Must have been one of the first times it had to do a full scan in all hard disks to find information about this site. -- ReyBrujo 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dome Dogs[edit]

While not utter nonsense, there is no assertion made as to the notability of Dome Dogs, nor any sources listed for the global warming claim. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent nonsense. Aplomado - U T C 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! I used to be a concession worker at the Metrodome! The global warming thing is obviously complete B.S., and Dome Dogs are far from notable enough for their own article (it's a slightly larger hot dog with chips.) Obvious delete. Grand master ka 06:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hot dog cruft? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article should be deleted. Everything in it is factual. None of it is lies. It is simply a parody on the global warming issue. It will be enhanced with charts and photographs in the near future..it is just a neat parody ofthe global warming issue for people to enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbitballer (talk • contribs)

Delete as nn, non-encyclopedic, fails WP:CORP, utter nonsense, all of the above..... -- MarcoTolo 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, global warming section is unsourced nonsense, and the rest is non-notable. BryanG 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarcoTolo. -- ReyBrujo 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: belongs in Uncyclopedia -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Box Car Racer (album). I'm merging with the album rather than the band article -- No Guru 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Feel So[edit]

There is no reason to have this article up and the text isn't relevant and it hasn't been cleaned up at all showing lack of interest on the article. Myxomatosis 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reason to create articles for individual songs unless they are noteworthy in some way other than being a song by a notable band. Aplomado - U T C 06:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I Feel So. (Actually, because it's non-notable.) TheProject 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, fine, merge per below. But still, it was fun to write that. :-) TheProject 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm --Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 06:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Box Car Racer. This song is also not non-notable (if you want ghits, there are lots of them). Song available from online music stores as well. Above all the band is quite notable. --so U m y a S ch 06:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Box Car Racer, as per above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Box Car Racer. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per above. -- Kicking222 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above --Jcw69 14:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the people above me. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Maybe redirect as well. -- ReyBrujo 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Box Car Racer (album). I'm merging contnet into the album article rather than the band one -- No Guru 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is[edit]

There is no relevant reason to have the article and no one has posted any information on the single. Myxomatosis 06:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Feel So. Aplomado - U T C 06:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There Is plenty of reason to delete. TheProject 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to merge per above. Still, "there is plenty of reason to merge" doesn't quite have the same ring to it... TheProject 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. Someone already beat me to using the title of the article as a witty delete reason. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (especially per TheProject, who has great Box Car Racer deletion material). -- Kicking222 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Box Car Racer --Jcw69 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Di-dehydroepiandrosterone[edit]

Article on a seemingly non existant chemical, containing an (admittedly effective) OR debunk of a bogus product. Count the policy failures... WP:V, WP:NOR etc. Delete. Rockpocket (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR debunk of a bogus product. a pity that wikipedia is not a OR-BSS. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed the OR (ie: the comment about the fact that the supposed archiving could not have happened because the site didn't exist on the date the article was supposedly archived). All that remains are objective links to Google, which is the authority showing that the two sites have no pages other than the spurious articles. Note that many other dubious medical treatments and fraudulent products are in Wikipedia, such as Ear candling, Bates Method, Laetrile, Calorad, Essiac, etc. The presence of these articles is of great value to people who might have wasted time and money if they had not had access to this information on Wikipedia. I urge you not to remove this valuable source of information about this fraud. --Jahat 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting debunking of a fake chemical, but it is the actual content that is original research. Statements like Medline searches find no mention of this chemical, However, ihealthjournal.com is a fake site which only contains a homepage and links to blank pages, and finally, A Google search of pages belonging to wondersinscience.com similarly finds that the only content is the archived article on the supposed study, and their homepage, really drive that home. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some content here which is OR and should be removed, let's remove it, leaving an entry which at least allows people to see that this is a fake product. --Jahat 10:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem as i see it, is that even though i do not doubt it, there is no verifiable source that says it is fake. So if we take the OR out we have just the claims of the Pherlure people. Yet there is no verifiable source that says it is real, so we take that out and we have nothing! The only policy justification for it staying is if it is a notable hoax that deserves an article, but i can find no verifiable source mentioning it as a hoax either. Rockpocket (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every other place on the web claims this is a real product. This is the only place where the truth can be found. --Psage 10:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although arguing to keep, Psage's reasoning is, paradoxically, a textbook justification for deletion per WP:V. Rockpocket (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Williamb 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This substance (or something with claims similar effects, especially spelling it would have an effect towards opposite sex), spooks through a major psychology magazine for long. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-verifible, waste of space, wiki policy failures sweetb 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all speculation, not something for wikipedia ujenk 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sweetb. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this voting feels as being attacked by sockpuppets. Several voters have no or very short history:
Jahat (talk · contribs) registered May 5th, dozen of edits almost all on the AfDed page (keep),

Psage (talk · contribs), registered on May 29, 3 edits until the vote here (keep),

Sweetb (talk · contribs), first edit (delete),

62.193.236.96 (talk · contribs) masking as nonexistent ujenk (talk · contribs), first edit (delete).

I'd recommend to restart the AfD and require every voter to provide information on his expertise. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds good to me. I'm clearly not a sockpuppet, however, since I'm the one posting the information, and the information is all easily verifiable. This is a deliberate persistent fraud which Wikipedia users need to know about.
Once again, I want to make the important point that this is not OR in the sense that it's my research which no one can verify from sources. The sources are all linked to and they are the websites themselves and Google. The comment that "Medline searches find no mention of this chemical" is verified through linking to Medline, again Medline is the authority, not me. So there is no real OR in this entry. All the sources are there. --Jahat 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, WP:NOR says: "In order to avoid doing original research... it is essential that any primary source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication" Jahat's material is clearly an evaluation of information, but he cannot source a reputable third-party publication, hence it is OR. As for restarting the Afd, surely the closing Admin can simply evaluation the value of each editor's justification before making a decision. A vote is pretty meaningless without a reason. Rockpocket (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it interesting that the previous user is so persistent on posting non-verifiable information and assumptions on only this subject. To quote the user's edit from the second paragraph, "study appears to be fake", fourth paragraph "The fake study reference is found at another fake site". It appears the user was not sure in the second paragraph, but had convinced himself by the fourth paragraph. Wikipedia is for verifiable information, not opinions/assumptions possibly based on personal or business intentions--Sweetb 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's perfectly obvious if one clicks on the links that what I state is the case. This is a fraud with fake sites set up to promote a study that never happened. The people behind this are very aggressively defrauding people with a type of fraud that resembles phishing in some ways in that fake sites are being created. When people come to Wikipedia looking to see what di-dehydroepiandrosterone is, they should be able to find the information that it is a fake. There is nothing unverifiable in what was posted, and the authorities again are Medline and Google. --Jahat 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears you are the only one that wishes to keep this non-sense on here (possibly for personal or business reasons). Wikipedia is not a place for articles about substances that can not be confirmed to exist and can not be rebuted not to exist. That is not only my reasoning, but also Wiki policy WP:V, WP:NOR.--Sweetb 4:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article only verifies lack of evidence, claims cannot be verified as true or false. The rebuttals are not verifiable. --tiale 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article verifies that the sites are fake. But if the alternatives are no entry for this fake product, or an entry which links to the fake articles with no comment, giving people the impression that it's real, then I'd rather see the article deleted. Wikipedia should be giving people helpful information, not aiding frauders. --Jahat 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Showing lack of search results by google does not verify a site is fake. If you know how to properly search a site for it's pages, you will see that both referenced sites you claim are fake do have pages that exist, but are NOT shown in Google search results. This should serve as a fine example that lack of search results in Google, does not indiciate anything other than lack of search results in Google. It also shows that the edits are mistaken and clearly not from a WP:NPOV. I would agree that it should be deleted if there is no clear verification if the substance exists or clear verification that the substance does not exist.

Page on Ihealthjournal.com that is NOT Google listed:

http://www.ihealthjournal.com/findinformation/hormonecenter/alcohol3521-003.html

Page on wondersinscience.com that is NOT Google listed:

http://www.wondersinscience.com/archives/2006/0111/grogginess.html

--Sweetb 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my comments were deleted, but it is necessary to mention that the extra pages were added to these sites SINCE the discussion on this page began on Wikipedia, and are possibly a response to the discussion, attempting to undermine the basis for stating that the sites in question are fake. --69.3.233.183 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the pages that already existed. If you understand the way Googlebot works, you'll understand that there are millions of pages on the internet not indexed by Googlebot. This does not mean that "they do not exist" or "are fake", it simply means they are not spidered by Googlebot. --Sweetb 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at these sites several weeks ago, and they had no other pages in evidence other than the homepage and the articles on this imaginary chemical. Other pages gave a message claiming that a login was necessary. Why should the pages containing the fake study reference have no login but the other pages all require a login? Probably because there were no other pages until this whole sham was exposed. --69.3.233.183 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with OTRS ticket number 2006051110012197. Factual errors and non-verifiability, plus it contains weasel words. Wikipedia is not the place for soapboxes:

"research supporting its effects appears to be fraudulent."
"This study appears to be fake"
"sole purpose of promulgating this false evidence."
"ihealthjournal.com is a fake site"
"The fake study reference is found at another fake site"

— Bastique▼^parler_voir 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to List of Weebl and Bob cartoons and redirect or delete. Arguments to delete overweigh. --Ezeu 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bull (Weebl and Bob episode)[edit]

The handful of Weebl and Bob episode articles that exist are short, lean towards fancruft, and lack notability. (An article for the series is fine. Even a list of episodes is tolerable. But individual articles?) My mass prodding was undone by serial de-prodder Kappa, so I now take it to the people. Deltabeignet 07:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for reasons highlighted above:

Hairy (Weebl and Bob episode)
Pie (Weebl and Bob episode)
Jelly (Weebl and Bob episode)
Jazz (Weebl and Bob episode)
Donkey (Weebl and Bob episode)
Piepod (Weebl and Bob episode)
Paper (Weebl and Bob episode)
History 8

Merge and Redir. As of now all episodic articles are short. So merger them all and include a list. Can be forked if any episodic entry gets long. --so U m y a S ch 07:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deltabeignet, if a list of episodes is tolerable, why are you wasting our time with prods and AFDs? Kappa 07:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ordinarily use redirects, but most of the articles are orphans (previously linked to only by the list) with unsearchable names. Deltabeignet 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete BigE1977 07:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm pie!, erm sorry, Merge as per Soumyasch. Ac@osr 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the lovely merge notice on Bull (Weebl and Bob episode). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, depending on whether the redirects would be useful. (I suspect not; who's going to type all that into the search box?) — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As a second choice, redirect to List of Weebl and Bob cartoons. --Metropolitan90 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. The redirects may be tagged with the {{R with possibilities}} for future expansions. -- ReyBrujo 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little content there is into List of Weebl and Bob cartoons, and redirect. —Stormie 00:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Them All. No need for the redirects, and frankly, I don't see there being enough content to merit an article for each episode. Bo-Lingua 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article, no redirects Agree with Bo Lingua above me. gidonb 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cellchainz[edit]

This is an advertisement for a product and company, both which are not notable and of no contribution to this encyclopedia. Beltz 08:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanispamicruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Zaxem 10:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spamvert. -- MarcoTolo 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy spam spam. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Google turns around 18000 hits, but when googled with "-ebay" it returns 551. -- ReyBrujo 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Spam advertisement. -- Caim 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving associations[edit]

This article consists of nothing but a directory of links, possibly for the purposes of advertising. I am also nominating the following pages liked to by the original article for the same reason:

I have decided not to nominate IATA, also linked from the above article, since it actually contains content of merit. Tjohns ✎ 08:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Check if they are locally/nationwide, and of international interest. I believe you should not nominate them for deletion, rather merge links/info into one entry. Probably people search for this information. Associations are not neccessarily selling anything to customers. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The individual articles are substubs. If any accumulate content in the future they can always break out of the parent article at that stage. Dlyons493 Talk 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above but redirect OMNI to Omni; there are other entities that use all-caps OMNI. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but IATA. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article without prejudice as advertising or a link farm. If there is any content in the related individual articles, merge into an article with a different name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was:Delete Prodego ^talk 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh teh noes[edit]

I dont believe it to be usefull, do we ealy need a article about a silly phrase such as that? Matthew Fenton (t) 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not. Delete or possibly redirect to the snake pit that is List of Internet slang. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect (as it isn't a likely search term) and do not transwiki this ~~crap~~ non notable neologism to Wikt, we don't want it. --Rory096 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With 11,700 relevant Google hits, there is more than a slight chance someone might search for it here, but that does not necessarily make it encyclopedic, hence my delete vote. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth having. It is a very poorly written article! Alan Liefting 09:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once you take out the unverifiable claims to authorship you are left with nothing but a dictionary definition of a slang term. Gwernol 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Zaxem 10:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, non-notable neologism. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having read the article, I still don't understand what the term means or its origin. Says it all. Ac@osr 11:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete One of the least-encyclopedic things I've seen on AFD in awhile. I'd speedy it, but it doesn't quite fit any criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and very dubious; given that both "oh noes" and "teh" have been around for as long as the internet, it seems rather unlikely that nobody thought of combining them until 2004. — Haeleth Talk 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 without prejudice to proposals to move to "Japanisation" or "Japanization". Metamagician3000 11:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponisation[edit]

highly biased - neologism rarely used in french (¹internet search shows usage within french), should not be used for political reason. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs to a dictionary of neologisms, and is not expandable above a list of usage of the word Nipponisation. It is possible to understand it on its own. *-ISATION words are not very much used in spoken language, neither in scientific language (except for scientific purpose: poly-mer-isation. this it where it comes from). I believe nowadays not much nipponization takes place, and it is not good way of using language. My POV. I also believe americanization shifts explanation to nationality, and should not be used. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

Well, it appears to be a notable phenomenon, though I'm not sure if it's delving into the realms of original research, so Weak keep there. However, I fail to understand what its use in French has to do with it being encyclopedic, or what political reason would entail it being unused. Wikipedia is not censored for political correctness, after all. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¹(french)

Keep but possibly Rename. The word might be a neologism (I sure haven't heard it), but the concept it describes is notable and article-worthy. What it needs is better-defined examples so it's easier to understand. Perhaps the recent Batman manga novels could be described as an example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced neologism with very few Ghits - many of which are for different phenomena. One of the uses in French for example is the attempt to realise a cultural identity distinct from China. Hard to see it being (or becoming) other than original research. Dlyons493 Talk 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Japanisation, that term returns many more hits at Google than nipponisation, and should have basically the same meaning. -- ReyBrujo 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Japanization. It has more google hits. It's used a lot as a business term, especially as companies have adopted Toyota's methods of doing business. A more discriminating scholar.google.com gives about 1,220 hits for z and 500 for s. --Kunzite 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Japanization per Kunzite. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, don't really see anything justifying deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADM Studios[edit]

Clearly written as an advertisement (and flagged as such). However, there is a minor claim to notability (produced two games). I am unable to determine the notability of this company, so I will defer to others on this issue and abstain from the AfD for now. The forum on the company website does not look particularly active. Adm studios is a redirect page, and on the same day an anon added an entry at the disambig page ADM; there are otherwise no incoming links. BillC 08:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creation of non-notable games does not create game developer notability. (Aside: That's the best sentence I've written in a while.) -- Kicking222 14:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Alexa ranking, 113 members in the forum. No revenue, no real company information besides advertisment, no notable product, 16 unique hits at Google when removing "forum" from the search for "Nanobyte Online", 8 for "MIR Unleashed" without forums. Fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 'There are no limits to your imagination' -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 04:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The note about Google Scholar was particularly noteworthy; it's true that WP:NOT a dictionary, but there's a strong feeling here, and well-argued, that this article could be more than just a dictionary definition. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocacolonization[edit]

term not widely in use - term moved to Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms. difficult to spell. "Today, McDonaldization, Disneyfication, and Swooshification are the phrases that capture the fears of a growing monoculture." - political biased information, not wikipedia data. By the way: "Swooshification" - who says that (sounds creepy)? more "the age of nike". I do not see a need to list such words here. They really need a hudge fanbase (like ghey).

wiktionary:Cocacolonization
wiktionary:Transwiki:Cocacolonization
wiktionary:Microsoftify 114 hits. see discussion.

Comment This debate is not about those terms, dont confuse people with things you just made up, as opposed to terms that are verifiable The comment was not originally in this position or form, hence the comment. Ans e ll 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifyable - 94 hits are not very. 470 are a bit more. 416,000 hits are verifyable evidence of something. comment moved here Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe merge. Seems to have been around since the '50s so not really a neologism. Difficult to spell isn't a reason to delete. It's not widely used but is quite interesting - Merge to Colonization is a possibility? Dlyons493 Talk 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling only produces 498 results, when you dump Wikipedia, but they all appear to be relevant. This, along with this abstract on a paper. Google Scholar also has 33 relevant results. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is not a new suggestion. It has had time to mature, as shown by the references provided by Jude. Suggestions about a google notability index will never work though, that part is not why I refer to Jude. This is not a politically based piece of work, the phenomena is understood outside of national boundaries. It is interesting that this AfD seems to be related to Ghey by the nominator in both comments and nomination. Make of that what you may. Ans e ll 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known term used for many years. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Scholar. Academic legitimacy 4 life! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I remember profs using this word in college but the article is bascially a dictdef Sumergocognito 19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should not set a standard based on a certain number of Google hits being enough to keep a word in Wikipedia. Over time Google is likely to index more and more content which would make it easier to meet that standard. Often, articles about words with large numbers of Google hits are just dicdefs anyway which would be more appropriate for Wiktionary. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki to wiktionary, unless it's expanded. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 00:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki per EivindFOyangen. -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate academic term. I've heard several university professors use it. - ulayiti (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Can you list them into the article? Otherwise see Weasel words - "several university professors". Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I could, but it wouldn't make any sense since I've only heard them use it in lectures. If you want to see academic sources using the term, have a look at Google Scholar. - ulayiti (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. --so U m y a S ch 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep been around for years and not really a neologism, should be expanded though.Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jude's adduction of Google Scholar results. Joe 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." This entry is not simply a definition of the word, it has more implications that can be explored in an article. Ans e ll 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve and expand Guinnog 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Sdedeo (tips) 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it is a separate concept but hardly a huge loss if it goes Fnarf999 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary already has the entry, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See also Stifle. gidonb 15:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. Mailer Diablo 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie mutant ninjas II[edit]

Delete non-notable amateur film made by some high-school friends. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because its the sequel:

Zombie Mutant Ninjas III

Gwernol 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 10:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, maybe WP:NFT too. -- ReyBrujo 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete filmcruft (yay, another new neologism). Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MET-ART[edit]

Advertisement Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm changing my vote to keep now that it's been re-written... If I'm allowed to change my vote that is... Dismas|^(talk) 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. JBEvans 11:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --so U m y a S ch 11:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, because the article is an ad, but I think this site might be notable; I'd heard of it independently, and their website claims they've won awards for their content. Mango juice^talk 11:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if rewritten. The site is notable, without question, however the article reads like an ad. OTOH, given its length, it can be recreated :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ all ADVERTISEMENTS! See the author's page, doesn;t even try to hide it Roodog2k 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment just for the heck of it, added spam tag to page Roodog2k 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment changing vote to neutral as the site IS notable, but I'm not sure what can be said about the site more than a sentence. Then again, being a stub is no reason to delete an article. Roodog2k 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep that someone rewrites it. Site is probably notable. Kotepho 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep alexa rank is 495 [11]. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete, recreate with better content and without the advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep if rewritten. Otherwise, delete it and let someone recreate it without the ads. Somewhat notable, and gets a very high Alexa rank even for a porn site. -Sean Curtin 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would support a rewrite, though. —Ruud 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate per WP:WEB. This really is one of the most notable adult sites, and has won awards that are notable within that niche. Alexa ranking Sunday night is 497. Barno 02:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just rewrote it a bit, too - Met-art is an extremely notable pornographic website. Just make the article better and non-spam. Beltz 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy - Liberatore(T) 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Cowz[edit]

NN bio or NN web site, take your pick. Dismas|^(talk) 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note User has also added MainCowz (no space). Adding this to the delete vote. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 10:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll go for NN website. Pseudomonas 10:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy It should be userfied to the editors personal space with a note as to why it isn't suitable as a wikipedia article. Ans e ll 11:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per what Ansell said. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. -- ReyBrujo 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Galinda[edit]

Likely hoax. Google search shows no relevant entries. Punkmorten 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete so it seems an hoax like his hoax brother --Francisco Valverde 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax and play on Rudy Galindo SCHZMO ✍ 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as you don't get any Ghits on it. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Rudy Galindo. -- ReyBrujo 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rykoff Sexton[edit]

Likely hoax. Google search shows no relevant entries. Punkmorten 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were any verifying information available on any of my attempted searches I may have been sympathetic to it. Certain phrases in the article suggest a hoax, such as "Judging by the gurth of his calf muscles, they predicted a successful playing career". Its hard to search for given that a company is named using the persons first and last names. (should give warning bells too I guess...) Ans e ll 11:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reason as above --Francisco Valverde 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax and play on food service company Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. SCHZMO ✍ 12:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as you don't get any Ghits on it. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASSETOnline/[edit]

Deprodded and moved here; original prod reason was "Not notable." I'll remain neutral myself, I just think that notability doesn't apply to every possible topic, and some people might disagree with deleting this page. Mango juice^talk 11:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks an awful lot like an ad to me. I'd vote Delete, myself. 207.145.133.34 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (Anon)[reply]
Weak Delete, the article is an advertisment and should be rewritten, but I also hope someone from India may explain if this is a notable test there. -- ReyBrujo 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a hint of notability. Ewlyahoocom 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableBill 18:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 expand. The subject of this article obviously has some notoriety as a Liberal candidate for the House of Representatives, and there's scads of online stuff about him, including transcripts of ABC radio broadcasts on Radio National and notices about his practice on the NSW Law Society website. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Yusuf[edit]

nn lawyer/politician/blogger, prod removed without comment by new user Tango 11:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough to have been endorsed by a major political party in a federal (national) election. Someone may require information in an encyclopedia as to his history simply because of this. Ans e ll 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 150 Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives. I'm not sure how many major parties they have, but there must be at least 2, so that means at least 300 people are endorsed by a major party at each election - are they all notable just because of that? Had he won, then maybe, but the article just says he stood, so I'm assuming he lost (it would have said so if he'd won). --Tango 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I only vote delete if I feel something needs do be deleted. I dont believe that someone who could be searched should necessarily be deleted. The current article does not exactly spell out his notability, however, the (accursed) google search does reveal his influence in australian politics is actually more than it seems at first glance. [12] Ans e ll 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read the first 2 pages, and even then just the extracts, but none of those pages seem to be about his political career. Looks like more of a legal writer to me. Possibly a notable one, but the article needs serious work if it's worth keeping at all. --Tango 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ans e ll 11:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio; being an unsuccessful election candidate does not make you notable, and I see no other claims for encyclopedic nature. — Haeleth Talk 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...I think. I'm sure I've heard of the guy (and Sydney is over 1000 km from here), but I can't recall why. He seems to be an outspoken representative of the "typical Australian Muslim". The article definitely needs more work though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a failed candidate and we're all important! No seriously this guy sounds very interesting - a conservitive candidate who is a muslim in a city that has had significant problems with relationships between muslim communities and the community in general recently. He may well figure in future debate, and it would be useful to be able to access infomation about his background quickly. Just the thing an online reference is most useful for - up to date infomation on seemingly unimportant topics that may quicky become important as things change. Michael Johnson.

Interesting does not mean notable. A large number of his google hits seem to be his own writing. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we should have an article on him once he becomes important, not in anticipation of it. --Tango 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a definition of important. Some people are putting a lot of effort into writing articles about railway stations in Melbourne, not railway stations in general, or even the busiest, or most architectually interesting, but every single railway station. The balance of importance seems to lean pretty heavily towards unimportant here, and to be honest I don't mind that at all. A paper encyclopedia is limited by the cost of production and pure size, constraints that sure do still apply here but to knowhere the same degree. A good thing. Someone thinks he is important enough to write an entry, he is in public life in this country, so I still say keep him, untill such time as the server is full, and we have to start deleting stuff. --Michael Johnson 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a risk of setting a precedent if we keep unimportant living people that doesn't exist so much for railway stations. This person is no more notable than 100s of other minor public figures - do we want articles on all of them? His claim to fame seems to be that he's a political activist that writes the odd article. Is that really enough? --Tango 13:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a token Muslim candidate put up in a dead-safe Labor (non-conservative) who never had any chance of winning. The vehicle for a stunt to get Muslims to vote Liberal (conservative). Muslims, despite maybe not liking the foreign policy of conservative governments are generally regarded as socially conservative. I didn't think that they would go and vote green?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for that, it could actually make an interesting article... --Tango 11:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2005/1446239.htm#
http://aec.gov.au/_content/When/elections/2001/results/NSWREID.htm

I'm not sure if a 1.1% swing to his party really counts as a swing though. The following election had a larger swing to Liberal, who still lost. [13]--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major political party candidate in a national election. And quite an unusual candidate ("token" perhaps, but still notable). Zaxem 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a token candidate is also a candidate. gidonb 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but are all political candiates notable? As I said above, there are at least 300 candidates in each election. --Tango 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the candidates of the large parties are, even if they don't have a good chance of getting elected. The "tokeness" of a Muslim conservative can actually contribute to one's notability. Of course I respect if you have different opinions, many of the items here are really border cases. Regards, gidonb 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that token candidates are probably more notable than other candidates, but standing in an election and losing is a single act that doesn't really effect anything. Were it a major position you were standing for (President or something) then the election campaign is notable in itself, but a single seat in a parliament is rarely newsworthy during a campaign, it's the leaders of the party that do all the big talks and things. This is rather a general issue, though, so prehaps we should have a proper discussion on the requirements for a politian to be notable (unless one has already taken place, of course - I'll go look). --Tango 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A root approach vs. a branch approach is always a good idea! Regards, gidonb 19:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forumco[edit]

Reads as an add Francisco Valverde 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 13:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PodgeL 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (Original Author)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, and also for being nothing but an advertisement. -- Kicking222 14:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add.--Ton e 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alexa rank of 29,184 for www.forumco.com, forum with 639 users. Fails WP:WEB, and tries to stay in Wikipedia by linking to Snitz. -- ReyBrujo 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was} delete; if someone is interested in creating List of political sex scandals of the United States by POV-removing the article (adding all Democrat scandals) and fact-checking all entries in this list, I'll be more than happy to undelete the content and made it available to him/her in his/her userspace. - Liberatore(T) 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republican sex scandals[edit]

Delete - Do Not Merge or Rename non encyclopedic list & as per Deville below Strothra 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an interesting and useful list. Markb 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to List of political sex scandals of the United States, provides details to substantiate events where Political scandals of the United States, its parent article, cannot due to space reasons. Ans e ll 12:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is interesting and useful information that cannot be integrated into its parent article due for space's sake. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See also WP:AWW. Also, By definition, its POV. I would feel better abott keeping the article if it didn't focus on just ONE political party or set of political values. Roodog2k 14:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment' further, whats the definition of a scandal? An 'indecent' act someone was accused of that wasn't illegal? An 'indecent' act someone was accused of that WAS illegal and never charged with? Found not guilty? Guilty? Roodog2k 14:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be more comfortable with a move and addition of other related political sex scandals in the US? Ans e ll 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer to that is yes. But I don't think that its that simple. What distrubs me about the article is that its a copy/paste from another wiki, which as a political bias and agenda. The bias is anti-republican WP:POV. The agenda is to demonstrate that republicans do not have the moral high ground WP:AWW. Roodog2k 12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be okay if it were non-partisan, and if it actually was linked from Political scandals of the United States, which already has a list of sex scandals with no mention of this page. --Allen 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it via a {{see}} tag, would you change your vote now that it is referenced? Ans e ll 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{see}} tag, because having a link only to Republican sex scandals makes Political scandals of the United States POV. However, if this article were to be kept in a form that covers both parties, it would be quite logical to restore the tag. NatusRoma | Talk 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful and encyclopaedic list. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV due to concentration on one party. And the alleged "parent article" that could put it into context doesn't even link to this one. Fut.Perf. ? 17:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the article up, its parent is a list article itself, and has the correct context for this article to follow from it. The fact that this focuses on one party does not automatically violate NPOV. NPOV would be violated if the scandals were not portrayed from a neutral point of view. There is nothing stopping someone creating a similar article for democratic party scandals, it would have its own place on wikipedia. Ans e ll 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fut.Perf. ?. --RWR8189 18:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR, and because Ansell voted to keep. Morton devonshire 18:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Morton devonshire --Mhking 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing! --E ivind ^t ^@^c 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It provides details not in Political scandals of the United States However, rename something like List of political sex scandals of the United States so that it can accomodate members of other parties. ??????? 19:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I would concur with the idea of creating List of political sex scandals of the United States since there are plenty of sex scandals on both sides of the aisle but I'm not voting to keep this one if I'm going to advocate the creation of a new article. --Strothra 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind as per other comments on this discussion in favor of deletion which I had not thought of. --Strothra 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you infact just promoting rename and rescope the article, which would indeed be a keep of sorts as the information stays, it just gets expanded on. Ans e ll 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schizombie. Yeah, I know he voted keep. I'm going to be a bit nuanced, so it's kind of hard to put something in bold up front, but I will explain this discrepancy. As it stands, this article is an egregious example of WP:NPOV and I suspect it was put here in the interests of making a couple of WP:POINTs in the light of the debate on the other article. Also, I'm pretty sure that the people calling this list encyclopedic didn't read very far down. This article is a mismash of fact, allegation, innuendo, and just plain insanity. Some of the entries are bona-fide sex scandals, but the rest is simply junk: several of the entries are just assertions that some person got divorced, or has had out-of-wedlock children. One more notable example is Rush Limbaugh; this article simply asserts he has been divorced three times. All well and good, but how on earth is this a sex scandal? One also notes with some amusement that this article insinuates that George W. Bush raped a woman and later had her killed. Somehow, I didn't hear about that on the news... :-) Seriously, guys, this is a perfect article for dKosopedia. And, hey, look here and here! What a coincidence. Tying this all together, I would say that what needs to happen to this article is that about 85% of the stuff in here needs to go (as we come up with an objective standard of what "sex scandal" is in the first place), it needs to be renamed to a NPOV name, and then all of the analogous Democratic and other non-right-wing stuff needs to be added here as well. In short, I am advocating exactly what ??????? said. But the cleanest way to do that, I think, is to just destroy this article and start over. One notes that since a copy of all of this information exists at dKosipedia, then any of these entries can be copied from over there. One also notes that exactly zero people did zero work on this article, as it is a straight cut-and-paste from another site, so we're losing no labor by deleting it. --Deville (Talk) 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done work on the article to remove entries that I could not personally substantiate, and to remove POV. The article right now is not anymore a direct copy, so deleting would lose the work done so far to wikify it and remove unsubstantiated claims. The move you are advocating can be done without wiping out the current article. Ans e ll 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deville, WP is not a mirror. Some of the content may merit keeping, but perhaps it would be better to start from a new article. Keep if someone can radically demirror and dePOV the article. before the AfD closure. ??????? 20:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not a repository of links, as the quoted policy states should not be on wikipedia. Mirroring encyclopedic content does not fit under that policy. Ans e ll 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fut.Perf., would be fine with the idea of a List of political sex scandals of the United States article, but many of these are not well sourced, some criteria for inclusion into that article would need to be created (I have a hard time believing a scandel is notable if we don't have an article on the person involved), and some of it looks POV, so a fresh start is probably best. BryanG 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)10--12 July 2005[reply]
Deleting the article would destroy what information is around now. Is the information that flooded with unrecoverable bias that it doesn't deserve to be transformed? I wouldn't mind a result which moved the article to a title as you say. Wikipedia may be able to justify having articles on the people listed here just because of this page. It is self-defeating to say that because if the persons article was created after this lists deletion then it could be removed as it wasn't able to be linked into wikipedia due to the lack of this list, and lack of recreatability of the list due to the deletion review process. Ans e ll 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Ton e 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redeeming value. Dr Zak 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very interesting and useful list. Buchanan-H e rmit(TM)..SCREAM!!!.... 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of political sex scandals of the United States, add any content regarding non-Republican politicians, and take a very close look at how many of these scandals are presented as fact when the reference links make it clear that they are only allegations. —Stormie 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if someone would track down some of the links to their original pages. Pages from armchairsubversive.com are mostly mirrors of newspaper articles. References possibly through archive.org would be able to trace them back to their original postings, if they are available. Allegations I believe fit on a scandals page as long as they are clearly stated like that. I converted all the references to <ref> format, however, it would be ultimately better to convert them also to cite's instead of direct links to make the references section readable. Ans e ll 01:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if the article includes all USA parties, not only Republicans. Otherwise, delete for POV. -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of political sex scandals in the United States. After much deliberation (I nearly slapped an AFD tag on it myself when I ran across this article earlier today, I have decided that this topic can (and, much more importantly, should) be cleaned up enough to comply with WP:NPOV. NatusRoma | Talk 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete OR allow me to make th article List of political sexual preversions of bill clinton and the kennedys--Ham and jelly butter 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has references which, from the few I randomly chose to look at, do re-inforce the points. For neutrality there should be a Democrats page too. Better yet, fuse the two and let each side bicker over it; that's politics. The comment above me proves how some bipartisan Wikipedia can be... -- Greaser 02:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, are you kidding me? It can't get much more POV than this. --Rory096 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV mostly comes from the wording and scope of the article. There have been suggestions above to enable the scope to be widened to avoid POV, and if you have any problems with the wording for a certain claim then you are free to fix it. Ans e ll 05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be possible to have a NPOV list on sex scandals, it can't be based on a POV one. --Rory096 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are not opposed to the creation of List of political sex scandals in the United States, or similar wording, which is based on an NPOV scope? Ans e ll 05:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, but just moving a list of republican ones to that name isn't how one creates an NPOV list of scandals. --Rory096 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the rename needs to include a rescoping, and making NPOV in total based on the new scope. Ans e ll 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV 216.239.38.136 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear soapboxing. --Bachrach44 15:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. Thatcher131 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is what categories are for. Some of the names on this list do not have their own articles, meaning they are probably not notable enough; some sources do not meet WP:RS. Some are not really scandals at all but examples of what the left would like to think of as hypocracy (as if Democratic sex scandals are excusable because Democrats don't claim to be moral). Delete the article and create a category for U.S. political scandals. Those scandals which are notable and verifiable per policy can have articles, which can be included in the category. To satisfy NPOV, the category should be non-partisan. Thatcher131 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list that treats Ted Bundy as a major Republican figure, or that tells me that Arnold Schwarzenegger "had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28", or that includes staffers, partisan bloggers, or Right Wing evangelists, under the banner header of Republican sex scandals has no place here. Before this is deleted, should probably receive an award as one of the sleaziest articles ever placed on wikipedia. -- JJay 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if renamed to an NPOV title like Political sex scandals of the United States. -Sean Curtin 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment even if renamed, still would be seriously POV and would basically require being reworked from scratch. Would still also be in violation of WP:NOT as in "Wikipedia is not a mirror", as this content is basically a copy/paste from a POV/Left-Leaning wiki: here. Roodog2k 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research soapboxing. As non-American I find it utterly un-encyclopedic who wants to sticks his willy into whom regardless of his/her political affiliations. People, please, if you need to engage in petty political infighting please keep it to yourselves. You are making your whole nation a laughing stock. How about working on an encyclopedia instad, huh?! Weregerbil 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of it is silly. President George W Bush raped a woman according to the National Enquirer - that's somehow a Republican sex scandal. Uh huh. Paul Crouch paid $425K to settle a wrongful termination suit. Therefore, Paul Crouch must be gay. Oh and by the way, he's a Republican because, as we all know, all people who have anything to do with Christianity are Republicans so therefore Paul Crouch belongs on a list of Republican sex scandals. BigDT 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about the president is not just on that site. Changing the reference to a more reputable source would be a progressive action as part of this process. On the other hand, this discussion is about the overall place of the page on wikipedia. Ans e ll 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment doesn't this almost fall into the category of speedy delete? It seems like the only reason this is going through something as formal as AFD is to give people their best shot at throwing out random flames before it gets deleted--152.163.101.8 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Also, please consider registering an account! --Rory096 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As stated above, this is a clear copyright violation of [14], and has been marked as such. --Rory096 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I change my opinion to Speedy Delete based on "blatant copyright infringement" BigDT 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The site it's from isn't really a "commercial content provider," so it doesn't fall under WP:CSD a8. --Rory096 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note on the page. I'm not sure what that site is published under but I'm guessing the same as Wikipedia considering their similarities in policy(at least a first glance). Meaning that it would not be a copyvio if attributed to that site. Hopefully it can be redone however. Falphin 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the contrary, it's not GFDL unless it specifically says so, and I can't find anywhere where it does. --Rory096 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also note that each page actually used to say it was licensed under the GFDL, but now doesn't, which may mean that they're no longer using the GFDL. --Rory096 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to check if there was any licensing policy over there, but I couldn't tell if there was one or not. They do claim to follow the same guidelines and policies as we do (although I'm not sure how they make WP:NPOV consistent with their fundamental goals). But I think it is reasonable to guess that they are operating under some kind of open license like what we have here. In short, this is probably not a copyvio. A blatant soapbox, yes, but not a copyvio. --Deville (Talk) 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it's true that many wikis do have an open license, not only is this run by a for-profit site (Daily Kos), even sites that are under CC licenses aren't compatible with Wikipedia (for example why we can't transwiki from WikiFur, IIRC). --Rory096 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
I requested verification of the issue here. Ans e ll 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [15] for confirmation that it's under the GFDL. --Rory096 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The license statement at the bottom of the page appeared since I was last at that page. But since it is there now at least we have to assume that no copyright violation has occured. Ans e ll 05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because the MediaWiki:Copyright page (pointed to just above) is the page that controls the message at the bottom. Though yes, it's not a copyvio, it does make it clear that this is POV (as it comes from a very left wing site) --Rory096 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fascinating! ..er, horrifying. Like watching a car crash. Except the damn car keeps on moving! Myciconia 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete this page is beyond cleaning up... (Adelphia is not a republican... its a cable company), (getting divorced isn't a sex scandal), (ruch limbaughs drug addiction has nothing to do with sex), (the national enquirer is not a good source of info for anything), (you would think I would have heard about the George Bush claim)... the topic itself is probably worthy of an article, but the best way to do that is to delete and start over--T-rex 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between deleting and creating again and rewriting, nothing, except for the 75% majority needed to get it past deletion review. You would have thought that Americans being in a free country would hear about scandals involving their president, but apparently not. Ans e ll 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that to start by deleting the whole thing is the easier way to fix this up --T-rex 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And santion the editor(s) of the article for trolling. 172 | Talk 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very bold call, which may infact violate WP:AGF. Ans e ll 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bona fide topic. — goethean ॐ
- That doesn't mean it's NPOV. --Rory096 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sayng that the topic is POV, or that the article is POV? That the article can be improved is no reason to delete. It is a bona fide topic, and as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia can report on any bona fide topic. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of political sex scandals in the United States, although Republican sex scandals seem to be more notable because they often have a larger degree of hypocrasy in them (they're pro-marriage, pro-family, anti-abortion, and anti-gay, per their platform, so anything that contradicts those values -- extra- or pre-marital sex, abortions, gay sex, stand out more), we should dump the Demos' sex scandals (if they could agree on what sex is) then we could have an NPOV article there. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeff Gannon Ewlyahoocom 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of political sex scandals in the United States or something not party specific.--Nick Y. 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep useful and important list but renaming would be good Yuckfoo 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deville; mostly soapboxy copy-pasted junk content. Sandstein 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage, magnet for warriors not contributing a bit to encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but it needs serious editing. Information that is not verifiable should be removed. Information that is sourced is legitimate and should be kept. Poliwonk 23:34 10 May 2006
Delete - a sewer of unverified charges, conspiracy-mongering, and POV-pushing weighted down with a huge number of non-notable sheriff's deputies and preachers. Not that those Republican bastards don't deserve a page like this, but that's what dKosopedia is for. —phh (^t/_c) 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was The ayes have it. keep. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Lady[edit]

Seems nn to me Metros232 11:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band is notable...signed onto record label, released some albums. The WP article is also high up on a google search, and it fullfills the requirements for music notability--Osbus 18:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC says this about bands in terms of labels:

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

I don't think "Hello Asshole Records" and "Half Alder Press" qualify as important indie labels. I don't see any place on the notability standards that this band hits. Metros232 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Pacific Rock Records. --Osbus 13:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a record label which gets about 100 Google hits and lists about 8 albums as being released by them. Not a particularly notable indie label. Metros232 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP articles are always high up on a google search.

Not all. --Osbus 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made the page and obviously found them notable enough in the first place. They did a full US tour in the summer of 2005. Kellen ^T 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well put this in the article with a verifiable source and that'd help the article's cause since that's one of the standards of notability for bands. Metros232 16:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metros232's most recent comment. Let me know if a reliable source for Kellen`'s claim shows. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to the above comments regarding releases, they are set to put out something on Load Records in the fall which is a very notable underground label. They were also featured on 'Golden Grouper' [16], a compilation of up-and-coming California bands put out by Gold Standard Labs, another notable independent record label. I don't know what counts as "verifiable" in terms of tour dates but here are some reviews/photos/write-ups from their August 2005 tour: New Orleans [17], Cleveland [18], Portland [19] and a review of their self-titled release which references their show in Salt Lake City [20]. They also discuss their Houston show with the San Diego Reader here. hotdiggitydogs 07:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just notable enough. gidonb 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CATCHpenny[edit]

Aside from working with a notable producer or two, nothing stands out about this band Metros232 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of these guys (I'm in the same business, same city...) I doubt they're notable per WP:MUSIC though. Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs) .

Comment, according to WP:MUSIC, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) In their press page [21] they claim that Music used for ESPN Summer X-Games “Slammed” segments, airing on ABC and ESPN. Also, Has won or placed in a major music competition., they claim in their press page that they were Finalist in the Bon Jovi Battle of the Bands competition. No vote until someone tells me how important these ESPN Summer X-Games "Slammed" and Bon Jovi Battle of the Bands are. I am dismissing the other two contests since I believe they are minor.. -- ReyBrujo 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bon Jovi Battle of the Bands appears to have been a one-time event to find an opening act for a Bon Jovi show in Madison, Wisconsin in November 2005 [22]. I don't know if this particular segment on ESPN's X-Games is a particularly notable segment. But from the sound of it, it's not like it was the theme song or anthem of the entire X-Games, but rather, just mixed in during some highlights or something. Metros232 02:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tregoweth as patent nonsense, and WP:SNOW applies here too. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tunday[edit]

If you came here because you live in Lancashire, or a friend asked you to look at it, 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}}.

I have refactored some of the longer comments from here to the talk page to reduce the amount that people viewing the day's AFD have to scroll through. This is not an assertion that those comments are worse or less important, merely an effort to aid readability. Please place long comments on the talk page. No keep/delete recommendations have been moved. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about this "holiday" anywhere online Metros232 11:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 12:10 UTC

No, no, it's not online at the moment because it's quite new and not many people have heard about it yet outside of Lancashire. It definately isn't a hoax. Ed22882 12:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because it's only known in Lancashhire....Williamb 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent reasons provided by Ed22882. Fan1967 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait a second, my reasons were to keep it not to delete it!--Ed2288 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment that may well be, but your reasons simply underlined why this subject is not notable. IrishGuy 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reasons ("quite new", "not many people have heard about it") made it perfectly clear why it should be deleted. Fan1967 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already had berstoffenday, now we have Tunday... Now what :) Fails notability and WP:NOR quite certainly. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Now what"? The now-speedied Tit monday. perhaps (which does have a respectable number of Ghits)? Tonywalton | Talk 14:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is admittedly new and only known in Lancashire, then it is definitely non-notable. IrishGuy 14:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources are supplied. paraphrase of my edit made 16:48 6th May andr emoved in error by refactoring. Tonywalton | Talk 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON NOT DELETE If you look at the discussion page for the Tunday article then u'll find that there are those who have heard of it out there... (comment refactored to talk page, posted by Guitar6strings at 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, because this is not a "holiday" but just some inofficial idea by someone. As somene already said, Wikipedia is not the place to spread new ideas. —N-true 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - patent nonsense by any reasonable unbroken interpretation of the words "patent" and "nonsense" - Politepunk 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as "quite new", something that is only known in Lancashire, unverifiable, and WP:NFT. --Hetar 16:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Delete As per WP:NOT--Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that people are now telling blatant lies in order to get the article deleted, eg User:Athenemiranda on the Tunday discussion page. These lies undermine the whole argument for the deletion of the article.--Ed2288 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the talk page. Athenemiranda didn't claim to speak with you personally, so how can you say it didn't happen? Beyond that, it is irrelevant because this subject remains non notable. IrishGuy 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's calling this a hoax. It could be true for all I know. The problem is that it's non-notable. Delete per, well, just about everybody. TheProject 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. "Tunday", which is a tradition celebrated in Lancashire according to some of the commenters here, turns up only 4 Google hits when combined with Lancashire [23], none of which support the definition of Tunday shown in this article (and two of which are apparently misprints of "Sunday" from mis-scanned newspapers). In other words, we have no online sources for Tunday at all, much less reliable ones. By contrast, I never heard of mohinga before, yet I can find numerous Google hits for it, substantially all of which describe it as a kind of food from Burma. (See here for an example from the Honolulu Advertiser, a reliable source.) I think Tunday is a hoax, but I know it's unverifiable, and by policy it should therefore be deleted even if it's real. --Metropolitan90 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. Simple as that. Grand master ka 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a flagrant and frankly embarassing misuse of Wikipedia. My Tunday wish is for this article to disappear, never to return. --Nydas 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when it becomes widely observed, it can have the articel but not yet. --Ton e 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First notability, then Wikipedia article, please. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax/TMUISOD, unless proven otherwise. Further weighted by mean, mean sock/meatpuppetry play that can't conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. I recommend the puppets to stop arguing and producing some media mentions, research, or other reliable stuff that would prove that people actually do celebrate this somewhere, because the article doesn't explain that at all. The above, for example, doesn't count, unless you provide citations. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Voice of Treason 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As ed said above, it's new and no one has heard of it. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a publicity machine. When (if?) it's ever notable, then feel free to come back and recreate the page. --Bachrach44 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete patent and unsourced nonsense. If you would spend even half as much time sourcing this article as you have belaboring a losing point on this page, maybe somebody would vote to keep the article. Aplomado - U T C 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent nonsense. -- Fr a ncs2000 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. To Guitar Strings, before you respond to this: no amount of arguing will save the article unless you (or someone else) can cite reliable sources for the day, and prove that it isn't something made up in school one day. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i am trying and ne1 celebrators out there PLEASES! help me cite sources for the article. But just sumthing away from the topic, im at college not in skool.--Guitar6strings 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE the article and then stomp on the ashes 'till dead. ForbiddenWord 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP First of all having read through this discussion I would like to say that just because I am a new user, that people should not treat me any less than themselves, it is true I have made little contribution in the form of comment or article to Wikipedia, through no fault of my own, as I find it a reliable and well managed source, and see little need therefore to add my input. However, I have come to gain information on a local tradition which has recently come to my attention, Tunday. being new to the area I am increasingly interested in local myths and traditions, I have recently heard about Tunday from some of the local people and colleagues who have lived in the area for a long time. with the most recent Tunday just passed I decided to further my knowledge into this tradition, as I found it an interesting event. I trawled the internet fruitlessly, as it seems some of you also have, with little reference to Tunday on the internet I was beginning to lose hope in finding this illustrious tradition. I discovered this article and was shocked to find that people considered Tunday a ‘Hoax’ this fuelled an ambition to find the true roots of Tunday. I remembered the true roots of knowledge before the internet, having took the time to go to the library I found a book entitled 'Lesser known traditions of England and Wales' by Anthony Langdon, in which there was a clear article on Tunday, although small and seeming relatively insignificant compared to other lesser known traditions the article relates to a tradition which reaches back centuries, “Tunday has been an Celtic tradition since circa 230AD, the tradition was a ritual preformed by believers of pre-roman druidism, the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” it goes on to say that “The tradition no longer includes a human sacrifice, but the custom of praying to the Celtic gods for desires has remained.” This appears to have evolved into the current practice of wishing. It appears that the tradition has been passed on through a relatively small area of Celtic ancestry to lead to today's current Lancastrian tradition along with several small Welsh communities who also practice this tradition. The old rituals of sacrifice were replaced over time, when Druidism as a religion was practically destroyed in circa 60BC by the Romans, by those less loyal to the tradition by simple good will gestures, to be in accordance with Roman rule. It would appear according to 'Lesser known traditions of England and Wales' that the tradition of Tunday has evolved to have meaning on our current calendar and as more units of time have become available as has the accuracy of the Tunday tradition. Unfortunately this source gives no information upon the origin of the partial and full Tunday, but I assume as time began to be measured in the 12 hour clock that followers of the tradition adopted the slightly easier option of celebrating Tunday, and taking a quiet moment to reflect and wish on, for instance, the 14th hour rather than the 2nd hour. Also unfortunately the book does not give any disclosure into where the current name of Tunday derives. Of course having discovered this information I was appalled to think that people were comparing such an ancient and inherent tradition to that of Crop Circles or Bigfoot, (admittedly through no fault of their own) classing it a ‘Hoax’. I hope you see the errors of your ways in wishing to delete a (until now) somewhat forgotten gem of British history, from a site dedicated to empowering knowledge to the people. To say that it is suitable for deletion because it is relatively unknown is blatant bigotry against lesser known knowledge and is a misuse of this website. I will certainly be celebrating Tunday and spreading the word of such a prestigious celebration. Upon saying this I would agree that the member who wrote this article needs to review it with relevant sourced information.

--Dontrileme 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, am shocked. Shocked that so many people with brand spanking new accounts keep finding this AfD just to post long screeds about how important it is. IrishGuy 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that Anthony Langdon's book Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales is not listed in the online catalogs of the British Library, the Oxford University Libraries, or the Library of Congress, nor is it on sale at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com. --Metropolitan90 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nor is any relevant-looking Anthony or Antony Langdon, nor the title of the alleged book (as both "Lesser known…" and "Lesser-known…") found by a search by the dogpile.com metasearch engine. It seems there's a problem of verifiability. Again. I wonder if Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism can throw any light on this alleged Druidic ceremony (which sounds deeply suspect, whatever "the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” is supposed to mean). Tonywalton | Talk 10:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I have found evidence of the roots of Tunday in Eric Rondel's "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". Hopefully we can now get this deletion debate behind us and start to add to and improve the Tunday article.--194.154.22.36 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and for the dishonest "citations" offered in support.

The first book cited (Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales) does not exist.
The second book cited (Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions)) does not mention Tunday.
There is a grave difficulty with any claims of "druid rituals" dating to 230 AD, as the Druids in England and Brittany had been destroyed by the Romans over two centuries before this date.
Wikipedia is not intended for cute little games made up in school one afternoon. See WP:NFT.

Justin Eiler 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

firstly in reply to the rather aggressive 'IrishGuy' I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now, although as I explained, I have had no need to comment or add an article of my own until now, having had recent interest in the subject I have joined this farce of a debate in order to protect a tradition and custom 'under attack' by a combination of ignorance and benightedness. I resent that I have to defend my identity as well as defending this tradition, as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD. In reply to the accusations that this book does not exist, it seems to be a reprint of a compilation of older books based upon English traditions. It seems that some of this book has been translated from original Gaelic texts. I very much doubt any of these books or manuscripts are listed on any incomplete online library catalogues such as that of the British library which goes back barely further than the 15th century. In reply to your link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism this was not a Neopagan tradition, no doubt it will have evolved into a form of Neopagan tradition, but Celtic beliefs and religion precede that of Neopaganism, so therefore your link is totally irrelevant, I’m afraid. And as for “whatever "the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” is supposed to mean” this quite obviously means that a ritual was preformed on the hour of the day (for instance on the third hour) of the day of the month which followed the number of the hour (for instance the fourth day) of the month which followed the number of the day (for instance the fifth month). Having said this in response I do see your point that the source provided seems somewhat invalid. Therefore I am willing to spend some of my time researching this subject further in order for the truth to be known. When I have collected more information I shall return to post my findings.--Dontrileme 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim firstly in reply to the rather aggressive 'IrishGuy' I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now... and yet your user history shows quite the opposite. Second, you claim as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD....' Wrong. We both stated quite clearly that neither of us has seen it be effective. It happens all the time in AfDs...it just rarely works. Because like this case, it is plainly obvious that Dontrileme is the same user as Guitar6strings. You both write the same. You both insist on calling this a debate even though it has been pointed out it isn't. You both write excessively long screeds and point the finger at me about this being deleted. I'm not the one who nominated this for deletion. I'm just the one who keeps catching your sockpuppets. IrishGuy 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself [Irishguy] say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD. Actually no, I said nothing like that. I said though I supposed it had been known I personally had never seen sockpuppetry in favour of deletion, and I'd never seen sockpuppetry against deletion to be effective (quite the reverse; it tends to sway consensus in favour of deletion). And it very likely won't work here either. Tonywalton | Talk 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dontrileme: that, I'm afraid, is a lie. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment excuse me i stand corrected, but what are we dedebating here? my ability to quote your comments or the imminant deletion of a peice of British history? --Dontrileme 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stifle, the word 'that' dosn't quite point out what you find to be untrue, please, be more specific so that i may dispel your doubts.--Dontrileme 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I assert that as you registered on Monday, your assertion that "I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now" is inaccurate. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)comm[reply]

Comment I would like to thank Justin Eiler for bringing the matter of 230AD to my attention, it is true that druids did not exist at that time, as I clearly stated "Druidism as a religion was practically destroyed in circa 60BC by the Romans" unfortunately I made a typing error, I should have typed 230BC but accidentally typed 230AD instead, I’m sure you can appreciate that I have made a typing error and even went on to seem to disprove myself with the previous quote. (I do not see why I would do that if I was lying and not just making a simple mistake.) As for accusations of the book 'Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales' not existing, well I can only say that I have read it, it does exist and it isn't my problem if you cannot find the book.--Dontrileme 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Typographical errors are certainly understandable, and I don't hold that against anyone. However, as to "it isn't my problem if you cannot find the book," this is the very crux of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If the book cannot be found, that changes this AfD from a Delete discussion to a Speedy Delete discussion. Justin Eiler 16:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must have different versions of "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". In my version, it appears to me (my french is not flawless) Tunday is on page 45. Is there something different in your version?

Delete: This whole discussion is idiotic and beside the point. This AfD is not an attack on a different religion or cult or tradition or whatever. The existence of the wikipedia article is what's in discussion here. You (the article author and all the "Tundayists" around here) say that Tunday exists, is notable in the Lancashire area and that there's a book that mentions it. Fine. Give us a way to verify it and we will promptly change our votes to Keep. Please read WP:V for a extended explanation on verifiability. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources has more info on what is "Reliable Source". Whining and personal attacks wont change the outcome of this AfD. 146.164.26.85 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the fact that people find it hard to accept the proposed sources by my fellow Tunday believers but whether you can find those books/sources or not does not make this article a hoax; it only further emphasises your point as an article that cannot not yet at this point be verifeid sufficeintly to your strict demands. I believe notability is somewhat "proven" or moving towards it wheather you may agree with me or not but ture, the real debate between people here is on the verifiablity. However i must strongly stress that despite this topic of discussion in my motion to keep the article; it is most deffinately not a hoax.--Guitar6strings 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability has in no way been proven. All that has been shown are sources given that may or may not exist. How does that illustrate notability? IrishGuy 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely and unreservedly accept your assertion that it's not a hoax. However, the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. To quote from the relevant policy, "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

If and when Tunday reaches the level of public acclaim and awareness to be published in reliable, published sources, feel free to come back and recreate the article. In the meantime, it fails the standards of verifiability, and thus does not belong at Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment "However, the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" What, so your saying that Wikipedia would allow an untrue article if it was verifiable? That's absurd.--194.154.22.35 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An untrue article wouldn't be verifiable. If it can be verified, it's true. However, many things are true but cannot be verified. Fan1967 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things a little more complicated, my friend Shan used to call 1.23 AM "the magic minute - make a wish!" (although she never used the term "Tunday" ever). DS 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Close Seems to have been speedied (twice) under G1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunt in the face[edit]

Poorly written article, very dictionary like and non notable neologism Matthew Fenton (t) 12:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because..Williamb 12:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "Origin unknown but thought to be product of slightly drunken conversation among members of OUHC Occasionals 2005/6." See WP:NFT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is nonsense (Origin unknown but thought to be product of slightly drunken conversation, heh <_< ) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD G2 - Test Page no other edits by article's creator, speedy and move on - Politepunk 13:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (or college) one day. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure it meets WP:CSD, but I wish it did. --Allen 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can verify usage in several contemporary sources; largely undeground usage. Started as student slang, although notably in more common use since the start of the year.

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nonsense and too dictionarish. —N-true 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the "first recorded use" is May 3, 2006, I think we can stand to wait for this to catch on before giving it a WP article. Mango juice^talk 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --GTubio 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smack in the face, then delete. Nonsensical. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MangojuiceDeathawk 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- ReyBrujo 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create new[edit]

Non notable person, also article is entitled Create New yet it is about a porn "star" Matthew Fenton (t) 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense, including a total non-sequiter title. Excerpt: "In Emily's life she has recieved many high profile awards such as; Australian of the year, American of the year, Zimbabwean of the Year, Japaneseian of the Year and believe it or not Innuoed of the Year." I also think that referring to a minor as "sexy" is a bad idea for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense and probable legal considerations (age). -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Metamagician3000 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD G2 - Test Page no other edits by article's creator, speedy and move on - Politepunk 14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as patent nonsense. --so U m y a S ch 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No Guru 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gino ninja[edit]

Unverifiable or non-notable neologism. None of the google results for "gino ninja" mention the neologism. SCHZMO ✍ 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can get no google hits on this one. Fails WP:NOR quite prolly. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense - Politepunk 14:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; vanity with no claim of notability. --Allen 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. And I mean nonsense. FYI, as if the article itself was not enough proof, the "sociologist" listed, "Keegan Caradonna," is found through a quick Google search to be a 16-year-old amateur competitive video game player. -- Kicking222 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 --Ter e nc e Ong 14:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as this also seems to be clearly 'private terminology', as coined by the "linguist André Müller". ;) --N-true 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A group of Canadian students who like to crash parties? {{db-group}} candidate. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 tagged.-Whomp 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki leader[edit]

Information is too vague to be of any importance. ~~May be an attack page~~ --so U m y a S ch 14:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it lacks any useful information and its content is probably unsalvageable anyway. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akatsuki (Naruto). However, I have no idea why this would be considered an attack page(?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Not much is known about this person except that he acts like the leader of the Akatsuki" (emphasis mine) - This gives the impression that it is a derogatory remark. I may be completely wrong though. --so U m y a S ch 14:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, This article doesn't give any intro to what the hell Akatsuki is to someone unfamiliar with the stuff. That's why I got confused into thinking this to be some political group. --soUmyaSch 14:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but the article (and the picture) make it clear that it's talking about a fictional character: "...in the anime...", "...many fans believe...", "...of chapter 254..." and so forth. Pages about fictional characters should be NPOV just like any article, but they cannot by nature be attack pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The picture wasn't there when I AfDed. And the intro was so incoherent that I did no dare read the entire article. --soUmyaSch 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's always a good idea to read the whole article before nominating/voting for deletion. In any case, thank you for retracting the attack page part. Do you also agree to the redirect? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Whats the point in reading if one does not understand anything? Why would one sift through something that seems like garbage to find out what it might be talking about. Anywayz, it might be Redirected if it makes sense in the context of the parent article. --so U m y a S ch 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, unsalvageable nonsense. -- Kicking222 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I'm changing my vote (I couldn't figure out how to strike through my previous comment), as this was already deleted once today, and thus can be speedied by CSD G4. In addition, the original editor removed the AfD notice from the page. -- Kicking222 14:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing useful or encyclopaedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Soviet Russia, article deletes YOU!!! Non-notable. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more "he's got jagged hair like the Yondaime Hokage" crufty nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akatsuki (Naruto). As above. --Kunzite 04:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kunzite. -- ReyBrujo 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benson (comic strip)[edit]

Delete article about a webcomic with no assertion of notability. Gwernol 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article was prod'ed but the prod notice was removed without comment. Also 194.221.212.20 has been astroturfing spam links to the comic to Wikipedia articles today. Gwernol 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:WEB. I've copied it to Wikiasite:comics:Benson. Angela . 14:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Webcomic online since 2006, no Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for advertising one's website. Politepunk 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webcomic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Tristram Baumber and Peter Durston should probably be added as well. IrishGuy 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for 'spam' links earlier today. This was a product of ignorance, and was overzealous and completely out of line. It will not happen again. Prod notice was removed because article was altered in an attempt to increase evidence of notability. This article is not meant as an advertisement for the website, but as a source of information about the cartoon character and strip. It was created in response to a number of queries about said character and strip. It is intended that more information will be added over coming weeks. Please, if the content can be made more suitable for Wikipedia in any way, all suggestions will be taken into account. Googergeiger 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Angela already copied the article over to Wikiasite:comics:Benson. Why not work on it there, and then copy it back when it meets WP:WEB. That's probably the best way to proceed, as I don't think a webcomic created this year and with no Alexa rank is going to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Still hoping this won't be deleted, but will work on article at Wikiasite:comics:Benson. Will work on that Alexa rank too. Googergeiger 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia or Wikia. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOIPStunt[edit]

I added a prod tag with the following text:Spam: advertisement for a VOIP service with no assertion of notability. Prod tag was removed with no reason given and no edits save the addition of a logo, so I'm taking it to AfD for the stated reason Tonywalton | Talk 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SPAM, advertisement. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 15:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and orig reason given when prodded - Politepunk 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Second VOIP company ad this week. Fan1967 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article talks about a new VOIP service of benefit to other users and which is rapidly gaining popularity for making FREE calls to landlines using the internet. So, if people should know about other free VOIP services like Skype and Jajah, they also deserve to know about VOIPStunt which allows calling about 49 countries in the world free of cost. Google returns 264,000 results for this software including expert reviews, test reports, user experiences etc. Some websites are also talking about this as a better alternative to Skype. So, if Skype and Jajah are metioned, this software should also be brought to the awareness of the masses. vishaltayal 22:03, 6 May 2006 (IST)

Comment Can you explain what makes this service notable? For instance does it meet WP:CORP guidelines in any way? Wikipedia is not generally a medium for advertising, however "of benefit" the advertisement is claimed to be. By the way, your article appears to be a copy/paste of an entry this web page which claims "all rights reserved". You are aware that though in this instance the rights appear to be yours, posting it on Wikipedia means that, as it says at the bottom of the edit box, You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL? Tonywalton | Talk 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google returns 264,000 results for VOIPStunt including expert reviews, test reports, user experiences etc. which would fulfill the Wikipedia WP:CORP guidelines. Yes, a different version of this article also features in the tech reviews section of my blog. I agree to license this particular version on Wikipedia under the GFDL.vishaltayal 22:10, 6 May 2006 (IST)

Comment Hundreds, if not thousands, of companies have jumped into the VOIP market. What distinguishes this one? Is it a dominant player in the market? Does it have a significant market share? Fan1967 17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the same user has created an identical page at VOIPBuster - it should probably be deleted too.

Comment VOIPBuster is another variant offered by Betamax Group. Their list of FREE destinations is different and they offer VOIP-in numbers in different destinations. I have changed the entry to reflect the differences between VOIPBuster and VOIPStunt.

~~Keep~~. I have reworked the article to make it sound less like advertising. I hope this now qualitifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is still a stub and will need expansion. Will work on it when I have more time. vishaltayal 22:03, 6 May 2006 (IST)
Comment. While your contribution to the discussion does not have to end when you express your view on whether to "keep" or "delete", you probably should not "vote" more than once. Bucketsofg✐ 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the second vote. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Bucketsofg✐ 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Wikipedia is not a business directory, we also need to delete from Wikipedia, many other instant messengers which hardly anyone else knows about i.e they can also be considered as advertisements of their respective companies. Deleting some and keeping others is NOT FAIR. Some examples are Camfrog, Rediff BOL and Nate. I wonder how are these kept! vishaltayal 12:15, 7 May 2006 (IST)
Possibly because none of those have been nominated for deletion either. Feel free to nominate them - see Wikipedia:Deletion process for how to do it. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. vishaltayal, feel free to nominate those articles for deletion too. -- ReyBrujo 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and VOIPBuster as well BigDT 17:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment VOIPBuster, as the press references on its AfD page clearly suggest is more notable than both Betamax and VOIPStunt. So, while an article about VOIPStunt can be deleted and VOIPStunt mentioned as another variation of VOIPBuster, I see no reason why VOIPBuster should also go along with VOIPStunt. Also, please note that VOIPBuster is not just a rate plan but a standalone VOIP application like Skype and Yahoo! Messenger.--vishaltayal 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke High School (Maine)[edit]

Some strange things have gone on in the history logs for this school article and Clarke High School (Ontario). There are towns with this same name: Orono, Ontario, and Orono (town), Maine, but so far as I can see, the town in Maine (a) has no Highway 115 by which the school is supposed to lie, and (b) it has no Clarke High School, it simply being called Orono High School. BillC 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this nom is for the Maine article only. The school in Ontario definitely exists. --BillC 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BillC 14:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--blue520 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, schools are inherently notable, and this one is very important to the people who would attend it if it actualy existed.
Er, sorry, don't know what came over me there. Delete, of course. — Haeleth Talk 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Congrats to Haeleth on a hilarious vote there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --so U m y a S ch 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and one week's detention for whoever created that article. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finally a High School article gets deleted! Carlossuarez46 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Australian Privacy Act Of 1988[edit]

Delete This is source material, not an encyclopaedia article. --Quentin Smith 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource as tagged by RHaworth. Tonywalton | Talk 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as rewritten by CanadianCaesar. Now that's what I call a rewrite! Tonywalton | Talk 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote it. Rename to Privacy Act 1988. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like CC's rewritten page :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after CanadianCasear's rewrite, much better. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now the article is fine enough. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been rewritten. Is it possible to have a copy of the text on Wikisource as well to reference to on the page. Is the text of an Australian law made available in the Public Domain? Ans e ll 03:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thanks to CanadianCaesar for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Windows[edit]

non notable one sentence article IrishGuy 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails to demonstrate that it meets the guidelines for notability of software - Politepunk 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in complete agreement with the above editors. No notability is demonstrated (or even attempted to be demonstrated), and I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of equally non-notable programs that have the exact same function. -- Kicking222 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks kinds cool, but delete per politepunk. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sorry Guy 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability and malpractice. Bad Dr. Windows! Bad! Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Léon-Bernard Giot[edit]

The person's article is up for deletion in the French Wikipedia , as well as the article for his school École internationale de chant et de respiration. There is little, or no material for this individual in Google, and nothing for "Bernardo Giotto". There are no recordings listed in any of the databases, nor was any information available for any of the awards that he has listed in Englih or in French. He lists no degrees, nor does he list ensembles that he conducts. There are also a great many references to his school and his name in other articles which have nothing to do with the subject which keep popping up in the French version of Wikipedia, as well as a great many articles about little known family members which are also being examined. To be consistent, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Please also see the Article for Deletion entry in the French version of Wikipédia [24] Musikfabrik 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete voting delete as the nominator Musikfabrik 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per en.wikipedia policies. gidonb 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supprimer per nom and the fr.wikipedia's AfD. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Could somone alert someone on the Dutch wikipedia as well? Falphin 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, there are several results in dutch on the web. I'm not really sure of the notability if this is the same person as Professor Léon-Bernard Giot. Falphin 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone on French wikipedia has alerted someone on Dutch Wikipedia and hopefully, he will respond. I work in the music business in Europe and no one I know has heard of him. We'll see what the Dutch have to say about this. This is the same person as "Professor Léon-Bernard Giot", per a re-direct on the French site. Looking at the edit history of the Dutch article, I see that gidonb has made several edits on the Dutch version. Perhaps he might be able to comment? Musikfabrik 09:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Musikfabrik, the Dutch Wikipedia is not equally strict with notability. From what I can understand LBG is a part-time musician who apparently also gives some lessons. Some of the information comes from a long-time participant at nl.wikipedia who knows him. LBG pointed out on the talk page that the title "professor" is not protected, i.e. he claims anyone can carry it. He uses the name International whatever school to describe his lesson practice. Personally, I do not believe that this is the best way to promote art, but Wikipedia is not a promotional site anyway. He has had second thoughts as well, because in the past he asked to delete the talk page for his Dutch article. It has been archived, with which he is unhappy. The article here is a promotional text, full of exaggerations. It was created, not by himself, after he had placed a request to be included in en.wikipedia. At his website there are some clippings from the local press, mostly about his ideas on better breathing. He suggests that he should become minister of breathing of Belgium (or was it one of its "states"). This suggestion attracted mild interest from the local press. gidonb 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for en.WP. Gidonb, thanks for your comments. --MaNeMeBasat 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Qantas--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight Numbers[edit]

This is like the Singapore Airlines flight numbers article, which was mostly deleted, and a summary was added to the mainline article. There is no reason for a separate article on this (WP:NOT) Dbinder 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voting delete as the nominator. Dbinder 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 23:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep in the same way we have route information for rail and tram companies. Route information varies much less often than schedule/time information, therefore has a much lower maintenance burden. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this really necessary? This list belongs on an airplane fansite, not an encyclopedia. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really can't see how this is needed in an encyclopaedia, online or not. --Roisterer 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 11:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with QANTAS. This doesn't need it's own page. (JROBBO 12:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or Merge Redundant duplicated information which includes the flight numbers. No need for its own page. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JROBBO. If that is not possible, just delete it. -- ReyBrujo 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful info for someone I'm sure -- I@n ≡ talk 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Sealfon[edit]

user:Aplomado nominated this for prod with the following concern "Non-notable as per the decision of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rageshree_Ramachandran". This article is sufficiently different from Ramachandran (who didn't have the additional, if marginal, assertions of notability). Personally I don't feel she's notable enough for her own article, but just notable enough to be merged into either Scripps National Spelling Bee or a Scripps National Spelling Bee winners article (along with other winners, including the deleted Ramachandran). Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for proposing merges! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her notability is very weak beyond her spelling bee win. Aplomado - U T C 16:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm a huge spelling bee (and, incidentally, a huge "Cheap Seats" fan), so naturally, I love Rebecca Sealfon. With that said, for pretty much any other spelling bee champion, I would vote delete. However, the pop culture references to Sealfon, in my opinion, give her enough notability to have an article on WP. She is mentioned frequently on "Cheap Seats," including in non-spelling bee episodes, and the first time I saw that "South Park" episode, I immediately thought they based the character on Sealfon. In summation, I think this should stay, but just barely. -- Kicking222 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another spelling bee winner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the pop culture references are true. Makes her notable. --Ton e 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems notable. One chapter may not be enough, though. -- ReyBrujo 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps with a short mention at List of South Park characters. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a verifiable article, no good reason for deletion offered. For great justice. 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, got lots of media attention at the time and is still remembered, won a very well known competition. Wikipedia is not paper, decent articles on obscure but highly verifiable people are fine. --W.marsh 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spelling Bee win makes her notable (even if she's done nothing of note since then - it would be nice if the article could tell us what happened to her subsequently). Zaxem 09:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwikied, so delete. Well done to y'all for not being nasty about this, and Mr Wiley for taking it so well. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperboy[edit]

Another webcomic. While some webcomics are notable, this one hasn't reached any form of print publication or significant circulation. Seems to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the comic, as it states that it is, "well-drawn, humorous, and rich full-color." I am recommending delete. --Hetar 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the comments, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on neutrality. I have adjusted the article to reflect a non biased and purely informational view of the webcomic. keep?. --Mattwileyart, 6 May 2006
Delete While it is good that the NPOV remarks have been edited, the comic itself just isn't notable at this time. That may change at some point in the future, but for now...non-notable. IrishGuy 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, My comic has only been around for a little over a year, so I should come to expect this. Give me time though. I'm glad this site is managed and mediated by responsible people. Go ahead, delete it... --Mattwileyart, 6 May 2006

comment thank you for not taking this AfD personally. It is no reflection on you or your work, merely the level of notability and acclaim it has garnered at this point. IrishGuy 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've made it a practice not to get upset when things change. It just makes communication easier.--Mattwileyart, 6 May 2006

Comment If you haven't already, you might want to look up Comixpedia's webcomic encyclopedia. It uses the same software and license Wikipedia does, and, of course, caters specifically to webcomics. The main page is here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Userfy or delete if not possible, first notability, then Wikipedia. Author seems nice. -- ReyBrujo 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Stifle. gidonb 15:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created an article on Comixpedia at Comixpedia:Hyperboy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Tennis[edit]

To quote from the article, "One of many games in a series of "Doom Sports" that are played by upper sixth Parmitarians. (05/06)" --Hetar 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) </font> (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Kicking222 17:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; not notable --Mhking 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Sorry Guy 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unreleased game mod... er, I mean, NFT, per nom. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 20:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Indology. The criticism that this article is inherently POV and largely either original research or relying on unsound sources is a powerful one, and it's a criticism that isn't refuted here. However, the main proponents of deletion here do not seem to feel that there's anything wrong with the topic itself, given a proper treatment. As such, I think merging with Indology would be a good compromise here. As I see there's already an appropriately-named and filled-in section of that article, I'll just redirect ... and any further arguments can take place over there, and well away from AfD. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in South Asian Studies[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}}.

Indology is a stub, but here we host a detailed florilegium of every Hindu prejudice on the internet. This is not even a pov-fork of Indology, it is an ab-initio pov-fest, completely one-sided, unsalvageably biased and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A short "history" and "alleged bias" section on Indology will be more than enough. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oy vey, that's one heck of an article. -- Kicking222 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is precisely about prejudices in South Asian Studies, and if you see there is "Hindu prejudice", then you could add your viewpoint into the article. An AFD is not a subsititue for a NPOV-tag. I'll be the first to concede that the article needs to be improved. The article may have too much focus on the AIT controversy, but this is again not a reason for an AFD.
The topic itself is notable, the biases in Colonial Indology on the one side, and the allgegations of biases in contemporary Indology have all been the subject of much criticism, and there should be a aricle where this can be described. It doesn't look good to claim that it is "unsalvageably biased", either one is able to add his own viewpoint to an article, or one is not. --Sendrin 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is that articles titled "Bias in" should be deleted in most cases. I agree there is some (little) encyclopedic merit hidden beneath the polemics. This can be safely merged with Indology and/or colonialism, Hindutva and national mysticism. dab (ᛏ) 07:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notable topic; there is potential for improvement. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The reasons cited for deletion looks quite unreasonable.Bharatveer 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per dab. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Withdrawing my vote but needs a copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the article seems very well referenced, so it is not WP:OR. -- ReyBrujo 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rey: please note that the references are mainly Hindu nationalist websites and forums or personal pages. It thus might still violate WP:OR: Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources Hornplease

Comment The external may be trash, and many of those can be deleted. However, the references (the ones that leaded me to believe the article was well referenced) and further reading sections are well documented. While it is true I don't know what kind of references they are (if they are notable books, if those books do exist, etc), I can only assume good faith until someone gives me links to notable sites that explicitely state those books do not exist or they do but are of little importance. The further reading section has entries to Yvette Rosser blog. A very quick google search turns out that She is the co-creator and sponsor of the International Day without Violence, held annually on April 4th [25] That sounds like something notable enough for me. Even if you remove all the external links, the article continues to be well referenced. If you can probe those references are fake, I may change my vote. But, as I said, all I can do is assume good faith. -- ReyBrujo 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, we need to assume good faith. However note that most of the points that use the reputable books as references are about past Indologists including Mill - in which case the argument is more apprpriately (and already) covered in postcolonialism. The 'current' section uses opinion websites and the Yvette Rosser 'book'- which as you point out is actually a blog as well. A cursory google search of Yvette Rosser informs me that she had an accident in 2003; all her medical costs were paid by the radical Hindutva organisation the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. That is not an unbiased scholar. The 'Further Reading' section is simply a list of some of the classics of Indology without any connection to the supposed bias in their subject matter; along with some of the classics of postcolonial work - Sheldon Pollock for example, again without explanation - and of apologist writers such as Rosser and the Belgian Koenraad Elst, who writes on hindudharma.org, another parochial site. Nothing is fake; but the article is not structured in good faith, as the claims are not referenced, and the reading list is bolstered by reputable books that do not support the argument,and the specific references are from doubtful, non-peer reviewed sources. Hornplease 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your information on Rosser is taken from indiatruth.com, a political ("to put it as nicely as possible") website founded by Michael Witzel (as he admits in his OutlookIndia.com article) that describes Hindus as "Nazi", "Hitler", "Racist", "Muslim hater", "Race Traitor", "Christian hater", "Creationist", and "obscurantist murders" and of being Hiina (or lost and confused). That is not an unbiased website from an unbiased scholar. Rosser is also founder of The Global Pashtun Institute for Peace and Democracy which aims to Support and strengthen peace, democracy and stability in Afghanistan and to Improve human rights situation among Pashtuns. Rosser has been known to criticize Hindu nationalists as well, but what makes her different that her criticism is fair and not stereotypical. The Rosser link is not a blog, it is an article hosted on sulekha.com. Have you been on the hindudharma.com website that you cite above? There's nothing on this site! I admit that the article needs to be improved, and the article title maybe changed. I think however that enough could be written already only on Max Müller and James Mills, where also exagerrations or unfair potrayals and counter-bias can be discussed. --Sendrin 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep up. My information about this Rosser, whatever she may have 'founded' that exists on paper or not, is simply that she is not an unbiased scholar; you claimed I discovered her links to the radical rightwing VHP through some attack site. I did not. It is available online - on the VHP's own site, where they call her Ram Rani for some reason. The Rosser link is an opinion piece, unverified, without peer review, and not published by a known publishing house. These are the points that I made originally, and nothing you have said contradicts that. If you wish to discuss only Max Mueller and this mysterious James Mills, you can do so in the appropriate article pages for them, without claiming any form of overarching narrative that is distinct from the arguments already covered in postcolonialism. And we are discussing the dubious merits of this article, not of Mike Witzel, so that entire discussion is irrelevant.Hornplease 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If some of the sources are not reliable, this should be discussed on the article talk page: Talk:Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies. However, many references are not websites/forums... as you say incorrectly, and books and studies have been written on some aspects of this like Chakrabartis "colonial indology", Trautmanns "Aryans and british india", Dirks "castes of mind", and more. But some of the references should be better. You say that your information is not from indiatruth.com, but you do the same thing as that site: you only bring up one rather negative (but minor) aspect about her and dismiss all her humanitary work for Afghanistan, Pashtuns, the Syed Committee, the Peace Day.. And nothing is mysterious about James Mills if you would take the time to read the article. Nothing is wrong is with the further reading section, or please say which book does not belong there.

I understand some (not all) of the arguments that the article should better be merged into Indology, or at least until there is more material. A problem is that the Indology/South Asian Studies article is a stub, and the criticism section would IMO overwhelm that article. (Which is unfair to Indology, the criticism is an important part, but as long as Indology is a stub that section would overwhelm the rest). Because of this a separate criticism article would be the better solution, as it is done for many other pages. Wikipedia has articles on criticism of scientology, islam, many smaller sects and about many other things, so another criticism article is not a big deal. Maybe a better article title would be Criticisms of South Asian Studies. --Sendrin 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that none of the sources are reliable goes towards establishing the fact that this is an unreconstructably POV-fork. The only references that are used for making the argument are online forums or opinion blogs. The other references you cite are either massive minority opinions or not quoted. Second, my opinion on the Yvette person was about her reliability as a source for this article. She has been funded by the VHP, which has a specific agenda here, and so she is not a reliable source. Whatever she may have done for the Pashtuns is thus irrelevant. JAmes Mills being mysterious was an attempted joke, as it should be James Mill. And I cant understand a criticisms article being written in the absence of information about what is being criticised. Under such circumstances the article can never attempt to be either enclyclopaedic or NPOV. Delete, delete, delete! Hornplease 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are again wrongly saying that all sources are unreliable, while the article cites primary sources like Mill and Macaulay, and authorities like Trautmann. (and many more could be quoted). Your remarks make me think you're either not familiar with the topic or dishonest. And for example Michael Moore is biased, as is George W. Bush, but both can be quoted in an appropriate context. It is for example possible to quote Michael Moore on Bush, if it is clear that it is Moore's opinion. You claim Rosser is biased, but have you read her work? Michael Witzel, who has also published in Marxist magazines (not that I care about that) is anyway if anything more biased, and he has had many criticisms, alleging racism, chauvinism and other things. All this has not to do with the AFD and belongs to the talk page, the opinion stated by her could also be written from other sources, as she is not the only one who criticized some aspects of South Asian Studies. In many other articles the criticism section is a separate article, and this might make sense here too. But maybe the article should first evolve into a bigger text before. --Sendrin 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the first section. OK, you have made your point about Trautmann being an authority. Nevertheless, to claim that (a) there is a systemic bias (b) that it is anti-Hindu and (c) that it was universal is absurd. 1. The criticisms of Indian culture were not restricted to Europeans - consider Derozio. 2. The people criticised are either historians - Mill - or generalists - Marx - or definitely not 'indologists - Macaulay. 3. The people being criticised for bias are those who were criticising the indologists! Grant attacking the 'orientalists'! The whole section is utter nonsense dressed up with footnotes. It cant be salvaged, has no place in the absence of an article on Indology, and must be deleted.

About the second section. I have spent a little time reading Rosser. She is absurdly biased. Further, I have got in touch with some people at UT Austin, where she was a grad student, and I discovered that in the well-regarded South Asian programme she was not permitted to finish her PhD and had to go on to submit it in the department of curriculum and instruction. (it was about the revising of textbooks by bjp state govts.) That is not an academically acceptable source. Further, you miss the point that all i needed to know was that she was funded by the vhp to make the determination that she was not an independent source either! Next! Witzel has tenure at Harvard, just had dinner with the President of India last month. Yet we have an article criticising his work before we have an article on the work itself! The rest of the section is similarly one-dimensional in both effect and intent and, indeed, structure. It is unsalvageable. If someone were to put this content on the Doniger and Witzel pages, then I would not demand their deletion, but leave it to be edited to NPOV status. Here the page itself can not be made NPOV, because, as nominated, it is an ab-initio pov-fest, completely one-sided, unsalvageably biased and unencyclopedic. Salvage the content, if you will. Move it elsewhere, to the appropriate article. But this article should only exist once the main article is written, and if criticisms of the theory tend to overwhelm that page. Hornplease 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claime it was universal, however it exists. A historian like James Mill can be included into South Asian Studies, and the article is a stub, a lot could be written about Indologists, not only Max Müller. I haven't read much Rosser, but from one text I read I saw that she criticized/mentioned several pov's, not just one single one. Many people claim that Witzel is absurdely biased, and in any case Witzel rather only criticizes one side of pov and doesn't unbiasedly mention several pov's, his "interpretations" are often rather biased. Who is an independent source? Witzel publishes in Marxist magazines like Frontline and he has associated with Marxist historians, the president of Harvard Mr. Summers makes biased comments, and so on. The question is not wether someone is biased or not, but if a statement is presented as opinion or fact. The opinion exists as a fact, wether the opinion is biased itself is another thing and can then also be pointed out. This issued would belong to the talk page. Where is your source about Witzel's dinner from? From Indiatruth.com? As already stated, many articles have a separate criticims article, and in the Indology/South Asian Studies page criticisms of the theory tend to overwhelm that page. But I agree with your last sentence. It might be better if the text first evolves into a longer more detailled text before making it separate. --Sendrin 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read of Rosser online, she criticised from a single POV. And you still havent responded to my points that she is not a reliable source. About Witzel, I dont know if he can be called biased, but I do know that Frontline is one of India's leading magazines and is not a sign of being an unreliable source any more than being published in the Spectator is, although the editorial board of the first is as marxist as the editorial board of the second is Tory. My source for Witzel's dinner is the harvard gazette, not indiatruth.com (to which I have never been.) We can leave the discussion here, since it is going nowhere.

However, it seems we have some form of consensus: it is too soon for this page. I would like to see the content saved, perhaps on the Indology talk page, so it can be edited and incorportated as the latter article grows. Hornplease 12:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here if any , is for keeping the article . FYI, Frontline is one of the leading mouth pieces of leftist ideology(read anti hindu )in India.Bharatveer 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indology as a section. utcursch | talk 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Topic. More should be known of how the colonialists degraded the culture and altered the history of the country they ruled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.48.22 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2006, 12:24 UTC Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV/OR. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete this page. But create a page for South Asian Studies and make Bias as a section for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.39.123 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Top-posted; moved into sequence by Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very relevant topic, no reason to delete. SV 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much like the academic study of orientalism and Islamophobia, Hinduphobia and Indophobia prevelant amongst current scholars in South Asian studies is an emerging topic of scholarship. Not just the past, but even the present of South Asian studies is prejudiced, and this phenomeonon needs to be studied academically, which is what Wikipedia is all about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006, 04:27
Keep cited references, hard facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.150.182 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2006, 22:36
Keep. This is an excellent article with portrays the eurocentric, colonial and biblical bias traditionally present in South Asian studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.94.140 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2006, 21:09
Keep This page is one of a few places that highlight the problems with Indic studies in the US. It should be cleaned up a bit, but not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.223.43 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2006, 23:32
Keep The irony is that the person campaigning for deletion of the article is a prime example of the bias that the article talks about! As others have pointed out, the article could definitely use some work, but judging by the history of deletions, changes, etc. made by dab this seems to be clearly a campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of all articles that criticize European "scholarship". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.46.7 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2006, 22:47

Comment: The influx of unsigned IP votes may be related to the fact that the article has recently been fetured on a nationalist Hindu website ([26]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree completely with dab. Indology or South Asian Studies has an article; a section of that page can discuss alternative theories stifled by the sources of power in the academy. (To put it as nicely as possible.) Hornplease 09:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. For great justice. 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Zaxem 09:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why we are so obsessed with enforcing moral policing. Can't we let the article evolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.127.154 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Bias in South Asian Studies is a major and hot topic, especially with the "natives" standing up for their versions of the story. One more step in making public/democratic the problems associated with South Asian Scholarship. Tarring folks as "Hindu nationalists" won't hide the serious issues involved. Of course the article should be more nuanced, but the underlying theme is spot on. Someone here called Yvette Roser "biased", I don't think there is such a thing as a scholar without a take. Objectivity in the Humanities is a debatable proposition. Let us keep the stub and hear all sides of the story. Witzel eating with the President of India in no way puts his work above scrutiny. The comments earlier about wikipedia protecting European "scholarship" from rational critiques is well made and relevant.Varahamihira 05:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC) — Note: very new user, see Special:Contributions/Varahamihira and Special:Contributions/24.165.161.115. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryne Morcos[edit]

This article seems to not agree with WP:BIO. Although the article seems to be put together as well as is likely possible. I believe that the subject is simply not notable JGGardiner 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. musti 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Young Liberals of Canada and delete. Notability is very weak, not strong enough to warrant a single article. -- ReyBrujo 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fluit 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional brands in South Park[edit]

Original research, speculation. Brian G. Crawford 17:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not so much because the article is original research or particularly speculative, but because it's simply unnecessary listcruft. -- Kicking222 17:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is neither OR (the show is an obvious primary source material) nor speculation (anyone with eyes that watches the show can see the brands). It may be listcruft, but meh, so what. Actually, I'll go further: the use of fictional brands in South Park is obvious satire of product placement in other shows and is a signifigant part of the shows appeal. It goes beyond Fony brand TV sets to entire embedded commercials like Mr Hanky's playset done with real actors. It is a notable phenonemon that products like Cheezy Poofs went on to actual existance after appearing as fictional in the show. SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is no less important than half of the articles on wikipedia. The use of satire in the brand names is something Mark Twain could be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.109.241 (talk • contribs)
Keep per STC. Couldn't have said it better myself. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both as per the feline one and for the fact that a notable degree of wit and irreverance is clear in the name choices. That, I feel, distinguishes it from listcruft. Ac@osr 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all keep votes. Grand master ka 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lovely list of pop trivia. -- JJay 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, documented, but still it leaves some bad taste in my mouth. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do you even understand what "original research" means? Yikes. Sometimes I wish a person had to demonstrate an understanding of some of these ideas before you can put something up for deletion... Cburnett 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted it's not the best article, but it doesn't hurt and that information would just be spread around as trivia anyway. --Bahati 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and slap nominator. For great justice. 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Particularly important points made in this discussion were: the numerous errors in the article, the lack of a coherent selection criteria, and the fact that many of the city descriptions are just copied and pasted from the main city articles. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Rim capitals[edit]

The title is POV fo shizzle. An NPOV title would be "list of big cities around the Pacific Ocean" which doesn't seem to be a necessary or useful article. SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete but not per nom. ("Pacific Rim" is a proper and non-POV name!) As the original prodder (this is a contested prod), I contend that this article will be better replaced with a category, since all it does is to list the capital cities, then copy the description over verbatim (see the "[1]" dangling from Singapore listing!) from the respective city articles. I had already partly populated the replacement category Category:Pacific Rim capitals when this article was de-prodded. Therefore suggest deletion as duplicate of now-existing category. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to explain: "capitals" is POV. At least half of the entries are not "capitals". SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more useful than a category, since it can mention where Dili is, for those who aren't too clear. Kappa 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article on Dili not explain where it is? SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it does, and I'm sure that clicking random links to see what they are about is great entertainment for people who aren't actually looking for information. Kappa 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The article would be better replaced as a list. If not, then move to "Major cities of the Pacific Rim" — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So is this a vote for keep, rename and rework, instead of delete? — Insta ntnood 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and rework. — Instantnood 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Into what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I don't see how "capitals" is POV. If there are things on the list which should not be there, they should be removed. It is not a reason to get rid of the list. --Fastfission 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "capital" isn't POV, it's utterly meaningless. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If one wants to read about the cities covered by this article, Wikipedia has articles about all of them already. --Metropolitan90 21:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long Beach, California is a "capital"? By what conceivable definition of "capital" can that be true? And can't even see the point here -- and apparently neither could its creator, since the intro reads (and I quote):

The Pacific Rim is one of the world'a fastest growing regions, and

and that's it. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90 and Kimchi.sg although I have no idea why a rename should be made if this is kept. The title is fine. Sorry Guy 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fine? Long Beach is the capital of what? SchmuckyTheCat 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a nice use of list format to provide an overview of these cities. -- JJay 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and remove non-capitals. More useful than a category. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although not a POV title, I fail to see how this is useful to be in an encyclopædia. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--cj | talk 12:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason why capital cities and pacific rim should be linked like this. The info has been cut and pasted from city articles, nothing says why this is relevant to the pacific rim. No other regions have these articles - there isnt Western European capitals etc. The Pacific rim is a vague term anyway - Yangon, Myanmar is on the Indian Ocean, and there are no South American cities mentioned. If state capitals can be included why not include all 47 capitals of the Prefectures of Japan or the 79 Provinces of the Philippines --Astrokey44 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is a subjective collection of information with no basis useful? --cj | talk 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename or rework content. novacatz 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: those of you who keep saying this is "useful", could you do me a favor? Could you explain exactly how this is useful? Can any of you even tell me the point of this misnamed list? Even the creator of the list had no clue. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to moderate your tone on AfD. Your point is a good one, your attitude is not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This article might have had some point, but the current version is just so wrong and POV it would be easier to throw it away and start again if somebody wanted to. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example errors and oddities include:

If Fiji and Hawaii are considered Pacific Rim, why not every other Pacific Ocean island group?
Wrong capital of British Columbia
Four capitals in California, but none in Alaska?
Canberra is over a mountain range, so it's watershed doesn't even flow into the Pacific.
Two capitals of New Zealand
If state capitals of the USA and Australia count (but Brisbane is missing), why not of Mexico and Indonesia?

And that's just what I could see from the table of contents! --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft plus repeat of information that's available on other more specific pages. Zaxem 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per, amongst others, User:Zaxem. --Roisterer 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content fork of the respective pages, not really useful. Sandstein 09:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is going to be deleted. I'd like to archive its edit history and talk page outside of the article namespace. An option would by my user namespace. — Insta ntnood 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nissenbaum[edit]

This is an article about a seemingly non-notable academic, possible a vanity article. According to Worldcat his only work is an unpublished dissertation (owned only by the school he graduated from). Don't know about articles, though, so I thought arguments could perhaps be made. Delete Mak (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some further proof of notability can be provided. --Bachrach44 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedy per CSD:A7. From what I see, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROFTEST. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He wouldn't be a prof at McGill if his only work is his disertation. We need more info, but I gota run at the momeent. JeffBurdges 07:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably true, but I believe that not every academic who has a university appointment is necessarily notable. The only academic I've written an article on has a festschrift dedicated to him. I realize that there is room for disagreement, but from this article and what I've seen so far, this person is not particularly notable. Mak (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically he's an assistant professor: see his page at McGill, which also lists his other work. I'm neutral on this; article talk page points out that he's referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. He did his PhD under Noam Chomsky, and according to his website has published work with Danny Fox, who is extremely well-known within linguistics. He's published one paper in Linguistic Inquiry (one of the most prestigious journals within generative linguistics) and several others in other peer-reviewed publications. He's plenty more notable than a lot of other people listed on Wikipedia. Regarding the comment above, he's referenced on Parasitic gap (bias declaration: I put quite a lot of work into that article). Cadr 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: he is clearly notable according to WP:BIO: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Linguistic Inquiry has a circulation of 5,000 or more, so he's notable according to WP:BIO. Cadr 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Ashworth[edit]

Delete appears to be someone's resume Duckdid 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not Monster.com. -- MarcoTolo 19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a place to put one's resume on. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy - article's creator appears to be subject - Politepunk 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as Wikipedia is not the place for this. Sorry Guy 23:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're fired -- delete. Wikipedia isn't a resume site. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy as NN bio --Bachrach44 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in retrospect I should have just requested a speedy. Duckdid 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if creator is Michael D. Ashworth. Otherwise, Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. If not, delete. -- ReyBrujo 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:MDASoccer. We may as well leave this run for the five days. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy works for me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Under the Iron Sea. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg Song[edit]

Delete - not a particularly notable song. Not even a single. Wickethewok 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an AfD nomination, it's a vote. Since AfD is not a vote, it would be nice to see nominations accorded more effort. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Under the Iron Sea or keep, no reason wp users shouldn't be able to read about it. Kappa 18:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per Kappa. Besides, it's spelt Heliocentric.Ac@osr 20:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and redirect. Don't need the article if this is not a single. -- ReyBrujo 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until it becomes a single, if ever. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, I guess, but redirecting makes so much sense ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baking oven[edit]

This page adds nothing to oven, of which it is a subset, already covered there. Any information that could conceivably go here should be there instead. Fnarf999 18:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fnarf999 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with oven if there is something to merge, Delete otherwise. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in anything useful (if there is anything) and redirect to oven to avoid anyone else creating the article again. SFC9394 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SFC9394. -- ReyBrujo 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the oven article does not point out that a "baking oven" is designed for food preparation, and links to a couple of other special oven articles. I do not see a need for deletion - adds nothing does not look an understandable formulation. The article does not mention houlsehold oven's at all (except link to microwave).

There is no deletion reason by policy, which explicitely spells to keep a few lines stub article, if it is expandable. See Mentuhotep_I, this is not going to be merged. I ask to withdraw the deletion. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't ask for nomination withdrawal - only the nominator can do that. As for the various bits that you say the oven article doesn't cover - that is why merge has been commonly proposed. That way the information will be saved, but it will stop two articles on near identical subjects growing beside each other, confusing the end reader and splitting the collaborative power in half. SFC9394 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the article Oven does not mention food preparation is nonsense. In the very first sentence it says "An oven is an enclosed compartment for heating, baking or drying," and most of the content of the article describes food preparation. The major subhead is entitled "Cooking". It is true that the article is not a particularly good one, but that's why it has an expand tag. A "baking oven" is not a separate type of oven in the same sense that a "microwave oven" or a "dutch oven" is. Fnarf999 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i do not insist to keep it, just it does not bug much (it is NPOV). I missed the oven article spelling the difference between industrial furnace, baking oven (for food), and well, they are also into funeral business, wikipedia is not censored not to scare minors. All that gets too much for the oven article, or it gets something like transformer. This one is not even complete, and definetively will require a split up some day. Nothing wrong with including a few pictures, disk space has become affordable recently. Consider this, and generally articles may expand quickly, and split-up makes sense sometimes.
By the way i browsed other deletion proposals. Probably it makes a difference who suggested it for Afd. If it is not myself, i am entitled (by sampling other deletions) to make defending comments. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

For subjects so similar it makes more sense to have one article. As the sections within the article grow and expand then at some point the decision may be taken to split them up for easier digestion by end readers. If you wish to add more about baking ovens then go ahead and add relevant content to the oven article - then in time it may make sense to give it its own article. You are - of course - fully entitled to make defending comments for this deletion nomination, and I am glad to see that you have. SFC9394 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Start of a duplicate article and there is nothing substantial to merge at present. BigE1977 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect would be problematic (to oven or to baking?), so unless the article is to become a permanent dictdef, do not merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless dicdef. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant - that is what an oven does, ie bake.--Michael Johnson 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing really worth merging in this article. Possibly have it redirect to oven as it refers to an object and not the act of baking. Jgamekeeper 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an oven, by definition, is meant for baking. Oven even says that. This article is redundant. Second, it adds nothing original, and it won't be getting to the point where it does. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content fork. Sandstein 08:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Since any article on this subject would need to be written from scratch, we'll give the future author a helping hand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoveAndStic[edit]

Delete - reads like an advertisement. No real claims of notability. Wickethewok 18:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Please write your nominations as nominations, not simply another vote in a poll without a tally ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if rewritten. I get 195,000 hits on google. It appears to be somewhat notable... Sure, it needs some major revamping but deletion is imho just too much. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, it is an advertisment. May change vote if notability is asserted. -- ReyBrujo 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, no prejudice against a proper article being written instead, but it needs to be razed to the ground first. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost[edit]

Extraneous articles linked from already deleted main article. These just got lost somewhere and should have been removed with the original Catman article. Also adding:

as they, too, are offshoots of the original non notable article. IrishGuy 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the other two, but redirect Blood-Hound to Bloodhound. --Allen 04:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the redirect. IrishGuy 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Ghost and Copy Kat and Redirect Blood-Hound as per Allen. Some guy 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to something real. Sparsefarce 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. User:Usgnus is particularly persuasive here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Potvin[edit]

"For anyone steeped in old-media thinking, evidence that the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia is an unreliable source can be found in a Vancouver publisher's entry about himself.

Kevin Potvin writes and publishes a weekly print tabloid called The Republic of East Vancouver, full of inflammatory opinion pieces reminiscent of the ideological rants of 18th-century pamphleteers. It claims a circulation of 6,000. Yet, according to Wikipedia, Mr. Potvin is a colossus.

The entry says that “some hail Potvin as the latest and best resource for fair investigative reporting and independent media campaigns for truth and accountability.” It also reports that his “work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic Monthly.”

Now for a fact check. According to Harper's magazine, Mr. Potvin had a letter to the editor printed once, in November of 1992. The Atlantic could find no record of Mr. Potvin — he says he wrote “a substantial letter to the editor” in 1987, but the magazine does not archive letters. " —The Globe and Mail, May 6, 2006

delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a reason for deletion in itself but citation may be needed to bolster the article as it stands in the light of these remarks. If Wikipedia deleted everything that somebody somewhere didn't like, there wouldn't be a whole lot left. Ac@osr 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-verified vanity piece that has become a black-eye for wikipedia in the mainstream press. Bucketsofg✐ 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've voted keep (below), simply because this person writes regularly for a publication with a print run of 6000 or whatever, it is embarrassing to Wikipedia that the article referred to his "work" as having appeared in certain high-profile magazines. As someone who has done a fair bit of professional writing, editing, blah blah, myself, I would definitely interpret that as referring to paid articles, not contributions to letters columns. There is a huge difference, even if one or both of these letters were rather long. If this article survives AfD I hope it is kept accurate in future. Metamagician3000 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In general, letters to the editor should not even be mentioned in encyclopaedic articles. — Usgnus 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep.~~ Stronger keep per Usgnus. starting an article about yourself (to help your city council bid) is lame, but if everything in it is referenced, it should be fine. heqs 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BLP. I can't really see what in this makes him notable. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the G&M article, he is not notable. -Abscissa 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable, according to Wikipedia's notability standards, because he is the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of 12,000 and he is a regular writer for a newspaper (Vancouver Courier) with a circulation of 265,000. Usgnus 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the article deleted just because of the Globe article. There are plenty questionable articles out there, and often we try to improve them instead of simply deleting them. Kevin Potvin is fairly well known here in Vancouver. BTW, here is the notability standard I am using: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" — Usgnus 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless better evidence of notability can be shown. David Oberst 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable columnist. -- No Guru 05:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. musti 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO - pm_shef 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Usgnus and cleanup. Metamagician3000 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am Kevin Potvin. The Globe and Mail article implies I fabricated a substantial letter to The Atlantic, so I scanned and posted it here http://www.republic-news.org/images/atlantic.gif

I cannot figure out how to edit a wikipedia entry or how to add this reference to the entry, and maybe someone will help me with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.169.92 (talk • contribs) .

Uhh, mate, that's still just a letter to the editor. It is hardly sufficient as evidence that your "work has appeared in Harper's", etc. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sitra (band)[edit]

NN. The Hebrew counterpart was recently deleted from Hebrew Wikipedia as non-notable, and I noticed a request in Hebrew for help deleting it from the English Wikipedia. woggly 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Bucketsofg✐ 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, per my comment at the bottom. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhoji Rao Shitole[edit]

This page already exists under the name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Wikipedia manual of style states that biography should be under most common name Ghits: 20 vs. 2580. This page was created by another user who is in a dispute on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath discussion page, who is changing the redirects to that page, so that they come here. Admins have already put their two cents in on that pages discussion, that since that name gets the most Ghits, that's where the biography should be placed. Also, that article was up for deletion twice and was kept both times. Hamsacharya dan 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect, if necessary. Then you can have your POV wars on one page, not two. We do not have separate pages for Lew Alcindor and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The original name redirects to the one currently used. Fan1967 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page. This page is a more appropriate bio by Wikipedia standards. (Disclosure: I did not create this page). —Hanuman Das 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) / 66.68.112.85 03:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not making any accusations, but the creator of this page has zero edit history outside this article and attempting to redirect the other one here. This whole issue has been full of sockpuppets in the past. Fan1967 22:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, you are probably right that it is a sockpuppet. It simply isn't my sockpuppet. Perhaps User:NoToFrauds has found some way to evade his block? —Hanuman Das 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What wikipedia standards? Can you be more specific and cite your reference to wikipedia standards? See the wikipedia manual of style [27]. Furthermore, all of the spiritual biographies I've seen have come under the title of the subject, not his/her birth name. Tenzin Gyatso doesn't count because he is the 14th person to receive that title - it is not specifically his title. It is very disrespectful to put it under his birth name - not to mention weak with respect to Ghits 20 vs. 2580. By your rationale, there should be redirection to, and disambiguation for your guru Lawrence Miles Shri Gurudev Mahendranath -- Hamsacharya dan 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page per Hanuman Das. ---Baba Louis 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) / 209.221.144.226 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and protect the redirect. But this should not be at AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is part of a long, ongoing fight, that should be a Request for Arbitration. Fan1967 01:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Hamsacharya Dan's expressed view above. Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is the name/title by which the individual is most known in the general public, particularly in cyberspace. Other noteable individuals that are not listed by their birth name are James Marshall Hendrix who is rightfully put under Jimi Hendrix - in this case there being no redirect at all from his birth name even. Same for James Douglas Morrison who is listed under Jim Morrison with no redirect from his birth name. Same for Sun Ra. Also, interesting to note that Pope John Paul and the whole Pope lineage is listed under their title and not their birthname. Why is it not the same for the HH the 14th Dalai Lama who is unfairly listed under His birthname? It shows an ingrained bias within Wikipedia definitely.213.106.1.25 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]
Comment. Bad example. Pope John Paul is a disambiguation page that leads to two different people. Similarly, Dalai Lama refers to 14 different people, just as Pope refers to dozens. As for the current fight, it is not part of a "Wikipedia bias". It is a part of an ongoing fight between people who like and dislike this person. Fan1967 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good example. Correct it leads to two individuals one being Pope John Paul 1 and Pope John Paul 2 and there are mentions of 23 and 6. ALL still listed under their title and not their birthname. 'Bias' that appears on Wikipedia is 'Wikipedia bias' because it is a free encyclopedia, my dear. So an ongoing fight between people who dislike and like a person is not connected to bias or POV, is it? Look Beyond and See the Light...Hari OM217.34.121.233 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]

Comment Popes are not listed under their title, my dear. Their title is Pope. They are listed under the name they have chosen, a convention that's almost always used in Wikipedia, for everybody. Dalai Lama is a title, not a name. Fan1967 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page per Hanuman Das.--Chai Walla 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)--216.39.162.241 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm an editor, perhaps should say attempted editor of the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article. In truth I can't say that I "dislike" the subject as the subject has a host of very fine qualities and is a very good yogi. At the same time, I have specific problems with what I consider "mythologies" associated with the subject and greater problems with more than one editor who espouse a POV and approach to editing which I believe to be in disregard of Wikipedia policy. The Sidhoji Rao Shitole article is superior to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article because it is NPOV. This is why I support Keep and redirect.--Chai Walla 06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a content dispute, not a dispute regarding the present issue - what is the appropriate article for this subject. Paramhansa Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc etc are all under their titles, not their birth names. The only example Hanuman Das is bringing up is Tenzin Gyatso - the 14th Dalai lama. But the Dalai Lama is a title that is handed down through the generations to different people, so it makes sense to put his biography under his given name rather than a generalized title. Hamsacharya dan 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Content disputes do not belong at AfD. This one has been brought here too often. Take it to Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration. Fan1967 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yup, and it is User:Hamsacharya dan that has twice brought this dispute to AfD since the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article passed its first AfD. —Hanuman Das 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Hamsacharya dan said "Admins have already put their two cents in on that pages discussion, that since that name gets the most Ghits, that's where the biography should be placed." As far as I know, this is not true. Please cite a diff where an admin made some sort of official statement about this. The page move failed due to lack of concensus and no other reason. —Hanuman Das 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Partially in response to this talk page message, partially because of the fact that the nominator's request is to move/rename, not to delete, and partially because there have been no valid delete votes (anons do not count), I am closing this as a speedy keep. The naming dispute can, and should, be taken to WP:RFC. (Not WP:RFAR, who don't handle content disputes.) Stifle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood the Game[edit]

From what I could see, this doesn't seem notable. Gadren 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The alexa ranking for its website is >6 million. Entirely non-notable internet game. Grand master ka 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable, while not quite spam (as there is no link in the article to the website) it is still outwith notability criteria. SFC9394 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grandmasterka. Sorry Guy 23:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The precursor to this game, Virtual Producer, was featured in Entertainment Weekly a number of years ago. Although it doesn't have a large traffic rating, this is not the only criteria the game should be judged on. The world of online Hollywood simulations is fairly large, and HTG is an important part of it. I believe there are other sites from this genre that have their own Wikipedia pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Broderick (talk • contribs) .

Delete per Grandmasterka. Mark, feel free to nominate the other articles to deletion if you think they aren't notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rapidweaver. No Guru 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidweaver themes[edit]

Do we need this page in addition to Rapidweaver? After all, we don't have a page for PowerPoint templates. Gadren 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rapidweaver. Bucketsofg✐ 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rapidweaver, it is imho the best solution. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes more sense than deletion. Sorry Guy 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Ahmed Saleh[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough yet, and it was created by him, according to the history, so it's a vanity page anyway. Gadren 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I'm also nominating this article, which is an exact copy of the above one:[reply]

Hazem Saleh
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Bucketsofg✐ 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and Bucketsofg. -- MarcoTolo 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a vanity page and certainly a nn bio. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Ton e 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bucketsofg. Sorry Guy 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhatkaa.com[edit]

Non notable website, alexa ranking well over 1,000,000, does not meet WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. Rory096 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 20:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Website plans to expand its reach by popular give aways and spawning new websites, though it has not been very successful in its Venture.". Delete. -- MarcoTolo 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. though it has not been very successful in its Venture. means NN and deletion. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz spy[edit]

Non-notable - 114 google hits, too low for any alexa rating, does not meet the notablility criteria SFC9394 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the number of Ghits provided makes it non notable. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-group}}. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-GODS-[edit]

Not notable. Gadren 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Aachhaya 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable fancruft. -- MarcoTolo 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - yet another non-notable gaming clan. I've successfully used {{nn-club}} for these. Tagged. Grand master ka 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be notable, how many individuals must an article posted on wikipedia have had a notable effect on? Whilst the servers may no longer be active, there are a great many individuals numbering in their thousands who have accessed, used and regularly played on the servers, kindly take into consideration if you visit the website link at the end of the article for UKCSS Community, there are a great many individuals affected by what has and is happening on the servers. Perhaps the focus should change from the small clan to the entire community spanning many many people? Would that be appropriate?Aachhaya 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom if it isn't speedied. DarthVad e r 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Stay Hungry. --Ezeu 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burn In Hell[edit]

Song is by a notable band, but is not notable by itself. Rory096 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Twisted Sister, can't be that many covers of their work. Ac@osr 21:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stay Hungry, song doesn't seem to be notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that the article could Burn in Deletion Hell, but I'll settle for a merge. TheProject 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stay Hungry per Stifle. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Beno1000 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Battlestar Pegasus.

Mercury Class Battlestar[edit]

Delete because this can never be more than a stub. Given that the only authoritative source is the series and the series creator has said a number of times that he is going to steer clear of the techno-babble that plagued Trek. AlistairMcMillan 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of ships in BG or something similar.--Ton e 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with battlestar galactica as previously suggested. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, merge what? We already have a page on the Battlestar Pegasus, the only Mercury class ship that has appeared in the series, and that page already says everything that is covered on this page. AlistairMcMillan 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that this may never be more than a stub with the recent announcment of the Caprica spin off, we may well learn more about this class of ship (amoung others) No Vote EnsRedShirt 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Battlestar Pegasus, if there's nothing to merge, then there's nothing to merge! And if some spinoff series later conjures up exciting new details about the Mercury Class Battlestar, the redirect can be replaced by an article. —Stormie 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Stormie. -- ReyBrujo 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Beno1000 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 anything salvagable, then redirect. Mailer Diablo 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grinder Rules[edit]

Doesn't appear to be encyclopedic, if anything, merge into Chicago White Sox somehow Metros232 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local advertising campaign. They sound better on the radio, when read by Kurtwood Smith, but they're not worth an article. Fan1967 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article was written in response to many requests I have fielded from presons outside of the Chicago area who have shown interest in this particular ad campaign, because it is linked to a notable, and historic sporting event (or in this case, season). While this was my first such contribution, I find Fan-1967's rather biased opinion rude and uncultured. If you believe that this is not worth an article, so be it, but I cannot believe that the management approves of such uncouth and unwarranted insults directed toward patrons and non-discriminatory content. TeganX7 22:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, what did you consider to be such a "uncouth and unwarranted insult"? The "non-notable" or "not worth an article"? Which was "rude and uncultured"? Just curious. Fan1967 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic original research. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chicago White Sox. These 'rules' are from an advertising campign, but this is not original research. These rules are very popular with Sox fans (which I am one), but do not justify their own article. — Linnwood 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think the rules should stay in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFor the record, the Kurtwood Smith comment sounded a bit opinionated. If it is the judgement of he powers that be that this is too local, or too "local" to be of interest, then feel free to delete it. Considering some of the articles (as an example, I have seen articles for high schools that are hardly more researched than this, and far more local in flavor, as well as local entertainment personalities , that, at least IMO, would be far more worthy of deletion than this...though that's not my call to make. TeganX7 00:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry you found the comment offensive, though I'm still puzzled at what bothers you. I thought it was a moderately well-done set of ads, and his reading of the lines made the radio commercials enjoyable. However, it was just a local ad campaign, and those generally aren't considered of interest outside the market. Fan1967 13:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chicago White Sox. --Neverborn 06:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime audio dramas[edit]

Contested prod. I did a mini clean-up of "dorama" articles a few months ago this is something that's left over. I'm not against including information on audio dramas on wikipedia, however, this is akin to making a list of all movies based on books or all anime based on manga. This just is the wrong way to go about it. --Kunzite 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Remove or Convert to category for the following reasons:

The list was created just for the sake of having such a list (it was split from another article, IIRC.)
The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
The list is unmaintainable.
The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

Delete, pick any or all of the above reasons. Ashibaka tock 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly convert to category. -Sean Curtin 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to category per Sean Curtin. -- ReyBrujo 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Convert to category per nom. I'll even do it. (^_^) ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind making it a category, but.. Let's discuss first. There are manga-only titles that have audio dramas. There are also a handfull of dramas and the like that are audio drama. Give it a neutral name and if someone wants a list of all anime audio dramas we can point them to category math. Also, the list is so puny. There are possibly hundreds of titles not on the list. =) There are a few other lists like this out there that could use similar converstion to categories. I woudn't mind opening AWB up and doing some of the conversion too. --Kunzite 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Category:Anime and manga audio dramas? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with an "anime and manga" style category is that there are Audio Dramas made of new material to promote seiyu. There are seires of audio dramas that have no anime or manga or "light novel" basis (most of these are yaoi/hentai titles.) There are audio dramas based off of TV dramas. There are video game audio dramas for games that have no anime or manga. There are even one or two titles released as audio dramas that have spawned anime and manga.

Secondly, After researching this a bit more, I have changed my mind. We have very very few (I can only think of one) articles are dedicated to audio drama for a specific series. Anime and manga article rarely mention audio dramas (even in the Japanese WP.)

Audio dramas are basically a by-product of the seiyu industry in Japan. (Which is not present in the west.) They're also expensive to purhcase for most fans (around 3,000¥ per disc.) Also, spoken dialogue is harder to translate for most fans. This leads to very very poor coverage in the west. (Sakura Taisen, for example, has released 23 radio drama CDs, not a single one mentioned in the article.) So... I think that we should list the full articles based on audio dramas in Category:Radio drama and leave the rest alone until the (unlikely) day when the wiki attains have better coverage of audio dramas in modern Japanese society. --Kunzite 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, the article doesn't claim notability so {{nn-band}} applies. If someone recreates the article with such an assertion, then it can come back. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Leafe[edit]

Non Notable band. The so called band members appear to be misspellings of musicians from other bands. The article also has no content of notablity and has no ties to either of the music genres listed, ie: Gothic Metal. Ley Shade 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It gets 121 000 hits on Google... I'm not therefore so sure of its non notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafikm fr (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 22:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to qualify per WP:MUSIC. Band appears to have released at least five albums over the last eight years; two of the labels (Firebox and Rage of Achilles) appear to be legit indie labels. Albums are stocked by Amazon, CDUniverse, and others - notable for an import. Line-up list looks correct per the Firebox band page. Over 800 ghits on ("Fall of the Leafe" + "review"); most appear to be on established webzines focusing on various incarnations of heavy metal. -- MarcoTolo 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Linux[edit]

A random Linux distribution; links are dead, no compelling reason that it's notable. Ashibaka tock 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:SOFT. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn distro. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know the distro, but they don't qualify as notable. -- ReyBrujo 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN distro. Beno1000 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weltenbrand[edit]

Non Notable band. The article also has no content of notablity and has no ties to the music genre listed, ie: Gothic Metal. The article has sat for over a month doing nothing, and after searching and question the WP:HMM, we have found this band to be Non Notable. Ley Shade 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal[edit]

Basically a dicdef and unencyclopedic (only a synonym of "big"). There is already an entry on "colossal" in Wiktionary that has the etymology. The usage note could be added to the Wiktionary article. SCHZMO ✍ 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the corresponding wiktionary entry if there are additionnal informations. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I've taken off the transwiki tag, as it adds nothing to the definition already on Wiktionary. I would suggest a possible redirect to Colossus. TheProject 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly redirect. -Sean Curtin 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delet, if there is something useful per Stifle. -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. kingboyk 05:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six Degrees of Separation (disambiguation)[edit]

I created it then realized it is currently unnecessary (maybe when the play and movie have different articles John (Jwy) 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the page (which I see that you did) then it should be eligible for speedy delete as long as you give a reason on the tag. Your page should fit under general crieria number 7. Unless there are special rules for diambig pages then you should be able to get it swiftly deleted without having to go through a five day afd process. Best, SFC9394 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor of the page, blank it and place {{db-author}} at the top of the page. In this case, it would definitely fall under criteria G7, "Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.". Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was following the speedy procedure, but I must have taken a wrong turn. I have done the db-author thing as described John (Jwy) 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned dab page. Stifle (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daivika Amsham[edit]

Unverifiable. No Google hits outside of WP mirrors. TheProject 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to transwiki it, but delete because it's not verifiable. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've now taken out the transwiki template. I'll add it back if the outcome of this is to transwiki (which currently, it isn't). TheProject 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. Weak simply because it may be that there's a transliteration problem that would throw up more hits or a verification. I'll start looking, and if I have no joy I'll change to just "delete". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one from "daivika amsam": "there is a spark of divinity (daivIka amSam) in the young author"[28]. That's all I've been able to find; it's not really enough to justify weak delete, so I've struck out the "weak". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable. -- ReyBrujo 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to see the article cleaned up ... what do you say, Stifle? Feel like chancing your arm? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Beal[edit]

Seems as though no assertion of notability is made, also tone quite non-encyclopedic Deville (Talk) 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beal is well known for his work with Ibogaine as well as the Yippies [29]. I agree that it could be cleaned up a bit, but he is notable. IrishGuy 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is certainly well-known for his work with Ibogaine as well as organizing a world-wide Marijuana Mass Movement in many, many cities that never had one, documenting evidence can be found in many of the 17 300 hits that Google comes up with under his name. The article really does need to be cleaned up, however. Somehow the entry for "Counterculture", for instance, manages to sound decidedly encyclopedic, for instance. This entry could too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.84.41 (talk • contribs)
Keep, Dana Beal is notable, the problem is AJWeberman seems to have written most of the entry in first person prose and not one of the assertions or statements made are backed up with a single reference. I don't know if there is a third option to keep or delete, but I'd pick delete and replace with something coherent that uses some refs. Delete unless cleaned up is a great choice, but reading the comments, the problem is who is going to clean it up. I would take a stab at it, except I know about Beal sideways through where the Yippies intersect with the hacker underground and unlike the hacker underground which can be researched online with links to non-internet reference material, almost everything I can find about Beal is not a "real world" ref or scan of same. Almost all of it loads pages that use html like pink letters on green backgrounds and instead of finding a NY Times reference, you find old hippies ranting.

Keep, delete, delete unless cleaned up, notable but incoherent? I guess I stick with keep. Could somebody like AJWeberman who understands all this clean it up a little? Weberman's entry is great [30]. 6Akira7 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Association of Mathematically Precocious Youth[edit]

Seems to be a small and not very notable local organization. Only 35 google hits. Connecticiut is a pretty small place, and I doubt this even has much reknown within that state, let alone out of it. Indrian 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn org. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7. --kingboyk 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7, tagged. -- ReyBrujo 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 clear consensus to delete. Merged as suggested.--Ezeu 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abasin & Nuristan (Pakistan)[edit]

this article is an exact duplicate of the pakhtunkhwa thread..and adds little to the debate.. --Zak 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've comibined these two nominations as User:Zakksez didn't create a discussion page for Nuristan (Pakistan), but it looks like he had the same rationale in mind. Abasin, Nuristan (Pakistan), and Pakhtunkhwa are duplicate articles. They need to be cleaned up, but I don't have a clue which should be the proper title. -- JLaTondre 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If all three are, according to the articles themselves, alternative proposed names for North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan, shouldn't they all three be merged and redirected into that article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newyorktimescrossword 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either into the article about the NWFP, or into an article about the proposed fate of the NWFP (including possible names). —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already far too many redirects to the NWFP. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Littkowski[edit]

Where to start? Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN to begin with. The subject (and author) of this article has not only managed to edit Wikipedia a day after his own death, he's also found the time in the afterlife to be posting on a German forum in the last few weeks. BillC 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. --BillC 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-written and seems notable. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you might want to consider including Terra Romana and Forum Navis Romana in the AfD as well, the latter of which has apparently been improperly nominated. TheProject 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I was working on these as you added your comment. Because they're different topics, I intended to write separate AfD's rather than bundle them. But thanks. --BillC 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete reads like a obituary, suprisingly few ghits for a person in the IT-biz. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Ted 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not place to honour deceased non notable people per 4th information policy. -- ReyBrujo 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might not have been clear enough in my OP. Let me state it here: he's not dead. --BillC 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Userfy. Actually I checked the information in the article, checked to see if there was something notable in Google, and failing that, decided to support deletion because of WP:NOT. But you are right about this. -- ReyBrujo 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sven is just zis guy, you know? Non-notable. ~ Booyabazooka 22:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuristan

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Navis Romana[edit]

Website with no demonstration of notability made. Fails WP:WEB BillC 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I am nominating Terra Romana as the article describes it as a web portal containing "many theme portals". The Terra Romana website contains only one portal, that being Forum Navis Romana, and describes itself as "under construction, expected Summer/Autumn 2005". Both articles seem to have created by the same author who created his own autobiography around the same time. --BillC 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. --BillC 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Ted 02:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, site broken. -- ReyBrujo 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lorrey[edit]

Not notable, no real assertion of notability Deville (Talk) 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The page was vandalized, which I have now fixed. The new version has more notability without all the disgusting slander that was there. I think one of his opponents is trying to re-work the article. Grand master ka 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or delete. I believe Mike Lorrey started this himself. I added some info that I know about. The edits are not vandalism. I reverted them. I can provide links for most you think is. Most of the info comes from mike lorrey himself.

for the muslim/pig stuff see: http://www.xanga.com/Sadomikeyism/88688608/item.html

for the Mike Lorrey holiday: http://www.xanga.com/Sadomikeyism/176277938/item.html

For Mike Lorrey's SAT scores and other history: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WJaXVjM0rH4J:nh.sevatech.com/wiki/index.cgi/Mike_20Lorrey+mike+lorrey+afb+el&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

If newbie observations are not welcome on an AfD, ignore my comments. If I violate any rules or etiquette, please let me know. Most of Lorrey’s “notability” appears to be self generated. It appears he wrote both the Wiki article and the blog it is based on, sort of referencing himself, as opposed to referencing credible published articles by unbiased writers.

This is Mike Lorrey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey

Thank you! This was very helpful, and I clearly was mistaken about what I thought was slander. I will say delete. Being an activist is not enough notability, and as was said, a lot of his "notability" is self-generated. Grand master ka 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability aside from his own materials. -- Kaszeta 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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☀ 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Overbeek[edit]

Extremely non-notable Deville (Talk) 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'm having a difficult time making a call on this one. He appears to be fairly well published.[31] He also apparently played a role in the development of high-throughput software for genome analysis.[32] — RJH 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand notable for Semantics of Logic Programming, GHits[33]. --MaNeMeBasat 08:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A writer of at least 6 books (Amazon search) os not non-notable. Kevin 09:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO as a well published author. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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