Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 9[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 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PTC Gz[edit]

-I have proof they are reall, im a former student at MHS and they put out 2 CDS I have a link from our talent show way back in the day with a clip of them doing a song. It isnt that good as far as video quality cause we were young high school students running the production but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glkxGZDoN4g look at it and cry people. It isn't verifiably notable. You can't even prove they exist. Urthogie 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough ghits for "PTC Gz" Computerjoe 's talk 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LUCPOL 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is currently involved with me in an edit war.--Urthogie 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~for their two LPs. Someone's going to look them up some time.~~ ~~Tyrenius 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can you prove that they ever made those LP's? No, so its not verifiable.--Urthogie 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD is premature and should have been preceded by a Verify tag to give editors, who are probably not familiar with all the Wiki procedures, a chance to provide substantiation. Had this been done and nothing more was forthcoming, I would support the nom. I am conscious of BITE. Nor have any of the editors been notified on their talk pages of this AfD. It may be that a summary could find a place in the Peachtree City, Georgia article to augment the information on the city's "system of golf cart paths".Tyrenius 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete change vote on basis of Kickstart70's research, unless there is any verification to the contrary. Tyrenius 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've spent 10 minutes trying to find any proof of those albums, any reviews of their appearances, any sign that this is not some elaborate put-on, and come up with nothing. If the editors who made this can provide some of the above to prove WP:V I'll consider changing the vote, but I really have my doubts this is possible. The page has existed since July 1, 2005 and this is still a serious question, so I must suggest deletion, as they've had plenty of time to add such verifiability. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm guessing the Ptcg user in history is a perpetrator of this hoax/non-notable topic. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V as per Kickstart70's excellent research. --BrownHairedGirl 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be sourced. --UsaSatsui 20:10, 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 Snow / Speedy / Its gone. Tawker 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of nymphets and faunlets[edit]

inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Load of POV listcruft. Actually, in the same vein as List of sex symbols. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? The list of sex symbols isn't up for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

The "something similar to this article isn't up for deletion so this article shouldn't be deleted" argument has got to be the worst keep argument. Ever. -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "This is a subjective list of ..." 'nuff said. Fan1967 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is the subject matter of the article more than anything else that makes it put up for deletion, as other related articles are. You can't pin-point one article and not another just because you don't agree with its subject matter. Most of the lists on Wikipedia are POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

Delete I saw it and thought about submitting it myself ... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information BigDT 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Delete. Aplomado ^talk 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, go ahead and delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
Delete -- Oh my freaking god. Ditch this meretricious listcruft per nom and BigDT and let the pedos troll elsewhere. "Faunlets?" RGTraynor 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most people's problem with the list is the fact that it says 'nymphet and faunlet'... if it was strictly the POV they were worried about, they'd've also tagged the list of sex symbols and other 'POV' lists... but go ahead, delete it.

A lot of the people on this list are not children, either. Many of them also appear on the list for sex symbols66.181.234.82 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What is the statute of limitations on trying an AFD again? Looking at the List of Sex Symbols AFD, the vote was 10-7 in favor of deletion. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't. Two of the keeps gave silly reasons. I guess technically 10-7 could be said to be no consensus ... but honestly, not too much has been done to improve the list and it, too, says that it is a subjective list so I would say it doesn't belong here either. BigDT 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sex symbols is at least verifiable, one can find sources that meet RS that call them sex symbols. Obvious examples would be Madonna and Marylin Monroe. This list does not seem to have that advantage. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly POV and unverifiable. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The poster child for why lists shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Ted 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. List includes Barbie and Ken, but I didn't notice any citations for any entries, even human ones. Barno 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. Um, Kirk Douglas? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above OSU80 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BigDT and Ted. --TorriTorri 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sorry Guy 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please deleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G y re 04:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/OR. Scranchuse 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV violation from the first sentence. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as The Most POV List Ever. But lists are usually quite useful, TedE. Grand master ka 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too subjective, not a single cited source. I know "nymphet" comes from Nabokov's Lolita, but "faunlet" is probably a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100% POV, and unavoidably so. Consider this my deletelet. Vizjim 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... What am I supposed to say about this except Delete? Beno1000 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. --Ton e 14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c
Delete for oh so many reasons... -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whoever said 'faunlet' is a neoligism is wrong, it's in Nabokov's book "Lolita" ALONG WITH nymphet, so it is NOT a neoligism.66.181.234.82 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, alright, it might not be a new term, but it doesn't seem to be a very frequently-used one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.181.234.82 needs to take a look at WP:PKMN. While I'm at it, delete per everyone else. -Whomp 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV list. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. — CJewell (talk to me) 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as disgusting pedocruft. Wikipedia is developing a reputation as a haven for pedophiles [1] [2], and crap like this doesn't help. ergot 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- zOMG this is awful. The authors must have ergot poisoning. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I am not a pedophile, I'm 15, most people on this list are OLDER than I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- That's just what you think. I bet you plenty of wikieditors are under 15. And besides, the fact that you are 15 does not ensure that you are not a pedophile. Also, this article sorta violates WP:BEANS. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Regardless of how old you might be, this is an article whose very title is borrowing terminology from a novel about pedophilia. The pedophilia stuff is getting way out of hand, and it's making us look bad in the press. ergot 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry. And I'm NOT a 15 year old pedophile, I'm attracted to people my age and OLDER. I can see where you're coming from, but the list was not made in the vein of any kind of pedophilic intent. As I said, most of the celebrities on the list are older than I am, and most of them I got from the list of sex symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
  - Comment - mm, I'm sorry, but no fifteen-year-old speaks in terms of "nymphets," "faunlets" or any other such child-slanted terminology generally restricted to pedos when discussing their peers. RGTraynor 19:11, 11 May 2006 ,(UTC)
That is true in most cases, I don't go around calling my peers nymphet and faunlet, but I did just read Nabokov for class, and thought it would be interesting to make a list. I see now people are making a much bigger thing of it than I meant for it to be... I was just a bored teenager who put together a list with people my age and older after reading Lolita. Geez, I didn't know: 1. that people would take offense to it and think I was some pedophile, and 2. That wikiedia was ruputed as a pedophile thing... bad editing, yes, but not a pedophile thing. So, I agree that it should be deleted, because I in no way meant for the list to be that, and since it is being taken that way, I don't want to unneccesarilly offend any one else, so please DELETE it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

Ok. I've added {{db-author}} to the page. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 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 deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Mortal Kombat Caracters[edit]

No proper info. Badly written. Largely incoherent— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for people to post bad fanfic. (Also, title is misspelled.) Fan1967 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense BigDT 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Here is a page where you can write down your ideas of new characters you can share with me and others." Delete at a very high velocity. Aplomado ^talk 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per BigDT, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a chat room.--Nick Y. 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nnßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:43, 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 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Test Dummy[edit]

The website doesn't even exist yet - that makes it hard to be notable. BigDT 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any Google hits, seems to be spam. Mdwh 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Richardcavell 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buy an ad. Aplomado ^talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose that something which does not yet exist can still be notable ("Tony Blair's resignation" is filling the news here, although it's some way off yet), but this article makes no claim of noatbility other than hype. --BrownHairedGirl 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Spam--Nick Y. 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn spam.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G y re 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A website can't be notable if it doesn't exist. There is no requirement to promote such a non-existent site, either. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mdwh.--E va ^db 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you judge the value of a website on whether you have heard of it or not. There are literally millions of websites. Political Test Dummy plays in integral part in the development of youth opinion within the media in Australia. May I suggest you are out of touch. Judge on the merits of its aim, not the current numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.236 (talk • contribs)

Delete, the passage above makes it clear it's a crystal-ball issue. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons given by ProhibitOnions and others. Vizjim 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 61.68.41.236: You need to realize that, no matter what the aims of an organization, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it doesn't exist. For example, Nazis are in wikipedia because of their (former) numbers, not because of their aims. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Website does exist, www.politicaltestdummy.com - Try reading the note that says they are currently 're-developing', not 'developing', but 're-developing. Or alternatively, attempt to Google the words 'Political Test Dummy'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.87 (talk • contribs)

Comment But right now there's nothing - perhaps wait until it's "redeveloped" before writing an article? Anyhow, it only gets 30 Google hits [3], that's nothing. In fact, 13 are from the website itself, 9 from Wikipedia, and the rest are just someone spamming in various webforums! Mdwh 14:32, 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 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSF Lifecycle[edit]

This page appears to be part of someone's failed multilevel marketing campaign from 2005 --Msebast 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... 200-some google hits, mostly on places derived from Wikipedia BigDT 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's rubbish. - Richardcavell 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any notability. Aplomado ^talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any either. Give the guy props for his adspam lasting this long, though. RGTraynor 01:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow a year and a half, that is impressive. Aplomado ^talk 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google for the term with -wikipedia set[4] returns only 32 hits, and most of those are still Wikipedia. This appears to be either original research or, as Msebast suggests, something to do with marketing. --BrownHairedGirl 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and seems to be original research. Beno1000 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of writing makes me physically ill. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robitic Nightmare[edit]

Barely coherent jumble, notability not demonstrated - Richardcavell 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I can ascertain, this is referencing a particular team in a Super Mario-related soccer game. Very non-notable. Aplomado ^talk 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete--Nick Y. 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this nonsense made it this far. Kevin 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable, nonsensical —Larry V (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G y re 04:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent videogamecruft. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent Jumble--E va ^db 11:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, delete. ProhibitOnions 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow. did Jeff K. write that? Delete -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:01, 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 deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity worship[edit]

Originally, I listed it as a speedy as db-nonsense. The contributor removed my speedy tag. So I'm putting it here. BigDT 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nominator BigDT 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a narcissistic essay. Aplomado ^talk 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Man, this must be a slow morning in Wikiland. RGTraynor 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is faster than Speedy Delete, put me down for that. Fluit 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever is faster than Speedy Delete, put me down for that." Ditto! my god!--Nick Y. 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This a topic which may well deserve coverage, but this is not that article. If someone has something coherent to write on the subject, it can be accomodated within Celebrity, unless it grows huge. --BrownHairedGirl 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Consensus with Fluit and Nick Y. - Speedy delete and more —Larry V (talk) 02:11, 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 06:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barobax[edit]

nn slang term, used in Persian, which the article admits is mainly used by an underground band in Iran, and would appear to be very recent. This I think would not be particularly notable, as Iran is a conservative theocracy and an underground rock band would probably only be known to a few people who go against the conservative orthodoxy, which most likely strongly disapporves of such music. Also, the band has a website with no alexa rank, so I am dubioiuis of their influence on pop culture.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though transwiki to Wiktionary if someone can find a reliable source. Aplomado ^talk 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN. To quote from their website, "They started working on their music in 2001 and are trying to release their first album." Good luck, gents, but you're going up against the wall. RGTraynor 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dlohcierekim 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ted 05:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band info which hasn't met WP:NMG, possible transwiki the slang per Aplomado. I tried to find a source but couldn't. Any Farsi speakers? -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant. Tyrenius 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. doesn't belong here. may urban dictionary, but doubtful there too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:55, 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 deleted as advertising. --InShaneee 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Religion Data Archives[edit]

Contains nothing but a link to a website, gives no reason to believe it is notable. BigDT 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising, spam. - Richardcavell 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell. Aplomado ^talk 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A1, A3. RGTraynor 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Nick Y. 01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertisement, no real content. —Larry V (talk) 02:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Tomic[edit]

An under-13 tennis player. He may become good one day, but there are many child wonders who never convert to the top echelons. It doesn't seem that he is notable on accounts of publicity, for the moment.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~What? Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball? Delete.~~ Keep per Kevin1243. Mea culpa for not doing a better job of checking this topic out. As penance, I volunteer to take on the task of reworking the article myself. Sounds like an interesting topic. Aplomado ^talk 01:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I cleaned it up a bit. See how you all like it. Aplomado ^talk 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment looks a lot more respectable now Ans e ll 03:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Fox News quotes "His extraordinary success was hailed as a "significant accomplishment" by Tennis Australia" earlier this year. There have also been articles in the Herald Sun and The Sydney Morning Herald. Kevin 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kevin. JoshuaZ 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up given his record as a representative player. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that he is 13 does not make him encyclopedic....let's wait until he wins a major OSU80 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for his age, which IMO makes him encyclopedic given the results. Winning two overseas tournaments is enough for his age. Needs to be NPOV'd but apart from that looks good. Ans e ll 03:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dlohcierekim 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Repeated comments about talent in notable journals is good evidence for a notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough per media attention, achievements, and age. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable at such a tender age, winning two international tournaments is very good for a 13+ year old boy, meets WP:BIO as he gets frequent media attention of his acheivements. A cleanup will be better. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above comments, meets WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terence Ong. ProhibitOnions 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is amazing what this kid has acheived at his age and that is very notable. matchu01 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This comment was actually placed by an IP address. [5] E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable athlete. Just because he's a minor and not yet part of the American commercial sports machine doesn't mean he doesn't need an article. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fine rewrite by Aplomado. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well saved. Tyrenius 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is definitely notable Yuckfoo 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message Well I voted to delete however I must say Aplomado did a great job of cleaning it up! OSU80 22:46, 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 no consensus. Raichu 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans at Dartmouth College[edit]

Non-notable student organization at my alma mater. Brian G. Crawford 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable student organization. Zaxem 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Dartmouth College. There's a section there with the same title, and no content. Kevin 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd opt for just deleting that section in the article. It's a student group, so should go into the article specifically for Dartmouth College student groups, and any history items relating to Native Americans can just get merged into the history section. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kevin1243 OSU80 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first relevant Google hit is the Answers.com mirror of the article. G y re 04:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kevin1243 User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to appropriate Dartmouth College section and delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *Merge NAD (Native Americans at Dartmouth) section into Dartmouth College student groups and merge the rest into Dartmouth College --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dartmouth College, nnin its own right. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Smith120bh.--E va ^db 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the content to Dartmouth College student groups. I would have merged it myself if I'd found that particular article. I also added a mention at the disambiguation page NAD. The more general first bit that's not about the student group has been merged with Dartmouth College. Brian G. Crawford 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Brian G. Crawford's bold strategy-- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content is now in a more appropriate place. Tyrenius 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN organisation. Beno1000 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student organization at my father-in-law's alma mater. Only fifty members and doesn't seem to have a website. ergot 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it deserves a place on the dartmouth college article. Benjaminstewart05 07:05, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyer Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable School with only 44 students. --Corporal Punishment 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing special about it. Brian G. Crawford 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —Larry V (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 44 students? Some of my classes at high school have more M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did anyone see the school district? This is 2/3 of the entire county school district's children (65 total). The entire population in the county (971) is less than my high school. Certainly not world-wide notable, but I'm willing to keep it. Ted 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are generally not notable unless they are the location of some significant event. Cedars 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are notable, that has been established. If you aren't interested, don't read the article. Markb 05:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but given the small size of the school and district, a merge/redirect to Esmeralda County School District would likely be appropriate. --Rob 07:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Markb Jcuk 08:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Esmeralda County School District and delete the article. Non-notable as an article due to its tiny enrolment. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Terence Ong. There is no assertion of notability, and there must be zillions of such tiny schools on the planet: we can't have an article on them all. --BrownHairedGirl 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVad e r 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are notable, even if they're small.--E va ^db 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All universities are notable, maybe even all high schools, but elementary schools are clearly less so. However, this name should redirect to the district, and not just be deleted. JeffBurdges 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, though schools should have their own pages if there's enough to say about them. ProhibitOnions 12:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This school has more students than some U.S. towns have people. Silensor 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly notable because it is so small. What is the smallest public elementary school in Nevada? If no one can come up with a few more details like that that might make linking to it alone useful, it could be merged into the district article. Rigadoun 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are historically huge numbers of schools with less students. Schools don't get notable for being small. Average Earthman 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, keep per a rejected guideline? You might just as well say "Keep because all schools get kept".--Isotope23 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inherently notable -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either in this form or with information merged to district article. Then use it as a redirect. Tyrenius 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school is verifiable and important Yuckfoo 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, since it can't be usefully expanded. Anyone saying it can should prove it by expanding it. Average Earthman 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as all schools are notable. Carioca 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are notable regardless of enrollment number. Beno1000 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JeffBurdges. BryanG 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district article. If there is ever enough content to justify an article on this school, it can easily be spun off the school district article. NoIdeaNick 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools are notable. ALKIVAR™ 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lame. Duckdid 08:41, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cocaine[edit]

This has been transwikied to Wikibooks acccording to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Cocaine. I suspect this is a duplicate article that was overlooked. Brian G. Crawford 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cocktails, just like Liquid Cocaine now does. youngamerican (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cocktails, User_talk:Dlohcierekim 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per youngamerican - G y re 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect—This has been dealt with already. Ardric47 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cocktails. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Déja vu. ProhibitOnions 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Déja vu. Déja vu. Vizjim 14:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Heck, I'm just going to be bold and make it a redirect (leaving the AfD tag in place for now though). Mango juice^talk 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As above. Beno1000 23:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go: speedy redirect —M e ts501^talk 00:51, 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 A7, userfied article. Royboy crashfan 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh C Dave[edit]

This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Cansur and is an autobiography. On top of this, the notability is not asserted Tony Bruguier 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. Kevin 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. - Richardcavell 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G y re 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedied, probably M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy before doing so. {{db-bio}} candidate, WP:BIO and WP:VANITY refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after userfy. His awards are not sufficiently notable. Tyrenius 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. Userfied and tagged -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a speedy delete, since notability is claimed by the sentence "He also won the George Kent Award in 1971 from UK (third prize) for his technical paper." Stifle (talk) 18:25, 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; in addition to the copyvio as listed, the mod has been shut down as copyvio. RasputinAXP c 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Special Forces[edit]

Mod with no assertion of notability. Delete as advertising and vanity. --InShaneee 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article started out about a TV show, and has evolved into this. I don't see either incarnation as being notable enough to be here. Kevin 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not see it as being 'notable enough,' the game during the last release was #3 on the Steam list of Half-Life engine games, second only to CounterStrike and Natural Selection, above Sven:Co-Op, The Specialists and HL2:Deathmatch, all of which have Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sailoralea (talk • contribs)

Keep, clean-up, improve. 50,000 hits on google.Dlohcierekim 04:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a mod it belongs in an article on Half-Life engine games. As advertising, it is pretty sad. It doesn't even have a link to their site. I don't think it is vanity or advertising. Even so, it belongs merged into a more general article. Ted 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? There really isn't a more general article this can be put in. --InShaneee 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be cleaned up and improved significantly, then keep. Otherwise, delete. It seems very crufty to me as it stands now (but i could be biased as I hate dragonball). Of the Half-life mods that have articles linked, most of what I sampled were much more detailed than this, and several were quite in-depth, so there is precedent for an article such as this. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio -- Most of the article was a direct copy from their website, and I've since removed it. The remainder is insufficient for an article. Night Gyr 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up, improve, and expand. Beno1000 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been greatly improved. This is a very popular mod and therefore should be allowed to stay. I dont see this as advertising or vanity. Its simply informing on the subject just like any other article. This now goes as in depth as any of the other Half-life mods that ive read, and therefore is just as notable -- Metal_Mario333

Depth of the article is not a criteria for deletion or inclusion. I could write ten pages about my neighbor's dog and it still wouldn't be worth including. Also, as it is, the information is mostly inappropriate game guide data like character stats and attacks. Night Gyr 07:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at most of the other half-life mods. All they talk about is weapons, types of gameplay etc. All "inappropriate game guide data." Besides, im not done with this article. I have a lot more to add.Metal_Mario333

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs to be seriously cleaned up. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gut listyness and Merge . It's got some relevent information, but it's way too listy. Condense and merge with a relevent article. --Kunzite 01:17, 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 delete. RasputinAXP c 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXPLOit[edit]

I googled and can't find any references to it. That's hardly conclusive - there are a ton of content management systems out there and plenty of them have exploits - so there is plenty of noise in the google results. The article doesn't tell the name of the manufacturer or link to their website so I'm inclined to think it could be either a hoax or a product that no longer exists. Still, even if it does exist, it doesn't appear notable. BigDT 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it existed, by now it's sunk without trace. Kevin 02:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge has a section in Comparison of content management systems. It seems to be out of Italy,Dlohcierekim 05:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. It's made by a company called Document Solutions. You can find more infomration here. http://www.documentsolutions.it/versioneinglese/products.htm I would recommend not deleting this entry. They shouldn't be penalized in the wikipedia because they fail to understand SEO concepts.Lsirtosky 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC) The preceding comment is Lsirtosky's first contribution to Wiki.Tyrenius 19:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EXPLOit has a section in Comparison of content management systems because MarcelloAprea gave it one in the section "Commercial Expensive (> $15,000)". This user also created the EXPLoit article. These have been MarcelloAprea's only contributions to Wiki, and neither of them provide any verification. Maybe it needs to be removed from Comparison of content management systems also. I don't have enough knowledge of these systems to be able to make an informed judgement. Tyrenius 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator, though I could live with Merging any useful content into Comparison of content management systems since it does seem to be a long laundry list. BigDT 01:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Beno1000 23:55, 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:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stelmach[edit]

This should be a "speedy delete", but I don't know how to do that. Can anybody point me to it? Tony Bruguier 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can do that, but you can put {{db|reason}} on a page so that they will see it. --InShaneee 02:36, 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 deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aedrah[edit]

Speedy delete Tony 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not the place to bring these. --InShaneee 02:43, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Scott[edit]

Ex-mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Fails WP:BIO ccwaters 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of some media coverage is provided. Kevin 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable mayor of a medium sized city. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoe ClarkBHM 03:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoe. Being an ex-mayor doesn't mean he "fails" WP:BIO, which is not meant to be exclusionary. Mango juice^talk 04:26, 9 May 2006 (U
Keep per Zoe.Dlohcierekim 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Zoe said. - Richardcavell 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per everyone else who said keep. DanielZimmerman 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above comments, this figure is worthy of note. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. ProhibitOnions 12:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though mostly associated with farming and the Amish, Lancaster is NOT an incredibly small town. In fact it's a city with a downtown area and quite a tourist trade. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoe Computerjoe 's talk 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article because that's all he is: a former mayor of a mid-sized city. There's nothing notable about him otherwise (attracting an unaffiliated low minor baseball team?). This nom isn't about the worthiness of the City of Lancaster or the verifiability(?) of his former position. He's just a guy who was a mayor once. I don't him being anywhere close to WP:BIO. ccwaters 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything? Come on. The article itself spells out several accomplishments, and it's easy to find more. He was a WWII pilot who survived for 4 months behind enemy lines after being shot down over Germany, and was finally captured and held in a POW camp before escaping in 1945. He also wasn't elected out as mayor: he resigned so he could serve as Pennsylvania’s adjutant general. He easily passes WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything: Yes I do. Quick what's the mayor of Toledo done in his term? Who knows and who cares outside of Toledo. My point is being a mayor shouldn't be an automatic notability qualification. With that said: the sum of all the tidbits you unearthed makes a rather interesting fellow. Too bad the article in its current state doesn't reflect that. I change my vote to needs work. ccwaters 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the mayor of a city of 650,000 people just sits around in a sash that says "MAYOR" on it and gives oversized novelty souvenir keys to visiting superheroes, you're wrong. The current mayor of Toledo has an article which lists quite a few accomplishments and controversies, including overseeing Toledo's larlgest building boom in history. He's so popular with voters that, since by law he can't serve 3 consecutive terms, he sat out for a term and got re-elected for a third term afterwards. Just think: as mayor of a city of 650,000 people, how many people know his name? How many times has he been mentioned in the newspaper? How many times has he been on the front page? How big a section will he get in local history books? How many people work for the city, and thus directly or indirectly work for him? How many billions of dollars of public funds does he manage? How many streets, bridges, and buildings are named after him? How many people, every day of their lives, are effected one way or another by the decisions he makes in office? And after all that, think again whether he's worth a kilobyte or two of article space on Wikipedia. The answer, I would think, should be obvious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO endorses "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I haven't checked, but I would imagine a mayor would have significant press coverage at least during his term in office. He's also a member of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs’ Hall of Fame. He was also a Major General, which to me, is significant in and of itself. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing this particular article anymore. I've been convinced. There's more to him than this article states. As far as "major local political figures": I guess I don't interpret that the same as you. To me that means a political figure of a major municipality OR a local politician that through some news event (positive or negative) has transcended their local sphere of influence. I don't feel the need to write up articles about Juanita Crabb or other former mayors of my hometown. Starblind what city are we talking about? Nether Lancaster or Toledo is anywhere near 650k. If you feel like continuing this dicussion, lets please find a different forum. I'm sure the AFD watchers are getting tired of this. Like I said before: I'm not arguing this specific article anymore. ccwaters 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toledo, Ohio article cites a metro area population of 659,188. I'm glad you've been convinced of Scott's notability. Oh, and one last thing: the "major local political figures" part of WP:BIO doesn't apply here: it's from the section on living persons, while Scott has been dead since January 2005. With that said, I'll let this rest, but if anyone wants to discuss further my talk page is always open. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please notability does not expire from electronic encyclopedias Yuckfoo 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of media coverage is provided. — CJewell (talk to me)
Keep. It really needs more details, though. His term of office, for example.--UsaSatsui 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 09:49, 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wrathell[edit]

This person is not notable enough as per Google Tony Bruguier 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got the AfD thing happening now. Nice one. Kevin 02:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of media coverage except their own site. Kevin 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Amazing how consistently reliable Geogre's law is. Fan1967 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole movement has 64 unique google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it should be on a personal webpage.Dlohcierekim 05:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio Computerjoe 's talk 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons mentioned above. ShizuokaSensei 23:18, 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shwarp[edit]

Delete. Prod was "Hoax. Googling (shwarp and golf) produces 29 n/a hits." Deprod by anon was "Regardless of Google results, this is not a hoax. It is a new word that is heard more and more frequently." Article was rewritten a bit by the anon, but the point remains the same. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism possible heard only in close proximity to the author. Kevin 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait for some notability to come to this word. Metros232 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This neologism requires references and citations from popular media to demontrate common usage. If these can be supplied, then it could be considered for Wiktionary. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete randomcrapcruft again M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not a hoax, it is certainly non-notable. Ted 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikitionary at best, or as an entry under golf terms, if its use were ever attested.Dlohcierekim 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism per CrazyRussian -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just rubbish Mrjeff 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean, really, does there need to be a new article every time someone comes up with a "cool new word"? --UsaSatsui 20:23, 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAN(Remote Viewing)[edit]

Self-promotion. The Aaron Donahue article has already been deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zoe. Kevin 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense promotion.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. DVD+ R/W 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This daughter article to a deleted parent appears to be non-notable and hard to prove. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. - Richardcavell 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert and just a load of crap in general. Beno1000 14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RasputinAXP c 14:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alleged technique developed by now-deleted psychic. Part of a walled garden. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per curium[edit]

Completing the AfD by anon user. Kevin 03:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, it's never going to expand. - Richardcavell 03:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to redirect (see EWS23, below) - Richardcavell 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More suited to a legal dictionary. Also, it's spelled per curiam. Brian G. Crawford 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing more than a dicdef. Its already at Wiktionary, so no need to transfer. --Hetar 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incorrectly-spelt already-extant legal term. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, seeing as it is a spelling mistake that seems easy enough to make (and I, a Master of Laws student, failed to pick it up), how about redirecting to per curiam as a substitute for deletion? The article already at per curiam decision has some substance to it. - Richardcavell 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect to Per curiam decision (not per curiam, that would be a double redirect} as a possible misspelling. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EWS23. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EWS23. --FRCP11 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useful Redirect as above. ProhibitOnions 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Beno1000 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from misspelling. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EWS23. ergot 15:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm the original author. Sorry, don't flame me for being new at adding stuff. That was my first day of putting stuff up. Ok, and curiam is speeld the right way. Not curium. Sorry. Sorry that I didn't check the dictionary. I thought it was good, because no one else put it up. shadowj212

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holoworld Fleet[edit]

Non-notable play-by-email game, sounds like an ad. TorriTorri 03:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah. - Richardcavell 04:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims as to notability of PBM game. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's also a copyvio from their web site, which is where I'll list it if it makes it through here. Kevin 07:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and possibly an advertisment. Beno1000 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It looks a lot like Kings of Chaos, which has been surviving peacefully on Wikipedia since 2004-02-09. It may be less popular, though, and therefore NN.--E va ^db 14:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Origins[edit]

Delete - Non-notable as-yet unproduced fan film. Google search brings up only 54 returns, only 34 unique, and only half of those actually reference this film. MikeWazowski 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If something actually comes of it and it becomes notable it can be recreated, but it's nn now. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - please note as an FYI for anyone who may see this and not realize what it is about - this is NOT Star Trek XI - the next movie in the Star Trek series that is going to be about Kirk's crew in their academy years. Rather, this is an unrelated fan-produced film.

Comment For accuracy STXI is not confirmed to be about Kirks Academy years. In fact Abrams said that part was false as he hadn't come up with a premise yet. EnsRedShirt 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's not anything yet - an article about nothing Kevin 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete A tiny bit of OR is one thing, but absolutely must not allow the OR fest that is rampant fandom speculation. JeffBurdges 11:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unproduced and probably unnotable. Beno1000 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball and even then probably NN. ProhibitOnions 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete yeah, it's NN right now. But, if it gains significance, bring it back

Comment I am one of the show's writers, and it was suggested we make a wiki page. We aren't crystal balling here, we have spent the last 3 months devoting our time for this..it's gonna happen. Dekethewriter 11:44 AM, 9 May, 2006 (EDT)

We aren't crystal balling here Has it been made? No? Then you're "crystal balling". --Calton | Talk 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No shows qre notqble before they qre produced.

Delete: Non-notable fan production. -- Ritchy 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 23skidoo 21:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close. If actually made, probably no closer. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 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 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flouron Emission Rays[edit]

Believed to be a hoax. See article talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax or original research --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it must be completely false. The energy in a photon is proportional to the frequency. - Richardcavell 04:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF this was real then there should be a CERN research paper in existence in order to be cited and referenced. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax or SciFi VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . CERN have nothing on this. Kevin 07:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, original-hoax-research-nonsense. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or original research. Beno1000 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and probable hoax. --Doug (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The claimed energies emitted are greater than the rest mass of the atoms claimed to emit them (by several orders of magnitude). No references provided in the article.

--Christopher Thomas 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. --DV8 2XL 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This shouldn't have gone to AfD. Why wasn't it speedied or prodded? --Constantine Evans 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't speedied because I wanted to make sure it was a hoax, on more than the basis of my own research. At this point, if some other admin wants to close this as a speedy, I wouldn't mind. It wasn't PROD'd because that process would take just as long to finish as AFD, and it ran the risk of someone deprodding it, and me losing track and forgetting to AfD this hoax at that point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I originally nominated this for speedy deletion, if I remember correctly. 142.3.164.195 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep. I was just being cautious. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Just nuke this hoax. Georgewilliamherbert 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no press releases from CERN or anything to verify the contents of the article, nor is the article even self consistent. If the wavelength of these rays varies from 10^-18 cm to 10^-13 cm, then the frequency range should be 3x10^23 Hz to 3x10^28 Hz. Also, using the given wavelength range, the energy would only go up to 10^14 eV, not 10^18. KristinLee 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 07:29, 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 Speedy keep. Joe 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Not notable 43 google hits for Strashelye most of them from wikipedia. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CleanupKitnic gets hardly any hits but its one of the most commonly used words during (and before) Passover. I don't think there is a problem of notablity. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses an important figure in the development of the Chassidic world. All of the material is documented and footnoted. There is no reason to delete this article. --Meshulam 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no problem with covering Hasidic dynasties in Wikipedia, see List of Hasidic dynasties, but this article is lacking in key information -- such as where the town they originated is located, when the dynasty was founded, and when it ceased (the article says that the dynasty did not last into the second generation, yet the first paragraph implies that the adherents still continue today). If this is a defunct group, that would explain why it has a minimal Google presence, but we need more clarification. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I can to clean up some of the things that you mentioned. I'll look for some more definite years (when R' Aharon lived, etc.).--Meshulam 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to make its own case for notability. Google is likely less than thorough in its coverage of 19th century groups of Chasidic Jews. Does not seem to be a hoax. Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can take down the delete business at the top of the page?--Meshulam 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 Keep. Joe 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapust[edit]

Not notable, While the name Kapust is popular, the Kapust which this article is talking about which is Kapust Chassidic dynasty is not notable as any google search will show. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historiclly it was notable. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oboviasly. Google is not the only method for determining notabilaty.

(Also, the nominator should not have placed this article for deletion while in the midst of an edit war with the author of this article. this seems like retaliation.)

This group is historically notable. Its existence marked an important period in the history of Chabad Chassidism, as indicated in the article. Practically no reason to delete this article.--Meshulam 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can take down the delete box?--Meshulam 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep withdrawn nomination. Fagstein 01:55, 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. RasputinAXP c 15:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekoki[edit]

This "article" is a simple definition, and of a Japanese term at that, which links from a list of Japanese sex terms that is itself probably a good candidate for deletion. There's already an article at handjob, and this article is beyond POV. Delete, delete, delete. Exploding Boy 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to masturbation. - Richardcavell 06:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but a dicdef, no evidence it should be more than a dicdef, and a fairly wanky topic. Vizjim 14:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect —M e ts501^talk 22:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Delete - comment direct below convinced me. —M e ts501^talk 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on redirection. First, if we're to redirect tekoki we should redirect it to handjob (which is what it means), not to masturbation (which isn't the same thing). Second, I'm not convinced it needs redirecting at all. After all, this is the English Wikipedia. Why would anyone do a search on the Japanese word for "handjob"? By that rationale, we should include a redirect for words in every language. It's unnecessary, especially since there are already interlanguage links on the articles. Exploding Boy 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paddles 15:32, 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 was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [6] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese sex terms[edit]

See previous deletion debate for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms 2005

This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.[reply]

Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason". WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply. There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry. Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be. WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is. This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:

If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.

If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.

I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the problems we see alot with lists we also have the fact that WP is not a dictionary, not a slang archive. The article lacks sources and is unverifiable. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, things like "image club" are verifiable if anyone could be bothered to try; encylopedic. Kappa 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May well be verifiable, but shouldn't be here: belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. WMMartin 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or even a regular dictionary. A big list of words and definitions beside them is called a dictionary. Slang is not only hard to cite, but it also means different things in different areas/eras. Also this is an english encyclopedia, so an article that primarily carries foreign langauge is not suited here. Not encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found. Singapore sexual slang terminology looks to me like a good example of what this article could be. I wonder why most of the articles linked to from this list aren't in Category:Sexual slang. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The artilce has had a "source request" tag up for the last three weeks. Apparently no addiitonal sources are available. -Will Beback 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the Delete votes. This is Wikipedia, not Sugoipedia (sou desu ne :P). Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a precise list of terms on a given specific subject is authorized by policy. Terms such as bukkake, gokkun etc. are extremely well known and verifiable through tons of sources. I don't even understand the objection on that score. The nom seems to be questioning the raison d'etre of this list. Well, for better or worse, Japan and sex have been tightly intertwined in the western imagination since at least the 19th century. The interest in Japanese erotica is thus not new and is today a serious subject for critical examination and scholarship [7]. The vast popularity of specific Japanese porn genres in the west is just a later-day manifestation of the previous craze for Japanese erotic prints. Given the cultural divide, it is entirely appropriate for wikipedia to maintain a list of this type for its mainly English speaking readers. --JJay 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every term is either in or not in a dictionary; those that are in dictionaries are obviously verifiable. Verifiability is not an issue. Fg2 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not a dictonary. Arbusto 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) Dicdef. (2) What's verifiable already has its own article. Everything else is unverifiable. (3) This is another of many cases where a "List of..." should be a category. There already is Category:Japanese sex terms even in the article itself, so this list is redundant -- not to mention they're harder to maintain. Anomo 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So this list of foreign language terms with explanations is redundant with an incredibly useful list of foreign language terms without explanations? Kappa 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the reasoning in the previous VfD. Useful list that points to useful articles, inherently encyclopedic and so on. Grue 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anomo. -- Hoary 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" sex terms? (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?) How is "dōjin" a sex term, given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? — Haeleth Talk 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
- For those not following the discussion, how is a list of defined foreign language terms redundant with a list of undefined foreign language terms? Kappa 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it.~~ Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary. -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general. If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
  - Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
  - Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
  - Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
  - Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
  - Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
  - Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
  - Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
  - Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion

Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP not a dictionary. Eusebeus 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I voted to delete this before, but I've changed my mind, because the article is in different shape now. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but these are not simply translations of English phrases into Japanese but rather a completely different beast: sociological phenomena of sexuality in Japan, explained, and with articles about (most of) them. This could maybe use a renaming of some kind, but this list is cut down to the essentials and is encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and you'll see that this kind of list is much like other kinds of lists given there. I can't help but think that many of the people who endorse deletion under the dictionary argument haven't noticed these points, but rather noticed the "list of ... terms" and didn't like the article concept. So like I said, maybe renaming is a good idea, but I'm not sure to what. Still, this goes well beyond mere "terms." Mango juice^talk 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per changes indicated by Mangojuice and others, above. I think it is now definitely encyclopedic and fits the guidelines indicated on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its sourced. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Earth Rapturism[edit]

This is an obvious joke/nonsense page. If you google, the only results are Wikipedia and places that get their content from here. It could possibly be deleted as patent nonsense. One random note from the history - it looks like someone else started an AFD, but it got reverted? I guess they just didn't complete the process. Anyway ... how this thing has survived four months is beyond me. BigDT 05:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. I find it ironic that vandalism has been reverted on this page. - Richardcavell 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense or hoax. --BrownHairedGirl 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. Marskell 12:01, 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 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud Jmmanuel Logia[edit]

The page is redundant with Billy Meier and Talmud Jmmanuel. The main editor for this page intended it as a temporary page, used to rewrite one or both of those articles, but he has done nothing since April. I can see no reason to keep this page. Phiwum 05:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a duplication. The whole thing, by the way, is an obvious hoax ... but it has gotten enough mention in the outside world to be worthy of an article (just one though). BigDT 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold up ... it looks like it was already supposed to have been deleted ... [8] ... if the two articles are substantially the same, then I'll take Speedy Delete BigDT 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not substantially the same. The text that is on the page currently is different than the previously deleted page. I am also confident that the primary contributor this time is different than the contributor that time. (I was the nominator that time too.) Phiwum 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as duplication. —M e ts501^talk 15:45, 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 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slouching[edit]

Delete - nn protologism that sadly couldn't fall through the prod process without the prod being removed. Wickethewok 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable proto/neologism. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Posture, err... Human position. — May. 9, '06 [06:17] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete Exploding Boy 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a dicdef, and an incorrect one at that. Vizjim 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per freakofnurture. -03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Resource Bank Initiative[edit]

Undeleted after a DRV dicussion did not produce a majority to endorse. And I am relisting on AFD for further discussion. The article was originally deleted as a recreation of Global Resource Bank (which can be viewed here), in turn deleted as a result of this AFD debate. DRV argued that this new version has some new information. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "GRB shareholders define economics as the science that deals with the production, distribution and conservation of Earth's ecosystem wealth such as air, water, soil and climate." Uh huh. Remind me not to do business with your bank then. BigDT 06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junk, junk, junk. In case anyone cares, Googling the title phrase produces only 2 unique hits: a blogspot blog and Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a notable bank or initiative would be easy to google-trace, cannot find a WP:RS that independently refers to this - possible hoax Crum375 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It is a better version than before, but if it has merit, I'm just not seeing it. :) Dlohcierekim 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like OR, concept appears not to be widespread or notable. Hard to find much evidence of the importance of this subject, and insufficient external discussion to allow us to verify that it is being covered neutrally (i.e. not notable). Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoaxy attempt to revive Physiocrat philosophy (I think). ergot 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It still lacks anything resembing verifiability. RasputinAXP c 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down What a lot of personal feelings and belifs, please tell me what is wrong according Wikipedia standards, how should merit look like for example? The GRB initiative is no hoax, its a real 3000 people network NGO with homepage, litterature, science reports and UN activities, next will be in sept at NGO meeting in UN, New York. --Swedenborg 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Uhh, who or what is that addressed to? 'cause I'm not seeing anything that calls for that statement.
tell me what is wrong according Wikipedia standards WP:OR, WP:Verifiability, WP:RS, WP:Notability, and WP:Not a soapbox. Other than that, not much. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny that it doesn't appear on this list of NGOs affiliated with the UN, nor on the NGO listing on the UN's own site. ergot 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence provided that this more than wishful thinking. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 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 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

The article is inherently POV ("This is a subjective list") and thus inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This list is both.

There was a previous AFD about a month ago that was 10-7 in favor of delete. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, two gave silly reasons. Four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't been and thus, it should be reconsidered for deletion.

See also discussion of a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nymphets_and_faunlets BigDT 06:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator BigDT 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exploding Boy 06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This is a subjective list..." WP:NPOV violation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete inherent POv.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure POV. Normally a renom is bad, but in this case two keepers conditioned their vote, saying it should be limited to those that cited a reference saying they were sex symbols. Another wanted it limited to truly famoous celebs. That hasn't happened, and likely never will. Such lists just grow endlessly, without individual cites that are needed. --Rob 08:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, inherently problematic, fails our WP:NPOV policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently non-NPOV. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abstain It may have to be deleted if no objective criteria is established, such as "often referred to as a sex symbole in the press". But its no more inherently POV than Category:Terrorism, which I once argued for the deletion of on another project. :) JeffBurdges 11:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no objective criteria, and I don't see how there possibly could be. Irredeemably POV. Fan1967 12:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete. Lists are better than categories when they invite a bit of commentary on some of the entries; just names here. It seems just about every actor or actress is a sex symbol for someone. (Am I the only one who finds Margaret Hamilton attractive?) Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. Try googling for "Grotbags" - now there was a fine figure of a woman. Hrrrnnnnn.... Oh, sorry, where am I? The list is POV, so please delete. But sexily. Vizjim 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are NPOV lists that serve similar purposes, such as the FHM lists, where we cite specific sources. But a generic list, without citing "who says they're sex symbols" is POV, and, as Smerdis says, potentially endless. (Hmm, Margaret Hamilton...) AnonEMouse 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will never be a NPOV list, unencyclopedic in nature. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK magazine and wikis should never mix. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR Crum375 17:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and may it never rise again. Fluit 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly POV and already covered by a category. If this lost an AFD vote as noted by the nominator, why is it still here, or did someone recreate it? 23skidoo 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A 10-7 vote usually won't quite do it. The rule of thumb is 70%, or it's considered "no consensus". Fan1967 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NPOV, and also for including Jordan Knight. Is that really the sort of thing we want to encourage here on Wikipedia? --Lee Bailey 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have tried to clean up and prune this article to no avail. Very POV and filled with personal favorites - often people I never even heard of. ExRat 08:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Paddles 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is just a few people's opinion. I disagree with at least a quarter of the people on that page. Mrjeff 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're doing better than me. There's at least that many I've never even heard of. Of the ones I do know, I disagree with at least a third, and I can think of a few dozen I would include who've been left off. (Hmmmm, Margaret Hamilton...) Fan1967 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move or archive or something It's an interesting list that should be kept somewhere for nice reading, but not worthy of being such an article --mboverload 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone decides to take his/her time adding a reference for every name to show they are considered sex symbols by a third party and not just Wikipedia editors. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also Category:Sex symbols, which was deleted for the same reasons. -Sean Curtin 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most reasons above Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:53, 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 Raichu 16:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Morrison[edit]

Nonnotable biography with no incoming links -- FRCP11 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like it was an interesting and varied life, but I can't see notability.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zadkiel's Almanack had a print run of up to 200,000 according to his obit in The Times, which also mentions various books on astrology. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I predict a... keep. I've added sources that verify his notability (especially the first one of the external links: fascinating!), and would ask that someone does a clean up and wikify exercise. Vizjim 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's not the most notable guy ever, but the reasons for the existence of a page on Morrison are rather clearly defined in the article. -- Kicking222 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page provides the assertion of notability. I see that Zadkiel's Almanack is available on the Barnes and Noble website. Fluit 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squiddy. Mango juice^talk 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and keep as slightly notable. —M e ts501^talk 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 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glasscock[edit]

NN bio, no edits in six months; no non-Wiki google hits in top ten -- FRCP11 06:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete psychiccruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 09:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try this Google search [9]: it's slightly more refined. He's clearly notable as a pioneer of the computerisation of astrology. Vizjim 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Ton e 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The above search posted by Vizjim is precisely why this article should be deleted: there are very few web resources on this person, as 27 Google hits (with the first one being WP, no less) is basically equivalent to nothing. -- Kicking222 15:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 00:40, 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 Raichu 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend and The Makers[edit]

Undeleted after a DRV discussion, but many called for relisting this. Unsure about notability here so no vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of their current national tour dates supporting the UK arm of the Arctic Monkeys' tour, after which they perform more dates in their own right. --Tony Sidaway 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pursuant to arguements made in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Reverend and The Makers by Captmonkey, who reasonably demonstrated it meets WP:MUSIC. And thanks to Sjakkalle for the doing the undeletion. --Rob 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It all comes down to whether touring as support band is enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure what the precedent is so no vote at the moment, but my personal feeling is that as this band are unsigned (or were when I last checked), they weren't the headliners on the tour, they are not yet sufficiently notable. --kingboyk 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony Sidaway and Thivierr. DarthVad e r 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though I'm not sure that touring as a support act satisfies WP:MUSIC, since it's a fairly notable tour with a large audience, I'd say it does push them over the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have another tour soon and the love will spread further. I know ive searched on here for them before only to be disappointed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.66.122 (talk • contribs) .
Keep per above. Support bands surely meet the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only have they played support on a very notable and high profile UK tour, but have braced the pages of magazines such as NME and Sandman, recieve airplay on major slots on Radio 1 and judging by their rate of success so far, will bring many more reasons to keep this page in coming months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.163.124 (talk • contribs) .
Keep My argument is well documented on the Deletion Appeal log page. :) Definately meets WP:MUSIC. Captmonkey 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with reasons cited on the deletion appeal, esp. tour support, mentions in NME and airplay on Radio 1 craigand
Keep -- whoever deleted the page should have checked for evidence of notability themselves; the band have sufficient media profile in the UK for notability to have been assumed. 212.56.68.42 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually whoever wrote the article should have *cited* evidence of notability, in the beginning. I disagreed with the deleting admin, but really the fault here lies primarily with the creation of an (originally) unsourced article. --Rob 18:55, 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. RasputinAXP c 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth Circle[edit]

Delete The 'Bayreuth Circle' is sometimes used as a shorthand for Winifred Wagner and her associates, and can be dealt with as such under WW. It was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims insofar as it existed at all, and did nothing. Thus, not a topic for an article. --Smerus 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an obvious redirect to me. Grutness...wha? 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful at closing admin's discretion and redirect - as above. Metamagician3000 13:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Vienna Circle also was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims, and "did nothing"; it was just a bunch of people gathering around Moritz Schlick. And yet highly notable. The Bayreuth Circle had several prominent members whose role cannot easily be described as being "associates" of Winifred Wagner, for example Cosima Wagner, the artist Franz Stassen], Ludwig Schemann, who founded the Gobineau Society, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. This has potential to grow beyond mere stubhood. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A false argument. The Vienna Circle is recognised by philosophers and historians of philosophy as a group of pepople who made a contribution to philosophy. The Bayreuth Circle is not recognised by historians (or anyone else) as a group of people who did or achieved anything at all.--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is simplistic and needs much work, but subject is well-recognized, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wagner-01dynasty.html. Monicasdude 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this citation is irrelevant and cannot support keeping this article - the NYt article concerns a book about the Wagner family, not the supposed 'Bayreuth circle'--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom/Grutness. Kuzaar 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude. JoshuaZ 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom/Grutness/Kuzaar - Kleinzach 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand (in fact, insist on it)—notable. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An example of the dangerous power of Wikipedia to create rather than to reflect. A minor and indifferent term with no real connection to the claimed significance as presented in the article and yet if it stays, the result will be an irresonsible legitimation of the phrase, even though it is historically spurious and innacurate. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, and this is a flagrant violation of that implied mission. Eusebeus 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above OSU80 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eusebeus. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable phenomenon in German history. Has been the subject of academic study (random samples: Wolfgang Altgeld, "Wagner, der Bayreuther Kreis und die Entwicklung des völkischen Denkens". In: Richard Wagner 1883-1983, ed. U. Müller, Stuttgart 1984, S. 35-64. Winfried Schüler: Der Bayreuther Kreis von seiner Entstehung bis zum Ausgang der Wilhelminischen Ära. Wagnerkult und Kulturreform im Geiste völkischer Weltanschauung (Neue Münstersche Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung 12), Münster 1971.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Future Perfect. It is indeed a notable German historical phenomenon. ProhibitOnions 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Bayreuth Circle had great cultural impact on the age--Aldux 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fut.Perf.'s good work. Vizjim 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of Wagner Societies, Wolfgang Wagner and a major contributor to Bayreuth Festival, let me say that I find the above keep votes questionable. The Bayreuther Kreis in the titles above references the enthusiasts who championed Wagner's music; this is well-covered at the origins of the Festival itself, as well as the main Wagner article. We don't need a spurious article claiming some kind of political extremism gathered around the figure of Wagner and blessed with some kind of official title - it is historically inaccurate. Eusebeus 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: just because the word 'Kreis' has a capital letter in German doesn't raise the circle of Wagner enthusiasts to any sort of movement. Let me reemphasize: these enthusiasts did not have a 'great cultural impact on the age', nor were they 'a notable German historical phenomenon'. Anyone making such grandiose statements has at least a responsibility to provided some resepectable citation in support - of which we have seen none so far in this debate amongst the 'keeps'.--Smerus 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no specific opinion on whether it is in fact true that the circle had any notable effect - but the existence of scholarly literature such as that cited above indicates that such an idea exists out there and that the term has currency. Which for me is enough for inclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the problem Eusebeus is pointing out. Someone writes a book with 'The Bayreuth Circle' in the title, to describe a social / political / cultural milieu, someone else puts it on WP as a formal body (it even has an organisation-stub tag, would you believe), and then its kept because there's a published title (in a language many of us don't read). Suddenly Winifred Wagner's music evenings have become the precursor to the SA. Utterly nonsensical. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - why not be bold and rewrite the article to give a better idea (as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject) of the origins of the phrase "Beyreuth Circle", the milieu it describes, and the objections to the use of the term? Seems to me as though the objections you are raising are an occasion for rewriting, not deletion. Vizjim 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, changed to weak keep and improve as the article contains nothing but an unreferenced assertion, is non-notable (eg no article on the German wiki[10]), and would seem to give spurious credibility to a speculative bit of German history. Guinnog 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed after reading edit from ILike2BeAnonymous below Guinnog 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Ezeu 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a few references, that only mention the Circle tangentially, but they are clear that there was such a group, and that it was a link between Wagner and the Nazis. AnonEMouse 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean, link 'between Wagner and the Nazis'? Wagner died in 1883. Hitler was born in 1889.--Smerus 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was about to write [11], but that seems to only refer to the video game character. Yech. Anyway, link, connection, that which brings two things together. The Bayreuth Circle were a link between them - people connected with both, in fact people quite actively connecting them, in the sense of interpreting Wagner to support the Nazis, and encouraging the performance and even adulation of Wagner during Nazism. I'm not sure what the objection is. AnonEMouse 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sigh. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where accuracy is subservient to guesswork. Was oben geschrieben wird ist ganz und total Scheiße. Eusebeus 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I understand, we deal in neither accuracy, nor guesswork, but verifiability. So far we have 2 German books, a scholarly music article, and Bnai Brith referring to such an organization in the manner that it's described in the article: that's verifiable. The obscenity, however, is uncalled for, please remove it. AnonEMouse 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The obscenity may be uncalled for, but it seems fairly accurate to me. And btw since when have Bnei Brith been recognised authorities on musical history? Just to make clear my own POV, I write as an orthodox Jewish music historian who desparately wishes to draw clear lines between music history and the Holocaust industry. This article is a disastrous concession to the latter by exaggerating something utterly trivial to a specious significance that can clutter school essays under the 'authority' of Wikipedia. Not only is it wrong-headed in itself, it damages Wikipedia's reputation--Smerus 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for intruding, as I'm certainly by no means an expert on either Wagner's music nor German history, but it seems to me your objections are misplaced. Rather than rail for elimination of this article, wouldn't your time and energy be better spent in the article itself, trying to achieve historical accuracy? It seems fairly obvious that there are compelling reasons that the article should exist, given all the citations given; your job, it would seem to me, would be to put things in proper perspective in the article, like in a "Myths & misconceptions" section. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, are you the same ILike2BeAnonymous who on 7th May 'insisted' on keeping this article and claimed it was 'notable'? Why then don't you rewrite it? I would not wish personally to be associated with this non-topic in any way, and certainly would not to wish to give it undeserved status by writing it up or expanding it - that indeed is why I proposed deleting it. You may not agree with me, but at least I am consistent. :-) --Smerus 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if I were qualified to do so. I'm not, which puts me at the mercy of people like you. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing. If nobody is prepared to improve it soon, does it meantime lend undue credibility to a controversial idea? I am certainly not qualified to improve it. Guinnog 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two more references to the article, in English, from two different college professor's sites. They're pretty damning. I am writing without a POV, I'm just a guy who can type "Bayreuth circle" into Google, and see what comes up. From that, even if the article won't approach "good article" heights, the term looks pretty verifiable. AnonEMouse 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in response to requests I have rewritten the article with proper references. I deleted one external link which said nothing about the 'BC' except to mention that Chamberlain 'was a member' of it. The other link, which is pretty footling, I have left so you can all assess it yourself. I have given Frederic Spotts's book as appropriate literature; he at least knows what he's talking about and has researched all the German publications relating to Bayreuth. Enjoy.--Smerus 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I approve. Didn't read it all, but what I skimmed appears to have the proper arch tone and raised-eyebrow feel that your skepticism imparts to it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, and I'm sure you mean well, but I am finding it difficult to see how your edits are more than just deleting references, and arguing, in the article, for the deletion of the article, for lack of those same references. I won't revert your edits without a bit more consensus, since that would be just an edit war, but I hope there is something you could do other than delete my and others' work. By the way, the Bnai Brith you have left with the wonderful comment "does not, as has been claimed by a previous editor of this article, mention the 'Bayreuth Circle'." contains the text: "Richard’s wife Cosima Lizst, the daughter of composer Franz Lizst, was also a vicious antisemite, and after his death in 1893 she consolidated a Bayreuth Circle which attracted such antisemites as racist writer H.S. Chamberlain. This circle attracted the elite of German intelligentsia and royalty, including both Kaisers Wilhelm I and II."AnonEMouse 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the references - I deliberately removed the German references. Neither I - nor anyone who has contributed - knows what these say. Someone picked up two reference titles from [www.copac.ac.uk] or somewhere, with articles in two obscure German periodicals, not exactly available through your local library. And how many English readers of Wikipedia could read thme, even if they could find them? English articles should show English sources, as a matter of principle - if none are available it's a sign of weakness of the article topic. sorry about the so-called 'Bnei Brith' quote - write in haste, repent at leisure. The quote is actually from a review of the autobiography of Wagner's self-hating grandson, and cannot count strongly as a powerful citation for the topic. I still think the article should be deleted, btw. --Smerus 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You actually removed 3 references, in English, that I put in, including 2 with quotes, from university sites. Please look at the "your edit" link I put in above. I'm glad to know that it was inadvertent, but I must ask that you be more careful about that. You're quite right that I haven't read the German references, but per WP:AGF, we need to assume that the editor who put them in has. We can't go around deleting all references we haven't read on the assumption that no one else has read them either. AnonEMouse 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the good Eusebeus has erased my nice article and replaced it by a couple of sentences. I have corrected them, by the way. I can't help feeling this was just a little high-handed on Eusebius's part - I shall invoke the shade of Robert Schumann, who originally used his pseudonym, and was a responsible musical critic, to haunt him. It seems I can't win - I am castigated for not using my (alleged) expertise, and then when I use it to produce an informed article, it is effectively deleted. C'est la vie, c'est die Scheisse......Anybody who wants to see a 'proper' article on the topic (insofar as there can be one) can see my article by clicking on the history.--Smerus 08:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and restored the status quo ante, minus your most recent edits. As I pointed out in my edit summary, apparently Eusebeus attempted to accomplish by "editing" what he could not by deleting. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 10:17, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppers crossing cricket club[edit]

This is a suburban turf-cricket club in Melbourne. The highest type of cricket below interstate cricket is grade cricket. Turf cricket is a level below this, and is thus two tiers below first-class cricket. I don't think it is notable as a social phenomenon, as local suburban cricket matches usually attract 50 spectators.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for mine although there may be a case for a composite article on the Melbourne turf cricket competition. Individual clubs at this level are not notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notable nor verifiable. Kevin 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, it is easily verifiable [12], [13], [14], [15], and so on. It does appear to be a pretty much direct lift of this though. Average Earthman 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--cj | talk 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Hoppers Crossing, Victoria. Real sports club, and easily verifiable, a former player now plays for England 'A'. The significant number of teams it is capable of fielding suggest rather a large membership. Average Earthman 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add - we appear to have articles for all the California League baseball teams, South Atlantic League, and even Arizona League. Now, that might be fine if this was US Wikipedia, but it isn't, it's English language. So Australian sports of the same level should clearly be kept. Average Earthman 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest this makes a good case for deleting a lot of those lower baseball league entries too, as also being not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a professional sports team drawing 151,000 paid spectators a season and which has included 90-odd major league players (San Jose Giants (California League)) in its history counts as non-notable. In no way are the SJ Giants "of the same level" as this club. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it reasonable to play the simple numbers game when you consider the huge difference in total population and supporting populations between Australia and the US. It is still a state league and as such is classed in the same level. Ans e ll 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent argument by Average Earthman above. Jcuk 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AverageEarthman. Hornplease 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are one thing. But I know 5 or 6 people that play for this club at the U15 and other junior levels. And I know that this club is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Average Earthman. bbx 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Average Earthman, lets try to keep a consistency with things like notability. Ans e ll 12:29, 15 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. Metamagician3000 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetha Lila[edit]

Unable to verify notability of subject matter. A query made using the Google search engine produces 64 relevant results, some of which merely duplicated/mirrored the Wikipedia entry. Folajimi 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. The creator of that article produced what looks like some useful finance-related edits for WP. Moreover s/he is still sporadically active (last edit 21-Apr-06), so perhaps you might make contact. --BillC 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acad Ronin: I am the creator of the article/stub. I posted a longer reply to Folajimi on their talk page. My key point is that I can see no value to throwing away factual, documented information. This lead to the article cited could benefit someone researching Indians in East Africa, the impact of the Zanzibar Revolution on the ethnic make-up of Zanzibar, or its economy, and a variety of other topics. The source article is a chapter in an obscure book and I only found it after years of keeping an eye out for any info on Jetha Lila for some work I am doing on the history of foreign banks in East Africa. What makes Wikipedia valuable is not the articles on well-known topics. That information is readily available in many places. It is the information that specialists and hobbyists post on arcana that is Wikipedia's unique contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)

Weak delete, notability and verifiability are questionable. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acad Ronin: If you are concerned about verifiability, read the source article. The author based it on field and archival research in Zanzibar. The reason I was looking for more info re Jetha Lila was because the name of the bank and the fact that it was a private bank of Indian origin had shown up in various directories of banks, and in a scholarly article of banking in East Asia. As for notability, I reiterate my point that almost by definition there is a surfeit of information on notable topics. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that for instance I can look up almost any US Navy vessel by name or number, and find a capsule history, contributed by someone who is a ship geek, just as I am a bank geek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)
- Point of Information: For the sake of argument, let's say that the source qualifies. How can I obtain a copy of the source article for the purpose of verification? (Rule of thumb is to have two independent sources, but that is a different matter...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folajimi (talk • contribs)
  - You could visit a library where it is available. As all necessary bibliographical information is in the reference, I don't understand exactly what your problem is here. u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only problem I have is with your tone. In case you haven't noticed, the author said that the information came from an obscure source. Hence the PoI. Folajimi 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry for the tone, but my point is that now, after the author has located this article discussing the topic and used it to write this article, it will not be as difficult for you, me or anyone else to find it again, because we already have the reference. u p p l a n d 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia has rules regarding the verifiability of content which is submitted. As it stands, authenticating the cited reference is an issue, due to the inaccessibility of the current source. In other words, saying "Trust me, this reference is legit" is suspect, at best. Folajimi 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is it inaccessible? It is a chapter or article in an academic publication. u p p l a n d 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just reformatted the comments above to make it clearer who wrote what. (Acad Ronin, please sign after your comments; it will be easier to read as it is what most people will be used to here.) u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but I don't see any real argument for deletion here. This is an Indian trading house and bank in East Africa that was founded in the 1880s and closed in the 1960s. There is no reason to expect a large number of Google hits. u p p l a n d 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uppland. The article doesn't seem particularly controversial, so if AR says they found a copy of the book, that's good enough. If it were controversial, we could ask for more sources. BTW, the Google hits that there are point to notability. For example, [this one] says they controlled Zanzibar's financial network. That's pretty notable. AnonEMouse 15:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The inclusion of such articles are vital to counter systemic bias. The original author has provided a reference. It would seem to me that assuming good faith would require that those bringing up verifiability should provide an account of their failed attempts to verify the citation. For a book, the first step would be to see if the cited work actually exists. This can be done by checking the online catalog at a depository library such as the Library of Congress or the British Library. Another step would be to check to see if the work is in WorldCat. (Anyone in the United States who is affiliated with any College or University, or has a library card at a public library has either direct or indirect (via the librarian) access to WorldCat.) I have done this, and the work cited does exist. If I truly doubted the work actually covers the material, I could order it via inter-library loan, although that might take a few weeks. Dsmdgold 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a second source to the article. This source is what sent me off on the hunt for further information as it only mentions the bank's existence and its being an Indian private bank in Zanzibar. As for the main reference, the Tominaga article, I just went back to WorldCat and it is available from 39+ libraries, including more than thirty in the US. Anyone wanting to find the article could get it via Interlibrary Loan. Acad Ronin 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs wikification Crum375 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Acad Ronin, part of the problem here is that the article doesn't say very much about its subject. It ought really to say something like:

"Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880 by the Bombay-born merchant Jetha Liladhar, later taking responsibility for control of Zanzibar's finances. The bank's initial operations were confined to banking commission activities, however in 1910 it began money-changing and in 1920 represented the interests in Zanzibar of the Westminster Bank. In 1933 it was issued a trading license by the Zanzibar government to operate as a bank, and became responsible for controlling Zanzibar's financial interests from the 1930's until the 1964 revolution in Zanzibar and the overthrow of its Sultan. During that time, (etc, etc....)

(References added at end)"

I'm not sure of all the facts on this subject, so the above will probably need to be rewritten somewhat. Given the sources you have, it should be possible to produce something like the above which I am sure everyone here would support. Much of the battle over the notability of subjects in Wikipedia article is won or lost in the first sentence of the article; that's why it's best to start with a sentence that clearly defines the subject, hence: Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880. --BillC 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit. I bit the bullet and did it, incorporating the original text and facts, the text above, and a contribution from Lambiam. If anyone feels this should not have been done, or should have been done differently, then feel free to revert me or edit the article. (I also removed the Wikify notice, and assigned categories to the article). --BillC 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep, I think its quite absurd to have to debate this. Making this sort of information accessible is precisely what Wikipedia is for. Further, I'd like to make the point that the original referrer's objection is uninformed, and I will run through the correct procedure because I've seen this error more than once recently. The article came to AfD because he couldnt 'verify notability'. I can't verify the notability of a lot of things, but as long as I read the content of the article, I know the (unverified) subject of the article is notable. I then observe the references, and know that the content of the article is verifiable. I dont combine the two steps. Hornplease 07:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are strongly advised to act in a civilised manner; casting aspersions will get you nowhere. Folajimi 09:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you mean civil, not civilised. Nevertheless, if I have somehow offended you, I apologise. However, please note that my choice of words was not meant to offend, but to exactly describe the situation. Please familiarise yourself with - or, perhaps, read again - WP:V and WP:N; you will note that my points are borne out by the consensus on those policy pages. Once again, there are specific 'cutoffs' for notability for educational institutions and academics and bands and so on; but for something of this sort, where a strong argument for notability - namely, control over the finances of a sovereign state - are clearly set out in the article, WP:N is satisfied and the problem reduces simply to one of verifiability. Given the provision of references that satisfy the reliable source test, WP:V is met as well. The problem arises if you try to apply the two criteria simultaneously. That is not something you have to do. Hornplease
- "I think you mean civil, not civilised..."

Spare me your lesson on semantics/syntax; I meant what I said, and you are free to interpret that as you see fit. Starting out with adjectives like "absurd" and "uninformed" is anything but congenial.

FWIW, I had thought of ignoring your remarks (as I did with Dsmdgold's conflagratory rhetoric); but I will make one more attempt at clarifying my case before a mêlée erupts...

My best efforts (which includes google queries, and searching the catalog of my region's central library) failed to yield any reliable sources/references which would have helped establish the notability of the subject matter. The perception of conflation regarding notability with verifiability is inaccurate; the issue I had with the nominated entry was the apparent lack of sources which could be verified, not the article's content.

At any rate, I hope this AfD gets closed by an admin soon, since the nomination's raison d'être has been OBE'd — the current article looks radically different when compared to the nominated entry. Folajimi 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no mêlée. However, I think confusing civil with civilised is itself a violation of WP:CIV... Hornplease 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per u p p l a n d Humansdorpie 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick look at JSTOR (online academic journal archive) today shows a couple of additional mentions of the bank in academic journals such as The International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Journal of African Law ; there really is no verifiability issue here. Humansdorpie 08:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nominator (above) and because we should take systemic bias serious. — mark ✎ 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we remove this as not notable, I tremble at the hundred in not thousand that could get deleted--Aldux 13:45, 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 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walstad's Paradox[edit]

Claims to be related to set theory, but unreferenced and no signs of rigor. Not a standard mathematical concept anywhere as far as I can tell. Google yields 3 hits, one of which is this article, and the other two are from discussion forums, so very non-notable.

I am also nominating the biographical page of the person who purportedly devised the above theory as NN.

Lee Field Walstad TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of one divided by zero TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Clear hoax. -- GWO
Delete. Unless someone steps up to tell me how this guy just one-upped Russell. Lundse 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like originally researched nonsense to me. Kevin 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that all the edits made by the author are an elaborate hoax. The article is deliberately written to be as unclear as possible. The actual theory is clearly wrong, regardless. (There are some sets that do not contain themselves) - Richardcavell 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sort of original research or hoax. DarthVad e r 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pompous & pointless with bad spelling ... did the author finish high school?--Invisifan 13:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both theory and author as hoax. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The author did graduate Highscool in the top of his class and also tested in the top %99 for Math on the ACT. He is currently pursuing his degree in physics and environmental engineering at New Mexico Tech and is in high esteem. He was able to prove that Russell's assumption that everything does not contain itself is wrong. That is because the power set of everything is no bigger than the size of everything, because the size of everything is 1/0, to which there is no greater value. Sincerely, the author's spokesperson Bossk2 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]

You may wish to better acquaint yourself with Russell's Paradox before attempting to disprove it. -- GWO

Thank you for your comment, I truly appreciate it. I am very familiar with Russell's Paradox. Did you read what I just stated above? Russell's Paradox is based off the assumption that the set of all sets can not contain itself because the power set of the set of all sets must be bigger than the set of all sets itself. However, this is incorrect and the reason is because Russell did not know or did not realize that the size of the set of all sets is 1/0, and there can be no greater number. Thus the power set of the set of all sets is no bigger than the set of all sets itself, and thankfully, this means that the set of all sets can contain itself. In turn this means that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves may be defined as the empty set, for in reality everything is self-containing and it must be so since there is no greater number than 1/0. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.Bossk2 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]

No. It isn't. Russell's paradox makes absolutely no reference to power sets. Russell's paradox is merely that a set defined as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" is not well-defined. That's it. No power sets, no cardinality, no infinities, and certainly no need to talk about the magnitude of 1/0.

Love,

An actual mathematician.

Comment The article with Lee's biography was just edited to include more pertinent academic information such as what was just listed above. Also Lee's ties to Dr. Penny Boston and Dr. Lisa Young were added as well as information about the new species of mushroom which he is currently describing with Dr. Gaston Guzman for either Mycotaxon or Journal of Mycological Research. Thus the article has been greatly improved to exemplify more interesting information and I recommend it not be deleted.
Delete per WP:NOR and, frankly, per WP:NFT. Arguing whether the empty set has no value and attempting to assign meaning based on bad analogy to "1/0"?? Kid, stop trying the mushrooms and userfy this non-rigorous fluff until you get it covered by reliable sources by WP's standards. For a topic like this, the source needs to be a peer-reviewed journal, or some really substantial coverage by general mass media. Barno 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I strongly respectfully object because it is clear that the empty set is what is defined as undefined, not the compete set, 1/0. This is plainly evident to anybody who can open their eyes to the inherent definitions of these concepts and thus it is not original research. Furthermore WP:NFT is a category I do not understand because it implies that important realizations can not happen to anyone at any given moment, by serendipitous or other fortuitous means. Additionally, the way that you have put 1/0 in quotation marks with two question marks after seems to indicate that you yourself do not understand the concept of 1/0 and thus I do not understand why you think you can identify a bad analogy when you do not understand the concepts involved. I think it is clear that most people do not understand the concept of 1/0 and perhaps they should read the article about the theory of 1/0 so that they can gain enlightenment about this mysterious and all-important concept which has been ignored for centuries and which was only adressed by Brahmagupta. The information is being posted in good faith for everyone's benefit and it would be a shame and an injustice to delete such fundamentally important realizations which are an inherent result of human curiosity and our belief in understanding everything, i.e. 1/0. Sincerely, Bossk2 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
Delete per Barno. Reconsider after publication of these topics in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal... -- Scientizzle 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having read the defense of the author on this AfD, I am sure that he's either hoaxing or he's psychotic. There's an outside possibility that he just plain doesn't understand it and overemphasises things. - Richardcavell 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you be so sure? As a wikipedian you are supposed to be exercising good faith. I have released this information in good faith, so you should take it in good faith. Sincerely, 129.138.44.62 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
Delete both. I'd prefer to userfy Lee Field Walstad, but the author claims to be only a representative. Melchoir 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry for the confusion. Yes I am Lee Walstad, but I serve as a spokesperson for the theory of one divided by zero until it is accepted or somebody takes my place. The reason I do not claim to be the author of the theory of one divided by zero is because I believe that it is the sole property of 1/0 itself, and I have merely realized what it was telling me, that it is the number everything. Also I am not the only one who has realized this, Arceliar and Edward Solomon are others that I know of. It would be a discredit to them to claim the theory of 1/0 as original research. Walstad's paradox is only an extension.129.138.2.196 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  You should be aware that creating an autobiographical article on Wikipedia is a serious faux pas. You might want to put this into User:Bossk2 if you really want to talk about yourself. (Or editing such an artcle for any other purpose than correcting egregiously incorrect or slanderous statements in it. Assuming you and Bossk1 are not the same person.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fascinatingly philosophical, but unfortunately is textbook original research. I wish Mr. Walstad well, and if his work gets published in mathematical journals we can write an article about him then. Fagstein 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable, original research, and unverifiable (or more specifically "verifiably false"?). Ardric47 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I respectfully object to all of the above. Walstad's Paradox is an extension of the theory of 1/0 which is a natural realization that anybody can make and which other people have made (see the article), therefore it cannot be claimed to be original research, it belongs to 1/0. Please provide a reference for why you say the theory is verifiably false. Russell was not considering the fact that the set of all sets is 1/0, and the power set can NOT be greater than this value.
Delete as violation of WP:NOR and ban the obnoxious author who pollutes the discussion page with unsigned comments. --Chaser 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Actually nonsense, if not exactly "patent nonsense". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GIT+RP+TOE=nonsense. —Ruud
Delete per Ruud--Deville (Talk) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and how! "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves may be the empty set"? Is there a WP:NOT for demonstrably false articles? --Victor Lighthill 04:58, 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 redirect to National stereotypes. Nothing there to merge. RasputinAXP c 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National typecasts[edit]

overlaps content on several other pages --M @r ē ino 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National stereotypes and possibly several others which contain similar lists without any references. Sc147 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does contain some extra information- as to the formation of typecasts. Perhaps some facts could be transferred to another page if this one must be deleted.

Delete as NPOV/OR. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National stereotypes, per Sc147. Comment about NPOV: the stereotypes themselves are quite offensive, but stating the fact that these stereotypes exist can be done neutrally. However, it is a slippery slope. Editors must be very careful not to use lists like this as a cover for racist/xenophobic jokes. --woggly 10:43, 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:WEB. RasputinAXP c 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LudumDare[edit]

a non-notable website that holds an insignificant contest every two years Notorious4life 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the website is non-notable, most of the contests (two per year btw.) were held without it, and it likely will disappear again soon and come up again in half a year, at the current address or another. The event itself however seems to be quite well known among game programmers. --Allefant 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just removed the part about the website from the article, so consider only the significance of the competition event. --Allefant 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified with reliable (press) sources. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be easy to verify the relevance for game programmers: There was a slashdot article on it, and it's usually announced on several game programming sites like gamedev. --Allefant 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recurring event regularly covered on slashdot and in other major tech media outlets. Needs some cleanup though. Night Gyr 21:33, 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 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Mutambara[edit]

NOTE: Article is identical in content to Zimbabwe News, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on development in Zimbabwe

This is a fairly clear case of a personal essay (about Arthur Mutambara, leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change). It may be fairly cogently argued but it is not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 09:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research WP:NOR. Article is duplicated at Zimbabwe News (already listed for AfD) and redirects from Articles on development in Zimbabwe. Humansdorpie 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Humansdorpie. --woggly 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator of other copy of this article ... shouldn't "exact duplicate of existing article" be a speedy criteria? It is for images, but not for articles. BigDT 11:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, unencyclopedic. — mark ✎ 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Angr (t • c) 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic--Aldux 13:35, 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. Looking at both sides, I the arguments in favour of deletion outweigh the arguments in favour of keep. If this school is notable enough (and not just another small private school like many others that advertise on late night TV), I have no prejudice against the recreation of this article as long as it is no longer an ad. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Business Institute[edit]

Lincher 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most schools and colleges are notable. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the present state reflects in a good way the OBI should be seen. It is in my opinion more like an ad as it stands now. Lincher 02:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands, it is now an advertisement. It's not really a college - it doesn't offer proper degrees. - Richardcavell 09:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not much information there other than that the place exists, and where to find more information. I suppose someone checking the initials would want to know that. --woggly 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we take out what is not verifiable except at their own web site, we are left with the title. Kevin 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This page suggests that the institution does exist, but the article looks like an ad/redirect to their website. Not enough content in the article to warrant keeping. Paddles 16:07, 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 Delete. abakharev 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kalinchuk[edit]

Not notable enough, Delete abakharev 10:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The original author blanked the article (see here[16]) before this afd, so it meets Criteria for speedy deletion G7. Kevin 11:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Kevin, since author has blanked it. Otherwise, strong delete for failing to assert notability. --BrownHairedGirl 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedied the article as per Kevin and BHG abakharev 12:31, 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 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nayh[edit]

Non-notable chat site. Makes no claim passing WP:WEB, no Alexa rank. Weregerbil 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like ad copy. Does this group have any achievments to date? --woggly 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kevin 11:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to make it sound like an ad. I mean, I'm just writting ABOUT the Fellowship. Not Advertising. How can I improve it to make it not so? AloseleUser:Alosel 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite reliable sources and write the article based on those sources. Fagstein 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sources are provided. Fagstein 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would you class as appropriate sources? Alosel 9:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment see WP:RS, as mentioned above. ergot 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And delete, per nom. Fails WP:WEB. ergot 16:04, 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 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry B. Scott[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Internet Movie Database shows he has appeared in 48 films [17]. That seems notable enough. Kevin 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PJM 11:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. 48 films, but (AFAICS) nothing approaching a leading role, and I'm not pesuaded that he was notable in any of them --BrownHairedGirl 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable in "Revenge of the Nerds", and that's notable enough for me. His vast list of credits (whether they be bit parts or otherwise) seals the deal. But man, from the looks of his official site [18], it seems as if he's really trying to hold on to the fact that he was in the "Nerds" series. -- Kicking222 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's Lamar fer Pete's sake! As long as the article mentions that, he's notable ... discospinster 20:52, 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 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janey[edit]

Very minor fictional character. Delete or merge to The Simpsons. --Nlu (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The character is suffciently mentioned here: [19]. PJM 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJM. -- Scientizzle 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Paddles 16:11, 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 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Mundlapati[edit]

This guy has no specific content nor any special track record. malapati 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it doesn't meet WP:BIO

However I'd like give you some back ground. 80% of people in India are suffering from too much sarcasm and social injustices for the past 4000 years. I wanted to inject compassion and hence I've created sasiprize to set an example. Since then I am also using "unknown" as user name so that I can be neutral and objective. unknown 04:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't keep everyone whose claim to fame is having a blog. Kevin 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So he has a blog and created a prize- that's not a sign of notability. -- Kicking222 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogger with a "highly popular blog" consisting of 2 posts and no comments. Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Isotope23. Paddles 16:12, 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 deleted by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Stag Party[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web space provider. Please try www.myspace.com instead. Weregerbil 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nom. MyNam e IsNotBob 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 11:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unless I'm invited, in which case keep. -- GWO
Speedy delete. It does no good for this sort of chaff to hang around. --BrownHairedGirl 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! Jamie 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can an admin close this, please (speedied by Brookie)? Tonywalton | Talk 15:16, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus-Metaphor[edit]

Edit history shows that this is from an unpublished thesis of the contributer, which would make it clear original research. Was prodded by another editor, prod removed, so taking it to afd MartinRe 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nominator (and thanks for first trying not biting the newcomers.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) - changing to abstain after discussion below and creator's laudable work - verifiability seems okay, notability still rather borderline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, thanks for noticing :) MartinRe 11:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't it make it so much easier when the author actually has a footnote on the page admitting it's OR? Fan1967 12:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The theory described in this article is no original research, it is published with Springer (see: [[20]]) and has been presented at an international conference on human-computer interaction (Interact 2005 - see: [[21]]).

It presents a novel approach to user-centred interface design, so its not established yet, but well accepted in the research community (if you count peer-reviewed international conferences). Obviously I am the researcher working on this theory, but my description of the approach here on Wikipedia is by all means meant to be objective.

You can find out more about my work on: [[22]]. I am part of the Human-Centred Systems Group at University College London. Here you can also find that a second paper on this approach will be published in September in Germany with Oldenbourg, another well known publisher for research along with a presentation at Mensch & Computer conference.

I will revise this article asap besides all the other stuff I have to do, so that it fits as good as possible with the wikipedia standards.

Please let me know what other concerns anyone has with sharing this approach on wikipedia. You can also get in touch with me personally, as I think that the means of communication through wikipedia are by far to complicated and inefficient... --Slaqua 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The publication record indeed strikes me as if it might make this borderline verifiable in our sense. I might reconsider if the article got a better intro that stated more clearly the context and scope of this idea: Name the field of science this belong to, give a proper definition, explain its claim to notability, etc. I'm still not entirely sure, though. Not every novel technical idea that somebody publishes somewhere gets an article here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update I have changed the article as requested. Any further changes necessary ? --81.1.118.241 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect it still doesn't pass muster. It is now a report about a concept introduced in a 2005 paper which described it as "A Novel Concept". It does not, however, appear to be a notable novel concept unless you can show that this concept has been widely reported or cited. Fan1967 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for causing any inconveniences in this "deletion process", I am new to the "adding stuff to wikipedia process". BUT I have checked the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which I assume is the crucial one right now (relating to the above comment).

It states: "For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper ... If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." As I mentioned earlier, this research has been peer-reviewed by various experts of the field and confirmed for publication. It is published with Springer, a very reputable publisher for research. It has been presented at a reputable international conference, being acknowledged by fellow researches. Further work on this theory is being published and presented in September (again reputable publisher and conference - it's German chapter of ACM). I think this kind of review process (taking months for every paper) is by far more accurate and reliable than publishing stuff at a newspaper - which all you should know. So stating newspaper level verification as a measure for reliability in wikipedia policies should than by far be met for this article. --Slaqua 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems also interesting that my vote for keeping the article has been deleted - no idea who that was - maybe you guys should also check your objectivity ?! - Or teach me, if I am not allowed to vote ?! --Slaqua 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that appears to have been removed in error by IP address 81.1.118.241, when they posted the update above[23]. I've taken the liberty of putting it back in again. Regards, MartinRe 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. see below Being presented at a conference, and published in the procedings, is not necessarily peer-reviewed. I do not list my papers which were presented in that manner in my publication list. I don't see it as yet meeting WP:V. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, do I get something wrong here? These papers have been peer-reviewed, in fact by six international researchers - or do you want to say that I lie ? I do not really understand the measures with which people seem to judge here. I do not know what things you have published, or where - feel free to let me know. I clearly state, who I am, what I do, where it has been published. If you feel that is not sufficient for Wikipedia policies - of course I cannot say anything, after all its a democratic collaborative tool, but please keep in mind these policies when you judge yourself and stay objective.... thanks a lot. --Slaqua 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm just saying that conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed to the extent of "traditional" journals, in that what was presented is what is published, rather than what was invited to have been presented (which was subject to peer review). (The publications now in the references do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Your thesis does, but that touches on WP:VAIN.)

Changed vote to Delete without prejudice. The problem is a mixture of WP:V and WP:VAIN, so that if someone other than the primary authors of the concept writes an article, quoting published, fully peer-reviewed works (other than conference proceedings, theses, etc.), a technically correct article could be written. It's clear that WP:N is met, as there are articles about web sites based on this model (or metaphor, if you prefer), but the correct, verifiable, name is open for consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all thanks for the productive criticism Arthur, I honestly appreciate the going through the arguments, rather than just voting for delete and then leaving it there. Nevertheless, I am not sure, whether maybe in your area of mathmatics, the common way to publish your work is a different one. I know that especially in social sciences, much focus is on journal publications, often based on the final thesis of a PhD. I am not sure how it is with maths ?! However, in computer science, most researchers publish primarily at important conferences like CHI (other ACM's), IEEE conferences or also Interact. That might have to do with the fast changes in the field that you as a researcher want to stay ahead of as much as possible of course. In terms of peer-reviews, again I am not sure how it works in other fields, but the paper I submit for peer-review is finished paper, including all theory, all experiments, all analysis. What you do after the peer-review are minor revisions for the final version to go to print with the publisher and maybe in response to some reviewers comments. --Slaqua 00:13, 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 DELETE. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch coming to the New World[edit]

I don't think that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a presentation of what fourth grade students in one school or another have recently studied. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with the Dutch coming to the New World; it's about the 4th Grade at Albany Academy, really. As such, Speedy delete as A7 (non-notable person or group). Tonywalton | Talk 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 12:21, 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 blanked by creator - "GO ON YOU KNOB HEADS! DELETE IT ALL!" - okay. DS 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working for free (fetish)[edit]

I prod tagged this with the concern : Unencyclopædic POV rant. Tag was removed with no explanation. It's subsequently had a {{POV}} tag added, also removed with no explanation. As it's still an unencyclopædic POV rant I'm taking it to AfD Tonywalton | Talk 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author has subseqently removed the {{afd}} tag, again with no explanation. Replaced but I have the feeling it'll keep going away. Tonywalton | Talk 12:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom...unencyclopedic drivel. PJM 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV rant. Also, hard to imagine anyone ever typing "Working for free (fetish)" in the search box. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 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 heck, I wish I could come to Down Under - delete. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Australia[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article without notability Stlemur 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity and nn. Did he just compare himself to Jesus? Metros232 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I was going to say it's OR, but there's no research in it. Can we delete for just being original? Kevin 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTO, WP:VANITY, WP:BIO violations. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per all the above votes. Hopefully we can read somewhere else about whether he walked out of Australia. --BrownHairedGirl 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Ton e 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy. Wikipedia is not the place to write your thoughts on your life. JPD (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per (aeropagitica) + WP:OR & nn.--blue520 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --JBellis 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Leaving Australia" Neuage comes up with 10 results of 21 see [24]. Of those, most are references to Neuage's website, Live Journal site or blogger site. There is also his personal site at the Albany Academy for Girls. There are no verifiable sources confirming this not associated with the author. Capitalistroadster 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Capitalistroadster and other comments above. Note that many of the user's other edits are less than useful also (See: Neuage (talk · contribs))--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I'm Australian. - Richardcavell 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I just wasted 5 minutes of my life. Longhair 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving Wikipedia (read: delete).--cj | talk 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this piece of nothingness. --Roisterer 13:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a term that is in wide use for the reason that is outlined in the article. As a personal note, I hardly see how leaving australia could possibly be seen that way seeing as Australia is also known as the "lucky country". Ans e ll 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely incomprehensible. Certainly of no encyclopedic merit. —Encephalon 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevance. Hohohob 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why are we even discussing this? Lankiveil 02:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameWikis[edit]

Fails WP:WEB Eric Sandholm 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the consensus on the Talk:GameWikis was to delete based on the prod added earlier. The prod was removed without explanation. Therefore, AfD is the next step. I myself am a GameWikis regular and registered on Wikipedia just to mark this article for deletion. Eric Sandholm 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Chris (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the discussion on the article's talk page. -- Kicking222 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review other articles at List_of_wikis#Games - many have gone through a similar process of review in discussion pages, and some as far as AfD, and all have been kept. To me, only one or two of those meet WP:WEB, yet the Wikipedia community chose to keep them in Wikipedia. What is different here to merit holding GameWikis up to a higher standard than what those related/comparable articles were forced to pass? I question keeping any of them; but if those are kept, for consistency and equal handling of all, this one should be kept as well. --161.88.255.139 18:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that there is other nn cruft in Wikipedia is not a justification for keeping this nn cruft. Eric Sandholm 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Clarification: The fact that they exist is not my reasoning. The fact that comparable articles for comparable other sites/organizations have already gone through the delete review, and in some cases an AfD review within the last month (I learned this when I added prods to those articles, when they were removed, I researched and found many had already been reviewed by the community). Those Wikipedia community decisions on those articles set a precedence, and this one should be kept as well based on that precedence. Regardless of if I agree with the decisions to keep those other articles, I do believe in a level handed and equitable application of policy. I fail to see why this article must be held to a higher standard than what the Wikipedia community used when it chose to keep comparable articles, especially when the decision to keep the other articles was made within the last month, so they are still recent and relevant decisions. --161.88.255.139 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GameWikis is not of comparable notability as some of these sites that have survived AfD. WoWWiki has half the Alexa rank of GameWikis (even though I think it clearly fails WP:WEB). Sensei's Library has been around forever and is widely cited. But some of the others are truly atrocious. Encyclopedia Gamia deserves to be chucked with extreme prejudice (its NUMBEROFARTICLES is a laughable 111). The Vault is not a wiki. Cunnan is a very borderline case, but if it survives prodding it will make it to AfD eventually. I'll even do the honours. Eric Sandholm 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa.com data for GameWikis is skewed. Alexa's posted score is based only on traffic to gamewikis.org, while traffic to guildwiki.org is tracked as a seperate value. The main problem with this isn't current traffic, it's minimal. The problem is that Alexa's score is a 3-month average. It was within the last three months that the main migration from the guildwiki to the gamewikis domain took place. Because of this, it will be about a month yet until the Alexa score for gamewikis.org will be a valid comparison. While not in itself a means of achieving WP:WEB, it was relevant to mention its limitations as you brought it up as how another Wiki survived the community review. --161.88.255.139 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and discussion. 70.20.64.187 23:16, 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 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subconsciousmind[edit]

Someone's promotion of a personal music project Skysmith 13:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is a musical project personal, and when is it professional?

look at entries like Gataka or Haltya just psychedlic trance producers like subconsciousmind. if you delete subconsciousmind, why not them?

Worldwide liveacts and releases are done by all of them.

Delete No evidence of notability and I can't find this album that's available "worldwide" in a lot of places, about 90 Google hits. Metros232 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is psytrance, absolutely small scene. Check if you find the albums of the artsits mentioned above in more places. psyshop, beatspace, juno etc. these are the shops for this scene, and there you find all of the albums. All I say is: If you delete this, you have delete the others too. gfuehlsweid has been sold 2000times, in psytrance meassures, this is a very good value.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zipmic[edit]

Delete non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB. The article has no assertion of notability. Google for "zipmic comic" returns 6 hits: 2 to this Wikipedia article, 2 to the zipmic site itself and 2 to a list of webcomics. Prod'ed but prod was removed. May also be vanity article Gwernol 13:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Just another comic, so far as I can tell. While I'm sure that we wish the authors well, it has not succeeded to the point where it requires an encyclopedia article yet. Geogre 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN webcomic. Fails WP:WEB Beno1000 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per above. -- Dragonfiend 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. Ziggurat 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A version now exists on Comixpedia here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:46, 16 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 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcroft Homes[edit]

Likely fails WP:CORP, the article seems to be a promotion for a builder; whether egregious or not, advertising is a violation of the deletion policy Geogre 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless references are provided that show it meets WP:CORP. I actually asked for some references a month ago on the talk page. — TheKMan^talk 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, no evidence that it meets WP:CORP. --BrownHairedGirl 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--blue520 16:24, 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 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeerTools Pro[edit]

Delete. This reads like an ad, and for a product apparently not even on the market yet. BD2412 T 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

note - much ad-copy type stuff was removed after the AfD was posted; notability and verifiability are still at issue. BD2412 T 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN --Bachrach44 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable now. JPD (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, poss advertising. --BrownHairedGirl 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamvertisement. Catamorphism 08:37, 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 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Goldberg[edit]

This person is non-notable, nor he's famous beyond what he does. --Janarius 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is Laurie Burg up? She's not that famous...and she's up...I don't see why Stephen Goldberg has to be deleted.. (Laicos)

Then you ask to vote for deletion for Laurie Burg and I would do it. Unless it is improved.--Janarius 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you put Stephen Goldberg up for deletion and not Laurie Burg? She is a principal of a school too...Why does Stephen Goldberg have to be deleted? (Laicos)

I have based my decision on Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria, it would appear that Stephen Goldberg is not notable. Unless there are more notable information to add. Thank you--Janarius 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a terrible editor of wikipedia! I am a failure...i never do anything right...(sobs) (Laicos)

you can start learning to improve yourself and contribute to wikipedia.--Janarius 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway of saving the article from being deleted? (Laicos)

Redirect to Great Neck Village School. — Haeleth Talk 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Neck Village School. Vizjim 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to redirect. JPD (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JPD, and do not redirect. --BrownHairedGirl 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect No notability, and the redirect is quite unnecessary. -- Kicking222 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all due haste. The most "notable" thing here is that apparently "Steve" can be short for "Stephen". Fluit 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-09t18:47z
Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, do not redirect, schools should not have faculty lists. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Fagstein 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirection Not notable, not verifiable, not written like an encyclopaedia, not enough content to warrant an article.. Paddles 16:19, 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 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Burg[edit]

There's very little information here.--Janarius 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Peter High School. — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Peter High School. Vizjim 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Peter High School. Ted 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. School article shoudl name him, but not include any more about him. JPD (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not attempt to assert notability, and notability appears very unlikely. Not enough there to make it worth formally merging, so I have put Burg's name and the report link into the school article. --BrownHairedGirl 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. -- Kicking222 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect per BrownHairedGirl. Fluit 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, info is already merged to St. Peter High School, no need for a redirect. Mango juice^talk 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. I don't see any reason for a redirct.--Isotope23 19:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn person, do not redirect, school articles should not include faculty lists. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is essentially blank. Fagstein 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per nom, Fagstein, BrownHairedGirl. Paddles 16:21, 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 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech_Dual-action[edit]

This article contains nothing notable at all, and barely any text period; there are at least a dozen other "Dual Shock" clones out there share the exact same characteristics "listed" here- the article itself contains nothing that would seperate this controller from any of the aforementioned clones. In fact, the page's sole "distinguishing" feature is a false claim that no other joystick has key-mapping software with it. Daniel Davis 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom .--blue520 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paddles 16:22, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Secret des Vikings[edit]

Non notable: Here is a Google Search For references to the author of the book, in English, where the text string "is a pseudohistorical work by the French" (which is from the Wikipedia article) does not feature on the same page (the point of the exclusion being to isolate internet hits other than ones from Wikipedia or mirror sites of this particular page). There are four entries, and all are mirrors of this now deleted (by me) paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Vikings.

That is to say, the only mention of this author or this book are courtesy of Wikipedia and mirror sites.

Additionally, the book is in French, doesn't appear to have been translated into English, so while it may be notable enough for the French Wikipedia, it isn't notable in the English one. ElectricRay 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non notable per nom. — AKADriver ☎ 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I think that if a book is notable enough for the French WP it should be notable enough for the English, the fact that it hasn't been translated into English adds to my impression that this book is non-notable. (And it's not in fr.wikipedia.org BTW). --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eivind. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of room for articles about books. Wikipedia is not paper. Notable for containing novel theories. By the way, your Google search is flawed, the man's name is "Joël Supéry", which gives more hits. Book is also listed on Amazon. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. There are certainly plenty of articles en Français, certainly, and yes, it is listed on Amazon.FR (but not ~.com or ~.co.uk): - try repeating your Google search in English only. With that additional restriction (which was mentioned in my original post, note) the only mentions are, quelle surprise, mirrors of the now deleted Wikipedia section article on Vikings, and there are only a very few of them. With respect, I disagree with the view expressed elsewhere on the AfD that a book written in French that has not been translated into English, nor rated any mention anywhere on the internet on English (taking Google as a pretty good proxy for "the internet") can somehow be notable on English Wikipedia. Feel free to add an article to the French Wikipedia, if that is your wont, but as the consensus (which I don't understand you to dispute), even from the author of the article, is that this is "pseudohistory" - i.e., bunk - it seems difficult to divine a possible conceptual reason for notability in English for this article. ElectricRay 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GOOG says nothing about restricting searches to English — indeed it discusses searches in other languages at 6. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) discusses the "correct" names of books; note the presence of Kroonenberg's untranslated (and funny, but not especially renowned) Alles went behalve een vent. Nor does it say that only English-language or translated-into-English books are inherently notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't think English Wikipedia is intented to be limited to topics in the Anglosphere only. The language is English, but the scope should be universal. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to get to busted up about this, but if it's not been translated into English there has to be an element of interpretation which borders on original research, mustn't there? End of the day, I'm still not persuaded this, whether in French or English, is any more than a crackpot theory that has received no academic or significant public attention. Including articles like this puts Wikipedia in danger of becoming (even more than it already is) a receptable for trash, pet theories and mindless trivia. Let's sort the sheep from the goats here. ElectricRay 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Onme last observation: other than this deletion log, nothing links to this article. In terms of notability, that in itself is pretty telling. ElectricRay 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:JW1805. It may be (no, it is) pseudohistorical crap, but it's moderately notable and the author even got to plug it on national radio. Having an article which explains that this book is pseudohistory is a Good Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 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 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional brain[edit]

This page was first questioned in June 2005, and sources were first explicitly requested in August 2005. None have appeared. The article is not verifiable, and possibly original research. --Hughcharlesparker 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~no such article~~, nevermind, link fixed--205.188.116.203 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perma-unsourced conjecture. -- GWO
Delete No external links and no references, and almost certainly OR. In fact, looking at the first edit from the article's revision history, the original article didn't even have any intrawiki links; in addition, it is the only contribution the original author ever made to WP (and s/he made the article in one giant chunk), which even more greatly smacks of OR. -- Kicking222 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR Crum375 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is in general a well-established academic hypothesis, although not all details of the article may be. It is not in my areas of expertise, but I have read articles and even a book about this. As a starting point for people who might want to research sources, look at Mapping the Evolution of the Emotional Brain: The Triple Balance, which has several entry points. Googling emotional-brain+evolution+-wikipedia gives many more references, and a popularizing web site BrainConnection.com, not directly suitable for sourcing but good for some background. Lambiam ^Talk 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those two links suggest a separate anatomical entity as the article under review does. The phrase "emotional brain", as in "the evolution of the emotional brain" seems rather to be being used as a phrase describing the emotional capacity of the brain. You could compare the phrase "the evolution of the tool-using ape" in describing our species' development. On the talk page, JohnElder suggested that the article was describing the limbic system - is that the well-established academic hypothesis you're referring to? I should add that I am also not an expert in this field. --Hughcharlesparker 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be overstating the case, and also presents as fact what is considered an interesting hypothesis. The amygdala is generally considered an anatomical entity that is part of the brain, and is sometimes popuraly referred to as a "reptilian brain" -- although the reptilian brain has more functions than the amygdala. I don't think, though, that it can be equated with the "emotional brain" as meant here, which would be more like a "mammalian brain": kind of the human brain minus the specifically human neocortex. Clearly (this is not the hypothesis but generally accepted wisdom), in the phylogeny of the brain, an important role is played by the appearance of complex "add-on" subsystems, next to gradual adaptation of existing systems. The triple-balance hypothesis is something like that each next add-on offers more refined decision making capabilities, but has to cope with the cruder reactions of coexisting older subsystems (unless you are Spock), and must try to (and often fails) to achieve a balance. That's about what I remember, which may be different from what I read. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:33, 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 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Radio[edit]

prod removed. Seems that they're trying to use wikipedia to find sponsors. Bachrach44 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement and vanity (of sorts) for something that would, regardless of its spam qualities, be non-notable. -- Kicking222 16:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement/vanity. Article created by User:InfernoradioUK as their only contribution. — AKADriver ☎ 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the website seems a radio broadcasting in a school canteen... --Melaen 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Empty article. Paddles 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment when I first nominated it, it wasn't empty. Check the history for more details. --Bachrach44 16:34, 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 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somatopia[edit]

Somatopia is a neologism coined by Lycoming College professor Darby Lewes for the stock metaphor of the female body as landscape. It clocks up altogether 11 unique ghits, the top one from Wikipedia. The others are from the title of the monograph, so usage has really really not caught on.

The article itself is unreferenced original research at its finest. Dr Zak 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a non-notable neologism and original research. In addition, although this isn't grounds for deletion (and the article is unsuitable for WP anyway), both of the main contributors to this article have been spotted vandalizing WP multiple times. -- Kicking222 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as well. The article even claims it is original reserach by saying "Associate professor of English Darby Lewes has dubbed..." —M e ts501^talk 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is an excellent article on a topic well known to students and critics of literature and has literary, historical, cultural, psychological, and sociological significance. It addresses a real genre of literature, as the novel and other literary allusions it references show and as the quotations of Professor Darby Lewes substantiates. Dr Zak has been involved, along with Mdwh and others in protracted edit wars; this looks like an attempt by him to avenge himself rather than to initiate a general dialogue concerning the merits or demerits of a Wikipedia article. Somatopia is perhaps better known by an older term, "pornotopia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs)

Comment I've never edited this article. Mdwh 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - what happened to the article? it was deleted already by somebody after only this brief discussion, with just two or three people saying delete it. this seems very unfair. wikipedia should give every writer and every article a fair hearing before a decision to delete or keep is made. what's going on? something here doesn't pass the smell test!

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/Denmark women's national handball team[edit]

The article is empty. ka la ha 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:32, 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/Handball kit[edit]

The article is empty. ka la ha 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:33, 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/National handball team[edit]

The article is empty. ka la ha 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:34, 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/WWHC 2005 participants[edit]

The article is empty. ka la ha 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:34, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Guthrie[edit]

Nom, & vote
Del on, this pathetic also-ran, who doesn't even qualify as a politician: people who neither are involved in making policy, nor have any chance of starting to do so without an election upset that would be of interest mostly for its bizarreness, are fringe activists, and may be presumed n-n until real influence or attention to them is demonstrated. This guy's greatest distinction is polling best among 3rd-party candidates in one state in one year. Running 3rd with 3%, where the victor got a landslide, is the height of irrelevance. I may be too cautious in having made this a ProD instead of a speedy-del.
Jerzy•t 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article seems to assert enough notability to warrant being kept. He is only a third-party candidate on the state level, but if Washington state's Libertarian Party- a major third party, as far as third parties go- supports him, he must be one of most important (or, at least, politically active) Libertarians in the state; also, "Bruce Guthrie" + "Libertarian" gets 925 Google hits, of which a little over 200 are unique (which may or may not be enough to say that this guy is notable via Google), and there's certainly a chance that more of the 23,700 G-hits for "Bruce Guthrie" pertain to him. I would usually vote delete on some little-known candidate for Congress from the [Insert name you've never heard of here] Party, but Guthrie is apparently sufficiently notable. -- Kicking222 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a candidate is able to get on the ballot in a U.S. Senate race, he or she is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Although it is highly unlikely that Guthrie or the Libertarians will even come close to winning this race, Guthrie's name will appear on the ballot, and Wikipedia would be violating its policy of neutrality by deleting his entry simply because some might consider him irrelevant or an also ran with a "fringe" viewpoint. -- Freedom Lover in Olympia 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. It also does not meet the proposed guidelines for candidates, which should be persuasive even if not binding. From the article itself, there is little to denote the notability of this person other than being an also-ran in an election. This person can be included in the Washington United States Senate election, 2006 article. Fluit 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I essentially agree with Fluit's opinion here.--Isotope23 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Folks seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." If you haven't, then you don't meet WP:BIO as a pol. Merely running for office is prima facie not in of itself notable. RGTraynor 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major third party candidate for a US Senate seat. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I live in a congressional district where the Democratic candidate can't plausibly be described as notable. Merely making it onto the ballot doesn't make you notable. It's too easy to do. Fan1967 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a three-time nominee for a notable U.S. political party. Aside from plenty of "by the way" type mentions in articles about the Senate race, his candidacy does receive some degree of featured coverage. ScottW 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fluit. BryanG 02:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoe. — CJewell (talk to me) 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A three-time candidate, even for a notable party, is not enough to make one notable, and the page lists nothing else that he's done. Are we going to make start listing every unsuccessful candidate for every elected position in every democratic country in the world? You could be looking at 5000 odd every three years just for Australia. Paddles 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my congressional district, the Democratic candidate was the same for the last two elections before this year. Does this mean he's notable? No, it means he volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb in a safe incumbent's district. Fan1967 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm amazed that people want to delete this article. I restored his bio information. He's an active member of his community, and an active participant of our Democracy. Leave him out of the print version if you wish, but leave the online version. It's been here since December of 2004, and we're just now lookingn for viability? That's wrong. Chadlupkes 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Print version"????? Fan1967 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No change to earlier delete vote. I would consider changing vote if he had a published book or often-cited research papers, or had notable speed skating performances at a national or international level. Simply being a lecturer doesn't automatically confer notability. Simply being a competitive speed skater doesn't automatically confer notability; I know someone with a world ranking in snowboarding but wouldn't consider him wikiworthy. The argument that the page has been present since December 2004 is specious, I'm sure there are hundreds of pages on non-notables that haven't been marked AfD simply because they haven't been found yet. AFAIK no-one is suggesting Guthrie is a bad person - just, in the context of an international encyclopaedia (he's not a participant in my democracy) and on the basis of the information in the article, not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Paddles 00:30, 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 No consensus, defaults to redirect to Beth Nahrain, already redirected by Sargonious. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahrainean[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}}.

This article is a complete fiction. The term Nahrainean is a new coinage by User:Sargonious: it receives no Google hits [25], and is not present in published works on Mesopotamia past or present. This appears to be the pipe dream of a teenage Assyrian. — Gareth Hughes 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACK: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Although I understand your frustration, Gareth, please. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Aldux 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree wholy. Here are your Google hits you Pharisee. http://www.google.com/search?q=nahrainian&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)
- See above. Please, no personal attacks. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000 hits or not, it is still a valid article.

Delete per nom. Two thousand Google hits would have been significant. Only two Google hits are likewise significant, but in the other direction. RGTraynor 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since google just asked me whether or not I meant Bahrainian [26], I'm afraid my conclusion is non-notable. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beth Nahrain, and if there is any useful, NPOV information, copy it there. Both Google hits are Beth-Nahrainian (or variations on that spelling), so it seems to me that Nahrainean by itself is a neologism. No reason not to redirect, though. Rigadoun 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beth Nahrain, I'll go with the redirect. King Legit
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People already know that, I dont know how things are "made up" out of nowhere. Wikipedia is not a place to create an idea or an identity. Chaldean 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete A hit's a hit. There's credibility in this. Nahrainian, Nahranean, same thing. --Shaitan Al Mahdi 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Just because there's only two hits doesn't mean it isn't valid. Obviously those articles (2) do mention Nahranians. It's just mispelled here.--Yessou El Maseekh 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The two articles though few and by one source are still valid. The website itself is an Assyrian Nationalist page. Peter Agga

Comment And ... here comes the march; the two comments above constitute the sole contributions of the editors to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Evidence of the tern Nahrainean/Nahrainiean/Nahraini: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=nahraini&btnG=Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nahraya&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2 http://www.google.com/search?q=nahraya&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Comment - Eight extra hits, which in context of the links each and every one of them a misspelling of "Bahraini?" That's desperately unconvincing, frankly. RGTraynor 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Erase This just looks like a case of a priest trying to molest a perfectly good article. I see enough evidence. If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit therefor I say save this article from the clutches of a mad priest.--Jihad Jones 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another first-time contributor. RGTraynor 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5q3zn2NENQQA.D5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2cXVjNTM5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12cb444ad/EXP=1147466099/**http%3a//syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1VanRompay.html

Redirect to Beth Nahrain - Looks like the closest thing we have here on Wikipedia. I'm also not 100% sure as to why Hugoye was linked to above. Hugoye is a prestigious journal, but this page doesn't seem to help this article's credibility. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under article 16 it mentions NAHRAYA which is Syriac for Nahrainean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)

... or Syriac for the more common translation "Mesopotamian," as the article agrees with. Either way, Nahrainean would then (arguably) be a duplicate for Mesopotamia or Beth Nahrain (I feel more of the latter) and should be redirected as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't have every inflection of the word, or the two articles (since the content is so similar) should be merged. Why argue over the existance of a duplicate article? The point of this is not an attack upon your person, beliefs, or identity, it's to keep Wikipedia free of redundancy. If the article is merged or redirected, when someone types in "Nahrainean" they'll find themselves with the exact same information, no? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT disagree with a redirect. I stated previously it was fine with me. I will go ahead and redirect and just add in a sentence in the Beth Nahrain article that Nahrainean or Beth-Nahrainean is the Anglicized form of Nahraya or Beth=Nahraya which is Syriac for Mesopotamian which is a broader term. Beth Nahrain means "the Land of Rivers" where Mesopotamia is Greek for "the Land between Rivers." There is a distinction. It could be even argued that Beth Nahrain should be merged into Mesopotamia with a statement on that article explaining the two terms.King Legit

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. An incorrect name is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion anyway; WP:RM is the proper forum for that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent in North America[edit]

The name is factually incorrect, the article violates WP:NOR, as it is not verified. Delete Ardenn 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since nominator's reasoning does not seem correct: just about everything links to outside verification (gov websites, law website, etc). If anything, this is far better, verification-wise, than probably 99% of Wikipedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, plenty of verification. Needs some input (more states, countries) but it's a great start. — AKADriver ☎ 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems OK for a start. Verification is at least as good as most articles in Wikipedia. This AfD seems to be the result of an edit war over the title. Work it out! Ted 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has been in an edit war trying to speedy it out of process, and move it around. Bad faith nomination? I'd close it as a speedy keep, but I'm involved in the dispute so I'd rather not. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – yep, bad faith nomination – Gurch 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep AfD is not the way to address edit wars -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. Ardenn is right on the article's talk page when he states that it's a misleading name (in the US alone, there are differing ages of consent for sex, marriage and contractual arrangements), but the list itself is eminently verifiable. RGTraynor 19:19, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix rpg[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide to every mod for every game written ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i realise this, but im not doing it for every mod made for every game ever made, this is just for that mod, because i think it should be up there, becasue it is a well liked mod. Are there any other reasons you think it should not be allowed?

I see no where in the rules where it says this is not allowed, and i spent 2 hours reading them. None of the views are biased all the information is informative.

Delahuex

Delete vote and Response to Delahuex. First of all, this mod is non-notable. If it was released YESTERDAY, there can be no claim that it's "well-liked" unless an extraordinary number of people have downloaded it in the past 24 hours. There's no assertion of notability in the article- a self-released space combat game (or mod) is in no way unique, and the article does not claim why this particular mod is, especially considering the [[Frelancer (computer game)|Freelancer}} page lists almost two dozen mods. Second, OF COURSE the views in the article are biased. There's inherent bias in the second sentence of the article: "The best feature about this modification is its enthusiastic community and the great addition of flyable ships, weapons and new bases." The "Mod Features" section also has an exclamation point after almost every feature, which doesn't exactly scream "encyclopedic." Third, the article was created by one of the designers of the game (see the last name listed under "The Mod Team"), which constitutes an advertisement (which the article obviously is). To Delahuex and anyone else who might read this: I'm sorry for biting the newcomer, which is something I hate doing, but I'm not really sure how to state my argument without being a bit condescending. To Delahuex, don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not trying to attack you. Here's what I am saying: The subject of this article is non-notable, and almost certainly will never be notable; as a result, it does not need a page on Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delahuex reply:

No sorry, the date i put for release was the new update, it has actually been out for around 3 months now, and therefore is well liked. You say it lists 2 dozen mods, yet we are the only mod to take inicitive to make a wiki page, because we have the confidence that it is worth it. We currently have 211 members to our mod that play regularly. The date i set was for the new server upgrade and the new mod, since this was the massive release with bug fixes and more, and with already 211 members, we can only grow. I realise your argument, but i really think this is worth it. If no-one else agrees with me then fine, i concede, and dont worry about being condescending, i can live with it ;) Plus the best feature line is fair enough, ill chnage that, and the exclamation marks. COme on this is my first wiki page :) Plus, delahuex and delahue are different people.

- Reply I understand why you feel the page should stick around, and I sit corrected on the aspects of my argument which were incorrect. In addition, I do complement your initiative in creating the page. With that said, there is still not enough notability for the mod. If having 200 players was a goal, then I congratulate you on having over 200 players, but that's certainly not a large enough number to assert WP notability (I could write a blog read by far more than 200 people that would still not be "notable"). Perhaps the reason none of the other mods have articles (besides people simply not putting in the effort to create one, as you did) is that none of them are sufficiently distinguished. Few mods are. -- Kicking222 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delahuex reply:

Ok, you have raised valid points, i will concede this time, delete it if you must. ;) No problem, ill just have to find anothe ronline free encyclopedia to post it on :S

Delete per Kicking. Mango juice^talk 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking; he said it all. This article is far better suited to a gaming forum or blog. RGTraynor 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author's request. Fagstein 02:49, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbetsförnedringen[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Swedish dictionary. This word is also nominated for deletion at Swedish Wikipedia and will very very likely be deleted, see AfD nomination on Swedish Wikipedia Thuresson 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost an attack page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a well-known alternate name. How does this fall under attack page? 1() 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Förnedring means humiliation, it's not that insulting but still... --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Are we to maintain articles for foreign language slang and figures of speech. Puh-lease! Madman 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Swedes seem to think it's unencyclopedic and propaganda, and who am I to disagree. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable using reliable sources. Fagstein 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per 1(). --Off! 11:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well-known nickname of a widely criticized organization. The context seems also to be useful and verifiable as well. --Fdp 15:42, 15 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 —Wh o uk (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka (Verbal Vets)[edit]

Article has apparently been written by its subject. I don't think this really asserts notability and it smacks of a vanity article to me. "Natural Born Spitters" isn't in Allmusic, either, and generally doesn't seem to get a lot in the way of Google hits. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a whole bunch of pages redirecting to this one, such as Łukasz Krawczyk, Luka (NBS), Luka NBS and so forth. -- Captain Disdain 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO, WP:NOT free web host MartinRe 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean talking about "free web host," MartinRe? — Luka (Verbal Vets) 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:NOT. It's a shorthand way of saying that the content is more appropiate for a personal web wite, (which wikipedia isn't) as it's written by the subject and doesn't appear to be notable enough for an encylopedia. It's common to use comments of a short reference to policies, which saves a lot of verbose typing. Regards, MartinRe 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy per above. Vanity, spam, non-notable, freeweb space, etc. -- Kicking222 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, what shall I do now? First and foremost I thank y'all for all your valuable remarks regarding my article. On the other hand, I ask you for understanding, mates..I'm absolute beginner and have never written any article for Wikipedia before... Luka (Verbal Vets) 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Don't take it personally, but there's a lot of articles that go through the deletion process so people tend to be terse. This article isn't quite what Wikipedia is for (read WP:NOT) and would be better placed on your user page. Fagstein 02:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Fagstein, and delete all the redirects. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank y'all very much, I got it. You're absolutely right. Now I see my mistakes, and understand all your remarks, thanks. I have to respect Wikipedia's terms and conditions..so if you make a decision, and my article is supposed to be deleted/edited, I really don't mind it. Please do the right things. Shalom... — Luka (Verbal Vets) 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy userfy per author's request. Fagstein 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't get me wrong...of course I don't want it to get deleted but do I have any other choice? Do I, anyway? — Luka (Verbal Vets) 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, not really, unless you could find a way to turn it into an article. Userfying it would take the article as it is now and make it a subpage of your user page on Wikipedia, separating it from the "encyclopedia" part and putting it in the part designed for Wikipedia users such as yourself. Fagstein 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Zaxem 12:39, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrology[edit]

No reference to mirrology in article, as far as I can tell it is a neologism. The incident described and Fa-Tsang seems to be real (see, for instance, here), but this explanation doesn't make much sense. Can it be merged into Huayan? There is no indication of source so perhaps it's not worth bothering. No incoming links. Rigadoun 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge if needed with Huayan Crum375 17:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or transwiki to Wikisource if it can be worked out what the hell this is. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is AWESOME. --Liface 23:39, 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 —Wh o uk (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Spitters[edit]

I don't think these guys are particularly notable. Google doesn't give a whole lot in the way of hits, AMG hasn't heard of them, and at the very least the tone of the text is very, very far from NPOV ("Their calm but confident swagger for their music is impressive."), especially as the article has apparently been written by their promoter. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Additionally, I'd also like to list Rahim Muhammad and Imam Bilal-Firmin, AKA Rah Vital and E'Flash, respectively, under the same AfD simply because their only claims to fame are being members of this group and and they have been listed by the same person -- the group's apparently promoter -- who wrote this article. -- Captain Disdain 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No notability, vanity, advertisement, etc. -- Kicking222 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTO, WP:NOT free web host for promotion (speedy delete for band members, under A7, as being a band memeber is not an assertion of notability) MartinRe 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean talking about "free web host for promotion," MartinRe? — Luka (Verbal Vets) 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They only have 50 unique G-hits, most of that being Myspace and counter site hits. One of those hits is to a Boston Globe article (about up and coming Boston-area rappers) that claims a whole 1000 sales of their album. Maybe a year or two from now they'll make it, but they just haven't hit WP:MUSIC yet. RGTraynor 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't call us, we'll call you. PJM 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what shall I do now? First and foremost I thank y'all for all your valuable remarks regarding my article. On the other hand, I ask you for understanding, mates..I'm absolute beginner and have never written any article for Wikipedia before... Luka (Verbal Vets) 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, really, don't worry about it, Luka. It's not like we hate you now; many of us have done things exactly like this when we first started to edit Wikipedia. It takes a bit of experience to figure out what kind of articles are appropriate for Wikipedia and what aren't. There's no harm done. -- Captain Disdain 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank y'all very much, I got it. You're absolutely right. Now I see my mistakes, and understand all your remarks, thanks. I need to respect Wikipedia's terms and conditions...so if you make a decision, and my article is supposed to be deleted/edited, I really don't mind it. Please do the right things. 1.. — Luka (Verbal Vets) 15:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, please don't get me wrong...indeed I don't want it to get deleted but do I have any other choice? — Luka (Verbal Vets) 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll just copy what I said in our discussion on my talk page here: I understand that you don't want it deleted, but you have to understand that the subject of the article really doesn't meed Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I sympathize, but there's really nothing I can do about it. Not every band and not every person is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, if you think that the subject of the article is notable enough, you can always make your argument for it in the AfD. If it turns out that you're right, it will be taken into account; people change their minds in AfDs all the time when someone makes a convincing argument for notability or importance. But honestly? I don't think you can pull it off in this case, because Natural Born Spitters just isn't an important group yet -- not to the world at large. The fact that you're involved with them makes them very important to you, and I respect that, but that also makes you biased. And please believe that I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm just saying that simply existing isn't enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that Natural Born Spitters won't make it big in a year or two, but at that point, someone else will write the article about them. I realize that this probably isn't what you'd like to hear, but I'm not going to lie to you here -- I don't think there's a whole lot you can do about this. -- Captain Disdain 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for an encylopaedia. Zaxem 12:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fdp 15:33, 15 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 Silent Hill locations. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midwich Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable location in a video game and the movie adaptation of it. Little possibility of meaningful expansion. --InShaneee 16:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Are you kidding me? This is as trivial and NN as it gets. It's silly enough that elementary schools are deemed worthy of articles, but fictional elementary schools receiving a minor mention in a seven year old video game?? RGTraynor 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional school from a video game? Easy delete. Brian G. Crawford 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Would not object to redirecting it to Silent Hill (video game). PJM 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per... everyone. -- Kicking222 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment and yet we have articles on every damn pokemon that ever there was(nt). hey ho Jcuk 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL Just kidding, delete Kotepho 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Silent Hill locations, this article has the same amount of info as everything else there, but is split off for some reason. BryanG 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Silent Hill locations, I agree with BryanG, this article has some information which could be of use to people researching Silent Hill, so a merge is a good idea to avoid loss of information pa-merynaten 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Silent Hill locations. If someone wrote a serious document about each location within Silent Hill, there would be plenty of information for each one to have its own page. But until that happens, it can be merged to avoid loss of information. TheProgrammingGuy 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Silent Hill locations per above. ~ Hibana 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is starting to take shape, I've added more information and a picture, I am currently expanding the article! Empty2005 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that. --Fdp 15:35, 15 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 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeinfo[edit]

Advertisement. --mtz206 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the spam! -- Scientizzle 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. PJM 17:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvert. Gwernol 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertisement, spam. - Richardcavell 23:05, 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 deleted as previously deleted reposted information. --InShaneee 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic infomysticism[edit]

Persistent re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-reposting of original research (I hope I counted the "re-"s correctly, this is at least the eleventh time this article gets created and deleted under different names). Author unsurprisingly contests deletion. Weregerbil 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as {{db-repost}}. Clear original research. Gwernol 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete it and turn it into a protected redirect to Gnostic Infomysticism, which is a {{deletedpage}}. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost, tagged accordingly. Closing administrator should note that this content has also been posted at Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism. I don't know if that's against the rules, or I'd remove it myself. I think this obvious crank needs to be stopped. Brian G. Crawford 18:46, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Phish Tour[edit]

This article (and all other articles that relate to a tour by Phish) can be considered fancruft 66.2.141.70 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't fancruft, it's superduperfancruft. -- Kicking222 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am one of the regular contributors/editors of the main article Phish and even being a huge fan, I know that this isn't what Wikipedia should be used for. There are MANY fan webpages such as Phish.net, Phantasy Tour Phish, ect. through links on the main article where this very intensive fan information can be found. I don't know how to nominate multiple articles, but there is a comprehensive list of pages just like this at Phish tours. --Moeron 20:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the procedure for nominating multiple related pages is at WP:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion MartinRe 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you for the link. I will look into that after I see what happens with this page. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~ Strong Keep, Clean, and Expand Also a main contributor on the Phish page, I think these are slightly akin to having a separate page for each Simpsons episode. In their current form they seem to be a compendium of setlists which would be EXTREMELY redundant of information found in about a billion places online, but I think that they can eventually become encyclopedic with the inclusion of such things as Special Guests, any antics by the band, etc. I think detailed information regarding one of the largest live acts of all time is not something to be deleted lightly. — Music Maker 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information More suitable for a fan web site or offical site, where it should already exist if the information is verifable (no sources are given in article), and if it isn't there, it's original research. MartinRe 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say keep if it was actually about the tour, but this is just a list of phish setlists. Night Gyr 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Right now, sure, it's a list of set lists, but you're failing to see what the articles could eventually become. There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in the Phish category and there are a few dedicated editors attempting to reel in the monstrosity it has become. With some diligence, these articles will become encyclopedic. Someone has taken great pains to start the articles, misguided though it might be, and I would really hate to lose the information. — Music Maker 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MartinRe. Cool3 21:09, 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 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Turned to Stone (video game)[edit]

Contested prod. Article's creator has a history of creating hoax articles with sockpuppets. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Girl Who Turned to Stone. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Most likely yet another hoax article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single web site lists this "game" except for WP. Sock puppet user. Almost absolutely a hoax. This is a no-brainer. -- Kicking222 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Announced at E3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krabs514 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Then can you for once cite a source? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Of course he can't. I just reverted an edit he made stating that there was a planned Little People, Big World game. That's not even funny- it's just stupid. -- Kicking222 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of it. --Thorpe | talk 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gwernol 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Another one of Krabs' fake articles. --Oakster ^(Talk) 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a giant pair of crystal WP:BALLS. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Hibana 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. tregoweth 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is evidence that the policy for handling disputed PRODs should be amended FWIW. Kaisershatner 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax BackInBlack 01:12, 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 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bland Hack Productions"[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable movie production company formed by some students. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, their only claim to fame, Carboy, give me two hits on Google. Thuresson 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook non-notable case. MikeWazowski 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thuresson. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sorry, new to Wikipedia. I understand now that this entry is totally inappropriate. Apologies. 705blake 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the above comment is by the article's author, and he wishes it gone as non-notable, I agree Cool3 21:04, 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 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Rashman[edit]

Not found on IMDB. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, only 36 Google hits, and vanity which is already on User:Louise Rashman's userpage. -- Kicking222 18:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. I'm sure she's a charming young lass, but when her first hit on Google UK is her vanity Wikipedia article, she's just a blip on the firmament. RGTraynor 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as above. --Asbl 00:18, 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 Delete, then redirect to The Show. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show[edit]

Non-notable film projects dont qualify as an encyclopedic topic. Most content is POV, and contains no sources for the claims (presumably because the authors are using first-hand knowledge). Links to film cast point to Wikipedia user pages rather than articles of notable actors. (To the authors: I'm sure this show was fun to make, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not YouTube.) Remy B 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how they describe the "future of the show" and in terms of "over the years" for a kitchen sink vidcam display that hasn't even hit its second anniversary. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Show (song) as most probable search target. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, and redirect to The Show. I have taken the liberty of deleting all of the piped links to User pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, then make it a disambiguation page with links to The Show, The ShoW, and The Show (song). Ziggurat 00:17, 16 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 Sonic Wild Fire. There are three possible redirect targets mentioned by three different people. The last one appears to be the correct one, since all indications are that this rumour turned out to be named as the last option. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Sonic[edit]

Speedied, restored, and prodded by User:Royboycrashfan, then deprodded by User:TheCoffee, this article appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete unless properly sourced. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq lists it as a third-party title announced at Nintendo's E3 conference.[27].

Delete until it leaves the realm of rumors and becomes widely accepted fact that this game exists. Beltz 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This game was revealed by Nintendo, with video, at their Pre-E3 conference yesterday. Coffee 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This isn't a rumor anymore, and has a source. Coffee 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there sources other than that Joystick link? For example, gamespot, ign, etc? Beltz
  - Hmm.. I know the conference is available in streaming video on IGN and Gamespot. Though the game was known as "Hyper Sonic" at the Nintendo press conference, it seems that it's now known as Sonic Wild Fire [28], which has its own article. I say REDIRECT to Sonic Wild Fire. Coffee 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Sonic. The game title I don't know, but "Hyper Sonic" is a character too. Sort of. 86.136.82.105 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic Wildfire if it is in fact an early title for the Sonic Wii game. ~ Hibana 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think Hyper Sonic refers to Super Sonic#Hyper Sonic, in which case it should Redirect there. —M e ts501^talk 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic Wild Fire. Hyper Sonic was the former name of the game. BackInBlack 12:19, 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 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution International[edit]

Blatant advertising for a non-notable company. SCHZMO ✍ 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jadriaen 02:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —M e ts501^talk 22:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Play[edit]

Non-notable phrase, neologism, possible hoax. A google search for "Pigeon Play" + phrase turns up nothing to suggest anybody says this.[29] The only usage is in news stories on the pigeon movie Valiant. Nydas 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at best neologism, unreferenced, unless we want to use The Game (game) as a precedent that any and all made up things can be kept. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —M e ts501^talk 22:39, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, though the appropriate tag has already been applied. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras Sign Language[edit]

This page is as good as empty. Jadriaen 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The language should have its own page. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Agree with Nlu. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand, but this should be moved to LESHO when this AfD closes with a redirect from Honduras Sign Language. LESHO is the proper name for this variant of sign language [30].--Isotope23 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question. On the list of sign languages many sign languages have red links, and they all should have their own page. Is the solution then to create almost empty pages like the one under consideration? I have checked all of them in the list, and this is the only one with no additional information, except stating that the Honduras Sign Language is signed in... Honduras. But if this article ends up being expanded soon, all the better of course (but again, does that mean that creating almost empty pages from the red links in the list of sign languages is a good strategy?). --Jadriaen 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not at all a fan of creation of nearly empty (or obvious text restating the title in this case) articles simply to create a bluelink elsewhere. WP:AGF though that the originator's heart was in the right place... I wouldn't consider it best practice to create articles like this though. If this survives AfD I'll add it to my "To Do" list and move it/try and make it into a real stub. I'd do it right now, but I'm going to have to do a bit of research because I'm not really familiar with the topic.--Isotope23 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Isotope23, it's nice that you'd want to do that, but there are lots of sign languages that need a page. There is actually a project for sign languages and Deaf culture (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf): they have an opinion of which articles need the most attention. ~~As for me, I'd go for CSD:A3 speedy delete as outlined by Stifle below. (Question for Nlu: what is the additional information you speak of? Only the hds qualification? That's not much...)~~ --Jadriaen 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is a wikiproject for this then I'll let them clean it up if it gets kept... they are better informed than I. I still don't see any logical reason for deletion though. The subject is WP:V, and there is obviously a community here that works on these sorts of articles. The fact that the article is nearly blank is strong argument for keep and expand... not deletion. --Isotope23 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, let's go for keep and expand (and redirect to Lesho) because this article needs to be written in the end. But I still think the purpose would be better served with a red link than an empty article. Look at all the energy spent in this discussion... bummer. Anyway. --Jadriaen 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and between the 2 of us there is a servicable stub there now. I would only go with my move idea though if that doesn't go against naming conventions for sign language articles (if the WikiProject has any naming conventions).--Isotope23 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, don't move the article just yet then. But let's stub'it. --Jadriaen 10:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per CSD:A3, only content is templates and rewording of the title. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think A3 fits; in this case, the template is filled in and provides some information beyond the title. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 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 heck, delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck[edit]

Popular but non-notable figure of speech, article is complete and utter nonsense. Wikipedia does not have an article for the more popular What the hell? Nydas 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant. There's really not enough to say on the subject for an entire article.
Delete There might be an interesting history to write about heck just as there is for a few other curses we have entries for (Fuck) but this is unverifiable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Anyone wanting to keep this can find an interesting precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of a bitch. Brian G. Crawford 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Madman 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. - CNichols 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, but how could anyone consider this phrase "non-notable"? 23skidoo 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Popular and non-notable? Huh? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the expression is notable enough, the article goes on to say Heck is a burning pit of sulfurous poo and describe Heck as a species of animal. It's rubbish. - Richardcavell 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to minced oath. It's one of a hundred of methods for expressing disbelief in a non-profane manner. But for the record, I agree with keeping Son of a bitch. ScottW 02:17, 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 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pyles[edit]

Vanity page. Only claim to notability is author of an unpublished book. Properly belongs as a user page. In fact, the editor of the article has a user page which includes the exact same text. If either the author or the book is notable, someone else would write the entry. Jinian 19:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability bar reference to as yet unpublished book. Have noticed many recent contrinutions are same (own) book related, so will drop a note to read WP:AUTO to author. MartinRe 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails to claim notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is found that he meets WP:BLP, probably by having a book with distribution of 5000 or more. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 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 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quelvyn's Rede[edit]

Unpublished book by first-time author. Sounds like a good story, but hardly encyclopedic. Jinian 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unpublished, article created by author, WP:NOT, WP:AUTO. MartinRe 19:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, crystalballcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the author becomes notable, I think the article should be brought back, whether or not the book ever gets published. S t e v e o 2 19:32, 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 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Domhain Chronicles[edit]

Series consists of one unpublished story. See above for articles on both story, Quelvyn's Rede, and author, Nathan Pyles. All non-notable. Jinian 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unpublished, article created by author, WP:NOT (crystal ball, free web host, promotion), WP:AUTO. (as above) MartinRe 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, crystalballcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:25, 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 and redirect to Guardians of Ga'hoole. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'hoole series[edit]

There's already an article called Guardians of Ga'hoole. The "Guardians of Ga'hoole Series" article was created shortly after it's writer replaced the text on the original article with a brief note claiming that the article had to be deleted because it (supposedly) contained inaccurate information. There's no reason to have two articles on the subject, and no reason to have vandalised the Guardians of Ga'hoole article. Stev e o 2 19:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guardians of Ga'hoole and either merge or rewrite the content so it is correct. If we don't have any editors familiar with this series of fantasy novels, stub it until someone who has read them can write a better article. AGF that the author made a mistake and didn't know how to delete or rewrite the article instead of creating a new one. Thatcher131 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any new information and redirect to preexisting article.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle hand game[edit]

This probably needs to go through an AfD discussion sooner rather than later. It has the same problems as The Game (game) before that Dutch language newspaper article was found, and List of school pranks. I know this "game," or more precisely, method of bullying exists, but I believe it is subject to too much specific variation and natural evolution to write a comprehensive encyclopedia article about it. Reducing it to its lowest common denominator (circled fingers, look, punch) may just make for a definition. While I think it should be deleted, it's not a strong delete, and even if I could delete articles on my own, I'd definitely get a consensus first. This will make an interesting precedent, at any rate. Brian G. Crawford 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'm not sure this is the correct name for it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of school pranks. Roodog2k 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment did you know that if your hand is bigger than your face, you're going to get cancer? Roodog2k 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Assphincter sayswhat? Roodog2k 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rules are too many to merge with List of school pranks. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of school pranks. The list of rules is unsourced nonsense. For that matter, I don't see anything specific in this article ever being reliably sourced. I'd say delete if the practice weren't so prevalent. ScottW 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per JzG, any worthwhile information is already in the pranks article, so Delete. ScottW 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already in the list of school pranks. "Rules" are essentially made up anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article doesn't have definitive verifiable sources by the time this debate runs its course, I'm in favour of removal. Possibly with a short mention at the List of school pranks page (which it already has) and a redirect there, but an out and out delete won't bother me too much. I don't see this nearly at the same level of notability as The Game. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Not only have I been a player of this game for the last 15 years, upon digging for more sources and citations to post to the page itself I'm finding mention of knowledge dating back to the military in the late 1950's. I will continue to post URL's of sources as well as adding to known rules and variations there of. People complain of there being no citations, but it's not exactly easy to cite something that is only known by word of mouth. There is not a lot of hard evidence, but players of the game tend to always find other players, and it continues to shock me on a daily basis as I find more. I am new as an active editor to Wikipedia so I must also ask for your patience as I attempt to learn the proper procedures as well as structure for my postings. Silent J 22:18, 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 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klawog[edit]

nn brand named product, less than 100 unique Google hits. It has been suggested that this be transwikied to Wiktionary, but I disagree, brand names shouldn't go there. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless it can be expanded, then it's an advertisement. - Richardcavell 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell - G y re 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 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 No consensus. The consensus appears to be slightly in favour of keep, but even then, the arguments were borderline enough for me to close this as a no consensus rather than a keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guy syndrome[edit]

This was nominated two years ago (see Talk:Nice guy syndrome), and two years later, the concerns expressed by the original nomination have not been addressed. It's essentially original research and speculation and very heavy generalization and exactly what WP:OR was written to prevent, namely patent crankery. There are a lot of men who don't get what they want out of relationships, but I doubt they're all in the same boat due to some fictitious "syndrome." There's already a slightly better article at Love shyness, but I don't recommend a merge as much of the information is duplicated. Acceptance of this term in mainstream psychiatry would make me think otherwise, but right now, I say delete. There's possibly a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. Brian G. Crawford 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to love shyness. I could see this article sticking around IF it stops trying to treat the subject as science (which is hopelessly original research/crankery) and sticks to describing the "nice guy" as a character archetype in pop culture. That seems to be the consensus of the original nomination. But then the article would have to be almost completely rewritten, and moved, since the title wouldn't be appropriate anymore. I'll start work on writing a new article to place at nice guy (which currently redirects to this article). There are enough sources here to verify the "nice guy" as a cultural concept/archetype, just not "nice guy syndrome" as anything more than a bit of folk psychology that doesn't deserve the pseudoscientific treatment it has here. — AKADriver ☎ 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on the character archtype sounds like a great idea. Brian G. Crawford 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. We should make a nice guy article discussing the character archetype in pop culture. (See for instance the first episode of Sex in the City.) Nice guy syndrome should then redirect to nice guy. The nice guy article can briefly mention claims of a "nice guy syndrome" in Glover's book. If a nice guy article gets going soon, then I will vote to delete this one. Oh, and an interesting study on the subject which might help is: Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G. & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427-440. Though it is inconclusive as to answering the question. --SecondSight 00:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Perhaps the added exposure from this AfD will do a worthwhile term good. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, as well as pseudoscience masquerading as a legitimate concept (the low quality of the sources cited should be enough of a clue there.) Having an article on this implies that "nice guy syndrome" is an objectively recognizable concept like "cancer" or "schizophrenia". It's not. The idea that such a "syndrome" exists is a hypothesis floated in a few popular books, and we shouldn't legitimize it; at best, it could be mentioned in an article on folk psychological theories or on the sociology of heterosexual relationships in the US. Catamorphism 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This is not original research (although this version of the article may be). Should be cleaned up and modified so that it does not break the criterias for being an article. Beltz 22:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This may be original research, and everything in this article is listed in other articles like Love-shyness, Social Anxiety Disorder, and so on. --Quintin3265 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Although similar, there seem to be slight nuances that make Nice guy syndrome different from Love-shyness. Its a notable pop-psyc term. -- backburner001 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that there appear to be articles on this topic in four foreign-language wikipedias as well. Шизомби 04:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to love-shyness. If kept, this must absolutely be renamed so that the article title isn't misleading and factually incorrect; moving the article to nice guy would be a good start. -Sean Curtin 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's naff pseudoscience articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name. Vizjim 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's original research and basically pointless --Ruaraidh-dobson 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes, it is pop-psych, but it is also pop-culture. I would argue that everyone can either relate to the phenomenon, or knows someone who can. Dogosaurus 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOR. But if kept, I do agree that this article should be renamed and rewritten. "Nice guy sindrom" is in no way a medical condition. xompanthy 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Currently, nice guy is a popular term for a broad range of symptoms and it is likely to be a term entered in as a search parameter when looking for information about this type of problem. If that search turns up this article, then the searcher can find their way from there to something more relevant.
Keep but rewrite Most of the information in the article at some level valid but could be truncated to be more useful.Electricbassguy 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a 'nice guy' who's been wondering what's wrong with me for a while, I found this article to be quite thought provoking. It isn't touted as gospel, so I don't see the reason to nix it. --Ninjadroid 22:12, 15 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 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agilis Software[edit]

Delete. Not particularly notable by WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article was prod'ed; notice removed with no changes. discospinster 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement. - Richardcavell 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam --Chaser 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 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. - brenneman ^{L} 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 Superjump[edit]

Article about glitches which consists of rehashed information and original research. Delete per WP:NOT Gamefaqs, as were other articles about glitches.--Zxcvbnm 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may belong on WikiBooks in a guide on Halo 2, but not here, definitely not encyclopedic. Anthony Hit me up... 23:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (Whoops, complete brain-fart... I blame law-school finals). Anthony Hit me up... 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support what, exactly? Stifle (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jgamekeeper 08:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's useful for some people. Just because YOU don't play Halo 2 doesn't mean other don't, and it doesn't mean that the glitches aren't hard to do. If information is avaliable to make it easier, then you should keep it. Just because it's "original research" doesn't mean it's not informational. You government people are rude.

-Alex 74.133.188.197 23:17, 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 delete as textbook {{nn-bio}}. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Rose Tenney[edit]

nn, other than being the daughter of two actors of varying fame (Jon Tenney and Terri Hatcher.) Has no credits of her own in IMDB, Google search only turns up bios of her parents. Ckessler 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all other celebrity kids. Grow up, do something yourself, then get an article. Fan1967 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, repeats information in articles about Hatcher and Tenney. --Chaser 02:33, 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 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend zone[edit]

Another pop psychology crank theory, consisting of a dictionary definition plus original research, caught between the Scylla of WP:WINAD and the Charybdis of WP:NOR. What is verifiable is a dictionary definition, and attempts to expand venture into original research. Yes, I've seen it on TV too, but I don't think the advertising tagline "As seen on TV!" is a criterion for inclusion. Brian G. Crawford 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and dial back to this edit, when it was at least an article about the popular usage of the term, and not dating advice. Most of the cruft was added just in the last two weeks by two editors. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs in the Delete Zone, per nominator. Fluit 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you really got to know it. You're just going on a snap judgement! --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first line says that it is mentioned in "many texts". I'd like to see some evidence of that. Kevin 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rv per Dhartung. --Rory096 22:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Dhartung. ---J.S (t|c) 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert it or modify it so that it fits the criterias of wikipedia. The topic is notable enough. Beltz 22:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change per Dhartung. Noted term, used in newspapers [31] [32], on TV as the article noted, easily meets basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to previous version, per Dhartung. Add appropriate citations for the term. -- backburner001 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/revert per Dhartung, hilarious as the "advice" is. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Its a well known term in popular culture (i.e. friends and scrubs)--Greasysteve13 06:31, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Mythology Cheat Codes[edit]

Unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a game guide. Was PRODded by me but removed without explanation. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Osomec 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong place to write this. Could someone tell me what "per nom" means? Beltz 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (per the nominations justifications). --Lakhim 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (thank you from Beltz)[reply]
Delete per nom, which means "according to/because of the rationale given by the nominee". Alternatively, you can write "per" someone else, which would be according to/because of the rationale given by that someone else, or "per" your own rationale, and state it (e.g. violation of some policy rule, in this case WP:NOT). TheProject 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)(thank you from Beltz)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com Joelito (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not... --Chaser 02:31, 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 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon44w[edit]

Alexa ranking of 534,934, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Note that the prod was removed without comment, but I was actually looking at the Alexa ranking for another site (because a spammer changed it). Rory096 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEB as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom —M e ts501^talk 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Richardcavell 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/vanity --Chaser 02:30, 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 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder theory[edit]

This is a pop psychology theory published only on the web. I don't think this passes the WP:WEB guideline. From the article: "Though it has generated some interest in online communities, it has not been seriously evaluated by any studies, journals, or social psychologists." That tells me it's not notable as a psychological theory and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google search tends to suggest it's fairly widespread. Keep as a notable internet meme. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that it is a very notable "meme". I've heard of it various time, on various websites. As long as the article makes no false claims about having been evaluated by serious research, I see no problems with this article. Beltz 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widespread pop psychology, notable and should be documented. It's not meant to be a psychological theory, it's meant to be satire. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article appropriately identifies its subject as a pop-psychology theory, not a psychological theory. -- backburner001 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Ladder theory is widespread and never adverstised as a psychological theory but it is just assumed to be a pop-psychology theory as Backburner says. Furthermore it's fairly widespread and I believe this article is useful. SirGrant 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it stands, this article needs better sources. If it's a reputable pop-psychology idea (I'm inclined to believe it is) then there'll be some good verification out there somewhere! Ziggurat 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it rather intresting. I have also heard of it. I question why some people put so many things up to be deleted. I think some people need to have more of an open mind and take the time to read things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Sarnatino (talk • contribs)
Delete - if this guy can't even get the theory past a publisher, never mind the swcientific community, then why should Wikipedia keep spreading an incorrect, non-notable theory? Vizjim 10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet meme, discussed in several schools psychology departments (Yale actually discusses this concept for a whole day in Psych 101) ALKIVAR™ 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely agree with Alkivar, it is a popular Internet phenomenon or meme and deserves to stay. SirGrant 22:56, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NUS High Entertainment Society[edit]

contested prod it's an article about an high school "society" --Melaen 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not fit for inclusion —M e ts501^talk 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's self-publicity, non notable and they have not achieved anything yet. Beltz 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, next time use {{nn-club}}. Tagged. Grand master ka 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Not sure what Melaen's comment means; who cares if it's a "society"? --Chaser 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even recgonized by the school, so there is nothing to even start with here. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 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 Speedied as A7: Article about a group of people (band) making no claim of notability —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Blank Page Dream[edit]

delete un-notable band , a contested prod --Melaen 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete this band that existed for only a few months and never released an album. Not even close to meeting WP:MUSIC. -- Scientizzle 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC —M e ts501^talk 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom and Scientizzle. --BrownHairedGirl 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{nn-band}}. Tagged. Grand master ka 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn per WP:MUSIC. --Chaser 02:26, 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 No consensus. Whether this defaults to a keep or a merge is up for discussion, but outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking With a Ghost (song)[edit]

Very small article about a non-notable song from a not widely-known album. Delete —M e ts501^talk 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Nom is fairly wrong. Tegan and Sara are a fairly notable indie duo, and the song was released on an EP of the same name by The White Stripes late last year. Song is absolutely notable, as is the album its from. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If The White Stripes cover your song, it should suffice. Jadriaen 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be notable per guidelines for music or those proposed for songs[33]. --Chaser 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:MUSIC if not hugely well known. This song is on my 20 songs car listening list. Georgewilliamherbert 04:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from Billboard.com, apparently, Tegan and Sara have never hit the charts [34] ... so I don't see why this song deserves its own article. Anyone who wants to keep it, I suggest merging the info to Tegan and Sara or a page about the album, if one exists. Mangojuice^talk 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most indie bands don't hit the Billboard charts. They have had music on TV shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "The L Word," however. Seeing as the song has been covered by the White Stripes, I'm not sure there's one single appropriate merge target. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still don't think the song deserves its own article; I agree with the WP:MUSIC/SONG guidelines even though it's a proposal, and this song appears to meet none of the criteria, where it's suggested that meeting 2 is sufficient. As for merging, there's very little info here; I can take care of it. Mango juice^talk 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with So Jealous. Standard practise is that songs appear on the article about the album or band. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stifle. If the song had been covered by multiple artists rather than just one particularly popular one, I'd have said keep. Ac@osr 17:50, 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. Flower party☀ 07:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller Fan Club[edit]

delete fan clubabout un-notable blogger / vanity; a contested prod--Melaen 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --Lakhim 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 27 google hits, despite being known "across the midwest". Grand master ka 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn is admitted in the article, for the club "considered printing hundreds of shirts". The nn xanga isn't even linked up. Vanity. --Chaser 02:11, 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. Flower party☀ 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyPersonalEmail.com[edit]

Not notable, no support, poorly written, certain editors are making blatant attempts to spam web-mail based articles to advertise. Website does not appear to live up to article, to say the least. Lakhim 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Contributer has provided sorurce from www.prweb.com. I don't feel that this constitutes a proper source, can anyone confirm? --Lakhim 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, not a popular site, fails WP:WEB. Also the article is poorly written (as the nom says) and seems too POVish. Alexa rank of 2,648,860. —M e ts501^talk 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I repectfully disagree. MyPersonalEmail.com is a noted old school, free email site. See Tulsa World Newspaper, October 28-2001. This article is as informational as any web mail provider, with less fluff and just fact. Alexa is not the know all of the internet. Millions of users in 140 countries are hard to argue with.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/MyPersonalEmail.com"

Can we have an online source? --Lakhim 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go the http://www.tulsaworld.com and do a search, it's all there, online and in print. The writer at the World was NICOLE NASCENZI and a seach of their site shows 5 or so articles: You cannot cut and paste the link because they use VBSscrips, so you have to search the archives

Can we please get a cut and paste summary or a screenshot of forementioned article? I don't buy this, nor do I suspect do many other wikipedians. --Lakhim 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have one source. Although I cannot read the article (you need to purchase a subscription) it appears to be a good article. However, Wikipedia guidelines state that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Do you have any other published articles? —M e ts501^talk 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also cannot beleive that this site is one of the most popular email sites due to the "register here" link not working and displaying a 404 Page not found error. —M e ts501^talk 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment in IE the link works ok, but the link does not work in Firefox, which tells me it won't validate as W3C HTML J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets or who ever you are, it does not say register here, it says CLICK HERE and it works wonderfully, really, thousands have signed up today. How do you defend who you are? We know who we are, You are just plain wrong. You seem to have some other motive. Do you work for Microsoft? You have phoney pictures of yourself with Bill Gates. We emailed your gmail account, please reply and we will call you directly on the old fashioned internet, the telephone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.5.90 (talk • contribs)

That was an unnecessary personal attack. I wrote to you on your talk page, please go there by clicking on this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (talk • contribs)

Delete. The article reads like advertising, fails to assert notability, and doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB. While search engine results show that this service does show it does have a lot of use, a lot of that appears to be spam advertising the service (USENET is full of spam promoting this site). Fluit 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More proof of notability needed before possible reconsideration. Jadriaen 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable and spamvertising. --Chaser 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. I can't verify the source provided (searching www.tulsaworld.com for the author/site name didn't turn up any articles. I've tagged the article for wikification/sourcing in the event the consensus is keep.--Isotope23 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No assertion of notability, but the registration link seems to work (although I'm not going to answer the required questions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article that has been refered to by searching the Tulsa World Archives (search term "Tools of convenience" or Mypersonalemail.com). The article is dated Oct 28 2001. This by itself will not, in my opinion, pass muster on notability claims, therefore delete J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Ashibaka tock 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously spamvertising. Bill (who is cool!) 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can use bugmenot.com to access those pesky websites that ask for registration/payment. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete if no reliable sources are found. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified WP:V, content has to be verifiable.--blue520 10:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like advertising. --Happynoodleboy 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Gwernol 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet_Prophet[edit]

This article is sub sub encyclopedic. It is in reference to a minor activity of a minor organization recently deleted from wikipedia for lack of significance and lack of existence (Universist Movement). Furthermore, the facts of the article are incorrect, as the "velvet prophet" appears to be a nude photo of Marilyn Monroe. This "article" is a hoax. Universist 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy as patent nonsense. BigDT 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and apparently promotional for a now-dead website. --Chaser 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website dead, patent nonsense —M e ts501^talk 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank in the millions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as randomcrapcruft per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:44, 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 redirect. TheProject 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usability test[edit]

Currently a transwikied dicdef; should be either merged and redirected to Software testing, or deleted. I'm not sure which, so I'm looking for a consensus here. TheProject 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Usability testing. Nothing original said here that isn't covered in that article, so delete content. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Usability testing per Aguerriero. Ted 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that other page, thanks. Speedy redirect per Aguerriero, then (and I will do that if there are no objections soon). TheProject 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Aguerriero. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:44, 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 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental_programming[edit]

Possible WP:Vanity or WP:NOR- it was created and has only been edited by User:Hans_Oesterholt, who seems to be author of the website from which most of the text is copied. Most of the google hits are references to that page without actually discussing the concept - the exceptions in the first 50 ghits were using the term "elemental" in the sense of "basic", not in the metaphysical sense of this article. If it is actually notable in the Scheme programming world, it needs to indicate its notability, and at the least clarification of the copyright. Jamoche 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a note, the opening paragraph is from this site - http://www.elemental-programming.org/ep.html - it's probably not a copyvio since the same person appears to have written both articles. At any rate, take a look at the google results. Just about every hit is a reference to elemental-programming.org. If such a thing does exist, it doesn't seem to be but so notable. It looks like a neologism that one person is pushing. I read the full article on his site and I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't patent nonsense. BigDT 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, looks like Vanity and OR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets501 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as rather nonsensical. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research in its purest form. —Ruud 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Koffieyahoo 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal in Islamic countries[edit]

Strong Delete The idea of having this article is a POV. This is as much riduclous as "Metal in Western countries" or "Metal in Christian countries" (How about having that on Asian Wikipedia?!). There is no shared 'Heavy metal' scene in 'Islamic countries'. Infact, the Metal bands in the 'Islamic countries' sing against Islam in most cases, which is why they are usually banned from playing live and their materials are only released in bootlegs. To have an article and put them together under the title of "Heavy metal in Islamic countries" is very much POV from a western perspective, and the whole idea is wrong. I had asked the contributer many times to forget about this idea but sadly he doesn't listen. - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering heavy metal is "western" and sometimes controversial in western countries and "western" music is banned in Iran and certain bands are banned in Maylasia, Pakistan, etc. it is a worthy article. Arbusto 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was put up in great faith as a compromise to include regional scenes (eg Iranian metal) which were not individually notable. However, I don't believe there are enough commonalities between playing metal in these countries beyond perhaps a lack of free speech, which is certainly not unique to Islamic countries. There is no combined Islamic scene for this kind of music, nor verifiable instances of media coverage (eg of problems / arrests / riots due to metal in these countries), and the topic is unnecessary. If it could be demonstrated that there are notable bands in these countries either playing "Islamic heavy metal" or suffering from problems directly related to Islam it would be a different matter. Deizio 09:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are correct to say that there is no common theme, I am not too sure about Metal in e.g. Pakistan, but the theme for Metal in Iran for example is about history of Iran. However to say they are not notable is a POV also. I had explained that it is of great important to Iranians, and as there was a list on that article with over 100 or so bands you can hardly deny it's existance, or it's importance.The articles just need expanding - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "list" in question was comprised entirely of external links to unnotable bands, none of whom had a WP article, and therefore flew in the face of WP:NOT, WP:MUSIC and WP:EL. The importance of this topic to Iranians, or anyone else, has not been verified. All of these factors add up to a massive failure of WP:V, an official policy. Deizio 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The importance of rock music has already been "verified" and showed in the article here.-- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the intention I (creator) have here is the create a generic article about heavy metal in Islamic countries. Currently it is just some stuff that I gathered from other pages that was ill-placed or isn't worth an article by itself. Perhaps the article can be moved to something even more general such as heavy metal acceptance or something. Anyway the broad idea is the actually prevent articles about regional scenes, but cover general issues concerned to all such scenes into this article. However, some one knowledgeable about such issues should step in and write it into a decent album. One problem with most metal genre related articles is that they focus only on Western scenes, where freedom of speech and such is quite common - in countries like Iran, Indonesia, etc etc it is much harder to establish a metal scene. Any thoughts however for improvement are more than welcome. Moreover, I also feel that this is a bit of a personal strike of Kash against me for AFD'ing Iranian metal before and given his comments that I should leave his articles alone (and as such this step was too predictable). Consider his comments on my talk page as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. In this respect also like to point out that Iranian metal now redirects to a page with merely a copyvio statement. Also not that the creation of this article was considered on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal as well. Spearhead 10:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Try to be WP:Civil for a change. I had discussed the matters many times with you, I told you to wait until we can expand the article however you decided not to. It doesn't matter what your intentions were. The point is that you shouldn't take such a POV for creating articles, and for reasons explained, this article is just POV. It's like having an article titled "Metal in Western countries" or "Metal in Christian countries" on an Asian wikipedia. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would ask Spearhead and Kash to refrain from continuing this debate here, as their views have been made time and again on the relevant talk pages, which interested editors will take note of when considering this matter. Further banter here will not do the credibility or good faith of either the article or AfD nomination any good. Deizio 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this up for deletion so I will comment if it is needed. However please do not make this any more than it is, AfD, there is nothing personal about it. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Unsure~~ Delete as per Deiz and Kash. Much too vague, each country has its own situation and this article would just end up being an arbitrary list of countries whose government is more or less Islamic. It would be far more logical to have a section about heavy metal music in the articles of each individual country's music. I think that the purpose of this page was originally to group together regional scenes whose notability was questionable, but it doesn't look like a good compromise in the end. If we want to make an article on heavy metal acceptance, then that's a good idea; it's just that this title is ill-chosen and, from the comments of some editors, it might be perceived as offending for people from these countries. IronC hris | (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it was a good compromise, I wouldn't be going through all this trouble for it. I think fans and the bands of Metal scene in those countries would be deeply offended to see it categorized as this. Their music is against Islam and their lyrics shout out it out clear that their country is not Islamic. There is just an Islamic rule in the country. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote from keep to unsure, after reading the comment by 67.68.153.43 on the Talk:Heavy metal in Islamic countries#Delete (among other things). I understand that "Islamic countries" is an over-generalisation, and as Kash says, a rather western point of view. The situation of metal is different in different countries, as some have more or less free speech, a more or less authoritarian government, etc. The contents of the article could still be of use, but the title should be changed to not be so general.

The simplest thing to do is probably still to make a section about metal on the article for the music of each given country. IronChris | (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The material in this article covers two cases as it appears to me:

Social acceptance of metal music
Music in Islamic culture

So, there is hardly any need for this particular article which seems to be on the borderline of POV or invented topics. The material should be lumped under the above two broader categories. Also generalising Islamic countries may not be appropriate, since different definitions of the word "Islamic countries" may be used, such as, "country with Islamic constitution", "country with Muslim population majority", "country with significant Islamic cultural influence", etc. Also the reason for heavy metal music ban may depend on non-genre related reasons. For example, playing loud music (which may be even pop or hip-hop) is illegal in many Western countries as well. Then music, irrespective of genre, might be illegal in several countries. Worth pointing out, not all non-Islamic countries - whatever that means - have huge thriving metal scenes. Examples include countries in Africa, India, etc., where loud music is socially unaccepted. So, the given article is generalising based on incorrect parameters. -- urnonav 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Over the last few months, articles on Iranian heavy metal, Pakistani black metal, and, I think, Malaysian black metal have been written (sorry I don't have the exact titles handy), and in each case been proposed for deletion due to questions about notability. While any one of these scenes might be non-notable, the fact that this genre seems to be gaining popularity across so many Islamic countries does amount to a phenomena and really should get its own article. Alternately, it could be merged into heavy metal or some article on music in the Islamic world. I also think that the heavy metal/black metal phenomena in Islamic countries does constitute a distinct sociological phenomenon, rather than merely the extension of an established Euroamerican musical genre into a different part of the world. Personally, I find it very interesting that a musical genre that, seemingly at least, so strongly rejects Islamic and Christian values is gaining popularity in much of the Islamic world. Is it a small symptom of a larger cultural rebellion against Islamic fundamentalism? I'd certainly like to know more. Peter G Werner 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more option I'd support, move the article to a title you find less objectionable. Peter G Werner 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into separate articles about heavy metal in each country, and delete. "Islamic countries" is too vague (and loaded) a term - what's true in Malaysia is probably not true in, say, the U.A.E. --Hyperbole 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it's a worthwhile topic. If the contributor intends to expand on it and make it a good article, I'd be inclined to give him the chance. If this were an abandoned article that hadn't been touched in 6 months, I'd say delete it in a heartbeat - and if it survives this AFD and comes back again as is, I'll switch to delete - but I'd rather err in this case on the side of letting him finish his work. BigDT 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just listed this at WP:AFD as the final stage in the nomination process was apparently never completed.
Thryduulf 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Richardcavell 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spearhead. Seems like an important cultural subject. Would like to see it expanded. -- JJay 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Cultural subject"?! What are you talking about?! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this article. It seems self explanatory. The different reactions/approaches to music in different countries reflect culture. -- JJay 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..Have you thought about addressing the reason of my nomination instead? Islamic countries do not share the same culture. Thats beside the point in any case, "Islamic countries" is a POV term! Do we have Metal in Christian countries? no? should we? does it reflect their culture?!! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your nom when I voted keep. I think the article is fine and should be expanded. If you disagree with the name then propose a different one. Otherwise, your other ideas, namely "Metal in Western countries" and "Metal in Christian countries", would both be fine with me if people want to work on those articles. -- JJay 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an interesting cultural subject would be to have an article that presents an overview of the social acceptance of heavy metal and its evolution in the past and that contrasts the different situations in various countries, some examples of which would be "Islamic countries". This would be 1) a more interesting article (the perception of heavy metal music and its followers has its importance elsewhere than just in "Islamic countries" and 2) it would be less offending. I agree with Kash that the government of a country does not reflect its culture. If someome then wants to make a detailed description of the heavy metal scene in a given country, they should do so on the article dedicated to that country's music. IronC hris | (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a standalone article... per Deiz. It's just too much of a catch-all. Content could be boldy Merged to individual country articles (for example, if Pakistan has a Black Metal scene or if it is centered on on particular city/region, mention could be made there). Another good option would be to merge the content to Black Metal History section (and source it which is a deficiency with the current article).--Isotope23 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the title is extremely POV. Sounds like a shock site but instead it's a shock page. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid topic. Grue 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Werner. Move page to another title if need be. Arbusto 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly sub-notable topic KleenupKrew 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete it or change the title. —Khoikhoi 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: any suggestions for a better title? Spearhead 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid and interesting topic. -- Karl Meier 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Valid topic? Its original research, WP:POVFORK as well as the idea behind it being a POV. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:37, 15 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) 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orrin Woodward[edit]

Non-notable Google-bomber and Amway something-or-other. Paul 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that as a sufficient claim to fame. There are tons of them in that business. - Fan1967 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn --Ragib 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn --Chaser 01:54, 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.