Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 13

< April 12	>

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:Admin neutrality Wikipedia:Usurpation (renaming users) Wikipedia:Userspace abuse Speedy deleting unsourced articles Galleries Attribution Protecting children's privacy
Conclusions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox • T [17:56, 13 April 2006]

[edit] Democratic Underground

For childish behavior in requesting that the pages of competing forums Progressive Independent be deleted from Wikipedia. This all started with a comment we posted on DU's page adding that another forum had been created by ex-DUers. Our comment didn't attack or smear DU and yet they took great offense to it. Already DU won't allow mention of competing forums on their board. Should Wikipedia tolerate their fascism here? Zoraida 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not for AfD this is a content dispute, it should never have been put here. Ans e ll 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and block these users from Wikipedia if they attempt to use it as a venue for disputes that started on other websites and have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Daniel Case 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep As this is a bad faith AfD--Tollwutig 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. :-(. GRuban 15:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Definite Speedy Keep This is bad faith AfD. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as nominated in bad faith. Tch tch tch. --Lockley 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep complete and utter violation of WP:POINT.--Isotope23 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and then tell Messers. Snake and Mongoose to keep to their respective corners. Pat Payne 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, even without discounting new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Independent

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Comment from closing admin: I refactored everything other than keep, delete, merge, etc. to the talk page for readability. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete
This forum is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article RWR8189 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep (with substantial editing) -- We have articles about religious movements that have relatively few members (for example, Christian Exodus) so I think we can afford articles about smallish internet communities as well. After all, there's no real upper bound on how many articles Wiki can have. I'm also troubled whenever I see partisans of one faction attacking the articles of partisans of another faction. On the other hand, as of the moment that the AfD was posted, this article really needs work and Wikifying so that it doesn't read like a vanity posting/marketing brochure.Atlant 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC), updated 15 April 2006

For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" Zoraida thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You've told us to look at your username (and, I suppose, your user page); clearly you are a partisan.

Delete Seems like an advertisment more then anything --Cloveious 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or prove notability and then substantial editing. It seems a case of using Wikipedia as Soap box. --Francisco Valverde 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - or if you can prove notability then I will change to keep. This does seem link an Ad for it. Aeon 13:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unless substantial notability can be cited. Current article looks like an advertisement. Let be re-written in a years time IF the site becomes more notable.--Tollwutig 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Alexa ranking over 2.5 million, forum with only 741 registered users, which as such things go is tiny. RGTraynor 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Strong KEEP~~ (with editing to reduce the POVness). 'Important' and 'big' are not synonyms. Also, what makes anyone think the membership claims of other sites bear any relation to reality? (No, I'm not a member of that community)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .

Note: this vote is the anon editor 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Discounted this recommendation as unregistered user. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Both of 'em for egregious violations of Godwin's Law in pleading their case that the other should be deleted (as an aside to both complainants, remember what George Orwell had to say about the casual flinging of the word Fascist around). Either that, or keep and put a mutual restraining order on the lot of them. Pat Payne 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete it's just not notable enough for inclution. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn blog. And the content of the article is extremely soapbox-y. Fishhead64 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete nn political forum plug unfortunately leading to the use of meatpuppets and WP:POINT violations.--Jersey Devil 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete delete delete. RasputinAXP c 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ (with editing) - The basis for keeping this entry is the (notability of the) level of the discourse, not the number of members. I am an English professor and a member of the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Writing Project, Rhetoricians for Peace, and am a discussant on the PI board. I can engage there without having my intelligence insulted. Thus: notable for the level of discourse. - Clark Iverson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iverson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2006.. Also, user's first edit.
- Discounted due to lack of contributions. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and what's this "notable for the level of discourse"?????? I'm sure you can achieve similar discourse in a dinner conversation. Is that notable? ccwaters 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Seven hundred members is nothing, and video game/animation/other otaku forums at similiar levels of membership get nuked all the time, so delete. Being very very earnest doesn't get you an exception. And to some of the commenters above, if you want to practice the American Left's traditional arts of Dogmatic Splintering and the Circular Firing Squad, please do so elesewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn--MONGO 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for anything anyone thinks might be an interesting topic for idle discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Trying Again: A comment on "notability": As currently stated in the Wiki guidelines/parameters the concept of notability is at best vague. An example of how the issue of notability as relates to PI can easily be put to rest is the simple fact that People For Change currently has an entry when PI gets 14,000 more hits with google.More later. (chlamor)Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- yet another non-notable article about a non-notable political cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

~~KEEP~~: Although relatively new, this site is attracting some of the finest thinkers on the left. My question would be: Why is this entry attracting delete requests from both Dems and Repubs? If PI is that innocuous and irrelevant why is it such a threat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kliljedahl (talk • contribs) .

NoteThe proceeding comment is Kliljedahl's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

- Discounted recommendations of very new user.

Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)KEEP: Progressive Independent provides in-depth discussion that is kept outside of the rather narrow range of discussion in what is called 'party politics' in the US. In that sense it is an invaluable resource and forum for the large numbers of people (many who may defy conventional left-right labelling) who feel justifiably alienated from the rather stilted and dead end Republican-Democrat framework.

Progressive Independent has quickly become an exceptional internet archival source for difficult to find material that has been omitted from the heavily censored historical record. One would be hard pressed to find any site on the web that provides such a deep political assessment of either historical events or current events. Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)chlamor

Comment, the above user's first edit was on April 14, 2006. [1]--Jersey Devil 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment, source of meatpuppetry. [2]--Jersey Devil 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am counting this keep nonetheless.

~~Keep~~: I believe the motivation by many here to delete is partisan. Such is the petty childishness of internet political fora.---Nicky Scarfo 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Discounting this recommendation, user's fourth through sixth edits.

~~Keep~~:Keep with some editing of the entry, particularly information related to its founding, mission statement, and contributions to the progressive movement through education and activism. When progressive sites such as What Really Happened and Wayne Madsen Report provide links to a progressive forum, that forum is certainly of note. The internet is becoming a grassroots gathering place for independents and progressives, and Progressive Independent is becoming a hub for vital information, activism, and informed discussion. (And yes, I registered at Wiki just to add to this discusssion. I am a regular Wiki user but was shocked to find objections to Progressive Independent's entry as "not notable" or a "soapbox.")RSamuelson 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Discounting this recommendation, user's only edits are to this AFD.
~~Keep~~:I am also newly registered here, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's clear that some objections are purely political. The entry needs some editing, but I see no valid reasons listed here for deletion. Why can't the authors edit the article while it is being voted on? I've heard that the authors should have five days for edit...is that correct?
- Discounted per the author's own admission.

~~Keep~~ The motivation behind this delete request is very suspicious 132.170.161.87

Note The above comment is anon user 132.170.161.87's first contribution to wikipedia.--RWR8189 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- Anon users' recommendations are discounted anyway.

~~Keep~~ : The article needs work alright , but should it be deleted ? Remember , Notability critiria are guidlines , not rules . I feel that deleting this article is close to pandering to one side.Someone is using the "guidelines" just to remove something he doesn't like. And I apologise for my misunderstanding (I'm 69.161.144.78) Amfortas 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Discounted as contributions of very new user.
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:BALLS, WP:NOT, and due in part to the flood of apparent meatpuppets. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:WEB Wstaffor 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send for cleanup. Mailer Diablo 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITheater

Vaporware.. Not notable.. PowerMacer 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, then see what happens. At least we should maintain a page of Apple media players, because I know as a Mac-user, there's relatively limited supply. -- Zanimum 00:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup. It seems like it could be important if improved. SorryGuy 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup, this page simply needs to be extended with better information --Mason 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup, this page could be relevant if the project progresses. mcwiggin 06:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and imorove the article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and improve the article, should stay as it is one of only a few mac Media Center Projects. --User:Graham 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Really is vapourware, and I would advocate removal. This has supposedly been in development for not far off a year now, but the release represents about 15 minutes work in XCode. The 'release' is completely non functional AFAICS. 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does this actually exist? RGTraynor 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup, We need to revise this entry. The software is being developed, so there is no reason to say that it is vaporware. It exists, and if this page gets deleted, CenterStage should be deleted as well. The two projects are in the same shape. -- Digitalducktape 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment "The software is being developed, so there is no reason to say that it is vaporware." OK, I'm confused. I thought that was the definition of vaporware. As opposed to actual software, which is something that exists now. Fan1967 01:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Vaporware: software which has been announced and perhaps even demonstrated, but not delivered to commercial customers." The project exists an can be downloaded here: [3] therefore its NOT vaporware.. Digitalducktape 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete iTheatre - Not CenterStage. Good people are working on CentreStage - and its getting better every day. iTheatre is a bunch of kids that cant take critisism and havent a clue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.172.183 (talk • contribs) .

Delete per nom. ---J.Smith 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless cleaned up with verification from reliable sources external to the project. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o5 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reid Horkins

Biography of someone who i believe to be non-notable. He is described as a rapper, but his only release is a video on YouTube. I tagged as a speedy, but the page author removed the tag and claims on the talk page that he is an "internet phenomenon"; rather than just re-tagging as CSD, which I suspect would just be reverted, I'm listing on AfD to get wider opinion. Delete or userfy, possibly speedy AJR | Talk 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I was the one responsible for deleting the notice becuase it said "delete this if you are intending to edit the article" which i have done since then. While I do understand that my use of the phrase "internet phenomenon" was an overstatement, he is still widely known and regarded within the toronto private school community and I have known other wikipedia artciles which target a similarly small audiance. I did not author the article origionaly but I have done alot of work to clean it up from the origional post. I think considering how new this article is it should at least be given time to be refined. several people have expressed thier interest to me about seeing this article kept alive and made more legitimate and I have told them to voice thier opinions here on wikipedia. hopefully they will take my advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faltru (talk • contribs).

Don't Delete It's true, this guy has ridiculous quotes. Reid is awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.6.152 (talk • contribs).
Don't Delete Reid Horkins may be non-notable to you because you do not live in Toronto. He is a well known individual within the independant music scene in southern Ontario. A person does not need to be well known by millions of people to be worthy of a wikipedia page, im sure many of the now high traffic pages began with a small amount of public knowledge concerning the person/incident etc. I see no valid reason for this page to be up for deletion despite the fact that he is not widely recognized outside of Toronto, Canada. 65.95.227.28 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable under the WP:MUSIC. (I live near Toronto and have never heard of him, and even if I had he would not be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article.) Bucketsofg 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Even if this is notable, which I doubt, it falls under WP:Vanity. All of the external links have nothing to do with the article and personally the raps on there do not seem very professional. SorryGuy 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, plenty of unverifiable opinion. Fluit 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Passes no notability tests. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Internet phenomena" tend to have more than three Google hits, like this guy does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Sheehan (Talk) 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete Keep the article up, Reid is hard working and will prove to you all non-believers that his lyrics and work are proffesional. We just need more time to perfect the website. He will be great (i guarentee) and within Toronto he has grown to be quite popular over the past couple of weeks. He's well deserving of a page. - GM, Fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.119.51 (talk • contribs).
Delete, unusually non-notable --Deville (Talk) 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to BJAODN/Uncyclopedia/Myspace. This is freakin' hilarious stuff, but it's not notable, and there's no reason to believe it ever will be. --M @r ē ino 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom --Mason 04:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not quite good enough for BJAODN, but pretty funny. Upper class suburban kid at a fancy private school who fancies himself a rapper. Hey, with the right promotion, maybe he could be the next Vanilla Ice. But I doubt it. Eminently non-notable. Fan1967 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to User Page On the whole, while Reid Horkins is most certainly non-notable, there's nothing wrong with him having all this information about himself on his own user page. That said, if it was just out-and-out removed, I doubt I'd lose any sleep; I'm just offering an alternative. EVula 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not-notable. Does not have any major hits. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I considered the cheerleader's arguments. This is still just not notable. Danny Lilithborne 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete this page, a tribute to all aspiring artists out there.-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs).
Do not delete this atricle, I have spoken with numerous Torontonians who were previously unaware of the artistic talents of Reid. He is truly a model for perserverance and commitment to achieveing your true goals. Reid is the best discovery Ive made through Wiki and I will not stand for his amazing Wik to be deleted. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alomasney (talk • contribs).

This must be a new meaning of the word "amazing" that I am completely unfamiliar with. Fluit 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete Jive records have contacted the Horkins family about Reid's potential in the music industry. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs).
Delete Not notable, speculative, no citation, looks like vanity. Although amusing not quite BJAODN material.--Tollwutig 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity just this side of BJAODN. But this no-doubt talented high school student should console himself on the grounds that the title of his next tour-de-force ("Dey Dissed My Wikispam, Yo") has been assured. RGTraynor 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
don't deletehis next concert is going to be bomb this weekend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs).
don't deleteAs i mentioned earlier, most of the vanity parts of the page have been removed. we are still working to clean it up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faltru (talk • contribs).
Don't DeleteI am a promoter in the Toronto Rap scene, and while this kid is starting small, the Toronto private school rap clique loves him, and he has been freestyling at several exlusive parties, with more to come this summer. He's sticking to a small, but lucrative market, and his innovations should be recognized. (69.159.80.21) (Julius Marx, Toronto, ON)

Removing some content doesn't make it any less of a vanity page, or the individual any more notable.

Reminder to all: please sign your posts (~~~~), and please refrain from voting multiple times (I'm looking at you, 206.130.23.67). EVula 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete I am a hardworker artist amiming to make it big in the industry, the work and time I have put into my more recent articles are evident. I believe, aswell as the music proffersors at the UNiversity of Toronto asell as YOrk Music that my work will prove to be succesful once it has all been released. For those that are not familiar with the those to universities they are 2 of the best music programs in Canada, and have produced many great musicians in the past. I am popular in the highschool and local university scene and many people can pledge for that. -Reid HOrkins [~~~~)
Delete Non-notable, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 17:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
DON'T DELETE. I am in the same boat as Mr. Marx, Reid Horkins seems to have struck upon a bountiful and Lucrative market, his novelty is greatly respected and appreciated by youth in their late teens. He has a political message and is a refreshing new prespective on the Toronto Rap scene. From reading previous (now deleted) posts and from word of mouth, I have learned that even young adults who are not inspired by mainstream Rap are captivated by this young phenom. Mr. Horkins is the hairbringer of the new wave of Rap and Hip Hop in youth, and I would be devastated if he were to be eliminated from this superior website. A Rapper and overall character of his calibre is not something WIKIPEDIA should shy away from. Granted that he is greatly different from other Rap artists, what would the mainstream media think of a website that turned away the next Eminem. I eagerly await the next hot single or music video that Rappin Reid releases, and please Wikipedia, and commited readers, do not delete or vouch for the deletion of this rising star. (Alex Lomasney)

DON"T DELETE - Reid Horkins, although unknown to most, shows great potential and if this is deleted it will only come back later in years to come when Reid breaks out and shocks the world.

Do not delete As author to the article I have written an article about a hardworking individual who is starting to make his name heard in the music industry. He is popular around and many of his friends and fans have expressed to me that they would like a page written about him. So i have done so. WHen I saw the article was up for deletion i sent an email to numerous individuals at my school informing them about the ongoing debate about whether or not the article should be aloud. That is why we see numerous posts under the same IP 206.130.23.67. - Strachan Jarvis [~~~~)

Delete per everyone that's not a puppet. Eivind ^t ^@^c 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above, multiple votes or multiple puppet votes exacerbating it. --ES2 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete growing fan base among Toronto teen culture, ameliorates reputation as young artist: pertinent to demographic
Strong Comment: Before any more of you meatpuppets post "Don't Delete" warnings, use your computer skills to visit WP:MUSIC. There you will see the guidelines to assessing a musician's notability. Mr. Horkins does not have a charted hit. He has not gone on a national tour. He does not have multiple hardcopy publication credits, nor has put out albums to the general public, nor has won a major national musical award, nor has written several works in widespread national or international use, nor receives regular national radio airplay. Whether he might do any of these things in the future is irrelevant. Whether you like the one song he's ever done is irrelevant. Whether you like his performances is irrelevant too. Unless you can assert that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, you're wasting your time. RGTraynor 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per all above. Looking at the video I doubt most of the claims in the article, it's just completely banal. NTK 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete. To the strong delete above. I first question your knowledge of Toronto and the music community in Toronto. While you can doubt the claims in the article, you have nothing to support the doubts. Do you know Reid Horkins personally? I doubt. Your doubts are empty and most certainly inane. Get yourself another few years of schooling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.31.247.232 (talk • contribs).

First-hand knowledge of an individual isn't necessary to hold the article up to Wikipedia's content requirements; it fails, so it should be deleted (or shuffled to the individual's user page, which is what I've suggested). In addition, personal attacks are a pretty poor way to garner support for your argument. Also, please sign your posts, even if you haven't registered. EVula 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why there are so many posts from IP 206.130.23.67 is becuase of a school network. Just wanted to clear that up.

- Comment Editors with little or no history carry little or no weight in the AfD deliberations. So you can tell your calssmates to quit wasting their time. This isn't an election. Fishhead64 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete but also a potential solution How about the people who wish the article to be deleted summarize what they expect to see in a creditable article. I will go through the article put some serious time into it and then refresh it. Obviously we are debating whethor or not he is notable for Wikipedia but how about we look past and turn our backs to that and make an article which not only contains in many eyes a notable being but also contains alot of creditable volume. ~~Strachan Jarvis

The most relevant link about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Reid Horkins fails on all accounts, as near as I can tell). It doesn't matter if you manage to somehow write prose that makes God Himself weep upon reading; Reid Horkins fails all established criteria for proving a musician's notability. EVula 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Than there is no need to list him as a musician along with more renound or legitimate artists, surely there is a catagory for underground or area specific people.

Delete Non-notable, vanity. Fishhead64 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont Delete Isn't Wikipedia all about inclusiveness? You sound like George Bush, trying to put a man down for being different. If Wikipedia's policy is that he has to have a charted hit, doesn't that exclude all those indy artists who may be just as talented as charted ones, but play to small crowds and intimate audiences? The fact that McNugget hasn't sold out yet, in my opinion, makes him more noteworthy. Let's take the ideals of free expression that Reid so proudly supports and let the world recognize a burgeoning superstar in the indy rap world. (Julius Marx) (69.159.80.21)
DONT" dont Delete. this is nonsense (or perhaps a bad joke). -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP I have seen Reid Horkins rap at the Marquis Theatre on Coxwell in Toronto. I am not part of the private school scene. This shows how fast Reid is growing, it would be pointless to delete his article and then have to redo it a couple months in the future. PLEASE WIKIPEDIA, I donated to your fundraiser campaign. I love wikipedia and I love Toronto. I believe this article to be valid. -Matt Wilson (64.231.177.72 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
Delete con fuoco, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest these sockpuppets. RasputinAXP c 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete Reid Horkins is circulating the private school sector of the GTA at a phenomenal rate. To delete him now would be a mistake, I gaurantee with the momentum McNugget has picked up, he will soon be well known. With more time and editing, this article can be made to better reflect wikipedia standards. -James Wolfe
Dont Delete I am a record producer and Alumn of Crescent School and I was looking at the Crescent School wik and I came across Reid Horkins under Notable Alumni. I noticed that he had a link and we all know that Wikipedia's best asset is not the articles its' links. I clicked on his name and found out that he is a rapper who is taking over the private school sector of Toronto. The private school sector is one of the largest producers of Hip Hop music in all of Canada so I followed the links to his web page and bought his CD 'Stickin to the Man'. I loved it and have been in touch with Mr. Horkins on a possible deal. Thanks Wikipedia for your help in finding the next Canadian Star.

Comment Well, there's the solution. If you're a record producer, sign him to a deal, and release a CD on a recognized label. As soon as that happens, and it shows reasonable sales volume, he would qualify to be added back into Wikipedia. Fan1967 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If his only appearance is on Youtube, he's not notable. I'm on youtube, do I get an article too? Heck, do the other 10000+ youtubers get articles? The answer is no. Also, the sockpuppetry suprises me as this guy is definitely not notable.--Frenchman113 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's obvious this is nothing but a joke. —Aiden 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete. I am a student at Jarvis Collegiate a high school that is very different both socio-economically and geogrpahically from Crescent School, and I have heard of and enjoy Reid Horkin's music. He is popular among my peers, and we all feel that this page shouldn't be deleted, and it's deletion would be an insult to Reid and his fan base. I am tired of people voting against this who don't live anywhere near Toronto, and who have zero knowledge of the Toronto Hip-Hop scene.
"Don't Delete" I also witnessed Reid's performance at the Marquee theatre, and I feel he has potential as not only a rapper, but an entertainer. Wikipdeia has a lot more to lose then gain by deleting Reid from its database. If people are digging his beats and rhymes, why shouldn't they be able to learn about this budding rapper off of Wikipedia. Personally, whenever I want to learn more about anything in particular, this site is the first one I go too, and I know that applies to many people. Why should all these people be shut out from learning about a possible new up-and-comer, just because a select few feel different?
In response to all the people saying hes not a muscisian Although we belive he is and should be listed as such several people have told us he doesn't belong in that catagory, so if there is a more legitimate catagory for him please tell us and we can change it.
In response to all the people saying non-notable There are many other articles which speak to a small audiance, one much smaller than this I might add. If need be i'll pull some up.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bloody video games

Delete, an orphan ignoring usertalk pages, it has no defined perimeters of what it is to include. -- Zanimum 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-encyclopaedic and non-maintainable. --BillC 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SorryGuy 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Add to list of bloody deleted articles -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BryanG 02:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Frag! Frag!...er...I mean delete this pointless list. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per above --Mason 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's a bloody list of bloody video games, innit? Erm, sorry. Delete as useless listcruft. JIP | Talk 05:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable and pointless. It seems like we've had a whole lot of this kind of list on AfD in the past couple of months... "List of video games that are games". Grand master ka 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete ridic. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unmaintainable list. Marskell 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-encyclopedic. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I thought this was a list of video games by someone who is pissed off with the stupid things, which I might have voted to keep, but instead it's an arbitrary list of arbitrary entertainment genre selected by arbitrary criteria. Listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 11:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV magnet. --Xorox 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above, and is this UK "bloody" or US "bloody" either way both would be way too long. --Tollwutig 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete the bloody list. --Optichan 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Shoot it! Or just delete it normally...Freddie
"Don't Delete" I go to Jarvis Collegiate in Toronto, a high school which is socio-economically, and geographically very far from Crescent School. I and many of my peers have heard and enjoy Reid Horkins music. His fan base is much larger than the stereotyped WASPy community the deleters seem to have been portaying. It is unfair to Reid and all of his fans to delete this entry.

This comment was probably intended to have gone to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Horkins page. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, it had me wondering at first why going to Jarvis Collegiate and liking Reid Horkins's music had anything to do with bloody video games... JIP | Talk 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete we already have discussions of violence in video games, and there's bloody red pixels everywhere in games... Completely overly broad list topic, thus. Not to even mention that "incomplete" doesn't even begin to describe this list on many levels. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. VegaDark 05:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Generation

Neologism, if it's used at all - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom. Funky Monkey 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reason cited. patsw 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete or Transwiki. I was a bit surprised at how many hits I got when I searched usedthis term (on AltaVista, just to be contrary). However, the article itself is largely unsourced and opinion, and at best warrants being moved over to the wiktionary. Fluit 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Part of the Delete Generation -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Very strong keep. My first reaction on reading the article was strong delete. However, a search for "google generation" on Google" shows 183,000 results and I've completely rewritten the article, using some of this research to create a new stub (and with none of the original article text). The term "Google generation" is even in use by the British Library, so if it gets deleted now, it's only going to be recreated later. Tyrenius 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep A Google search (how ironic!) shows that this does seem to be a term used in news headlines and such. It's already expanded beyond being a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep this term is more widely used than I thought, it seems... Sheehan (Talk) 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Google at present this is essentially a dicdef of a neologism, with some examples. Yes, it's apparently widespread. But, there's nothing to really say about it, other than it refers to young people who grew up using Google. Or, Wiktionary maybe? Brillig20 03:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per tyrenius. This isn't really a neologism. Its more serious than it looks at first. Ans e ll 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I never thought about it, but when I entered college Google had just left beta, and I've been with it ever since. So keep as a member. T K E 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Google. It is worth atleast discussing but I just do not see it as being worth a whole article. SorryGuy 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I've heard of this before, albeit under a more appropriate name, which escapes me at the moment. -O bli (Talk)^? 08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep sources appear to have been added. I'd support a merge to, come to think of it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep 183,000 results on google seems notable enough. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it cites sources now, verifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable from reliable sources (Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, neither is number of hits on Google). Could be transwiki'd to Wiktionary, since they accept popular usage as a crieterion for inclusion. We don't. We require coverage in reliable secondary sources, otherwise it's original research. Kudos to Tyrenius for making the effort, which was undoubtedly the right thing to do, and well done for adding some sources (better than none, which so many articles have) - however, without citations, we can't keep it. Call me a policy wonk. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you not consider the British Library, and newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph to be reliable sources? They have all used this term and commented on its implications. Amongst the Google results are many usages by colleges and librarians etc, defining characteristics which relate to it, and seeing it as a phenomenon which needs to be addressed. It didn't mean anything to me, until this AfD came up. I suggest looking into it a little more thoroughly. I think it would be a credit to Wiki to provide this information, and disappointing if it doesn't. Tyrenius 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still popular usage - which makes it a dictdef, albeit a great and really comprehensively attributed dictdef. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually seems to have popular usage. Its not always going to be correct to judge something on whether you have heard of it or not. Ans e ll 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As it says in Generation Y:"generations are defined not by formal process, but rather by demographers, the press and media, popular culture, market researchers, and by members of the generation themselves". There is also an article on iGeneration. Those two are proposed for a merge, and I can see the ultimate viability of merging Google Generation with them too.

Tyrenius 15:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep has sources, doesn't really fit Google Kotepho 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I have little doubt that Google likes the hit count on this self-promotional neologism just fine, given that their share values probably go up a penny per thousand hits on it. RGTraynor 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: see Yahoo and MSN if you don't trust Google. --phh 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. While I have little doubt the term could become popular at this time it is no more relevant that other entries in urban dictionary mcwiggin 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - notable enough, and an increasing number of well-read essays have tackled the "go to Google first" paradigm and its ramifications (e.g., Jeff Atwood's "Google is the Help Menu"). --phh 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is a neologism, and I frankly doubt it even merits a passing mention in Google. Fishhead64 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It has apparently been used in by the British Library and USA Today, as is cited on the page. That, combined with the high number of Google hits, tells me it appears to be coming into use.192.5.109.49 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete delete delete delete delete. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - or see Tyrenius' ideas about merging. 'Google generation' has been adopted as a useful concept/phrase in Library and information science in the UK and perhaps the US too - also to discuss (an age-related) gap between those who use the net intuitively and those who don't. Some examples:

The Google generation believes that organisations can keep everything. Why take the time and effort to decide what can be deleted when electronic storage is cheap and search engines are improving? (The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 29, 2005)

Ian Mowat..... believed strongly that libraries should reinvent themselves so as to remain relevant to "the Google generation". (The Times, September 19, 2002)

William Gibson (novelist).....Perhaps the challenge of writing long-lasting literature excites him more now than being the prophet of the Google generation. (Daily Telegraph, April 12, 2003)

before the arrival of the world wide web we were obliged to go out there and discover things for ourselves........The Google generation may have a fast link to anywhere in the world ....(The Times, November 28, 2005)--HJMG 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Google, article is not encyclopædic on its own. Wstaffor 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiletics

Non-notable wiki; appears to fail WP:WEB. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also, it appears to be an advertisement. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Nonsense added on by red link.--Jersey Devil 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SorryGuy 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: wiki has only been running for 2-3 weeks and contains only 5 articles. --BillC 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Deletetics -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete site isn't yet notable. Press release at best. At worst, authored by someone connected to the site. LookNorth 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy it. Could make a good Wikipedia essay some day. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above users -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; this is not an article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Romarin/WikiProject Common Era.

[edit] User:Romarin/WikiProject Common Era

This WikiProject is encouraging users to edit articles against the Wikipedia Manual of Style (specifically, WP:DATE#Eras), thus should be deleted . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nom. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netburner

Blatant advertising, spam Montco 00:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:Vanity. SorryGuy 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:CORP; spamvertisement. Bucketsofg 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ad^ad --Deville (Talk) 03:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete an advert it is. LookNorth 03:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obvious advertising --Mason 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as obvious and shameless advertising. Come back when you're paying Wikipedia to host this. JIP | Talk 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete An obvious piece of advertising. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, spam, advertisement. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete cannot be anything but vanity from the company. Ans e ll 13:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertising. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious cleanup to remove advertising and keep. Big company. Pcb21 Pete 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete if someone removes the advertising maybe a keep.--Tollwutig 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Looks like the author has blanked the page, should it be nominated under {{db-blanked}} then? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - blank -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have to ask why this one wasn't speedied in the first place, however, it getting to this page should be enough to say that it should not be blanked. A policy on blanking AfD's is still in discussion. Ans e ll 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per above.Freddie 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anuthin Wongsunkakon

I already speedied this once under CSD:A7, but it came back. Rather than get into a delete war, I bring it here. What say you? Was my speedy delete richeous or bogus? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Clear vanity in unclear English. Bucketsofg 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep but needs cleanup. Seems to be a fairly notable typographer, with some significant publications and fairly big-name clients. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If the company isn't notable enough for an article, the founder probably isn't either. -Dawson 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Richeous? --Deville (Talk) 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but better still use as redirect and put info under Behaviour Group, which provides typefaces for MTV Thailand amongst others. The subject is notable amongst typographers. Tyrenius 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Starblind & Tyrenius (and possibly merge per the latter), but needs some work. Seems notable if what it says is correct. Tupsharru 07:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This designer is quite notable in Thailand. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:BIO, notable designer. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, its hard to determine what is important in typographer terms. I know that movie stars get in for less that getting their work recognised by a major overseas authority in their field. Don't delete because of bad english on the current page. Ans e ll 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to Delete myself because he's non-notable. RGTraynor 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how non-notable he is, it's not worth deleting yourself over. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a good one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL Tyrenius 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, the article needs a LOT of work but the subject seems to be at least somewhat notable. Wstaffor 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'm inclined to close this as a keep, but the sight of socks, socks, and sockmania gives me second thoughts on doing so. Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ric Romero (investigative reporter)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-Notable internet meme that is restricted to only one website - maybe a mention on the fark article, but not here. God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep The meme is spreading throughout the internet, I too have seen Ric's photo in several other places and have had to refer people to the page about him here so they'll quit asking about him elsewhere. MSchlaf
Strong Keep I've seen Ric mentioned in other places, and the information here helped me figure out the cliche
Strong Keep Is it lonely up there in your tower? Honestly, what harm is being done by having this article here? None. Someone else mentioned that Wiki is often the only source of obscure information. This is one of those pieces. There are many, many other articles here that are more worthless. Oh, and don't bother commenting --- this WILL be my only comment in the discussion. 35.11.160.168 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep If the article does no harm and is accurate, I find no reason to eliminate a source of information, no matter how trivial. Hell, Conrad Hubbard is even less famous and less of a celebrity and he gets his own page... God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I don't see anyone arguing how this fits the profiles for topics to be deleted.
Strong Keep This is a meme that many people are aware of. I know that the only way I had the meme explained to me was looking for it here. Given the usefulness of this article, it should not be deleted. JagSeal 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Ric Romero is mentioned a lot. People come to WP for lots of online information. Without this article people coming across Ric Romero would be confused. Fatalserpent 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep More than meets standards for inclusion. Ken Mondschein
Strong Keep Granted he may not be my cup of tea, but he does pass tests of notablity. He's a TV reporter. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note this users only contributions have been his user page and afd nominations. See [4]--God Ω War 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He's a celeb on the Internet. Keep the article going on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.26.87.179 (talk • contribs).

Strong Keep. No less notable than any other individual listed on Internet phenomenon that have their own article. As memes go, it's spread pretty far beyond Fark, so it's notable enough. Fluit 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We deleted Lee Hotti we can delete this too.--God Ω War 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I read FARK and remember the first Ric Romero topic. Yes, he's been mentioned a few times since then, but it's a pretty minor meme even within FARK and absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything outside FARK. If there were a WP:MEME standard, I think it's safe to say this wouldn't pass it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete; I'm kind of torn on this one. The internet angle doesn't sway me, since it isn't discussed by any reliable sources. The guy is on KABC-TV, which is pretty notable as local stations go, but no one else below anchor level has an article... and again, no independent reliable sources on that either. When Fark gets a wiki, we can send this in their direction. Melchoir 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep; he's as big an internet celebrity as anyone else who has his own page. --Aemilia 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Melchoir. Jkelly 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable. 69.142.21.24 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep He's well-known in his broadcast area, and he pops up on fark.com probably once a week, giving him world-wide exposure. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Get off your high horse—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.117.160 (talk • contribs).
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as Los Angeles is the largest television market in the country. T K E 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Not all that notable but I find myself seeing multiple people looking for this information and needing it. If not that I would consider a merge to KBAC if nothing esle. SorryGuy 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Objectivist-C 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Like Ric Romero said "Anyone with a computer can become their own publisher on the internet." While he was refering to blogging, WP is a type of encyclopedia. WP may not be a blog, but it did however state the facts of Ric Romero. It told of his early years up to the point that he became a cliché. I'm certain there are more sites than this one that state the same facts as WP and I feel that deleting this would prove nothing. WP has only published the facts of Ric Romero. It isn't the writer's opinion that he is a cliché. It is only a statement that reveals the truth and reveals the reason of his internet popularity. IMO, the only thing hurting the fact that he is refered as a cliché is the popularity of WP. It won't go unnoticed if it's deleted. Society will still refer to him as a cliché.--Ellis d 09:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note, this is the users only contribution to wikipedia. See [5].

Weak Delete He is slightly notable, however we can't be listing every little internet fad in the Wiki.Landeyda 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If FARK wants to have an explanation of every little FARK fad, they can put it on their own website. Average Earthman 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep He is both an internet and TV celebrity, what more is there to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. Ans e ll 13:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep he's almost notable enough, but I think the fark cliche tips the scale a little. Kotepho 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a notable consumer reporter for KABC-TV. He has an entry on IMDB, and between his record of consumer reporting and his discovery of blogging, the article is worth keeping. --E lkman - ^(talk) 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Every TV station in North America has a consumer reporter, who typically gets about two minutes of screen time per newscast. So? RGTraynor 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There is already a list of FARK cliches on the main FARK page, so let's keep this there. --Several Times 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Since the article is GFDL'd it can certainly be moved to Farkopedia by those who are so eager to keep this alive. NTK 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable. Cynical 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete FARK appearance does not a celebrity make. And certainly being an on-air consumer reporter for a local TV station doesn't. Fishhead64 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per users voting keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In other news, Fark is a website that can have links posted to it! More at 11. RasputinAXP c 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. In a seemingly unrelated story, wikipedians have no humor! Workman 161 (Can't stay logged in. Thanks Direcway.) --67.142.130.31 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Deletedeletedelete per above. The sockpuppetry still amazes me.--Frenchman113 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Ordinary local TV-news reporter? Not notable. Meme found on one website? Not notable. Combining the two doesn't increase the notability value. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Even when discounting the Fark portions of the article, he's still more notable/recognizable than many of the other bios on Wikipedia. HiFiGuy 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If other internet cliches are worthy of their own entries, I don't see why this one is an issue. The fact that he's a local television personality doesn't matter; Wikipedia doesn't prioritize based on fame. Imdwalrus 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is a thin line between fame and notability. Ans e ll 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Farkcruft. If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap. And I say this as someone who likes Fark. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. If you've been noted, you're notable. The collected whining about "cruft" from those who don't like an inclusive Wikipedia takes up more server space than any amount of material about Fark ever will. Grace Note 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is the kind of information Wikipedia should have. bbx 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, passes the standard for notability as a consumer reporter reaching millions weekly. Have any of you deleters ever read WP:bio ? Pepeeg 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, And I quote from WP:BIO as a reason for someone to be considered notable: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following". Michaelwsherman 07:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep, there are articles for far more obscure people and topics. Besides, an internet meme should pass the notability requirements. mikemoto 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Keep There's so much worthless crap on WP, about "celebrities", "famous" places, and local politics, I don't see why Ric Romero shouldn't have his own article. Kar98 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. More than notable enough for an article, even before the FARK notoriety. Un focused 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep we all know who we're talking about, that makes him notable, and worthy of an article on wikipedia Asw32 13:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't really see how Ric Romero's status on Fark or irrelevance elsewhere matters. I heard about this guy, I looked it up on wikipedia, and I learned what the story was. Seems like that's exactly what Wikipedia is for. And I'd wager this particular listing gets accessed way, way more often than more "legitimate" sources.
Delete merge infto into Fark not enuff info here on its own, not notable except as fark cliche.
Strong Keep It's for articles like this that I love wikipedia!
Keep Helpful article
Keep Might be farkcruft, but as far as Internet memes go in general, I think this has as large an audience and as large an interest base as everything short of the biggest of them. I tend to judge the scale of memes and thus their cultural relevance on the basis of audience size, and I think the biggest fark meme in history passes that test --Yst 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Highly notable internet meme. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Due to his work as a TV presenter. RicDod 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep It's useful to have a reference that defines this internet meme. If Flying Spaghetti Monster has a page, so should RR. Brian a lee 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I did not know who Ric Romero was but I kept seeing his name about the 'net and when I Googled for his name Wikipedia had the correct answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.199.183 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Memes that have been significantly used in communication are important to archive so as to preserve the readability of old material in a way accessible by the common man. Communication shouldn't have a shelf life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.228 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on local radio and television stations and the like; until we agree to delete all of them or create a specific standard regarding them, we should not simply delete those that come to Wikipedians' attentions. Ric Romero's status as the focus of a minor internet phenomenon simply adds to the validity of the article. --Frostyservant 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. I think Ric Romero might as well have a Wikipedia with its main focus being on his job and life and a sidenote how he became popular on the internet. There are plenty of obscure stub articles out there that seem ridiculous. But then, I agree that if you keep this page, it could mean people making the argument that a Jameth page is justified. I disagree that there "isn't enough here to justify an article." There's much less elsewhere and there are no discussion deletions for them. (I actually contribute to Wiki. Fear not.) Vaguely 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There is no penalty for having too much information in an encyclopedia. Avengerx 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, Ric Romero is clearly encyclopediac. Love, Wikipedian with 3000 edits. -James Howard (talk/web) 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - i seriously think the legacy of ric romero will live on through our children's children and would not be surprised if "pulling a ric romero" injected itself into the vernacular. i vote keep! Ytcracker 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, There are entries for other talent at KABC-TV that are much less well known than Ric, including Danny Romero and Marc Brown. Not to mention plenty of entries for other "local celebs" who have gained attention.Sparkhead 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep' - a liberal inclusion policy is what has made Wikipedia successful. Internet memes probably rate a Wikipedia or their own. Include link to "Captain Obvious" page (or delete it too and help turn Wikipedia into pap). ACzernek 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, The article itself is notable as well as the person. He deserves the same status as any other internet phenomenon considering that it refers to an actual person unlike say the HA HA guy. I recommend this article be kept.--NegroSuave 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; I dislike (if not hate) much fancruft, but Romero is a presenter (perhaps not the most prominent, but...) at what appears to be a major TV station, probably justifying a page on that basis alone. Also, from what I can tell, he seems to be one of the more prominent and long-lived Fark cliches. Put it another way; if Romero doesn't belong here, fair enough, but there are a *lot* of articles with much weaker cases. Let's keep standards consistent. Fourohfour 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- This is the purpose of wikipedia. To look up and learn about stuff on the interwebs. Liu Bei 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep -- but paraphrase the fark reference to a single sentence. Autopilots 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. You deletionists keep going too far. The very fact that an internet message board or word of mouth could inspire people to come and try to fight for the life of this article should be indication enough that you have, ONCE AGAIN, overstepped your bounds. Stop deleting things that you don't care about. Just ignore them like the rest of us. Joey 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; it's on the front page of Fark, so that's hardly surprising. There are quite a few first-time comments from people here. And yeah, I voted "keep", but the point of this discussion is to get a cross-section of Wikipedia opinion, not a cross-section of those more likely to be in favour. Fourohfour 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- While this is my first post to WikiPedia, I have read the deletion policy. It appears that even were Ric Romero not a meme he conforms the rules for WP:BIO notability of a live person standards. Regardless, the standards seems to indicate that this information, rather than being deleted, should be merged into articles for Fark and KABC (yet another reason not to delete as a single article linked from two sources seems to make more sense) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.17.224 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. A notable internet phenomenon. Jokestress 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- c.f. Marvin Zindler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.241.182 (talk • contribs) .
Weak keep as per Michaelwsherman. ... discospinster 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep as per autopilots. User:Vanis314 3:37 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If notable enought to be considered an internet meme, he is notable to have his own bio. WegianWarrior 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. He's a minor celebrity in the LA area, and somehow people around the country (and probably world) know him a la fark. Wouldn't this suffice for validation for a wiki article? SIMJewWiki 15:56, 15 April 2005 (UTC)
Keep The fact that we're having this debate shows his significance. And if the Star Wars kid and flying spaghetti monster can have articles, so can Ric. (Yes, I don't post much on Wikipedia, but I contribute on Wookieepedia and the LotR Wiki. Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) EDIT And may I ask, what is the significance of this being on the main page of Fark? Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean my comment, Romero is a Fark meme, and more likely to get the attention of people coming here (solely) to vote in favour. Put it another way, if we were discussing the removal of some Pokemon fancruft and it was posted on the front page of a high-traffic "Pokemon Fancruft Fans" site, it's unlikely that the views posted would be an entirely representative cross-section of opinion. That having been said, I still voted for "keep"... Fourohfour 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fark itself is notable, God knows ABC is notable, other clichés like Zero Wing are notable, and Ric's fame has come to extend beyond Fark, to most internet forums. Twin Bird 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - But the greenlighters of Fark are doing a really shitty job for this to be on their main page. - Hahnch e n 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Do what ye please. I came here to find out what's up with these pictures on Fark. That's what Wikipedia was made for. But I guess an article about SuperGoku45z Message Board Layout Redesign of 2004 would be mildly silly, although his users might refer to it frequently. On the still other hand, why not? What harm would it do to put all the world's information in an encyclopedia that wants to contain all the world's information? Should it be really useful to everyone or usually useful to the vast majority of people? EDIT: On further reflection, I want to clarify. Im not saying that every single piece of data on Earth should be in Wikipedia. But a persistent cliche, even if it's limited to one site, is big enough for someone (namely me) to think of looking for it on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.187.9 (talk•contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - First the Wikipedia editors came for All Your Base, and you didn't speak out, because AYB was annoying as fuck, then they came for Ric Romero, and you did nothing because the meme seemed played out. But soon the Wikipedia editors will come for YOU, and there will be no one left to speak out for you. Fight Nazism on the World Wide Web. Rev Martin Niemoller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.65.17.45 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP it. Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - how much extra data space is the entry taking up. 1KB?
- Weak delete Who will know or care about the internet meme of Ric Romero in 5-10 years?
Strong Keep It is obvious that Ric is notable, regardless of wether or no there are "verifiable sources". Gsham 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please keep, Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. Besides, raise up a dude who isn't at the front desk on TV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs).
Obvious Keep in spite of sock-puppetry. An internet meme for sure but also a genuine TV person and collumnist in teh interweb. We keep far less notable things than him. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - He's a real reporter, and the meme bit is just one paragraph. It's useful for Wikipedia to explain the background behind these things, so that people not in the know can find out where they came from and what they mean. See O RLY?, for example. --Jake 16:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A reporter who coverers the los angeles area is notable enough for inclusison.. mcwiggin 16:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Frequently mentioned on very popular website. Not an O RLY-level meme, but still pretty darn notable. 209.6.230.71 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Not being liked by all doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. The person is well known, and is a reporter for a TV station. Rborek 16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - --ZekeMacNeil 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Non-notable television personality. AdamJacobMuller 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Enough has been made of him that people might be curious as to why. Why force them to go elsewhere instead of Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.207.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-15 11:54:43 (UTC)
Keep He's a tv reporter, which makes him notable enough. (EG, see Natalie Jacobson.) Remove the meme section if the proposed meme guidelines become policy (since Romero is neither a "classic" meme nor does it satisfy any of the other inclusion criteria).--Wasabe3543 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ric Romero is a tv personality in LA, a considerably large market. His basic information should be left in, as there are many people of the same or less notability who still warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should be centered on whether or not to keep the "fark.com" references in, as that portion appears to be an inside joke among users of only one website. However, it is setting a frightening president of censorship if the non-disputed facts concerning a tv personality are deleted because of prejudice against a website like "fark.com" that has adopted him as a mascot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallup (talk • contribs) .
KEEP - fourohfour needs to relax. If Ric Romero goes, then the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" page should go as well. I don't read fark at all, but still found the article to be interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.248.229 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Oh, and if you'd bothered checking my vote, you'd see I've already voted "keep". However, I want to see this AfD carried out properly, and not unbalanced by newcomers coming solely to sway the vote (either intentionally or unintentionally). Fourohfour 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - He's a TV personality which makes him notable. He may not be an important person (opinion) but the fact is that his name gets thrown around all over, so people will end up here looking for information on him. I don't think we need a full-blown biography and family history, but a few tidbits of info and his picture (and why he's so often mentioned) would suffice. I don't know the guy, and it doesn't look like I'd like him, but I think for the purpose of spreading knowledge [of any kind] it should stay. Ghostalker 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Isn't it enough that people would be curious as to what this person/meme signifies, and will come here for the answer? RP. 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - To quote somebody above, "If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap.". I say this as somebody who reads fark daily. Thewalrus 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. As someone else said, the fact that we're arguing over this surely means this article should stay by default. Besides, this is censorship from people who can't take a joke, which is on one level what this is and another is the fact that this is a real person. If we're going to be completely anal about what constitutes a valid article, we should delete every article about fictional characters and dead people. Because, hey, they're not relevant anymore! 17:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep The measure of an article ought to be its potential usefulness to readers. People are bound to wonder who Ric Romero is; this article helps. We've also kept Internet memes of similar notability before. — Adrian Lamo ·· 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep No one would be complaining about an article on a TV reporter if he WASN'T an internet meme. This is like deleting Snakes on a Plane because it's an internet fad. He's notable for being an L.A. reporter in his own right, and the fact that many people have heard of him outside that station makes him more notable, not less. In addition, I don't have an objection to using Wikipedia to document memes in the first place, but that's another story.--BigCow 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- This is a second comment but I wanted to add several points. First, in my job as a researcher for one of the Big Four search engines, memes like this become popular page hits due to news stories or even Saturday Night Live. Wikipedia would be my first stop, if I were trying to evaluate a search for 'Ric Romero Obvious'. It is most authoritative, has the largest number of editors and is the most-likely to have the underground/cultural interpretation. Second, my Wikipedia sweatshirt says "Edit this page" and it comes closest to the spirit of Wikipedia, not "Delete this page". But maybe someone sent me the wrong sweatshirt. Third, being an Internet resource edited by Internet users is what defines Wikipedia -- this is not a resource edited by perfesseurs for the hoi polloi, as is Encyclopedia Britannica. That editors even believe this is Romero/meme page is an issue is an indication that they neither understand the users nor the donors to this site. ACzernek
Strong Keep This article allowed me to be in on the joke. How is that a bad thing? - EndingPop 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Would be useful to enough users (Farkers or not) to justify inclusion in WP. — Hedgey42 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete - Although Ric Romero is famous on fark.com, it does not mean his is worthy of a biographical article. I'm famous to people who know me, but that doesn't justify my own bio. Might be the only resource for Ric Romero, but does not make it needed. If we needed a page for every inside joke, wikipedia would never survive. --PaddyM 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mars Defense Perimeter, Jeffries tube, Smith (Ultima), Hardware Wars, Webernet, an extensive page on Slashdot subculture... should I continue? Nevermind Wikipedia's own 44-page-long Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. If Team Fremont gets a stub, Ric Romero should get a page.
  - That's basically my point. Rarely are any of these pages really of-note and worth their own biographies. Probably should delete O RLY, Captain Obvious and a host of others as they are particularly unimportant. They are more appropriate for the wiktionary. He definitely should be mentioned on the fark.com page, but outside of that doesn't need his own. PaddyM 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep Although Ric Romero has been an internet meme for a short time, you can't justify it's deletion because he's not as popular as Ha Ha Guy or the Icy Hot Stuntaz, both of which have articles on Wiki. Unless you plan on deleting all internet memes, it's better that the article be retained. Oftentimes Wiki is the only source for finding out information on very obscure subjects. Also, as a Wiki donor, this is not what I like to see happening on the site. Sorry... just sayin. - guriboy 19:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This comment (and its edit) are user's first two contributions to Wikipedia. They have one other contribution to date. Fourohfour 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- This internet meme is known outside of fark.com. He's also an anchor on a reasonably high popularity TV station. Also note that the page is not only about the meme.--Toba 19:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable. Amusingly I used this the other day to figure out what the hell this Ric Romero deal was and WP had great info! (for admin: I have 1000+ edits) -Ravedave 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into either Fark.com's article or Internet phenomenon. Inky 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream idioms often start out as subculture slang. Ric Romero may be a fark cliche now, but I've seen other fark-isms (such as the word "moran") appear outside of fark. The most authentic documentation of such things is created while they are still new and is worth preserving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.16.41.4 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed silly little comment. 35.11.160.168 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Keep - Ric Romero IS a known television personality in Los Angeles, so at the very least he should have his own Wikipedia article. However, I dunno if the Fark.com stuff is relevent, unless he's in on the joke too. Maybe if more about Ric's personal information and other non-Fark.com sources were added, the Fark.com stuff can remain? ... Something else to consider: Just because Fark.com is a web community, it doesn't mean anything that only Fark.com users would know shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I mean, how many farkers are out there versus any community of people (including nation states, towns, cities, etc), and how much more is known about smaller communities of people and not about Fark? Is some Turkey Festival that gathers 10,000 people in Bugfart, Wisconsin more important than a Fark cliche where 100,000 people are in on the joke? - Nick15 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep with immediate relisting; sprotect the AfD discussion. There is no possible way to draw a meaningful consensus from this discussion. Haikupoet 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP the article. It does not matter if we like it, but the guy is better known in the world today than a lot of Roman Emperors. Not really right, but more people want to about this guy than of most current political leaders. --Dave 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP please. The guy is a TV personality who also contributes news articles online - the fact that he also has a 'fark' status is another reason FOR inclusion, since that differentiates him from other news personalities. --Chronomorte 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP I agree with guy above. He's obviously notable. Look at all the responses. I'm abivilant toward Fark, but it seems the 'Delete' folk have a bone to pick with them. --Shinto 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP As a news anchor for a major market TV station, he's notable. I mean, he's no John Chancellor or even Tom Skilling, but he's notable regardless of his FARK meme. --SeanO

Keep. Good luck keeping track of who is or isn't a sock. Forget the Fark nonsense, he's a notable TV personality in a large market. Gamaliel 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's a meme. You want to define Ric Romero? Fine, go to Urbandictionary. Keep Wikipedia clean. --Aresef 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Clean? What a ridiculous adjective for an encyclopedia to strive for. I think the word we should be trying to get is 'inclusive' or even, dare I say, 'accurate'. Joey 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Then clean up Star Wars kid. He only became popular through the Internet. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Duke Starhopper 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep This voting needs more sock puppets. kthxbye—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.241.251.192 (talk • contribs).
Strong Keep Come on. If it weren't for guys like him, the internet would be boring! He's becoming a legend in his own mind and his entry here reaffirms that fact! I'm all for it and I think we should keep interesting tidbits like this alive! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.131.31.1 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. With or without Fark (and I truly feel sorry for the administrator lucky enough to preside over this AFD), this figure meets the WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I saw the Ric Romero references on FARK. Not knowing who he was - and thinking asking on FARK would be tedius waiting for the next Ric article to be greenlighted - I went to Wikipedia. Finding his article was a real help to me, and Wikipedia did its job (and still does). Keep it. Dor 04:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Try and find Ric Romero NOT on any fark discussion thread. I never even knew who he was until I check out the Wikipedia article, and why they always quote him the way they do. How could I possibly know, being a Canadian and all? Solarisworld
- Comment; above comment is user/account's first edit. Fourohfour 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Let's not make Wikipedia an UrbanDictionary, or a place for people to store their inside jokes. Just you can put anything in Wikipedia doesn't mean you should. justdweezil
Weak Keep. It's nice to be able to figure out what random memes mean, and it's otherwise Mostly Harmless, even though it's not very deep. billstewart

- ULTIMATE KEEP Just because ya'll can't use anything besides Google to justify an article's existence doesn't mean it is not notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankencow (talk • contribs).
  - BTW, why did someone delete the interenet reference that I found to Ric Romero? That was NOT my personal website nor for commercial purposes like the note I was sent claimed it was. I FOUND that site just by searching for it. Thought it might make it more "notable".
keep please the person is important erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 06:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The pro-deleters are not being consistent. Take this page for example: Shefali Oza. The only way you're ever going to have heard of her is if you watch the weather forecasts on the BBC West Midlands local news. Yet she has an entry and there is no clamour for deletion. If Ric didn't have a Fark meme associated with him then I doubt that there would be any objection to a page about him. And yes, I posted the same comment on Fark: bite me.
Strong keep. Aside from the information about the meme (which falls under the criteria for delete per the ruling on Webcest, despite my strong opposition to said ruling), the article contains information about a person with a reasonable amount of fame in his community. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have heard of him, either through the Internet or on the air, and keeping this page intact provides them with a resource to learn more about him. (Disclaimer: I did follow the link from Fark, but this is not my only contribution and I wouldn't have voted if I hadn't already contributed to Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of the meme, but I strongly disagree with the exclusionist philosophy that automatically dismisses memes as non-notable- especially when good and otherwise noteworthy information is deleted as well).24.188.143.81 08:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn internet-meme, sophomoric website forum in-joke, but not an encyclopedic topic. Since this will fail AfD this time around, bring it back in July and hopefully the sockpuppetry will be gone and it can be deleted then. Eusebeus 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, that's a wonderful point of view to take. "Let's just relist it later when people aren't paying attention. Then we can just claim that all these interested participants were just sock-puppets rather than people who actually have too little time to watch 27,000 articles to make sure that things are kept the way consensus wanted them to be in the first place. As has been stated elsewhere, there are plenty of local news celebrities that have wikipedia articles - the only reason you are against this one is because the fact that he has gained MORE notoriety than other people because he's associated with an internet meme. Calling it sophomoric just displays YOUR OWN bias, and aren't we supposed to divorce ourselves from anything that makes us autonomous while we are Wiki-drones? I will applaud the day the deletionists begin following their own rules. Joey 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. "Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable." Agreed. My little needle 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I can think of way less notable stuff that is somehow considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. See Naked and petrified. DaveWF 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I use Wikipedia regularly, and much of what I use it for is to find out what an inside joke is referring to. I suspect that many others use this site for the same reason. If this was an inside joke on a much smaller forum, like "Option J" on Baseball Think Factory", I would be in favor of deletion -- particularly because BTF has its own wiki, but FARK is a massively popular site, and consequently I would expect that there would be a high level of interest in knowing the backstory of an in-joke. DLMahnken 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Even without the Fark.com references, Mr. Romero is someone is someone seen regularily by millions. And if his article is to go, then a significant fraction of Wikipedia needs to follow him into deletion. There are certainly articles on memes that don't have any non-Internet fame. Heck, WP has articles on minor aspects of minor past TV shows. And besides, it was usually to find out what all the Romero references were. Though I will grant that if his fame was completely limited to Fark WP's mention of Romero should have been limited WP article(s) about Fark. But as I said, that is not the case. MichaelSH 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep He is a reporter in the United States' second largest television market. Might as well keep him even without the Fark.com reference. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I don't see why not. If he's famous enough to have a television spot, why is he not famous enough to be on Wikipedia? Just trim the section about the Fark cliché. Snakeyeswin 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutral JordanLund 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) It's simple enough to monitor bandwidth and hits. If the page is generating sufficient interest and hits are up then it doesn't matter if it's a Fark generated Internet Meme or not. Enough people are interested in the page to keep it around. If the hits drop off then delete it under a "not enough readership" reason. If it's truly limited to Fark traffic and everyone on Fark already knows who Ric Romero is then it won't generate enough traffic to keep.
- Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable. VegaDark 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep as a regular television personality i'd have to say he barely squeeks by WP:BIO... the fact he's also go t a rather large meme following on fark doesnt hurt either. ALKIVAR™ 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I remember splitting Ric off from the Fark.com entry because there seemed to be need (and public interest in him) to separate his bio content and his FARK notoriety into a separate entry, away from the FARK page clutter. As long as the content in Ric's entry is factual and verifiable (and not too opinionated), it certainly meets the content guidelines for a separate entry and therefore should be kept. Surely more meat and potatoes content should be added, making the Fark stuff less prominent / more trimmable, but I don't have that knowledge me-self.
Keep He had his 15 minutes fame so more than 10 people know him. The wiki article is weak though (poorly written and has a lot of useless cross links like "october"). Keep it and have it cleaned up --Roy-SAC 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Precedent: God Kills a kitten, meets criteria for WP:BIO and proposed Wikipedia:Notability (memes). --Jabrwocky7 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep For reasons noted above. --Myrkabah 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep 141.211.4.29 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The above comment is the 13th edit from that IP address. 141.211.4.29 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball business rules

Delete: Article that, if ever fleshed out, should be a section in some other article. I would merge somewhere but there's essentially no content to merge so I vote delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. What is this trying even to be? --Deville (Talk) 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup. If this article was cleaned up then I would consider merging it or even allowing it to stay itself. SorryGuy 06:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge It should be in Major League Baseball. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and delete, should be in some related article. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've added some examples so you will know what I'm really talking about here. Eventually I will expand this article greatly with many more examples. It may even become a whole category itself, similar to Category:Baseball rules which covers the playing rules but would cover the rules governing the business side of baseball. JP 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Expand Seems reasonable to outline these rules on wikipedia. It would just clutter up a generic baseball article. It can clearly outline issues that a summary could not do. Ans e ll 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. This is an important start. RGTraynor 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'll agree that this could eventually become a separate article - but it isn't now and it's not even close. We don't generally break sections of articles out into separate articles until they're cluttering up the original article. This is like having a Charles Darwin's education article when there isn't that much in Charles Darwin and there's no actual content ready for Charles Darwin's education. It wouldn't make sense... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but should we be hasty to remove things and put them back into articles which are already mature, and where this topic will not gain the attention it could if it were on its own without immediate restrictions on its length. Ans e ll 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that, in the state it was in when I originally nominated it, this article wasn't going to get any attention anyway. So if this little exercise has gotten it filled out a bit, then everyone wins. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I agree w/ wknight94 in general but since there already is an article and category for the playing rules of baseball I am trying to begin a parallel development for the business rules of baseball. I have tried to flesh out the page a bit more but it is still just a stub at this point. JP 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure this is the best title, but baseball has a LOT of procedural rules and restrictions, and it'd be good to have an article on them. Plenty of room for expansion, and Major League Baseball is big enough that it started spinning off separate articles a long time ago. -Colin Kimbrell 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Good idea, but the article needs to be expanded vastly. Wstaffor 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rescue Rooms

nn bar Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't know "The Rescue Rooms" + Nottingham gets almost 50,000 google hits. Something must be going on there. Brillig20 01:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of those entries seem to be advertising and lists. There are infinity drink bars where music is played. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I live in Nottingham, it's nothing particularly notable. Wikipedia isn't a bar guide. Average Earthman 10:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Notability for a single bar does not come with a few acts performing their once. Needs to have a cultural heritage in my opinion. Ans e ll 13:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per AE and Ansell. RGTraynor 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. Sango 123 (e) 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom McLaughlan

Article is an autobiography. --Snargle 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Userfy to User:Tommclaughlan Brillig20 01:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy that bad-boy --Deville (Talk) 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and consider it down to misunderstanding and over-enthusiasm. Help the newbies. Tyrenius 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy as per WP:Vanity and WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy, vanity, nn and delete. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Conquest

Mod-cruft--Zxcvbnm 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete modcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, modcruft. JIP | Talk 05:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete modcruft. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SorryGuy 18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or Merge into some kind of Battlefield 1942 Mod page by itself. Thefourdotelipsis 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Brief details about the mod, the current status, and an external link to the website can be found at List of Battlefield 1942 mods. -- Saberwyn 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete modcruft. Wstaffor 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaitlyn Filippini

Non-notable musician. Was deprodded by an anon user, thus the AfD nomination. Is a frequent target of vandalism, some of which comes from the article's chief contributors. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564468007154963835&q=filippini&pl=true

There is no reason for the removal of this artice, due to the importance of the musician —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.3.170 (talk • contribs) .

Unless there are any objections, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination. Keep as notable musician, though the article needs to be wikified and improved. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I stand by my original opinion to delete, or perhaps merge, if anything of the article is salvagable, into Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics. Sorry, I seem to be having a bit of an off night. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

???? Why withdraw the nomination? Everything I can find points to a non-notable 17-year-old musician with no credits except a film clip on channel 42 in Omaha, and, of course, a myspace page. Need to include the duplicate article, Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics. Fan1967 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What other credits do you need? I can gather whatever you would need OmahaEntertainment

How about a CD released by a recognized label? How about something beyond playing in a backup orchestra when touring musicians come to Omaha? Try reading the criteria at: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Fan1967 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I originally prodded the article. If I had seen it I would have prodded the Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics piece as well. I see minimal notability. Article created by what appears to be the subject's talent agent so that smacks of spamvertising as well.Montco 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I have not seen a Cd released yet, the musician is featured on a demo on a local recoding company "panda productions", and does play outside of Omaha Nebraska on such tour with these musicians. Also, i do believe that the artice does qualify under these standards of Wikipedia:

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). ---Omaha World herald Newspaper, KXVO news ( twice), as well as is published in a childrens book "Super kids :Ordinary kids that have done extrodinary things"--by lisa Fitt.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

---has become known for the local "young" notable musican scene in Nebraska

Has won or placed in a major music competition.--National Orchestra participant(ASTA organization)

How else could there be improvements in the artice, to make it more suitable? .OmahaEntertainment

Comment I'm sorry, you've painted a picture of a talented high school kid who's won some high school awards. As to your other points: a demo is a demo; it's not an actual release. Playing backup for a touring act doesn't count if your name isn't listed in the band; there are thousands of backup players. The book looks pretty minor (Amazon sales rank almost 2 million). A few features in local media that say "here's a talented local kid" don't qualify as notibility. There is no source that she's a "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city" (remember that clause about verifiability). Fan1967 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I will change if this person has - been a notable member of a permanent ensemble, or has been a SOLOIST with a notable orchestra - usually the result of winning competitions. Newspaper articles are not sufficeint, because they often do publicity stunts - I am looking for acclaim in the sense of winning proper classical music competitions - "rock-violin" is not a category on merit but a pop category, and unless she has many CD sales in the pop ranks, I will not be convinced.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This artice is only a stub for now, due to the rise in populatrity.Aren't all articles on Wikipedia works in progress, in that anyone can add to them at any time?( This article does have a solid start.The merit that you are looking for is truly there, and if not, it will be there soon. )

I do believe that it fits under the standards, and is a work in progress. Newspaper articles and Television media are not completely for public stunts. (some articles are scouted, and have real merit.)

Also, the "rock violin" is a new category, which gives rise the the article's importance. It is a little know category that is new to the music scene, due to the image of "violin" always being under the "classical" view.OmahaEntertainment

Comment What will (or may) happen in the future is irrelevant. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see her become prominent someday, but right now she doesn't meet the standards. She has no recordings released. She has not toured as a headliner. She has not been covered in any major national media. Fan1967 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your link, sir. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, policy in a nutshell. T K E 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable teenage musician. A single local TV appearance doesn't do much; I was interviewed on local TV twice myself for my proclivity to swing a referee-on-a-noose doll at Springfield Indians hockey games. Everyone gets 15 minutes of (quasi-)fame at some point. RGTraynor 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per comments by Fan1967. -Big Smooth 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, vanity - 'nuff said. Fishhead64 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable vanity. Sheeeeesh. RasputinAXP c 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, she's also been on "Voices of America" radio show, which aired for at least 30 minutes nationally, and in other places around the world (it was even translated into Vietnamese). It should also be noted that wikipedia has its own article on "cello rock", a genre in which Kaitlyn is most notable in the Omaha music scene. —Gnome (talk • contribs) .
Comment - which still doesn't pass WP:BIO. This is also the above user's first edit. RGTraynor 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Still no verifiable citations from reliable sources, either. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete due to non-notability. See WP:MUSIC. Wstaffor 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Le-Nguyen

This is an autobiography. It was created by an IP October last year, but this seems to be a one-person IP,202.67.119.44 (talk • contribs) - all of its edits are to the work and productions of this chap. The other articles edited by this IP, was to credit the subject of the article as a "star" in the film Romper Stomper, and plug a play, Children of the Dragon (also up for deletion), directed by the subject of the article. The article is only substantially edited by Nghesi30 (talk • contribs) (meaning "artist30" in Vietnamese), who created an account this year, presumably to create other articles Aussie Bia Om, Chay Vong Vong, and Australian Vietnamese Youth Media- (all up for deletion). Nghesi30 then adds the subject to the list of prominent people at Vietnamese Australian and List of Vietnamese actors.

The reason I feel that Nghesi30 is Tony Le-Nguyen, is because he is challenged to explain a copyvio at Aussie Bia Om. Nghesi30 replies at Talk: Aussie Bia Om that he is the owner of Australian Vietnamese Youth Media and the copyright - meaning Nghesi30 claims to be Tony Le-Nguyen, and has been plugging himself on Vietnamese Australian and List of Vietnamese actors.

Judging by the IP addresses involved, 202.67.119.44 (talk • contribs), 58.178.155.38 (talk • contribs), 211.27.115.141 (talk • contribs), all of whose edits are to articles related to him, I think their edits are also autobiographical.

This person is probably barely notable, but because of autobio concerns, I am putting it here.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Has an IMDB entry, so notable enough for me. Autobiographies should be discouraged, and this one appears somewhat POV. I think blnguyen did the right thing by testing community consensus on this, but I see no reason to delete. Snottygobble 03:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. More or less agree with Snotty above, should have an NPOV tag up, not an AfD! michael ^talk 03:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' - I know, but WP:AUTO seems to imply that autobiographies should be "scaled down" so-to speak.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't know *for sure* its our good friend Tony, and it hardly matters. Wikipedia users themselves can tidy up the article from it's present form. michael ^talk 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not for sure, but surer than User:Jason Gastrich, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, which was quite blatant I think!ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What parts of the current article currently aren't specifically based on factual descriptions. They all seem to lack so called "weasel words" for one. Mostly just events and dates so far. Ans e ll 04:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Very weak keep The appearances for which the subject has an IMDB profile do not, I think, confer notability; indeed, were those the sole basis on which notability rested, I would support "delete". Here, though, there seem to be enough other achievements to merit inclusion (barely). The article, per Bln, inter al., surely needs cleanup, but notability seems demonstrated. Joe 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs to be reworked as per NPOV policy, but its notability should override the initial vanity edits. Not AfD. Romper Stomper was and is a prominent Australian movie, lead actor should have representation. I would assume that factually his page is correct so far, needing sources though. Not sure about the policy for theatrical work, maybe newspaper reviews could be used as sources. Ans e ll 03:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep on notability grounds. Article needs tidying re WP:MOS: After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep on the basis he has enough notability that his name might be searched for on Wiki. If this happens and there is no article it lets down Wiki as THE place to search. Tyrenius 05:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup with a special eye for vanity. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Quite a notable actor. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, NPOV the article as it reads like an autobiography, notable actor. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable actor, I mean he's appeared on Romper Stomper - huge movie that was. If Jimmy Wales came on here and wrote an autobiography on himself would you put the article up for deletion? The article may be a little vain but it's comprehensive at least. R o gerthat ^Talk 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete An IMDB entry is not good enough, as last week's Tavolta-relations-fest showed. I don't think his work meets the bar of notability. Fishhead64 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Notability is not whether you personally have heard about something. The main movie that he played in, Romper Stomper, was a major australian hit. Its not like hes just a backyard actor. Ans e ll 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB, he's 13th billed on the cast list, which does NOT say "major role" to me, no matter how much you go on about what a major movie "Romper Stomper" was. To give some idea, some random 13th-billed parts from some movies:

Star Wars - Jack Purvis as "Chief Jawa"
The Matrix - Robert Taylor as Agent Jones"
Mad Max 2 - Moira Claux as "Big Rebecca"
Gallipoli - Reg Evans as "Athletics Official 1"
He Died with a Felafel in His Hand - Nathan Kotzur as Brisbane Goon 2

Not notable actors, not notable roles (note that for the first two, the articles are NOT for the two actors in question).

Delete Nine roles on IMDB don't say "notable" to me. --Calton | Talk 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but needs an NPOV tag. Wstaffor 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Vietnamese Youth Media

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk • contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep Join with the articles listed below describing the individual plays that have been put on. The organisation is Non-Profit so its not a commercial advertisement, Needs to be reworked to tell some more about what they do though. Ans e ll 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable theatre group. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. RGTraynor 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete If Tony Le-Nguyen is nn, so mcuh more so this group. Fishhead64 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete A google search for the phrase turns up just 25 hits, none of which make the article appear worthwhile. Delete as non-notable. Wstaffor 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie Bia Om

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk • contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community play in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Could easily be merged with the groups article to provide a decent section. Ans e ll 04:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. I know it's not the same, but if compared with, say Wikipedia:Notability (music), this isn't close. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as random group, can't see why they should be in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chay Vong Vong

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk • contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group production in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Could easily be merged with the groups article to provide a decent section. Ans e ll 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. I know it's not the same, but if compared with, say Wikipedia:Notability (music), this isn't close. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Roisterer 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete above. Blink484 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children of the Dragon

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk • contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group production in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Needs to be pared down before merging with the groups article. It is possible some of the not so blantant POV stuff could be used on the groups article as well. No need for the entire cast list though. Ans e ll 04:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. I know it's not the same, but if compared with, say Wikipedia:Notability (music), this isn't close. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn, self-promotion, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable theatre group. --Roisterer 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge nn ansell. Blink484 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, obvious self-promo. Wstaffor 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Chappell

Textbook -- and aggressive -- vanity bio. Precious few Google hits, Web, News, or Groups. Calton | Talk 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity bio as per nom. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity bio.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and for the even worse sin of superfluous quotes --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:Vanity and WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and with few google hits. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as 'caveman' vanity. --Lockley 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dileete. You would think that a businessman writing a vanity bio would at least spell the damn thing properly. RGTraynor 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity - badly-written vanity, at that. --MarcoTolo 16:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Keep. The fact that its badly written does not determine whether or not its a vanity page whatsoever. If it is in fact badly written, then it is simply a page that is in need of attention. His personal activities might be important information on Wikipedia and they seem to have been aspirations that have been realised. There's a Steve Chappell here who has wrote a well known book on DIY, whether it is the same one or not I do not know. He seems to have wrote several articles for a quarterly here too: [6] If it isn't the same guy though I'd probably ditch it. --Knucmo2 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think they're the same guy. I see nothing to link this guy (who seems like a relatively unknown computer type) with Steve K Chappell, a widely published expert on how to build log and timber houses. Actually, the second guy looks more interesting. Fan1967 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dogs Leeds

Group of aspiring student artists, started last year. Gets 5 Google hits, including this article and Wikipedia mirrors. Calton | Talk 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Self–advertising. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it fails WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Leskowitz

User page? But unlikely. Made by an AOL user. HawkerTyphoon 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment — page is already a protected deleted page. Feezo (Talk) 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I just fixed the link from PageName to Matthew Leskowitz, hope that clears up the question. The nominator blanked the page, so I restored the content to allow review. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete This should have been tagged {{db-bio}}. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Vanity. -Objectivist-C 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Guo

I believe that this page is a hoax. It was originally created (and speedied) as an attack page, then immediately recreated by the same person, who has removed deletion tags when I've placed them there but offered no explanation. "Charles Guo" + opera, "Charles Guo" + "Yi Guo", "Charles Guo" + "Guo Yi", and "Charles Guo" + "El Tigre" all get nothing on Google; and while the picture is really of someone named Yi Guo, I haven't been able to find evidence that what the article says about Yi Guo has any relationship to the truth. There are sources listed but I can't investigate them further because I don't speak the language. AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If this hadn't been initially an attack page, I would have assumed it was legit, but insufficiently referenced. That's because there is really a Chinese opera singer under the name Yi Guo [7] [8] and the names of the operas & references check out. So, clearly the author knows something about Chinese opera. Since there is a real Yi Guo, perhaps we should delete this title and move only verifiable info, from the links above, to Yi Guo. Brillig20 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This diff raises a red flag for me. If there were such huge mistakes (date of birth off by 18 years, stated he was known for directing rather than performance) in the original text of the article, how reliable is it now - considering that all this material was contributed by the same author? Based on the English sources we've got, the only thing we can verify is basically that he's a Kunqu artist who graduated from the Shanghai Chinese Opera Academy and he performs in clown roles. That's not even a stub. Also, I am not convinced that Yi Guo meets WP:BIO... lack of Google hits doesn't necessarily mean much here, but I don't get the impression from the Kunqu website that he has done much that would merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article about him. Compare his bio to the bio of Grace Hui-hsin Wang on that same website or the Wikipedia article on Méi Lánfāng. I am far from an expert on Kunqu theater and I do believe that such topics are woefully underrepresented on Wikipedia, but my instinct is telling me that something is not right here. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Google tests dont really have any meaning with non-latin based languages. If he has been a prominent performer then it may still only be in chinese script. So the DOB was off by 18 years, if its right now then its okay right. Trouble I have is finding more sources for it. I hate to have to say it but it seems like a hoax. Ans e ll 13:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I met Yi Guo on a trip to Beijing last year. I talked to him on the plane, and he called himself "Charles." I apologize for my mistake about the date of birth, but this is a real person who addresses himself as "Charles." I believe having articles such as this one on Beijing opera is essential; we must broaden our horizons. Sure, Yi is not the most famous actor, but he is certainly well regarded for his performances and is well known in the Beijing opera circuit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eadinsmore (talk • contribs) .

Can you point out which information in the article comes from which sources, maybe using some footnotes? Unfortunately, your personal conversations with him can't be used as a source for the article, so we will probably have to move it to Yi Guo unless there is another source for that. But if I could just get some reassurance that this information is coming from reliable sources, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or merge if there's an article under his other name. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for now, would support relisting under Yi Guo if sourced properly. Wstaffor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Fisher-Koeln

DeletePresident of non-notable file company. Film is not yet released and has 28 google hits. Nathan Fisher Koeln has eight unique hits himself. Montco 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DEEEEEEEEEEEElete --Deville (Talk) 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete - ridiculous vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, is entirely non-notable --Mason 03:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Likeliest advertizing. Take it to the same place as I take pizza delivery advertizement leaflets that come through my letterbox. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The refrigerator door? T K E 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No. In the bin. I don't eat pizza. Anthony Appleyard 06:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the most fun things for me on Wikipedia are the varients of English; I truly enjoy it. T K E 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Why this wasn't tagged {{db-bio}} and made it on to AfD, I'll never know. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per above. Also props to Deville, very nice. SorryGuy 06:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete definitely non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy A7 and marked as such. Alba 18:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, then redirect. I'm not protecting for the time being, but feel free to post a request on WP:RFPP if problems arise. Stifle (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Council of Private Colleges and Universities

According to CBS' 60 minutes this "accreditation group was set up by Hamilton University for Hamilton University"[9] According to John Bear it is a "fake accrediting agency set up by the Wyoming-based diploma mill, Hamilton University."[10]. This information is already in Hamilton it is not independent of Hamilton. This article should be deleted and redirected to the main article Hamilton. Is is also tied to American State University (the original name of Hamilton) and the church ran by the Hamilton operator who used said church for religious exemption with Hamilton. Arbusto 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Hamilton University. Arbusto 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect per Arbustoo. Montco 03:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
After merging any useful, non-redundant information, redirect to Hamilton University. (I don't see why the page needs to be deleted, or why this even had to go to AFD. I would have just boldly merged and redirected.) dbtfz^talk 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently because of a revert war over the issue. Tupsharru 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as per above --Mason 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as per above --Ardenn 05:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and protect the redirect page (but put it in Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations first). Allow recreation as independent article, iff it turns out to do business with other diploma mills than Hamilton University under its various names. Tupsharru 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as per above. SorryGuy 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:34, 13 April 2006* (UTC)
Redirect and protect. Categorize per Tupsharru (above). --MarcoTolo 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The question really is does this agency exist and does it accredit? If it accredits we should keep the article. If it does not exist then it should be removed from List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning and this article should be deleted. I would point out that the CBS link above does not name the ACPCU. It was also not named in the video. The John Bear link does not say that this agency is exclusive to Hamilton. Given the inconclusive evidence, I believe the article should be kept. The goal with all these accreditation mill/diploma mill looks to be exposure to me since if we were going by notability this along with most of the articles would be deleted (or merged in a single article since they are all similar scams). Therefore, why reduce the exposure through a redirect? -- JJay 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, give proof then. If you offer proof that it "accredits" groups that are not Hamilton-related I will change my vote. Arbusto 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my comment. -- JJay 01:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you offer proof that it accredits more than Hamilton-related schools. Here is a link [11] listing only one "school" accredited by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities. That "school" is Hamilton and the source is The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 23, 2001. That source is linked in the Hamilton article already. Arbusto 03:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that link since I had posted it to the article talk page. It changes absolutely nothing from my initial comment. -- JJay 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you knew that "[12] listed only one 'school' accredited by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities" and yet you posted there is "inconclusive evidence" without offering any proof to contradict the The Chronicle of Higher Education. Arbusto 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the link says that this was set up by Hamilton. No one is disputing that. How many times do you intend to post the same link? Or for that matter, how long do you want this to continue? Given the present line-up on this page, I hardly think that the article is going to be kept. -- JJay 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The point wasn't that it was set up by Hamilton. The point was that article includes schools connected to various fraudulent accreditors. There is only one "school" listed as "accredited" by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which is Hamilton. The other fake accreditors mention various schools and even the vague "and others." That is the point of the link. Arbusto 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See my initial comment above. -- JJay 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass 07:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything relevant and non-repetitive to Hamilton University and then redirect. Wstaffor 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pikmin Creatures

This article is mainly a lower-qulaity version of Enemies of Pikmin, which I wrote myself and which contains all of the information listed in this article. Also, is poorly formatted and has been marked for cleanup. There really isn't anything to merge, so I think it should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Enemies of Pikmin. RyanG e rbil10 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, possibly merge with Pikmin or Enemies of Pikmin as per nom --Mason 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Enemies of Pikmin. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and merge anything relevant, if any. --InShaneee 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to Enemies of Pikmin. The only real difference between the two articles is this one's inclusion of the Pikmin themselves, but only as a list item. So, redirect. WarpstarRider 01:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per nom. Wstaffor 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic cavitation

~~Does not convey any useful information not already covered in alchemy. Description of process can be found at electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)~~

Comment. On second thought, it should probably just be a redirect to electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Page was originally a simple (but false) definition, has since been expanded. Isopropyl 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~I agree. Speedy redirect.~~ dbtfz^talk 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Change to neutral. For all I know, this could have something to do with Sonicare. :-) dbtfz ^talk 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but correct / expand contents, the article is currently inadequate. Move to more frequently used phrase "Acoustic cavitation" or Merge into Sonochemistry, bubble fusion or sonoluminescence. Ande B 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What? In what universe is sonic cavitation a synonym for electrolysis? I don't see how a process proposed to drive a hot confined fusion reaction could also be a process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Per google it seems like the best redirect it to bubble fusion. At some point in the future a new article could be written for sonic cavitation which would point to bubble fusion as one of many uses. Thatcher131 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. What the devil does this term even mean? Isopropyl 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just going on basic terminology sonic cavitation means using sound waves to make bubbles. One example is the sonicating water baths used to clean instruments and jewelry. Another is the laboratory technique sonication. There are claims in the bubble fusion article that doing this on a very tiny but very intense scale causes a form of cold fusion. Unless someone wants to write it up properly describing and referencing the different scales and uses, ~~I suggest redirect to bubble fusion since that seems to be the most notable current use for this specific term.~~ Thatcher131 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's acceptable now but certainly should be expanded further. OK to keep Thatcher131 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the horseshit and replaced it by a short sensible stub. Keep. Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony Appleyard. As a sensible stub, knowledgeable people can develop it into a meaningful article. Ande B 06:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Bubble fusion. -Objectivist-C 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; the new stub is fine. Sonic cavitation definitely not a form of electrolysis. It's related but not equivalent to bubble fusion, sonoluminescence, or sonication. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, current form. As per Zetawoof. --blue520 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also thank you Anthony Appleyard for getting rid of the crud. --blue520 09:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, physically notable phenomenon. --Xorox 12:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep rewrite is fine Kotepho 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Entry needs significant expansion, but now that several folks have made changes its worth keeping as a stub. --MarcoTolo 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm then taking the non-admin, normal editorial action of recreating as a redirect to Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets. Stifle (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outlaw 8

A "brigade" of the Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets, an ROTC-esque organization. There are a number of "brigades", but I don't see how they could be considered notable; from here they look like university student groups (I can't tell if there is year-to-year continuity of the brigades). The article is completely vanity, written in the first person and mostly names, with little content that could possibly be relevant in a year or two. The suggestion to merge with Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets has been removed by the author. I don't think there's anything in here worth merging, anyway; this is a non-notable subgroup of a notable university group. Delete. bikeable (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally put out the merge on the article. At this point, I would support a redirect to Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets. Montco 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a few reasons why its wrong, #1, a brigade would imply that we are army, but if you read The Corps page you would see that we are in the Wing, not the brigade. We are an outfit of the Air Force ROTC at A&M. #2, if you read closely to the A&M page, we are an Outfit. hints why there is no need to be merged with the whole corps page. each outfit has their own histroy, own legacy. which unless you are an aggie, and you where in the corps, you will not understand. considering, i havent spend much time working on it, will be updating it constenly for a while(next 3 years or so). I am trying to dig up as much information as i can, to make the page more full, of useful information. I appologise for sounding rude, but it is aggrivating that the pages hasnt even been up for 24 hours, and i am being badgered about the content not being usful. I do not intend to be rude, i am just pointing out some of the facts that you might not understand if you are not from Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. I am currently going and gathering as much information, about the outfits history, and past so i can make the page more usful to those people who might want to look.

Weak keep if thoroughly rewritten. The article at least suggests that the group has some year to year continuity. I know next to nothing about student life at Texas A&M, other than by rumour and repute, but it may be that this is an institution similar to a fraternity or sorority, conditioned by the local quasi-military student culture. If so, it may be notable enough to pass: especially given the fact that due to conditions unique to Texas A&M, student organizations founded there are ill adapted to spread to other universities. At minimum it must be thoroughly rewritten for NPOV and preferably in the third person. Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, rotcruft. Are small university clubs genuinely notable enough for articles? RGTraynor 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete only because I doubt that a sub-group of a Group at a single University will be notable. Re-writing the article is a must either way.--70.10.129.182 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete without question. NN and some big ol' WP:VSCA; this group should use their own website for this and not Wikipedia. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything relevant to Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets and redirect. Wstaffor 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask those who know (book)

Delete The article was created over a year ago (in December 2005) and since then only has three edits of which only the first was for the actual article (other two tags). The article does not establish why the book is notable. Jersey Devil 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable book.--陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. Book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable book, probably advert. Not enough content. --Xorox 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge google pulls up some citations. Kotepho 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed after the article grew from being longer than a sentence. Kotepho 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Amazon sale rank: zero. (And as it is, looking at the web copy, it's wall-to-wall rants.) RGTraynor 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RGTraynor. Fishhead64 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if you ask me -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RGT. RasputinAXP c 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Muhammad al-Tijani. The book is highly controversial in the Islamic world (and even here!). The external link is useful. Lambiam ^Talk 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is highly controversial you should be able to dig up some sources. Even his bio has none. Do we really need one sentence stubs on his articles when the main article is three sentences? Kotepho 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria states:

Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

This book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Book is highly controversial among Muslims. Being a short article is not a grounds for deletion. --Striver 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone fixes the WP:BAI "Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about." Which if the book is truly controversial should be relatively easy.Bridesmill 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Striver 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete mo listing, anywhere...nn.--MONGO 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable book article. -Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Muhammad al-Tijani. His four books could be written as separate articles or could all fit on his article, but either way, they appear to be notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion. --Hyperbole 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Looking around, I think it's notable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husain Mohammad Jafri

Delete article does not establish how the person is notable and violates WP:V with no sources. Hasn't been updated since 2005 and a yahoo search of the name brings up 1,130 hits. [13] Jersey Devil 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Work published by non-vanity press, thus notability established. Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Insh'allah! RGTraynor 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SorryGuy 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RasputinAXP c 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Someone who gets published by Oxford University Press surely can't be all that non-notable. Lambiam ^Talk 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Irishpunktom and Lambiam, easly fullfills WP:BIO --Striver 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded. The article at the moment contains essentially nothing other than the fact that he wrote the book. He could be notable, but, from the article, I don't see anything that deserves a seperate page.
Keep. This isn't my forte, but from what I can tell, he seems to be a notable Islamic scholar. Aga Khan University is the 1,000 lb. gorilla of colleges in Pakistan. -Colin Kimbrell 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Irishpunktom --Hyperbole 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as published author per Lambiam. Monicasdude 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fecalism

Neologism, only 95 Googles. I had intended to {{prod}} it, but the template said in large red font: "PROD is currently suspended due to technical difficulties!" King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NFT --Icarus 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NFT. bikeable (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and then one day, at band camp... -Dawson 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete no hats on wikipedia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fecalism meet NTF, NTF meet Fecalism. Some things were made for each other, but not everything was made for Wikipedia.--blue520 09:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:PN. Danny Lilithborne 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as quickly as possible. No fecalism in Wikipedia.--Francisco Valverde 14:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as NFT, per others here and article's own opening sentence. Daniel Case 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. --MarcoTolo 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per DL, and shovel it onto farmland where it belongs. RGTraynor 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

Delete the article is entirely original research. Jersey Devil 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, just looks to me like it needs references. It's pretty much factual. Brillig20 04:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (it's a valid and highly noteworthy topic), rename (the current title is awkward and unprofessional), add references (since obviously many exist in this area) and expand (since this is currently little more than a stub). Clean-up, not deletion, is warranted here, as is almost always the case for articles on noteworthy topics that are tainted by original research. If it is deemed absolutely necessary, and if no one steps forward to try and help bring this article out of the gutter, I wouldn't oppose merging this into Comparative religion as a subsection, since it's currently so short and since comparing religions based on whether they belong to the Western world or Eastern world is only one (and not an especially valid one) of many methods for broad religious comparison. -Silence 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep/rename as per user:Silence. --Xorox 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep needs to be renamed to fit in with the MOS but the concept is worthy of an encyclopedic page, even if the current page definitely does not reflect that in its quality. Ans e ll 13:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with comparative religion, per Silence. Fishhead64 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete this article will always be original research and highly POV. We could have an article listing and narrating comparisons made by qualified people, but any primary comparision is just original research. All ideas of 'this influenced that' or 'this is like that' will be met with 'according to whom?'--Doc ^ask? 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And any question of "according to whom?" will be met (eventually, at the least) with a citation or a removal, as is the case with all Wikipedia articles. I fail to see how "this influenced that" is any less citable here than anywhere else, nor how "this influenced that" is restricted to this article (or how this article deals solely, or even largely, with influences!); in fact, it plays a major role in the religion article in general. -Silence 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Silence. Lambiam ^Talk 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep lol, he manages to afd article that i have just added a "see also" link to :D --Striver 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep with renaming and sources, per Silence. Wstaffor 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep D. Wo. 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massasoit amateur radio association

I originally prod-ed this article, but due to the bug with the prod templates, I instead nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD/A7. After some discussion with the article's chief contributor I've concluded that it's definitely not a speedy candidate; thus, I'm listing it on AfD. I'm not familiar with any policy that addresses amateur clubs, but it seems as though WP:N would not be appropriate to employ in this case. Similar articles, such as BARC have been kept, but I still believe this topic does not warrant an article. Therefore, I vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you similarly going to mark all of the other Amateur Radio organizations for deletion? List of amateur radio organizations

Smeuse 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as per WP:N Ans e ll 13:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:N is not a speedy delete criteria:) ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I like amateur radio, but this is a NN group who haven't even updated their own website in three years. RGTraynor 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete due to it's size as a non-important radio club. ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as non-notable group. RasputinAXP c 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bige1977 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19 Bar

Prod nomination by User:Calton on these grounds: "Purely local interest: WP is NOT a travel guide/bar guide." Prod is disabled right now, so I'm creating a AFD for it. I abstain from voting on it. Icarus 04:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless somebody can demonstrate its notability somehow. Google comes up with ~500 hits, most of which are just travel guides or directories.Cheapestcostavoider 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Being the oldest gay bar in Minneapolis (founded in 1956) constitutes some notability but I don't think it's enough. JIP | Talk 06:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The oldest gay bar in the United States is probably encyclopedic. The oldest gay bar in Greenwich Village or in San Francisco might be encyclopedic -- but even then it's assuming either did something besides serve drinks. But Minneapolis? --Calton | Talk 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. This provides SOME info, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by tdxiang (talk • contribs).
Delete per Calton. Harr o5 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nice story. No place on Wikipedia. If the author wants any chance whatsoever of redeeming his/her article, they should add to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.124.122.119 (talk • contribs) .
Delete, nn bar. BTW, prod backup is in effect, works now. --Rory096_(block) 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Wstaffor 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect - but I have deleted it then redirect it so that nobody restores the deleted material. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slaves freed by Abu Bakr

Delete any information here can easily be put into the Abu Bakr article. No need for the page to exist. Jersey Devil 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Abu Bakr, as the page provides little other than a list of names. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Nominated to prove a point on Jersey devils long-running crusade against striver. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Abu Bakr article as per JD, Aero and Savidan. --Xorox 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge per nom as paragraph rather than as list. Шизомби 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, merge optional. Do we really need a list of 8 slaves without individual notability? Imagine, if you will, the article Slaves freed by Abraham Lincoln. BTW, yeah, so JD is on a long-running crusade. Some of that crusade is bogus, but some, like this, is pretty darn valid. -- GRuban 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per above. SorryGuy 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per aeropagitica. Fishhead64 21:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Irishpunktom. Lambiam ^Talk 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep This was in the Abu Bakr article, but was deleted since it ruined prose, it was unbalancing the article, so a spin out was created to handle something that was to small to fitt in the main article. Topic is valid and notable. --Striver 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we didn't create new articles for things too small to fit in the main article, but for things too large to fit there. -- GRuban 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, i meant it was to much text for a event in his life. --Striver 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is only 6 sentences long, most of which is already in Abu Bakr. I suggest adding something like the following to Abu Bakr#During the lifetime of Muhammad:

Before the Hijra, Abu Bakr purchased the freedom of several Muslims who were slaves and suffered torture at the hand of their owners. These slaves were: Bilal, Abu Fakih, Ammar, Abu Fuhayra, Lubaynah, Al-Nahdiah, Umm Ubays, and Zinnira. Many of them also became companions of Muhammad.

Surely there is room for that in the Abu Bakr article. -- GRuban 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Try and merge it, im all for it. Just as long as the information is available here or there, im happy. I had what you sugested, but it got deleted implying it unbalanced the text. --Striver 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying.... GRuban 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it worked. User:Zoe has reworked the paragraph a bit, but that'a an editing matter, I'm sure you and she can work it out between you, I'm bowing out as I'm sure you each know more about the subject than I. Striver, if this merge satisfies you, you can change your vote to Merge, and since you're the creator that will make this discussion able to be Speedy closed. Or, heck, you can just be bold and change the article to a redirect to the appropriate section of Abu Bakr yourself, I'm sure no one will object. -- GRuban 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. But i will recreat the article if the information is yet again edited out of the Abu Bakr article. --Striver 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, could be merged back into Abu Bakr, but I don't see why. Wstaffor 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and put back into Abu Bakr. It is a POV title - should we also have titles Iraqis freed by George W. Bush or Jobs created by George W. Bush?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- What kind of argument is that? What would be wrong with a title like Buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, for example? I wouldn't want to see a page List of gourmet dishes invented by Colonel Sanders either. Does that mean then we cannot keep List of English words invented by Shakespeare? Lambiam^Talk 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  - The title inherently selects only positive actions taken by the subject, and thus constitutes a tribute page, same as my hypotheticals, whereas the List of English words invented by Shakespeare does not.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Look people, we can stop debating; the article is no more. It's now a redirect page. Lambiam ^Talk 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment, ok but delete the redirect, who is going to search for "Slaves freed by Abu Bakr"?--Jersey Devil 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Even if it does no good being there, it certainly does no harm. There is a chance, however small, that someone may one day search for that term. --Hyperbole 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a delete. --Striver 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy. I created a redirect from William Grammer to Speeder (fan film), as well. Jkelly 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Grammer

Vanity entry, editor appears to be subject of article. Google search brings up less than 300 returns; more specific "William Grammer" +Speeder (to narrow the field) brings back only 38 unique returns. Delete or userfy. MikeWazowski 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 Proof of SPEEDER's and William Grammer's involvement with Cannes from starwars.com:

http://www.starwars.com/community/fun/fanfilm/news20050512.html

Userfy T K E 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and delete Subject doesn't appear to have reached notable Producer/Director status yet. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and delete (and encourage the subject to spell his surname "Grammar"; it just looks better). If SPEEDER was screened at Cannes to promote Revenge of the Sith, its director might well be notable; a search on the Cannes website, though, yields zero results for the film (a search for Grammer comes up similarly empty), and the subject's other achievements surely do not confer notability. Joe 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- CommentIn response to my PROD of SPEEDER, an anon editor has, on that article's talk page undertaken to show that SPEEDER was indeed screened at Cannes in the promotion of Revenge of the Sith; even assuming arguendo that the film was screened as described in the article (cf., as a typical Cannes entry), and even as the film, on those grounds, might be notable, its director, I conclude, isn't, and so I'm sticking with my views supra.
Comment (moved this from the nom, to which it had been appended Joe 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)) Appropriate information for subject of SPEEDER. Same info can be found on imdb.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Namcoking (talk • contribs).
Keep due to posted link to starwars.com. Being screened at Cannes, whether promotional or not, equals notability in my book. Wstaffor

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman^{L} 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sohan mikkilineni

"A native of Southeastern Michigan, this high school student is known far and wide for being an arrogant, (amazingly intelligent), self-absorbed, narcissistic, annoying, megalomaniacal person." etc. I speedy tagged it, he contested it. Whatever. It's non-notable vanity nonsense vandalism. Brillig20 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Seems to me it qualifies as A7. I don't see any effort to establish notability. Brillig tagged it pretty well: "non-notable vanity nonsense vandalism". As usual, Geogre's Law applies. Fan1967 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal vision workbook

blatant spam Icarus 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

delete agree. Brillig20 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertising an unpublished book. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--blue520 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NameSecure

Ths domain registrar doesn't assert any claim to notability or any reason it should have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Mason 05:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NicM 07:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I routinely check out domain information and I frequently stumble upon registrations through this company. What would differentiate a random registrar from a wiki notable company? ccwaters 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, something that puts them in the news. Ardenn 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --light darkness ^(talk) 16:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "chopin impromptu in gb major"

This article is unnecessary and should be deleted. All this information is already on Frédéric Chopin. Mason 05:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This article is not redundant and has potential for expansion to feature in-depth analysis of the composition. I have cleaned up the original article and moved it to Impromptu No. 3 (Chopin) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music). Defrosted 10:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, now it could probably just be expanded --Mason 23:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, title was incorrect but has been fixed. Certainly notable, etc. —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 13 April 2006 @ 13:52 (UTC)
Weak keep it could serve as a decent article, but as it stands now it isn't that great. Kotepho 14:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup. SorryGuy 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up Notable piece. Fishhead64 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Clean-up I concur it could use some editing, but think its a worthy enough piece to warrant an entry. (Kateheartspiano 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
Either Keep per above or merge with the main article on Chopin. Freddie 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up. Wstaffor 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that it's been moved to Impromptu No. 3 (Chopin), but perhaps delete the redirect to it, which is way out of naming conventions and won't be useful. Mangojuice 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Eskog, as creator/only significant editor requests deletion. -- Saberwyn 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp

Temporary page made for a peer review of List of Northwest Territories capitals the article has since been redirected and evolved into History of Northwest Territories capital cities the temp page is obsolete and no longer needs to exist Cloveious 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The page appears to have served its purpose. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SorryGuy 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fishhead64 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominated, evolved and obsolete. LookNorth 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a prime candidate for speedy deletion. Lambiam ^Talk 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I created the page as an illustration. I now use my own sandbox for this. --maclean25 06:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petricore

Prod tag added by User:Bikeable due to "dict def that I can't find elsewhere, and WP:NOT a dictionary". Prod is suspended, so I'm switching it to AFD. Icarus 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless reference and citation can be provided, otherwise Transwiki to Wiktionary if so. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless references can be provided per aeropagitica. I noticed after prodding this that the author had left on the Talk page, I can remember hot dry summers in my youth, and an uncle calling it petricore. Does anyone have any more information, or knowledge of research? Memories of a word used by an uncle are not enough to go on. bikeable (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable dicdef. Wstaffor 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, though from reading the arguments of many of the "delete" voters (JamesTeterenko for instance), this is much to do with the quality of the article and not not the notability of the subject. Right now, it consists only of a fleet list and a list of routes and little real encyclopedic information (history, ownership, community impact), hence no prejudice against a rewritten article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Transit

un-encyclopedic list of busses and routes Icarus 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No vote yet, I want to see some thoughs; mine is "A bus schedule?" T K E 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete A list of buses in a corporate fleet and a list of their routes, with no references or claims to notability for either - how can this be useful for a researcher? (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where to catch a bus in Brandon, perhaps. _{Sarcasm per my disclaimer} T K E 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete New York City Subway rolling stock has a comparable level of detail, but then, that's a somewhat more notable system with custom equipment. --John Nagle 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Brandon, Manitoba — although I note that articles on even significantly larger cities in Canada, such as Victoria, British Columbia do not contain sections on public transit. So perhaps delete. Fishhead64 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above users -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; tag for improvement as necessary. I've seen useful and interesting articles on lots of comparable public transit systems in midsized cities. Samaritan 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no question that municipal transit articles define their own special universe of cruft, but this isn't actually any worse than a lot of other city bus system articles that have been kept in the past. It's certainly expandable, if someone cares that much, and unless you're prepared to pitch for a general WP consensus against local transit systems I don't see how this one can be considered less notable than the many others whose articles already exist. Keep, if only because it ain't harming anything. Bearcat 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete because none of the content is encyclopedic. Would consider changing my vote if someone were to expand the article. -- JamesTeterenko 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency File

advertisement spam Icarus 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete No claims as to the notability of the company. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per SorryGuy. Sorry, guy!--陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:CORP.--blue520 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP and as advertising. --E lkman - ^(talk) 15:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above users -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn, WP:CORP. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gran Turismo cars

A hellishly long and unsourced list of cars from a video game, in impossible-to-maintain table form. This is not encyclopedic. Material more-than-sufficiently covered in main article. brenneman^{L} 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fancruft, there are a plethoria of fansites to find this information. T K E 05:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fancruft, videogamecruft, non-encyclopædic. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopaedic.--blue520 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe rename List of cars featured in Gran Turismo, but I have never seen/played Gran Turismo. --Dangherous 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above users voting del -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete It could be easily verified/referenced by game strategy guides and sites such as GameFAQs. However, Wikipedia is not a game guide so delete. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
keep the game is notable for its amount of real cars included in the games. one thing that can be done is split the article into 4 parts, one for each game. cars in GT1, GT2, GT3, GT4. this is not game guide either, because it does not list statistics applicable to the actual game, just cars in it. its no different than listing the beastiary of the Final Fantasy Series. which has been done.Barcode 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, this information is notable, if only barely. Should be arranged by installment as suggested above. Wstaffor 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laurentian University Model Parliament

Delete as vanity/advertisement/non-notable, plus does not have any content not implied by 'Laurentian University' and 'Model parliament' separately. Author has twice removed nomination for speedy delete Peter Grey 05:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ ~~I vote no, as I do all university organizations that are not national.~~ T K E 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep T K E 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep; this is a useful article. It would be a shame to lose it. Plus, from my understanding, Laurentian University is a national university organisation. So I am unsure of the credibility in the criticism from TKE. kroche14

Comment. I meant a national organization. But I am changing to Keep, becaue upon rereading the article, they are much more notable than most other college clubs. So Wikipedia is not paper. Kroche14, I meant no bad faith by the vote. T K

E 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment'.. Which 'nation' are you refering to? This is the global English Wikipedia, NOT the U.S.A. Wikipedia. Reading the article, I see nothing of note about this organisation, but then I don't personally feel that's justification to delete an article. Storage is cheap. Markb 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm aware this isn't just the USA show, I even make a keep vote once of "Australians are Wikipedians Too." By national, I meant widespread across whatever the parent country is. There are several articles created everyday on individual university clubs. I admit I skimmed the article quickly, but I corrected myself. T K E 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The notability of Laurentan University is not up for debate, only a once-a-year bit of theatrics that only concerns members of one club at one university. Peter Grey 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to the political association below. This will add notability to an otherwise generic entry. Marskell 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: What do you mean when you say "university organization"? I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one. HistoryBA 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: When I said national, I didn't not mean the university. I meant the particular club. T K E 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*Response to... "Question: I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one." There are many students currently studying at Laurentian from Northern and Southern Ontario, as well as Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and many international students from France, (Laurentian is bilingual after-all), China, Viet-Nam, and Japan. kroche14

It's just like any other university, its open to anyone. Mike _{(T C)}

17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. This appears to be notable enought to be considered simply more than an ordinary campus club. It's fairly significant that this organization is permitted use of the House of Commons. That's not just a hall that anyone can rent out. It's obviously a significant enough organization for the Speaker to decide to grant permission for its use. (By the way, while not expressly stated in the article, it's obvious from reading that it refers to an organization in Canada). Fluit 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up: I decided to actually follow the advice of the AfD textbox in order to help this article along. I've undertaken what is mainly a major copy-edit, and (hopefully) removed anything that's not NPOV. I now leave it up to the powers that be. Fluit 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. This article along with numerous others by user:kroche14 are about non-notable university minutia. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. So this university club gets to use the House of Commons hall (during a time when it's otherwise empty, by the bye) for their make-pretend game once a year. Big deal, there are high school moot legislatures in every state in the United States, and no doubt in Canadian provinces as well, that do the same thing, get the use of the legislative halls for a day or two, have photo ops with smiling politicians, and aren't restricted to a couple schools yet. If this model parliament was thrown open to every university in Canada, or even every one in Ontario, it might be notable ... but that's not the case, is it? RGTraynor 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Use of the national legislative chambers seems a bit of a step up from state and provincial halls. I suspect that we would have an article about any youth use of the United States Capitol (which seems like a pretty strange name - I wonder why it is not formally called the "United States Capitol Building" or something like that?) j-beda 15:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- JamesTeterenko 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep...this entery is notable. if it was Queens Universiyt who did this no one would question the credablity beacuse queens is higher in the Mcleans rankings, but lu isnt but we have a good poli sci program. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cw wilson (talk • contribs).

Comment. No one is questioning the standing of your university, just the notability of a club from it. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment And trust me, few of the editors voting here give a whit about university rankings or rivalries. T e K E 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: quite. Strike Laurentian and substitute Harvard and I can't imagine what would change about any voting here. RGTraynor 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sure if Harvard had a model "congress" that used the Capitol in Washington D.C., it would certainly be notable. Fluit 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NN. rehpotsirhc 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 05:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete This has nothing to do with the reputation of Laurentian, it has everything to do with the fact that Wiki precedent has it that individual student organizations, besides the Student Union on each campus, is not noteable enough, in and of itself, for an article. pm_shef 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

strong keep The Laurentian University Model Parliament is notable. First of all it is one of two universities which are granted permission to use the House of Commons. Second, it is ran by Rand Dyck, one of Canada's most notable Political Scientists, his publications include Canadian Politics Critical Approches, a text book which is used by almost every university coast to coast, and since he is running this event as an intevative way in order to have university students understand politics and their government, why would this not be notable enought to deserve an article. Thirdly, it is a serious acidemic excerise done by university students, if this was done at harvard there by a promant professor at Harvard in the US Capitol there would not be this dabate for inclusion. Finally, it is one of the few events where Laurentian Students at Sudbury are mixed at Laurentian Students at Barrie, this is notable beacuse of the inclusion of the different campuses which usually have nothing to do with each other. I strongly hope that this article is kept, it needs some serious editing, maybe merging the section concerning the SGA at the LU with this as a subsection editied, but i think it is notable enought to be kept.
Delete per WP:NN and Wiki precedent. Wstaffor 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this material belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge into Laurentian University if you must. Stifle (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laurentian university political science association

This appears to be identical in content to Laurentian University Model Parliament, which is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge the model parliament above and keep under this title. Marskell 08:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment when I created this page my intention was to have this page redirect to the Laurentian University Model Parliament article. So, I'm still not sure how to redirect, but if I knew how, I would likely have this page redirect to my other page. kroche14

Speedy Delete. This is another is in a flury of non-notable articles created by user:kroche14. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 15:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- JamesTeterenko 02:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vegaswikian 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Tomb Ride. If the Model Parliament survives AfD (which is possible), then it probably should survive as a redirect page. RGTraynor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Vatican City, Scouting in Equatorial Guinea, Scouting in Guinea-Bissau, Scouting in Mali, Scouting in São Tomé e Príncipe, Scouting in Somalia

~~There is no Scouting in any of these places at all. Why not Scouting on the Moon, Scouting before the Big Bang, Scouting in Middle-earth, or Vatican City at the 2000 Summer Olympics?~~ Appears to be no verifiable information on Scouting in these countries. I did not nominate the articles which indicated some history of scouting, or a movement to establish scouting specifically in that country. I abstained from nominating Scouting in Eritrea because there was a picture. ~~But these articles have to go.~~ The ones I am nominating all appear to have been cookie cut by a single author who can only be described as the antithesis of mergism. In the main article, there could be a list of countries without Scouting, but these stubs are excessive. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Crystal Ball T K E 06:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. My vote was made before these additional articles were added. I'm standing by my vote for now, it is subject to change by consensus. T K E 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Kukini 07:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Scouting#Scouting_around_the_world something like:

Scouting exists (be it embryonic or widespread) in the following countries but there is no National Scout Organization which is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement at the present time.

- Vatican City
- The Moon
- Middle-earth

and so on, and redirect the individual articles. Other countries such as Laos have individual articles; the countries in this AfD could simply be marked on the main article. It needs to expand on what "Scouting exists" means, though. Tonywalton | Talk 10:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect.--Xorox 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Merge? Have you read these articles? Their text is all identical and appears to be copied from this website. You realize that I was joking about the moon and Middle-earth, right?~~ savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Scouting on the Moon," there's a bandname. T K E 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

keep-the reason I did the articles as I did, cookie-cutter or no, is that very little is known about the organizations, but the fact that there is a Scouting organization there is in accordance with the WikiProject Scouting templates and guidelines. Chris 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason "very little is known about the organizations" is that they do not exist. Are there Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts in Vatican City? No. Jonathunder 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you've researched it? --Naha|^(talk) 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

keep per Chris. Rlevse 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vatican City scouts? You've got to be kidding. Jonathunder 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- In the spirit of assuming good faith, I will not assume you are mocking the Vatican City, but rather mean something else by this comment? By itself, the comment does not seem very becoming of an admin. --Naha|^(talk) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Chris NThurston 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect, as per Xorox. Johntex\^talk 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
keep Griz 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I know I'm fighting upstream, but creating articles concerning subjects about which nothing can be said seems to me a bizarre way to build an encyclopedia. Fishhead64 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"subjects about which nothing can be said"? Something can be said about every subject, else you'd not have a Wikipedia. I think it might be appropriate to say "subjects about which little is yet known", but that is a 'yet' until someone from those nations run with it. Chris 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Interest in Scouting articles on Wikipedia is quite recent and the numbers involved in even large countries outside the USA like the UK and Australia is quite small but growing. Before too long people from these small countries will add content. Most of them probably do have scouting but we need locals to give us the information. It is not like the Olympics where we know whether a country had participants or not. --Bduke 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I have found some small pieces of evidence that Scouting in these countries has existed in the past and I have edited them all except the Vatican City article. There I tend to agree that Scouting would likely be linked to Italian Scouting although one link does suggest that they are working to WOSM recognition. --Bduke 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the harshness of my original nomination. It does appear that Scouting exists in some form in these countries although there is little verifiable information. I think it is dangerous to just "wait for someone from one of these countries to write something" because that borders on inviting original research. It seems like there is very little if any information on these which could not be said in an article like Xorox has suggested which had a list of countries where this held to be the case. Sorry for proposing a delete; it seems like merge and redirect would be the best move. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That would defeate the purposeful and very intentional idea that someone from those nations would seek out and edit the article on their own country, and it will make incomplete the lists, articles and templates that the Scouting WikiProject has been so diligent on compiling and completing.

A corellary to this would be that since Scouting in Vermont and Scouting in South Dakota have essentially stock articles at the moment, with nothing to set them apart, would we create an article "Scouting in places without very good articles"? No, it would leave gaps where there is a political entity with Scouting. Recognized or not, this is also the case with the national articles.

Having heard from savidan, I no longer believe this to be a bad faith nomination, but I still maintain even a merger into a bulk article to be ill advised, for the reasons stated above. I must stand against any deletions or mergers, and for the status quo ante. Chris 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I replied to this on my talk page. However, I do want to add in this discussion that all of the current verifiable information for these would be the same: hence one big article. The currents lists and templates would not be disrupted because we could easily redirect these pages to the merged articles. The reason I am hesitant to wait for someone from these places to write these, is that if none of us have been able to find any information, what they find is unlikely to be verifiable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The nice thing about this afd is that it has generated some interest in the smaller Scout movements, and has started to make those articles unique! :) We are indeed improving the articles so that they meet the Wikipedia inclusion criteria, and that's really what it's all about. Been digging through my Scout collections tonight, now they've each got visible proof. Chris 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

YEAH CHRIS! Rlevse 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Smerge per Tony Walton, then redirect them and mark as {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per crystal ball. Wstaffor 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per chris. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Chris and Bduke. --Naha|^(talk) 02:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The articles listed for deletion seem distinct enough now. - Kkken 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin DiCenzo

Delete. Non notable biography. Seems self promotion to me. so U m y a S ch 06:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Can any of this be verified? {{hoax}} probably, {{nn-bio}}, WP:BIO refers, if no proof forthcoming. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:V/WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO. unless verified.--blue520 09:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per blue. SorryGuy 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stimulism

Delete. Barely coherent, incomprehensible, non notable. Language is non-encyclopaediac. May be a hoax as dictionary definition of Stimulism is The theory of medical practice which regarded life as dependent upon stimulation, or excitation, and disease as caused by excess or deficiency in the amount of stimulation. so U m y a S ch 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - also note that some of the language is in first person ("Due to my strive[sic] to eliminate emotions from affecting stimulism..."), so the author is in all likelihood the sole practitioner. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed the fact that there appears to be an obsolete medical theory by the name. Does someone want to write up a quick stub on stimulism-the-medical-theory? If so, I'd want to keep that. Zetawoof^(ζ) 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:PN. What's with the "new religion" vandalism trend? Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "This is a small, uncommon religion." That means non-notable. Two new religions in one day. Wonderful. Fan1967 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Note Author has left a few comments on this AfD's discussion page - Fan1967 05:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

delete NN, OR, OMG! Pete.Hurd 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TotalGirl Magazine

Delete. Non notable, non-encyclopaediac. May be a self promotion by the author. so U m y a S ch 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - clear self-promotion ("This magazine is edited by ~~~~) Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This couldn't be more self-promotion if it tried. JIP | Talk 11:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as egregious vanity. Daniel Case 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. What WP does it not fail? WP:V, WP:Vanity and WP:NN at the very least. SorryGuy 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you Speedy delete Total Girl, everyone loves it! The vote is edited by--getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. -- PFHLai 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
TotalDelete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ongar Experiment

Appares to be an April Fool's hoax: see Talk:The Ongar Experiment -- Karada 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 10:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article looks like a hoax to me; user's only other contributions were two articles that are now copyvios and a POV edit to a television presenter's page. --E lkman - ^(talk) 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SorryGuy 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
'Delete per above -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not Delete. Dr Lazlo Pozsgay was a real doctor. My mother was a nurse at the Fyfield Clinical Research Institute and had fond memories of this rather odd man. Dr Pozsgay returned to Hungary at the time of the 1957 uprising and did not return. I myself am now a Doctor and the article is medically correct (more or less). I suspect the writer is not a doctor. I would be interested to know what efforts the other contributors to this discussion have made to verify Dr Pozsgay's work beyond doing a Google search against his name – believe it or not, there is a whole word of knowledge out there that is not on the internet. With thanks Dr John Keyes. 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep The stuff about Hungary checks out. The medical stuff is in the ball-park if a little short on detail - people have been know to appear significantly younger as consequence of surgery. Overall the article is too boring and obscure to be a hoax. Who would bother making it up? Lansdale 00:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Guynes and Cooper Guynes

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both, only credits appear to be minor roles. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --light darkness ^(talk) 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A five-year run on a major soap, plus other credits, demonstrates minimally sufficient notability. Monicasdude 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Monicasdude. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defend Your Castle

Fails to assert the game's notability. Possible speedy deletion candidate. Same goes for Defend your castle, which was created just now with a copyvio cut and paste, then redirected to Defend Your Castle. NTK 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I love this game so I have to recuse myself from this vote. Alexa rating of 13,283. Half a million google hits. It also has some associated forums and a pay version. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- But does it have an article constructed from verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources, or the potential for such an article to be constructed? -- Saberwyn 10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to recuse yourself just because you love the game, given you are a WP editor with a history, as long as you think you can make a proper judgment. But as I write below, the Alexa rank is not for the game, it's for the entire game studio's website. NTK 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep notable flash game and sadly, we do have a lot of articles without third-party sources. Kotepho 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I share Saberwyn's concern, but I do believe the potential exists. That Alexa rank number is very good for a flash game, so this is definitely notable; let it remain with a {{cleanup-sources}} tag, and see if it can be improved. Mangojuice 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Alexa rank is not for this flash game, but rather for xgenstudios.com's entire website. That rank, incidentally, is 13,283, which is not particularly good for a game studio. Certainly it does not make the game "definitely notable." NTK 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The game site is possibly notable (compare Addicting Games) but the individual game isn't notable enough to justify a separate article. --ES2 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is a very popular game. I have played it before, and it is a notable game, though may not be of much use for serrious gaming. Freddie 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep with improvements. I came to the defend your castle article looking for more strategies and only found information that is easily found in the game instructions already. I would also like to know more information about when it started, inventor, internet pop culture status, etc.. Cha 1:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott and Zachary Benes

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Ton e 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Ton e 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep They have three credits. Bhoeble 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Child actors at this age are interchangable. RasputinAXP c 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, they have three credits. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and they've got soap and movie credits. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy and Emily Walton

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Ton e 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep but delete the sick-making ga-ga-goo-goo stuff. Tonywalton | Talk 10:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (no relation)
Keep They've been on one of the top two television programmes in the UK for six years. Bhoeble 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. When they have their own doll or a multimillion dollar movie, then they're notable as child actors. RasputinAXP c 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Members of the cast of arguably the most popular soap in Britain. Jcuk
Keep per Jcuk, Bhoeble. Monicasdude 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RasputinAXP. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Violence

Delete. Non-notable guitarist in a non-notable band. "Johnny Violence" + "Aces High" gets only one non-Wiki hit. AED 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. (Google). ×Meegs 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandritter Productions, Inc.

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable company. AED 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. MikeWazowski 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto. WarpstarRider 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --light darkness ^(talk) 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Bradshaw

Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. AED 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Bonfire~~ Delete the vanity. Tonywalton | Talk 10:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. Mangojuice 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Businessrealmz

Advertising -O bli (Talk)^? 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -AED 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete mission is to "Provide a one stop website for all internet users". Wikipedia already has that covered. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Savidan. I hope it's easier to use than "Each websites has up to three categories. Ranking based on its categories(e.g. website belong to parent category appear last when child category was select and vice versa) " suggests! Tonywalton | Talk 11:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Loechner

Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. AED 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete, see [14]; he only has 9 publications in 9 years. Probably isn't notable per WP:PROFTEST, unless his Polyhedral library can be called a significant contribution. Vanity would be irrelevant if he was notable, but as he's borderline, it does concern me. Mangojuice 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to pass the professor test. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warlord2000ad

Prod tag removed, so to AfD it goes. This is a self-written (by User:Jonwillis) vanity bio/profile of a non-notable video game enthusiast. Lots of posts on gaming forums and even being a mod on the Electronic Arts forum don't seem notable enough. Could also be userfied? Canley 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -AED 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy --Ton e 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy --User:warlord200ade 16:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT)

Not to sure if i added my message correctly there, but i admit i should have read the rules more throughly i just glanced over it. What would one have to do to be classed as notable? I know that warlord2000ad is unquie to me and i often get stuff when i join new communities, games etc, hey is that you warlord2000ad from x game, or y game. part of the high end of BFROE now if you have heard of it, basically its like BF2RS but deals with stat padders etc, but running on a online ticketing system sorted out by MYIS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jonwillis (talk • contribs).

They're not rules as such, but the notability guidelines for biographical articles on Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ideally this article would be userfied, that is copied onto your user page (click on User:Jonwillis, edit and past the text) rather than the main article space. --Canley 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ive copied it into my area, thanks for your patience, delete away :P

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Blasphemy

Advertisment Sascha.leib 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What a farce! Oh everybody is falling all over themselves to keep this page!! Laugh me out the door and DELETE this article page!! Delete Digital Blasphemy and delete waldo's wallpaper too! A sock puppet for "wallpaper vault". Elmo Skidright.

This is an advertising page for one out of a thousand commercial "Desktop Wallpaper" sites. There is no need to give them free advertising space on Wikipedia.

In addition, somebody (presumably somebody from the company) has instantly removed unfavourable additions (like, references to free desktop wallpaper sites) and even unfavourable comments.

Delete Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I think the site should be deleted as per policy about a site that is commercial and contains advertising - they are a spam site seeking piggyback exposure. Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert --Ton e 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC). Ok, changed my mind. Keep but cleanup. --Ton e 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam. The sooner the better. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep It is a notable internet wallpaper design company (perhaps the most notable given the poor example of a google search, 998,000 for "digital blasphemy"). Sure, wikipedia is not for advertising. But an outline of their contribution to internet and general computer life would sufficient. Ans e ll 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep they are notable enough by my bar. I'm really tired of seeing that blue, translucent mushroom wallpaper though. Kotepho 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep fairly old notable site with a long history on the internet. Here's a link to a posible reference: Interview with creater, Also about 1200 pages link to DB according to Google. As wallpaper websites go, it's the premier in it's field. ---J.Smith 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I am the somebody who removed those references to other sites (no idea what unfavorable comments you are referring to though); these were unrelated linkspam. See Wikipedia:External links. Digital Blasphemy is a notable (enough) site. It has been around for nine years (since 1997), and was visited 25681 times yesterday alone. The article mentions a specific claim to notability that satisifies #3 on our Criteria for web content, the use of the wallpapers in Stardock's The Natural Desktop. Nevertheless, I have contacted Ryan Bliss, the owner of the site, asking for more information that satisfies the points on Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and will post it here and in the article as soon as he replies. ~MDD 46 96 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Ryan...

Date: Apr 13, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hello Ryan,

I am an editor on Wikipedia, a site I'm sure you have heard of. The
article on Digital Blasphemy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Blasphemy) was nominated for
deletion today, and I was wondering if you could provide me with any
information that would help me prevent that.

Have you had any interviews or reviews of the site by independant
sources, such as newspapers? Are there any well-known websites or
other organizations that have used your images?

I think that your site is fantastic, and most certainly notable enough
for an article on Wikipedia. However, if we have links or references
to published sources that reference your work, it will make the
article stronger.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Michael

...and he promptly replied:

Date: Apr 14, 2006 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing.  I had seen the article on Wikipedia a while ago and
thought it was interesting.  Flattering to be included.

Not sure what I can tell you.  My site was named one of the Top 100 sites on
the web by Yahoo Internet Life magazine (now defunct) back in Dec 2000.
I've been mentioned on BBC World (on the Webscape segment) and was mentioned
many times on Tech TVs "The Screensavers".   I had a write up in my hometown
paper, and I'm sure I've been written about in other papers but I can't
think of any specific examples.  To my knowledge, I run one of the most
popular "single artist" galleries online.

The accolades and free press sort of stopped not long after I opened the
members gallery.  Once you start charging for your content, people are more
reluctant to site you as an "online resource".  It's just the nature of the
game I guess.

I'm happy to be included in Wikipedia, but I'll understand if the article
gets deleted.  Let me know if you need anything else.

--
Ryan Bliss
Digital Blasphemy
http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/

~MDD 46 96 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep; Digital Blasphemy is one of the best (subjectively) and oldest wallpaper sites on the Internet. RasputinAXP c 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep on the solid grounds of "if I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia it's got to be notable", especially if a) I first heard of the site wayyy back when they were starting up in late 1990s and b) I've seen their wallpapers on completely random computers a few times... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment adverts are generally writen by the companies themselves, not by outside observers. This was originally written as an article. Ojw 17:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Keep; I have been a visitor to Digital Blasphemy for many years. I think this site has value, proven by the long history of free content and quality of work. By keeping this site in Wikipedia, newbies will be able to access it as well. --Shagy 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep As above Trebor 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think the use by a software product meets notability criterion 3 of WP:WEB. But on looking at Natural Desktop, that page looks to me to be part of a massive wikispam campaign around Stardock products. The Stardock article is ridiculously long for a minor company, and there are separate articles for dozens of its products. That by itself probably needs some attention and a big merge. I'd also like to know more about the exact relationship between Digital Blasphemy and Stardock. One should not be able to manufacture notability by linking to related products within Wikipedia. Phr 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was different consensuses [sic] redirect. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When 6021 Met 4267

Should we have articles for single tv-serie-episodes _→AzaToth 09:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment; No, but we do in many, many instances... Gardar Rurak 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as minor episode from a series so minor the contributor fails to mention it in the article. We are not TV.com. -- Saberwyn 10:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to subsections of main article. --Xorox 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment this is an article on an episode of That's So Raven, there are a couple of other articles on episodes from the same show, see List of That's So Raven episodes. I suggest that those articles be considered a part of this nomination. No vote --Eivind ^t ^@^c 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to a list of episodes. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2River

No proof of meeting WP:WEB after having the tag for over a month, and therefore has no notability. Harr o5 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Just because no one edited the article for a month and a half doesn't mean this isn't a notable topic. WP:WEB doesn't apply, as it turns out, because although 2River is an online magazine, it also publishes in print every quarter. Check out this page which shows that 2River is considered a reputable publication source. Mangojuice 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recto ratio factibilium

Not notable. Maybe Wiktionaryfiable with some quotations. Dangherous 09:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Aristotle and redirect. Tonywalton | Talk 10:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Aristotle and redirect; consider adding Wiki dictionary entry. --Xorox 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into List of latin phrases too. Kotepho 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodytalk

Is it original research? A5b 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

delete - not even enough content for a stub --Sascha.leib 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep and invite the author to expand it. The cited inventor of the system has a published work. That work is the only Ghit on bodytalk veitheim however just the term 'bodytalk' finds this. Tonywalton | Talk 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Fast. --Xorox 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete snake oil unless we can show evidence of discussions in the medical texts on which to base a verifiably neutral article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JZG and sascha.leib. Mangojuice 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete quackerycruft. NTK 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete frankly in its present state should have been speedied as linkspam-Doc ^ask? 21:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIFC

Just a local sports club in Athens, but the focus is on what services the club's fan website offers. Not notable, and just barely above CSD A7. Harr o5 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... their football team is AEK Athens FC. They've won the national championship 11 times. Their basketball team is also in the national league. It *isn't* just a local sports club. However, this article is about the sports clubs *webpage*. I can see how you missed that, it's terribly written. In summary, very notable club, but still a non-notable webpage. Delete. Average Earthman 10:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know the sports teams are extremely notable, but this looked like a plug for the website and an unrelated club. It doesn't say that the club is directly involved with AEK. Harr o5 10:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is AIFC the supporters club for AEK? If so, then 'merge to that page. Fan groups are quite well organizaed and notable in the contexct of the team. If its just a bunch of guys who like the team, then Ill change to Delete.Montco 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Justin Kussmaul

Seems to be unverifiable; no Ghits at all on "Andrew Justin Kussmaul" and none relevant on "Andrew Kussmaul". If he's so underground that Google misses him altogether, despite being "leading", he fails WP:V due to being too secret. I'm listing this for AfD in the hope that someone more familiar with the subject matter than I can confirm or deny his existence. Tonywalton | Talk 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, does not appear to be verifiable at all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just to clear up any confusion - I created the article, in good faith, by copying material that had been added to Template:Activist-stub - rather than just dumping it. TigerShark 10:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, seems to be unverifiable.--blue520 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per above. PJM 11:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity and/or unverifiable. Daniel Case 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per author's AfD endorsement. Harr o5 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alistair Crosbie

An "occasional musician" who has only done sporadic colloborations with other similarly unknown musicians, and who has a MySpace site only. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harr o5 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, [15]. Also, the article is not properly sourced. PJM 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -AED 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, you're right. The man's a footnote for now and probably doesn't merit his own entry. Delete as you wish. Ac@osr 11:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria Potomac Little League

Just an article on a small little league baseball competition. Maybe even a CSD A7 candidate as non-notable club/organisation. Harr o5 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. (Sorry, kids.) -AED 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was -speedy deleted --Durin 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample mass

Dictionary definition which has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary (see Wiktionary:sample mass). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--blue520 10:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:CSD A5 (which really should be re-worded to cover articles which already exist on another Wikiproject, I think). Tonywalton | Talk 11:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eivaagames

Tagged as a speedy for advertising and failing WP:WEB. Both are true but neither is a speedy candidate. I would prefer to {{prod}} but the toolserver is down. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. PJM 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Harr o5 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thepalace.com

Webforum with Alexa rank of 375,304 at its secondary location and over 400,000 on its supposedly primary one. Not much to say really, it's just another web forum Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Merge and redirect to The Palace (computer program). I remember this being a pretty popular program about 5 years ago (but then again, personal testimonys don't count), and think that as the main page of the software, it should be redirected to the article on the program (WP:WEB, Note 2). -- Saberwyn 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P2P TV Recorder

Non-notable and spam-ish. Wikipedia is not download.com. The author has linkspammed his products (see also HiDownload). Haakon 11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as contextless substub. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumoured converts to Islam

Speedied - this was an snowball and was listed on CSD -- Tawker 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This is about as unencyclopaedic as they get, surely. A series of rumours can't make a Wikipedia article. Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete (to make my vote clear). --Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a rumour mill Maustrauser 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopedic--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. the rumours are substantiated by publications from reputable sources. While rumours are WP:OR, referencing them is not. For example: notable conspiracy theories which obviously are at odds with the facts. --Xorox 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Substantiated from reliabel sources, you say? So which of the following sources for the Prince Charles is reliable?

The Middle East Forum ("Promoting American Interests")
Militant Islam Monitor
Daniel Pipes' blog
Truth for Muslims ("bringing a comprehensive, biblical response to Islam in America")

Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Forum Quarterly and Evening Standardare reputable, though. Correct me if Im wrong.--Xorox 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East through research, publications, and educational outreach. The Forum's policy recommendations include fighting radical Islam (rather than terrorism), convincing the Palestinians that Israel is permanent, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, better managing the democratization process, and more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Forum works to improve Middle East studies in North America." - no, that sounds a lot like a bunch of POV-pushers, not at all what I would consider a reliable source.

By Evening Standard I presume you mean the ES repeating the claim made in a book, reportedly based on a statement by the Grand Mufti of Cyprus which has (as the article points out) never been confirmed by a reliable source? In other words, hearsay? Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Xorox and WP:V which states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Tonywalton | Talk 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Yup, it's about verifiablility not truth. Verfiability from reliable sources, unlike the web forums cited in this article. So let's have a category for converts to Islam. Not a list of rumoured converts, which is subject to two separate problems: repeating other people's unproven speculation; and applying categories to living people without making any change to the person's article which is likely to get seen and challenged by the editor comunity on that article. Also note that there are constitutional implications if Prince Charles were to convert to Islam - the fact that this has not been discussed in the major British news media indicates that as speculation goes it's pretty unlikely. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic, per all above.--Jersey Devil 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. Rumours are unencyclopedic. Samantha of Cardyke 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - rumours...--Ton e 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. I appreciate the point about "verifiability, not truth," but the short list and low quality of the sources give me the impression that the purpose of this list is to publicize rumors being circulated about certain individuals by critics of those individuals. Thus it verges on being an attack page. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting Daniel Pipes' views. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. There are many places in the Internet were gossip is published... --Francisco Valverde 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The Prince Charles rumour is from unreliable sources. The Nation of Islam statement about the other rumour could be merged into the main Michael Jackson entry. Otherwise there is no point to this rumour-mongering. Keresaspa 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloids magazine. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This cannot be taken seriously. Rumours, IMO, can be written up in Wikipedia IF there are articles in reputable sources directly and extensively investigating the truth of the rumor. But the links in this article are just self-referencing speculation. Daniel Case 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can see this list getting us into nine kinds of trouble. Not to mention, what level of rumor is sufficient? If an English King can be claimed to have been a convert because one of his minters cribbed from the Islamic creed as a decorative device, should that make the list? Pat Payne 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign :) )
Delete Rumours are by definition unsubstantiated and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete just no -Doc ^ask? 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The "notable information" here is not that H.R.H. the Prince of Wales is a convert — in which case the reliablity of the source is a big issue — but that the rumour goes around in certain circles that he is a convert — which is reliably and uncontrovertibly substantiated by the given sources. Lambiam ^Talk 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See what I wrote above again. Rumors of and by themselves are unencyclopedic. Rumors about someone or something who is, if they are encyclopedic, if they are seriously investigated elsewhere (no one has had the stones yet, I see, to actually ask The Man Who Would Be Camilla Parker-Bowles's Feminine Protection if he's aslamt or not), can merit a sentence or two in the appropriate article. Not an article in and of themselves. Daniel Case 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:V. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Absurd rumors generally do not belong in Wikipedia. --Rob 07:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Xorox and Tonywalton's comments. -- Karl Meier 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and JzG's other comments. Pepsidrinka 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Big time Speedy Delete this article was created by a Sock Puppet. Netscott 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption-based planning

Original research (it looks like a student essay). Phronima 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Phronima 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is part of 3 entry structure Assumption based planning - Assumption-based planning and Critical Assumption planning. You can't delete Porter 5 forces analysis because it once was a mere research can you? --Wilcovd 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong Keep~~. In fact, I think Assumption based planning should be merged into THIS article; this one is appropriately named (they hyphen is used correctly here) and is better written. I have no idea what "looks like a student essay" means; don't all articles look that way when they're first written? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs) 12:44, April 13, 2006.

No, most don't. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe I'm not clear on what is meant by this criticism. Is this meant to mean it's original research? I think being mentioned in Harvard Business Review (see the other article, assumption based planning) shows that the idea has attracted some attention. Nonetheless, I retract my "strong keep"; that was based on the idea that of the two articles currently existing, this is the better one. I still say weak keep as the content of the two articles together looks important enough and verifiable to me. Mangojuice 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. The term gets <1000 ghits, but one of them is a book by the same title from Cambridge University Press - on the other hand, there is preciouslittle evidence that this term is much used. It originates within RAND Corporation, apparently. I'd say if anything here is truly verifiable it could go in an article on the theory's originator, James A. Dewar, if we had one, otherwise it's "just another management theory", of which there is no shortage. This article is, by the looks of it, not much more than a synopsis of Rand's two books on the subject. So delete this. Userfy is also an option, if it's wanted for reference, and if the author wants ot create an article on Dewar, and can show that he meets WP:BIO, I would encourage them to do so. A three-entry structure on a term drawn from one author's books seems a bit excessive, mind! Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The term assumption-based planning was indeed used in the book, but there seem to be several "similar" methods of assumption based planning, e.g. Critical assumption planning, 'discovery driven planning' and 'milestone planning'.
Delete. A blizzard of tautologies and vacuous abstractions: that kind of prose gives me a headache. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete process-cruft...--Isotope23 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me what the difference is between writing about a planning method like assumption-based planning and a writing about any other planning method varying from strategic planning (e.g. BCG matix, 5-forces model) to wikipedia's entry about the business plan (which more or less follows the New Venture method and does not follow other "business plan" methods.). Where's the border line between keeping and deleting?

It lies at the point where multiple authors are writing multiple non-trivial works about it, and multiple corporations are using it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious correct

It's a poorly-formed neologism, with no clear use. Phronima 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Phronima 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete barely comprehensible. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not-notable neologism. --Xorox 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect into Political correctness, although they already have a religious correctness section. Is still a neologism and doesn't have the backing that PC has to be on its own. Should still redirect though, not delete. Someone searching for this term will really get what they want on PC. Ans e ll 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete protologism. I couldn't find any evidence this term has ever been used outside of this article.--Isotope23 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect, but feel free to make a redirect from Religious correctness. Mangojuice 17:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, ok, Religious correctness already existed, and was a copy of this same article by the same creator. I changed that one into a redirect. Still say delete this one. Mangojuice 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As the only person who hasn't said delete so far, I would not have minded if you had redirected the other way, infact, it seems more formal than religious correct. In the end I would not mind if both were redirected into Political Correctness. After all WP is not paper, redirects are free, why not use them. Ans e ll 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone else changed it to a redirect to Religious correct; I had redirected it to Politically correct. If this gets kept, then I agree, it should be kept at Religious correctness rather than Religious correct. Mangojuice 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep it and clean it up as a daughter article of politically correct. Could work as a redirect, too, I suppose. —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 14 April 2006 @ 04:10 (UTC)
Delete, nn neologism. Sandstein 10:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion, but the reed of survival is because of the paragraph about such websites in general, not the list of websites. Hence, I am going with Mangojuice's move to gasoline price website suggestion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of gasoline price websites

WP:NOT a collection of external lnks. This article, on the other hand, is a collection of external links. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to Gasoline price website, I believe the phenomena is notable, and that's what the article is really about. The list of links is more of an afterthought. Mangojuice 12:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to Gasoline prices as per Mangojuice, if not present, Keep.--Xorox 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be kept then it should be expanded to give more international comparisons of gas/petrol prices. Mazzy 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree with TheKoG. --Francisco Valverde 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Article doesn't make a claim of notability about the fact that people make websites to compare gas prices. --E lkman - ^(talk) 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ×Meegs 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to Gasoline price website as per Mangojuice. The article seems to be more than just a list.--GregRM 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The nomination presents a clear challenge: unverifiable claims. No one has provided anything like a reliable source, and testimony of wikipedia editors about something's notability is insufficient. As to redirection to list of shock sites, while redirects are cheap, they aren't free, and an article having the word "list" in its title doesn't provide exemption from the verification criterion. - brenneman^{L} 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HAI2U

Appears to be nn website, and only has an article here because of its shock value. We can't keep an article here based only on unverifiable claims; this one has an Alexa rank of 429,006 (not safe from work), so I doubt that this is very popular based on that data. (The site peaked in Alexa rank in November 2005 at around 93,000 Also NSFW). Delete. Mangojuice 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to List of shock sites. Kotepho 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of shock sites. All the information is there anyway. Foolish Child 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, an important shock site, verifiable. For great justice. 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, does not fall under any of the real criteria for deletion, IMHO. --Knucmo2 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What about WP:WEB? Mangojuice 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to List of shock sites. It's there already. NTK 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect (or, failing that, delete). Alexa rank is pretty poor, and the article is unreferenced and even says "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of shock sites. The immensely more well known shock sites, like tubgirl or goatse are redirected, so why have a seperate page soley for this? --68.60.18.222 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect (or, failing that, delete) per Andrew Lenahan, is about right. "Word of mouth" is just code for unverifiable. Melchoir 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but clean-up. I'm changing my vote. This website is noteable, however the article does need clean-up and more information. Foolish Child 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's notable? Melchoir 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  - I thought it was notable from the start, just that the article in its current state provides little that isn't on its List of shock sites entry. And I believe its notable because of the vast number of people that know of it. Foolish Child 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    - I agree it's probably notable. My problem with it has more to do with WP:V. Can anyone back up the popularity of this with an outside source? I doubt it. Mangojuice 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. RexNL 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, quite well known shock site. bbx 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's a very notable site for people who don't live in their own sheltered little worlds. Skinmeister 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough. Rhobite 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Why is there an article about a picture of a woman puking on a guy's penis? Worthless. If you keepers like it so much, maybe you should print it out and frame it. Erik the Rude 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
keep please this shock site is notable enough Yuckfoo 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable shocksite... not quite as well known as Goatse guy but damn close. ALKIVAR™ 05:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The List of "Shock Site" is enough and already too much for my taste. Just an explanation what "Shock Sites" are (no links) should be sufficient--Roy-SAC 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with The Futureheads since at least two have actually called for that result (even though "delete" is the bolded word). Merge and delete is not an option since it violates the GFDL license. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decent Days and Nights

Poorly written article about an individually un-notable single by The Futureheads. Previously prod tagged, de-prodded by anonymous user. Merge into The Futureheads and Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Merging is fine, with a redirect. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programmable Incandescent Regulator

Doesn't appear to be notable enough. Googling "Programmable Incandescent Regulator" yields 3 results. Akamad 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be some kind of flashlight a couple of guys made.Cheapestcostavoider 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be a student project at Chalmers University of Technology. Not marketed or distributed. Fan1967 01:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wik/Cathedral and John Connon School

Appears to be a redundant temp version of Cathedral and John Connon School, which is a decent enough article. Merge anything relevant and Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete merge with Cathedral and John Connon School --PhiJ 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Henry 'Bob' Burns

Delete This article´s dispute is due to Original research, see Talk page. The article was listed PROD, but will need consensus, due that the dispute is just between me and the original researcher. Francisco Valverde 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Further To Above I've removed the prod, and made changes to the article. The article is till subject to discussion, and a wider consensus. In the mean time, I've listed a few external references. Not much is online, probably due to Burns having died ashortly before the internet took-off. The Guiness Book of World Records website doesn't appear to list the record for loudest human voice. A great many print sources are undoubtedly availible, as Burns was the subject of countless newspaper and magazine articles. He also appeared often on television in North America. Print references will be forthcoming. Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil --Aodhdubh 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per lack of verifiable information from Reliable sources and proxy violation of WP:NOR. This article's text is adapted from a geocities page. Other external links make mention of Burns, but indicate nothing more than his existance. If this can be verifiably sourced I will reconsider, but right now it's basically original research posted on geocities then posted here with a reference back to the site containing the original reseach.--Isotope23 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged I would be interested to know more about where this information originated before I called it original research as differentiated from research based on primary sources that the author may have unique access to. Thatcher131 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. As I said above if sources are provided (and per the author's statements this may have to take the form of printed sources) I'm completely willing to retract my deletion opinion. WP:V and WP:RS are the biggest problems here, IMO.--Isotope23 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You should not try to delete articles when you are having a content dispute. That said, I fail to see where the article asserts the notability of the subject. What were his military accomplishments that set him apart from other soldiers who served in WWII and retired with the rank of Major (or are all Majors notable)? Other than that, he is listed in the Guiness Book with the loudest voice. Regardless of whether this is original research, person seems non-notable. Thatcher131 16:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPdrum Mobile Skype Solution

Delete, Adverting, non notable product. blue520 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Advertising and trying to hide AFD message by changing (colour of text to white!!) I have also added a speedy deletion notice. Jrinaldi 13:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Blatantly deceitful advert. --MarcoTolo 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
DELETE per above. Also why skype if you are paying for a cell phone?? Mike _{(T C)} 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason why this page should be considered advertising. Conduct a Google search on IPdrum, and see the number of hits.

When the product was launched, it was on the CNBC Breaking News, and with more than 60,000 Google hits, it can hardly be referred to as a non notable product. Skype on the mobile phone is a revolutionary innovation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipdrum hb (talk • contribs) .

- It's important to include notability information in the article. Please see WP:CORP for guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have redirected triplicate articles Ipdrum Mobile Skype Solution and Ipdrum mobile skype solution to the one currently under discussion. The content was identical and I assume the redirects can be deleted with the target if that's the result of the AfD. You might also note the related article IPdrum. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:DJ Clayworth. Kotepho 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of the Butterflies of India (Riodinidae)

First delete request. Stupidly made a duplicate page by adding extra word 'the' in front of the word 'Butterflies'. List of Butterflies of India (Riodinidae) exists, is correct and will be maintained. This page is now redundant. AshLin 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This falls under CSD:G7, speedy deletion by author request. I've tagged it as such for you. —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 13 April 2006 @ 13:48 (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 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen Quinn

Doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Akamad 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or prove notability. --Francisco Valverde 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The incident is true, but while quite outrageous, doesn't seem to be something to base an article upon. Perhaps it could be merged with a relevant Irish history article. For what it's worth, Ellen Quinn was also Ned Kelly's mom's name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BetBonus

Promotion of a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of over 500.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to David Walker (writer). Wh e re ^(talk) 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete; article seems to be advertising with no claim of notability over other relevant web sites. The meaningful content about David Walker's articles could be merged as above. --E lkman - ^(talk) 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloviate

Dictionary definition, already on Wiktionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain this article has information about the history of the word that isn't in the wiktionary entry. The question is, is Wikipedia a etymological dictionary? Personally, I think the answer is no, and think that the info should go to wiktionary, but I don't know much about wiktionary and what is acceptable there, so I abstain. Wh e re ^(talk) 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article can be expanded; a suggestion about how this could be done is already there. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, dicdef. NTK 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Smerge and redirect to Warren G. Harding with whom the word is associated. This does seem like a dicdef with limited possibilities for expansion, though it does have some notability as a word whose coinage is commonly, though apparently mistakenly, attributed to Harding (normalcy is another). I recall first coming across it in Neal Wilgus' zine Room 101 Revisited, in which he was trying to repopularize the term[16]. In William Safire's How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar Safire writes that it is "an Americanism combining 'blow-hard' with 'deviation'" which I had never heard before. The Word Detective by Evan Morris found an early printed source for the word. There's also a good example of Harding's bloviation in Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush by Allan Metcalf, where he's also called "The Great Bloviator." Шизомби 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If this gets redirected I would redirect it to Bill O'Reilly Which is where I , and my good guess, most people today know it from. EnsRedShirt 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

stong keep The page can easily be expanded to touch upon the many richs bloviations in American politics. It can not be re-directed to Warren Harding or Bill O'Reilly, because the word has been used in many contexts. While these are relevant uses of 'bloviate,' the word stands on its own. Moreover, Bloviate does not belong in the wiktionary because it is a rich concept and not merely a word. Concepts like synergy and Republicrat have their own entries, yet can also be given dictionary style definitions. Expand the entry by fleshing out the history and use of the concept.
keep While entry should be expanded, bloviate is a word much more rich in cultural value and context than its dicdef would suggest, and so deserves to be in Wikipedia instead of (or possibly in addition to) Wiktionary. Balazs 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
keep "Synergy" and "Republicrat" are good comparisons. "Bloviate" deserves a Wikipedia entry in addition to one in Wiktionary as a word that originated and continues to be used in a particular political and cultural context.
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikitionary is the appropriate place for this. A word primarily used on a single TV talk show does not belong in an encyclopedia. RobLinwood 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment But O'Reilly's use of the word taps into widely used concept. What about the wiki entry on synergy? This too is "a word" yet also stands for an idea with a rich history.

keep Agree with above, bloviate has cultural context that makes it appropriate for an encylopedia.

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as band vanity/spam. - Mike Rosoft 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Own Mess

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND requirements. No page on allmusic.com Akamad 13:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete I think a {{db-band}} might have been better. Article makes no claim of notability. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn band Wh e re ^(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy A7 and marked as such. Alba 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Asian inventions

Cruft with one listing. I realize it can be expanded but I suggest we kill it off until someone with say 3-4 items for the list comes along.

delete per nom. I tagged PROD on it before I realized that PROD is not working. Neier 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How so is PROD not working? In any case, the article is refreshingly short :) Lambiam ^Talk 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it without previewing, and when the article came up, the PROD box had big red letters telling me to not use PROD because the toolserver was down or something. I think that may be why User:Gardar Rurak moved it from PROD to AFD. Neier 04:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, there is no real meaning in saying delete until it gets expanded. It can't be expanded if you delete it. There are enough inventions to fill more than one list, someone just has to put them up. Its fine as a stub. Ans e ll 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Do we have a List of European inventions? List of South American inventions? There are only so many continents after all, do we really want to make every invention ever get added to one of them? Here is a better list, limited in scope, yet, dare I say it, 400% more complete than the current article. Four Great Inventions of ancient China. I am sure there are better ones yet. -- GRuban 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete China invented gunpowder. Mesopotamia invented the wheel. How are these things related? It would be an indiscriminate collection of information if expanded. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unrelated list per CanadianCaesar. bikeable (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete list with one item. I'd probably vote to delete ANY list with just one item, but in this case the one item may not even be accurate. From the gunpowder article: "Gunpowder is considered one of the Four Great Inventions of the Chinese, though in fact it is not known whether it was first invented in China." Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. I would say delete even a list of Chinese inventions, but a list of everything invented in an entire continent is just ludicrous. I find the stub insulting. NTK 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE NTK 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Mount Rushmore images

Wikipedia is not a Collection of photographs or media files. All the images were moved to commons and linked to from the main article. CG 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, its basically just the end of a transwiki move to here. Ans e ll 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved the page to commons, but I prefered to be on the safe side and to nominate it. CG 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete A5 and marked as such. Alba 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Uddingston railway station . -Doc ^ask? 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uddington station

Misnamed duplicate of Uddingston railway station. Poorly written to boot, merged only relevant bit into the proper article, so delete. ::Supergolden:: 14:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

redirect Kotepho 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirected -- I've been bold again. Life is too short to waste on obvious redirects. Alba 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but why not request an article on the sociologist fellow? Proto||type 14:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Nisbet

who is this guy? Intangible 14:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Very weak delete. 86 Google hits, topmost being this and Workplace bullying. Not all come back to this guy, though, and it seems like what he's doing is interesting enough to be notable. If the creator or someone could provide more specific instances of notability I'd vote keep. Daniel Case 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Obviously you did not look at these pages. Only the top two pages refer to this Robert Nisbet; most of the rest refer to the sociologist (1913-1996). Clearly the person who edited the "Workplace Bullying" page was Mr. Nisbet himself. We need an article on Robert A. Nisbet the sociologist, not some no-name consultant. Monsieur Tode 06:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It would be nice to have an article about this sociologist Nisbet. Intangible 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete' Proto||type 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PESFan.com

Alexa rank of 93,663, failing WP:WEB. Written in a very promotional style to boot Daniel Case 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete adcruft. Alba 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep A thriving internet community. unsigned vote by CharlieA (talk • contribs)
Keep A great resource for information and advice on a massive videogame. unsigned vote by Danstringer (talk • contribs), user's first and only edit
Delete, fails WP:WEB. RasputinAXP c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speed check

Unsure of notability or appropriateness, but the article was created by the user Urgemedia, the same name as the creating firm. DJ Clayworth 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - neither notable nor appropriate, adcruft. NTK 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (yeesh, just speedy this stuff) Proto||type 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Burke (actor)

I thought about prodding this until I saw the last graf: "Burke, an independent film writer and financier, writes under an unknown pseudonym. He is probably best known for his friendship with actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck." So many words when only two would do: "not notable." I was going to speedy it as vanity but that would be an insult to vanity as no one would put such a badly lit picture of themselves into a vanity article. Daniel Case 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an unknown anything. RasputinAXP c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete He writes under an unknown pseudonym. Maybe the pseudonym's notable. He isn't. Fan1967 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Girard

Independent filmmaker and musician with no IMdb listing. Daniel Case 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete IMO, an IMDB listing is a bare minimum notability criteria for filmmakers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. An IMDB listing is necessary but not sufficient for notability in this industry. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was hmmm ... let's redirect to Endpin for now. All info remains in the history, though, if anything needs extracting to the destination article. Proto||type 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black hole (musical equipment)

Article devoted to a single brand of cello endpin stop. Mentions one other brand, but there are dozens if not bzillions of similar products not mentioned, as well as home-made types. Perhaps could be moved without redirect to Endpin anchor or some such article. Just plain Bill 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

article name not mentioned in edit summary on log page. oops. Just plain Bill

Undecided my youngest is a cellist, and we actually own one of these. It works very well. I wasn't aware it was a tradename; if there are many brands, what is the generic name? As an item I would say it is more deserving of an article than a lot of fictional subjects we keep, because it is an interesting, useful and curious item (non-cellists often get a light-bulb moment when they realise what it's for and how simple it is). Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just created a stub Endpin stop for the generic item. Black hole (disambiguation) now has a line pointing to that stub. I've read elsewhere that the "Black Hole" has an excellent grip on slick floors. I use a slip of pine about 3/8" thick with a loop of nylon parachute cord around the chair legs. For me, the price of scrounged material is always right. ;-) Just plain Bill 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with some other article. This piece of information should not be lost.--Exir Kamalabadi ^{Join Esperanza!} 08:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the article and / or give it a Redirect to the new Endpin stop stub by Just plain Bill. The information in the article is useful but a generic titled article is preferrable Ande B 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Back when I played, we called it a "rock stop", as in the article here. That said, Bill's suggestion works just fine for me, and there's also some related content at Endpin. -Colin Kimbrell 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Endpin stop and Endpin anchor now redirect to Endpin, which has a section containing the info seen up to now. Seems to me like that's the place to put any more content that shows up. Just plain Bill 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep after historical support (for the existence and notability of person, not for the accuracy of the description, which was apparently erroneous) was found [17]. Will rename to Liu Shao (Three Kingdoms) to distinguish with the Liu Song emperor. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liu Shao

I can't find any historical basis for this article, from either Sanguo Zhi (from either Sun Quan's [18] or Lu Xun's biography [19] or Zizhi Tongjian [20]. Delete if continues to lack textual support. --Nlu (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlphaQuad

Delete. Receives a fair number of Google hits (something to be expected from an "online marketing company"), but nothing to establish notability. AED 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as contextless substub. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zwang

Delete - Localized slang. Originally prodded. Author removed prod. Claims well used in Quebec. Montco 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. NTK 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel ^§ 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglais Personnalisé

Delete. Self-promotion. Article was created by User:Ilagleti, "the internet persona of Kelly Johnson, the president of Montreal, QC, Canada based Anglais Personnalisé". AED 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nom. Blink484 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's no Berlitz Language School. Samaritan 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Idril 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --light darkness ^(talk) 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dastard

Non-notable vanity page article

I initially speedy deleted this article but the original editor questioned this and I said I would bring it up for a AfD vote. Alabamaboy 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Alabamaboy 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obviously a vanity ad, the writing sounds like something off a "band biography" off of an official website. Pat Payne 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, despite it being an impressive effort to put in all the links and formatting. Jono 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, yup, smells like vanity to me. rouenpucelle
Delete. The article title isn't even capitalized correctly. Disgraceful. :) Optichan 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete although it may later attain notability if it becomes recognised as the band with the greatest turnover of members ;) BigBlueFish 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Titans (continuity controversy)

Initially prod'd as "Orignal research", Delete for that same reason. --InShaneee 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not verifiable (acknowledge by the original author below), thus original research. -AED 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)edited 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Hopelessly unverifiable. I've given the original editor a challenge: find a print source to cite for this phenomenon and I will change my vote. However I think the small section in Teen Titans (TV series) was more than suitable. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. --Several Times 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Looks really well done, but this information more belongs on a fan site. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this really is hopelessly unverifiable. How can one verify a controversy within a small animated series fandom? That's like two people having an argument behind closed doors, and then asking a random stranger on the street what the argument was about. It's just not an issue that will ever affect mainstream society, and is only verifiable through anonymous sources in forums dedicated to said series. --Venomaru 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence why myself and Malber both believe that the blurb in the Teen Titans article is sufficient. It's sometimes okay to use message boards/blogs to state that there IS a debate, but to go into specifics, we'd need something more. --InShaneee 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very least you should try making the blurb a tiny bit more neutral, as it tends to come across as pro-out-of-continuity, rather than it could go either way (given the facts at hand). I don't see the harm in my article, it was designed only to elaborate more on the topic at hand, but do what you gotta' do. --Venomaru 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's something to discuss on the talk page for that article. --InShaneee 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Malber.--Isotope23 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Malber. Brendan Moody 04:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete CSD A3 Just zis Guy you know? 21:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHSS

just one messed-up link rouenpucelle 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A little cleanup normally fixes this kind of thing, but the article content appears to be non-notable as well. --Several Times 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as virulent vanispamcruftisement with no chance here; drags the project down and simply not worth the effrot of cleaning up the spam and vanity links for the duration of AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PHP Blog Manager

Ad for a brand-new piece of software that editor created for his wife; spammed several blog-related articles with links to this article · rodii · 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Advertisment, doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE --light darkness ^(talk) 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel ^§ 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genism

A "new philosophy". 600-odd google hits, but most are to very different meaning of the term; for example, the second hit on google points to a lecture in which the term is defined completely different [21]. Prod disputed by author. Delete per WP:NFT. bikeable (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original reserch and WP:NFT. --Several Times 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all "new philosophies" Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. maybe there should be a policy about "-ism" articles. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Proto||type 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan M. Newmark

Appears to just be a college proffessor of no notability. If it's kept it at least needs to have something added to the first paragraph to explain who this guy actually is. Tango 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A badly structured lead is not a deletion criterion. Not a "college professor", but a research professor and head of department at a major university (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, among other prestigious societies. Received the National Medal of Science, and the John Fritz Medal and several other awards. The American Society of Civil Engineers has named a medal after him.[22]. He was "widely known for his research in structural engineering and structural dynamics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for his contributions to the design of earthquake-resistant structures—including the Latino Americana Tower in Mexico City—and, most recently, for his work on the design of the trans-Alaska pipeline." [23] Tupsharru 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Let me just add that I know far too little (which is to say absolutely nothing) about Newmark's line of work, so I am not willing to try to rewrite the article. But I'm pretty sure there are people around who can do that. Tupsharru 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article appears to me to be plagiarized from somewhere, so it needs to be rewritten, not deleted. But as a recipient of the National Medal of Science, which is a pretty major national award, and all the reasons cited above, he was more than just another professor. Also his work on the Torre Latinoamericana, doing the engineering that made it withstand earthquakes, was notable in that it made the building itself notable. (In the interests of full disclosure and adjusting for POV, he was a distant cousin of mine, but I never met him.) Bruxism 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw It looks like I might have been mistaken here - the article doesn't actually mention any of these medals, which might well make him notable. Looking closer, I missed one of the medals on the "what links here" page, and the other has his name mispelt (as does the articles reference) as Newark. Google finds hardly any hits for the alternative spelling, so I expect is is the same man as is just a mistake. The article needs serious rewriting, but I guess it's worth keeping. I withdraw the deletion request (BTW, how do I actually do that?). --Tango 20:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would have said delete as a copyright violation. The article has many signs of being a copyright violation. It even has "figure 1" in the text. However, I have been unable to find the source of the text. -- Kjkolb 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect (should have just been redirected in the first place) Proto||type 14:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The iTheater Group

Not Relevant, Should be merged with iTheater if not just deleted. mcwiggin 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with iTheater It should go where the main article goes (including deletionspace if necessary). -- Saberwyn 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concise Freeware

Page is advertising spam ES2 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertising. Looks like it's copied right off of their website. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --Several Times 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Haakon 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto||type 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vc-net

Non-notable spam copyvio from [24]. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Haakon 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as above. --Several Times 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete above.. Mrtea (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay, lesbian or bisexual actors

Originally created as Gay Actors (and only contains the men). The list's counterpart, Lesbian actresses, has been nominated for deletion and is bound to be deleted. I am nominating this list as well, for consistency. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete this is what categories are for. The article itself has precisely zero encyclopaedic content. Categories have two massive advantages over lists like this: they are self-maintaining; and the addition of a category to a person who does not self-identify as LGBT will be seen and reverted by editors familiar with the article subject, so there is much less chance of error. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Further have been identified as such by others is an unacceptable criterion - particularly with a totally unreferenced list. Being identified (alleged) as gay does not mean it is true, or even neccessarily probable. --Doc ^ask? 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. If needed categories would be more maintainable (per JzG), though I actually dislike a similiar category as well. My view is somebody's sexual orientation should only be recorded by us, if it's actually something discussed substantially, as something signficant, in reliable sources. That is, more then mere proof the label is true, is needed for it to be encyclopedic. --Rob 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 1) Should be a cat (or multiple cats) 2) Why does everyone that is not strictly heterosexual need to be lumped together? Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are all there own things (and I would argue that there are sub-orientations in each group such as butch-fem, lipstick, butch, femme, etc). This list comes off a bit like have one called List of Black, Latino, and Asian actors. I am a strong supporter of equal rights for all of these people in terms of marriage, adoption, etc, and I understand the need to pool resources together in order to gain political capital, but on wikipedia we should be careful about lumping people together based on an assumption that different groups have something in common based soley on being outside of mainstream Judeo-Christian sexual mores. Really this list is a list of actors who have happened to have had sex with people of their own gender. youngamerican (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per JzG. —Wh o uk (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete This kind of issue will simply work better under categories and sub-categories. Verloren Hoop 22:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - I suppose I could have relisted it, but it wouldn't make much difference. Both voters seem to have done their homework. Proto||type 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Habbocentral

Contested prod. Appears to fail WP:WEB. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Alexa ranking of over 1.5 million. Seems rather dubious to claim "millions of fans" when the website ranks so low, unless those fans are for the main Habbo Hotel. Either way, this article makes no claim that this is any more notable than any other Habbo Hotel fansite. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Claim of "millions of fans" is not sourced and seems very dubious. At best this could be an external link off of Habbo Hotel.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax. Proto||type 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wise Old Salmon

Google for "wise old salmon" (in quotes) doesn't give much, and add shamen, or "never eat beans" to the search gives nothing else. It also has no external links to look at for reference PhiJ 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 14 April 2006 @ 04:02 (UTC)
Delete or vanity. The original poster's username is "wiseoldsalmon".Pat Payne 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanityhoax. Thatcher131 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. grafikm_fr 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete them all. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Shot in the Arm

I am also nominating:

In a Future Age
When You Wake Up Feeling Old
My Darling
Candyfloss
Summer Teeth
ELT (song)
Via Chicago
How to Fight Loneliness--84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Pieholden Suite
Nothing'severgonnastandinmyway(again)
I'm Always in Love
We're Just Friends
She's a Jar
Can't Stand It
The Late Greats
Less Than You Think
I'm a Wheel
Company in My Back
Handshake Drugs
Muzzle of Bees
Spiders (Kidsmoke)
Hell Is Chrome
At Least That's What You Said
Reservations
Poor Places
Pot kettle black
I'm the Man Who Loves You
Heavy Metal Drummer
Jesus Etc.
War On War (song)
Radio Cure (song)
I Am Trying To Break Your Heart
Kamera
Ashes Of American Flags

Delete - not every song by your favorite band is notable. Perhaps keep the singles, whichever those are, but not every single track by Wilco ever. Wickethewok 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete 'em all. You should have tagged them though, even though it's a pain. NTK 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- heheh - I'm working on it :| Wickethewok 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom... and have fun tagging!--Isotope23 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep singles, and delete or possibly redirect the rest. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Not all of those are even songs, at least two are albums! Keep singles and albums, delete the rest if they have no substantial content, else merge and redirect to the albums. Also, Candyfloss should redirect to Cotton candy. Muzzle of Bees should redirect to Beard of bees. Reservations should redirect to Reservation. Kamera should redirect to Camera. I hate group nominations, and this is exactly why. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Which are albums? All I saw in the articles were "song by Wilco", etc. I don't think anyone would object to a Bold redirect on the articles Andrew Lenahan mentioned above.--Isotope23 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Reply The original list included A Ghost Is Born and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. They were later removed by the nominator in this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment, ah gotcha... thanks!--Isotope23 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all; let God sort 'em out. -AED 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete the lot. Every single one of these "articles" is the same: foo is a song by the band Wilco, from their album bar. Note to author: if you can't be arsed to even tell us whether it was released as a single, don't be surprised when I can't be arsed to expand your fancruft for you. What you are saying with these articles is "I like Wilco enough to make a copy-and-paste article for every song but not to actually put any effort whatsoever into those articles". Seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dylan 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. RasputinAXP c 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete These are pretty much all one-sentence entries which provide little room for expansion. Cosign with RasputinAXP. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep singles, redirect the less notable songs. Royboy crashfan 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper nom--Zxcvbnm 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Redirects to various locations may be appropriate afterwords. Melchoir 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and reasons above. Funnybunny 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect all to the albums they are from. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, nn songs. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
'Delete per JzG, though redirects to the albums might work. Borderline speedy, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep singles and redirect others, per Roy --Hyperbole 04:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Wilco fan, I have a sticker on my car. But nuh-uh to all these. Keep per Royboycrashfan. T K E 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm kinda upset the user didn't include the songs from Being There T K E 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Oh but wait, they did. Someone with the time, could you look at the contributions for User:JeffTweedyIsGod? I'm off to bed, but I figure there's more out there.~~ Wickethewok has notified the user, and they are civil about it. T K E 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep singles, redirect others, per Royboycrashfan et alia. Fishhead64 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Just zis Guy you know. We really do not need this sort of thing. SorryGuy 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, but Wilco is a Grammy winning group; singles should be kept. No luck falling asleep...sighs. T e K E 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) <~ Hey, new sig!
Speedy Delete the whole cacophonous lot of them; there is no assertion of notability on any. If the original author wants to assert that any particular track entry is notable -- winning a major award in its own right -- then that's different. RGTraynor 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete all, nn. Sheehan (Talk) 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. --Ton e 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as per NTK. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete the lot per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: According to AMG,[25] Outtasite (Outta Mind) is Wilco's only charting single, and (ironically enough) that one doesn't have an article. Don't know whether any others were released but didn't chart. -Colin Kimbrell 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all An article about their album is enough. Bige1977 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to inform all that the editor who created these was not familiar with WP policy at the time he created these. I believe he is in agreement with the deletion at this current time, although I don't claim to speak on his behalf. Wickethewok 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks Wick. Sorry for any trouble I've caused... I'll look around for something else to contribute with. JeffTweedyIsGod 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - We were all new once, so no worries. :) Wickethewok 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. - Rynne 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. --84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
keep as long as they are actual songs, why not keep the pages. just expand them. Pooja.bhatt
- Ummm - an article on every song ever? Seems like a poor idea to me... Wickethewok 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pooja - I recommend you check up on some WP policy/precedent before voting on AFD. Welcome to WP btw! Wickethewok 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - note the above user is a big sockpuppeteer, as seen in other AFDs. Wickethewok 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  - COMMENT to Wickethewok Just because I just created an account does not mean that I do not know how Wikipedia works. Your pompous and arrogant attitude is noted and completely unappreciated. Back off. Pooja.bhatt

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, {{deletedpage}} added and protected. --Durin 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joanne Chantel Rodriguez

Unverifiable, non-notable vanity page. Speedily deleted three times and recreated... again. Accurizer 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD:A7 and tagged as such. "Claim" to notability is that she won the art contest at the "The National Cherry Blossom Festival" in 2001. Claim is unsourced. Probably a good idea if the closing admin page protects this so her boyfriend stops recreating this page.--Isotope23 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Http file server

Fails to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Had tagged this {{prod}}, but User:Rawbanana who has only edited this article, removed it. Seems to be vanity/advertisement NTK 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rawbanana's reply I'm not affiliated with this software in any way. However, I feel that it is a unique and revolutionary software that deserves to be recognized in Wikipedia. Please also understand that this is my first article and I do not really understand how to edit articles properly or format it properly for Wikipedia.

I edited my original submission thinking that it had added enough to justify entry into Wikipedia. If that is not enough and you still feel this article is not worthy, please delete it. In the meantime, I will try to learn more about the Wikipedia system and see if I can fulfill the Wikipedia requirements.

Note the information I have used in the article is primarily from the forums http://www.rejetto.com/forum/index.php?c=6 or from Sourceforge.net. I have tried to be neutral as much as possible. Again I didn't realize new entries were so hard to be approved for Wikipedia and I will try to read up on what this submission is missing. Should I have left the {{prod}} for someone else to remove? Oh well...

You may remove {{prod}} tags from articles you create, but if you do so you should put something on the talk page justifying why you think it should be included, similar to what you wrote above. Please read over the guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE, and also WP:NOR. In short as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be used to promote "relatively unknown" products, persons, or ideas. It should be used to document things that are already notable in their own right. NTK 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete looking at the article a stable full-featured version was only released last month, which I guess explains why there is no evidence of market share, innovation, iomportance, influence, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources etc. Which means we can't verify the neutrality of the article. WP:SOFTWARE appears to apply. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unknown anything is not notable. RasputinAXP c 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Notability I read the Wikipedia Notability article and wikipedia and understand that all a software needs is 1 3rd party award to be notable. HFS has 1 3rd party award from www.snapfiles.com in 2004. A 2minute appearance and recommendation by a popular independent media website such as Hak5.org also seems notable. HFS only appears on these websites due to its unique functionality although its growth is among psp and international users instead of within the professional networking crowd. A quick google for "psp hfs" will also show many results. I've also updated some sources and wording on the main "http file server" page. Rawbanana 09:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Streptocarpus (jazz group)

This (badly-written and apparently incomplete) article appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I also found it impossible to verify. Delete. Joel7687 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly a non-notable band. Only a couple unique hits on Google, and only from Wikipedia mirror sites. All the other hits refer to pages about the plant genus "streptocarpus" that happen to have the word "jazz" somewhere on the site. Aplomado - U T C 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable band, tagged it. RasputinAXP c 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - the arguments of the 2 non-anon, non-first-contribution 'keep' voters are tenuous, at best, and the arguments to delete are way more convincing. Proto||type 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YAAFM

A non-notable cartoon on a non-notable website. Most of the google hits on this phrase are because it's a rather common phrase on the internet. Prod was removed without comment. Aplomado - U T C 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Weak keep. I've seen the cartoons, and while it may not be as big an internet meme as, say, Jibjab was back 'round Election time, it does seem to have a strong following, and the creators got enough of a response to two of their cartoons (Michael Moore and Scientology) to where they felt justified placing essays on their site to defend the decision to lambaste them. Pat Payne 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Flash cartoons. Especially those where the article presents no evidence of notability (like this one). What marks this out form the several gazillion other Flash cartoons out there? It don't say. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete pending better evidence of notability. From the article: "The series stars Reginald, a purple horned demon who spews insults and swearwords in a sophisticated fashion." That's an oxymoron, sorry, pal. Getting criticized for some bits of parody, and writing defenses of the efforts, is not enough to meet WP inclusion standards. Were the criticisms widely reported in the sort of media which uses editors, fact-checkers, and so forth? Barno 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Good point. I had just assumed that the fact that they had to go through the trouble of justifying their stances in those two instances meant that there was more buzz on the net over it. But I haven't seen anything in too many news sites about it (and none on GoogleNews), so while I'm still for keeping it, it's now a Weak Keep. I enjoy the site but perhaps it's not as notable as it could be. Also, yep. I don't know of anyone (with the exception of Darren McGavin in A Christmas Story who can swear in a sophisticated way. :) Pat Payne 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Buy an ad. Somewhere else. NTK 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable series. --Billpg 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn like 99,9% of all Flash cartoons. Sandstein 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Funny flash movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.55.176.66 (talk • contribs) on April 19, 2006.

User 86.55.176.66 has made less than 10 contributions to Wikipedia. Aplomado - U T C 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Seems drastic to delete an article such as this, which does get hits, when there are so many other articles that do not. 82.5.173.40 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is user 82.5.173.40's 2nd contribution to Wikipedia. Aplomado - U T C 22:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel ^§ 00:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muppet City Forum

Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB or be particular notable. Wickethewok 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
'Delete - Do we have to? :P Umm.. yes we MUST! H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the article: "...almost twenty members...". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not quite notable just yet. --Optichan 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was a hearty and enthusiastic keep. Proto||type 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet de Kat Krewe

Delete - vanity article about a nn group. Wickethewok 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Change vote to weak delete - article creator has added a mention of notability since nomination, though it still seems to be borderline delete imo. What group-bio criteria does it meet specifically? Wickethewok 20:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  - It does seem to have a decent amount of press attention. Their website cites articles from the New Orleans Times-Picayune (two articles), Miami New Times, and others. They've also been on the official schedule of New Orleans Jazzfest (and that is a BIG event!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Many Mardi Gras krewes are notable, and this one seems to be, with multiple chapters around the country and a good number of Google hits. A silly-sounding name doesn't always mean non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weakest of possible keeps. As Mardi Gras krewes go, it looks like this one has some importance and might be worth noting. NTK 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

Speedy Delete. LBMixPro^<Sp^e^ak|on|it!> 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S Net

WP:WEB WP:VAIN Non-notable web site John Nagle 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable web site. One (1) hit in Google other than the site itself. Original article apparently posted by website owner. Web site composed almost entirely of ads. Article also promotes non-notable band. Previously tagged by others with "advertising", "prod" ("Make it go away! Please!"), and "prod2". Deletion tags removed by anon editor without significant article improvement. So we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. Vanity articles qualify for speedy, don't they? Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It should be noted that the original author has removed deletion notices from this article multiple times. -- Tangot a ngo 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedied Non-notable. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. W.marsh 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogurt lids

i created it as a joke... now i'm deleting it Safinuk 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete {{db-author}} Gwernol 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ~~deteel~~ ~~detele~~ delete. Proto||type 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typolexia

Neologism, gives no evidence of verifiable use (alas, "forums.somethingawful.com" doesn't usually meet WP:RS)... probably just exists as a joke mostly. W.marsh 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Edeltee damn that typolexia! Perhaps worth one-way a trip to BJAODN. Just zis Guy you know? 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Spiedie balete. Nt wrth kping. NTK 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete hope you got :10bux: Kotepho 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nom --blue520 00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Baleeted per that first guy. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
deteel. pre evreunne. Freddie 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all 3. Proto||type 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FM Music, Tiernan Millar, Niall Finnegan

No evidence that this record label/promotional company meets WP:CORP, especially as it has never signed any artists; Millar and Finnegan are its founders. The Millar article has already gone through an AFD so I've speedy tagged it but the other two haven't. --TM 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, clearly. NTK 22:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Never signed any artists? Factory Records never signed any artists either, they had a piece of paper with some kind of shoddy agreement on it but nothing more, yet Wikipedia has a huge article for Factory and no none has considered deleting it. If this is the case then surely every single record label stub and article about an independant record label should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macphisto (talk • contribs).

Before the prod tag was added, the article even stated that it ceased acting as a record label since it hadn't signed any artists: "By January 2006 FM:Music had failed to secure deals with any of the bands it promotes. FM:Music ceased opperating as a record label and relaunched solely as a promotions agency". Factory represented notable bands like Joy Division and New Order, unlike FM Music. --TM 12:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

However it remains a fact that actory did not sign any bands —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macphisto (talk • contribs).

Fine, delete the article. Delete every article relating independent record labels. Sure why not just delete Wikipedia. Is the purpose of this website not to collect information? No matter how insignificant some of you may think this article is it makes no mind. This article is as important as any other.

Actually, Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information". --TM 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PimpMySnack

Non-notable website Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This site has received a very large number of hits recently, is non-profit, and is of general community interest. It's very 'notable'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepimpdaddy (talk • contribs) .

Delete - As original PROD'er. --light darkness ^(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete passes the number one test of vanispamcruftisement: starts with the name, correctly intercapped, as a weblink. Or at least it did until I fixed it, because of course WP:NOT a way fo improving your search engine ranking. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: non notable--Zxcvbnm 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG above. --E lkman - ^(talk) 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete! -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooh sorry, not 'up' with this Wikipedia code. I don't *need* this to improve the search engine ranking, it is merely of interest. Delete all you want.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Verification is non-negotiable. There appears to be some confusion in this debate: While the term dominionist may or may not be in common parlance, the question here is its association with the parties listed on the page.
brenneman^{L} 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionist political parties

This list was created to push a biased POV. I could argue that none of the parties listed should be considered "dominionist". At the least this epithet needs some real proof. None was provided. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum (taken from the related TfD): According to the article creator, "Dominionism is, as the article describes, "a term used to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism [...] that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs." These parties and thinkers meet that standard by any fair and NPOV assessment." I responded, "This definition is both too general to be useful and too specific not to be discriminatory. Is a Catholic party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Catholic party. Is a Hindu party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Hindu party. Is an Atheist party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just an Atheist party. Etc. Etc. ALL parties seek to establish specific political policies based on a set of moral beliefs, religious or otherwise. All laws are based on some moral belief. Driving 55 mph was a law based on moral belief. If a person is religious, ALL laws he advocates are "religious" by definition, because everything is filtered through his worldview. If he proposes a 55 mph speed limit, it because he believes that God wants us to value human life, and driving 55 will save more lives than 75. Does this make him a religious fanatic? Does this make him a dominionist? By your definition it does. But, of course, that is absurd. He is not radical in his beliefs. Your definition is flawed. Your list is flawed, and slanderous." GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Accurate and well-supported article. Nominator seems to be on a POV-motivated AfD/TfD binge reminiscent of Gastrich's. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If there is a "lack of real proof" then what is needed is proof not deletion. NTK 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So, how long do we wait until any defense is given for even one of these parties being "dominionist"? Granted, it's going to be very difficult to prove, since none of them (or even their critics, outside of Wikipedia) use the term. Until it's verified, it's just POV-pushing. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per FM.•Jim62sch• 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I would point out that none of our articles on these political parties uses the word Dominionist or Dominionism. The only article that does use the term is Christian Reconstructionism, which is included on this list strangely enough even though it is not a political party. No references or sources of any kind are given, hence the list would not seem to be "well supported" but does violate WP:V. To top it off, someone has now created Category:Dominionist parties. And while accusing the nom of being on an AFD binge comparable to a sock puppet may be an effective diversionary tactic, it also does not seem to be true since I can't find any other recent AfD noms from User:Guðsþegn. -- JJay 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This AFD, a TFD on the Dominionism template, and a misbegotten NPOV tag on the Dominionism article [26] all in 24 hrs. by this same editor clearly constitute a campaign against Dominionism on Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 01:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't say I agree with that. One AfD nom + one TfD nom does not equal a "binge", particularly given the propensity here for grouped noms that can include dozens of articles. However, your initial comment comparing the nom to a banned user and well-known puppeteer does violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF and is borderline NPA. -- JJay 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is more to it than those actions, including removing the template from some articles. It is not of the same order as Gastroturfing, but it is of similar character. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Enough to ignore WP:V? Or to scream Speedy Keep in violation of numerous policies? Certain editors need to realize that opposing viewpoints exist and acting on those viewpoints is in no way proof of puppetry or bad faith. What I see are bunch of editors who make a habit of this type of sock puppet accusation without caring whether it's true or not [27], as part of a gastrosmearing campaign that conveniently ignores the issues and ensures that their own POV is over-represented through categories, backed up by lists, backed up by articles on non-notable subjects, backed up by poor sourcing/no sourcing. Where is the gastroturfing now? -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per FM & NTK. Guettarda 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The page could use some sources, but it's only just been created. Give people a chance to get it up and running. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- What's the basis for "speedy". Also why is more time needed? If the person adding these parties, was doing so from a reliable source, they could have easily provided the source, when making the list (surely they knew the name of the source they're using). If they were unable to find a reliable source, then they should not have created the list in the first place. How could you possibly know there are reliable sources to add, if you can't name a single source. Or if you can name a source, then please do: in the article. How about just one for starters. I could understand, if we had a huge list of uncontested items, and it was taking a long time to add sources, but in this case, its a short list of contested items. If deleted, it could quickly/easily be recreated with sources in the future, if those reliable sources actually exist. --Rob 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Felon and Slim. JoshuaZ 04:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ per FM. The term is valid, there are credible academic references to it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Then please add those references to the lists. Also you might want to edit each of the individual articles since none mention the term. -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to conur with JJay on this. It's frustrating how, in so many AFDs people refer to sources that do not appear in the article. Please, put the sources in the article. Generally, a well sourced article speaks for itself, and needs little explanation in AFD. In this case, we need to confirm that the term is used by each party itself, or is widely used by reliable sources to refer to party. I find it very disappointing, that people are still making entirely unsourced new articles. Wikipedia seems to be adding unsourced information faster then we can add sources to old stuff. --Rob 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Change to delete per Rob above and below, and because although I can find some apparent evidence for the term, I can't find any reliable authority for the identification of individual parties as Dominionist, and in any case per my usual preference for categories, a category would be more likely to be picked up by the editor community on a given article and challenged if wrong, whereas lists can and have been used to attribute falsely. So I think on balance the best thing would be to delete this and have a category instead, which would have the benefit of being self-maintaining. This is not connected with the validity of the term, which I still think has at least some evidence of validity. JJay is right: I was being inconsistent, and extending existence of evidence beyond its real applicability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep JeffBurdges 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. I don't know or care about the nominators bias. It doesn't matter. This page violates core policy of verifiability and neutrality. Even if this page is 100% true. It seems we have a case, of Wikipedians doing some original research, in applying a definition of a term to each case. That's original research. Even if you come to the correct conclusion, you can't attach a label yourself. You have to go by external reliable sources. Also, readers must not think Wikipedia takes a political position on what to label political parties. They must see who is saying what party has what label, know it's not us personally saying it. I don't contest the truthfullness of the article, but truth is not enough. --Rob 05:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hmmm, an absence of supporting cites in an article is not evidence that an article should be deleted, only that it needs to be better supported. Nor is the difficulty in finding cites. Just zis Guy you know? can attest to the lengths and expense Wikipedians have gone to provide supporting cites for contested content. The first response at Wikipedia is always to fix what is useful and can be fixed, not just delete it. The Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada is very poorly supported. In fact, it has no supporting cites at all. Should it be nominated for deletion as well? Of course not. Claiming a lack of supporting cites as justification for deletion is a specious argument. As is whether or not any particular group agrees with how other segements of society view and describe it. And BTW, there's no shortage of credible sources per WP:V that are available as supporting cites that connect Dominionism to various political parties and movements, starting with National Review, Harpers, PBS: [28] [29] [30] [31]. That fact alone would seem to indicate that there are those here who are more interested in deleting the article for personal reasons than in fixing it. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That first article you cited, from National Review [32], is absolutely an excellent article. I don't think it does the work you think it does, though. Kurtz points out how overblown the "academic" critique of dominionism is; how its critics (including the one with an article at Wikipedia) want dominionism to be bigger than it really is, for their own political purposes; how the critics are trying to draw connections to larger groups and political parties where none actually exist. You have to read through to the end, past the sarcastic bit at the beginning. :-) Thanks for that link. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And precisely what work do you think he thinks it does? Are you assuming FM didn't read it through? If so, I have little doubt that your assumption is in error, as is what I believe your assumption regarding what work FM "think[s] it does". As a source, it merely supports the fact that Dominionism exists, although any importance of Dominionism would be downplayed in the National Review (editorially conservative publication) in the same way it would be played up in an editorially liberal publication. Nonetheless, the question is this: does Dominionism exist? The answer is yes. Thus, as with any other political or religious movement it rates an article in Wikipedia. It really is that simple. •Jim62sch• 08:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"does Dominionism exist?" is *NOT* the question for *this* AFD. That would be the question for Dominionism. You say "it rates an article in Wikipedia". Yes, it does, but this doesn't. Dominionist political parties requires citations from neutral reliable sources, that demonstrate at least some parties on the list, are in fact "Dominionist". How about citing a proper source for just one name? Show me it's "It really is that simple". --Rob 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me FM has, only to have them reverted. This is going to turn into one of those childish, "that source isn't good enough", "nope, not that one either", "nope, not close to what I'm wiiling to accept" battles isn't it? Simple enough? •Jim62sch• 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? Please read the history of the article. User:FeloniousMonk has not edited the article, once. Nobody, as of the current version has added any sources. Please provide a diff or version-link, to prove what you said. Where is the revert you speak of? After User:The Tom made the article, no supporter of the article, has bothered to do anything for it. I have tried to find sources, but can not. --Rob 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, lack of critical support in an article simply reporting the existence of an organization is one thing. Lack of critical support in an article that can easily be taken as a slanderous accusation is quite another. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be taken as slanderous how? Certainly no harm has been shown to have been inflicted, thus it cannot be slander. •Jim62sch• 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to explain the slander this way. Say the article was called "World domination parties", and on that list was the same as this list, plus the US Republican Party (on the theory that since Bush is trying to export a political ideology, democracy, at the point of a gun; and since he's a nutty evangelical Christian). Can you not see how this is slander? Even with starting an unwarranted and foolish war in Iraq, and even given that he originally called it a crusade, he (and we America in general) have no desire to dominate Iraq in any way that doesn't mean letting the Iraqi people govern themselves. The party doesn't desire world domination. This is what this list is saying. So, combined with the fact that any rational human being who did not desire world dominion would not want to be labelled such, it is clear that the the very tag itself is slanderous. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but nowhere in the WP article was the Republican Party mentioned -- in the Harpers article, yes, but not in a way that said the party itself was Dominionist (that the NRO took the quotes out of context is hardly surprising).

The example provided is essentially a misdirection; while domination and dominion have the same etymology they do not inherently have the same meaning. As for the Republican party itself, you are correct. As for the neo-cons within the party and the Administration, you are incorrect read through this carefully. In any case, proving slander against a political party is a difficult thing, and something most parties aren't even likely to take to court: they fear opening themselves up to charges of slander or libel. •Jim62sch• 20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

When Joe Sixpack or Susie Sixth-grade is reading this article on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia (presumably a source of knowledge), do you think they will not come away with the impression that these parties desire world dominion (or at least national dominion)? Neither of them will have a court judge or an etymologist next to them. Nor will either of them have proof that any of these parties is "dominionist"; just a cold dead source-less assertion of "fact". GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If they got that impression that could only come from a lack of reading comprehension and not bothering to read what dominionism was. Under that argument we should be worried that we should be worried about the name of the People's Republic of China or the name of the Congo (whatever ridiculous thing it is now) because "Susie Sixth Grade" might get an erroneous impression if she only sees the official name. JoshuaZ 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, after that first sarcastic article in NRO, the PBS page, just had a reference to the NRO story. Another one of your links, didn't even use the term (and I can't figure out why you used it). You actually only cited Harpers, as using the term on its own. Also, the dispute with references isn't the existence of the term Dominionism. It is it's usage when applied to specific parties. You gave exactly one source (Harpers) that (sort of) applied the term to a party. But, it applied it to only some people in the Republican party. Just try and add the Republican party to the page (and related category). You'll see how fast it's reverted. Given how your efforts to find sources, have failed so miserably, its clear there's little hope of sourcing this ever. This is unverifiable, and must be deleted. --Rob 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you only spent half as much time looking for sources to improve the article as you've spent arguing to see it deleted. Then you'd know that there are plenty of notable instances both in and outside of the mainstream press associating certain political parties with Dominionism. That they exist merely need to be added to the article are the only relevant points here and put the lie to your jusitification for deleting this article. There is no dearth of sources for Dominionism: [33] FeloniousMonk 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that's just a link to Google. I know about Google. I used it already. If you have a source that is reliable, that proves *any* of the parties listed is Domionist, then put it in the article. What is the delay? If there are so many reliable sources, then why can't you go and reference this article. Every time you argue here, *instead* of fixing the article, you prove you can't fix the article. Incidently, from the beginning, I've been willing to be proved wrong. If you can prove there is a properly sourced list of "Dominionist" parties, from *neutral* *reliable* sources, I'll happily accept the article, and change my vote. --Rob 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet, strangely enough, those google hits stop at 535 [34], and the wikipedia article ranks third, and they look to be mainly blog posts. Meanwhile, back at wikipedia, the list remains completely unreferenced, although I will say that it is shrinking nicely. Perhaps in between the sock puppet accusations, some of the speedy keep editors would like to add some of those mainstream sources to the list. Or are they more interested in keeping the article for personal reasons than in fixing it?-- JJay 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if either of you bothered doing some actual research for sources in the Google results instead of hastily dismissing them, you'd find these:

WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade': "A strand known as “Dominionism” believes that Christ will only reappear once the world has made a place for him and that a first step is the Christianizing of America. One of its representatives, James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, whom Bush consulted before his run for the presidency, has proclaimed, “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
- Also at: New American Media Writer Challenges New York Times Columnist David Brooks Concept of the 'Good Crusade' Muslims Weekly, Commentary, David Walsh, Feb 15, 2006
NPR: Christian Dominionism
Liberty magazine "A recently articulated philosophy which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ." This idea, also called Dominionism, states that Christians are mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."
The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement "Dominionism is the theory that the account in Genesis in which God gave man dominion over the earth has become a political teaching advocating that Christians gain and hold power. ...Understanding and answering the "religious far right" that propelled President Bush's re-election is key..."
Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America' "Frederick Carlson, author of "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy," says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, "he is certainly a dominionist," one who supports taking over and dominating the political process."

And that just from the first few pages. There's plenty more for anyone who's interested in bettering articles rather than deleting them. FeloniousMonk 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You have given good references for the dominionism article. I agree "dominionism" is a real term, and dominionism should not be deleted. Nobody is saying it should. We're asking for citations to prove each of the parties listed on *this* article have citations. We need neutral and reliable sources to say *these* parties belong on *this* list. You still haven't done that. Why did you waste your time, making irrelevant quotes. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, any uncited name, *will* be removed from this list, and the related category. So, I suggest you go fix the article. Also, it seems the only party you "link" to Dominionism is the U.S. Republican party. I dare you to just try and add Republican Party (United States) to this list, and to Category:Dominionist parties. Then, we'll see what happens. --Rob 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

meep — Dunc|☺ 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but rename to List of Dominionist political parties (unless more of an article is planned). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Which I would promptly noinate for deletionas redundant per the category ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V (and per the article itself which currently reads "None of the parties use this term to describe themselves, and it's not a term generally used in the media to describe them (if at all)"). --kingboyk 08:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's an unsourced addition by one of the people trying to get the page deleted - not exactly a reliable piece of evidence upon which to base your judgement. Guettarda 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Feel free to remove what I added, and add at least *one* neutral reliable source to the article. The original version of this article stated, without qualification, the term "dominionist" was used to describe the parties. There is *no* reason to beleive this. There is good reason to beleive its false. Whenever you present a bias opinion, without attribution, you are violating Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. I couldn't fix the violation of WP:V, but I could at least lessen the violation of WP:NPOV. I'm glad we agree that unsourced additions can not be relied on. I wish to remove all unsourced additions. That means removing my addition, and all others to this article, via deletion. -Rob 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "Dominionism" is, by and large, a straw man created by the American political [far] left that has no bearing on the actual ideology of most of the people labeled as such, and certainly does not play a rôle in the political ideologies of any of the parties listed in this horrific misbegotten excuse for a WP article. While it's true that the article could be cleaned up, there's no reason to do so...it covers a complete non-topic with no bearing in reality (unless you're an American antireligious leftist and honestly fall prey to the ludicrous notion that "dominionism" is a real political ideology with any relevant following, but that sort of delusion is not a strong enough argument in favor of keeping such a silly article)... Tom e r ^talk 10:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, open to persuasion if proper sourcing is implemented. (Sidenote: Putting a comment after my message doesn't constitute sourcing, sourcing is what happens when WP:CITE and WP:V get implemented in an article...) Here we have a list of parties that do not seem to claim to hold the ideology in question and are not generally described as characterized by the ideology in question. The main usage of the political term Dominionism seems to be almost exclusively as an "attack phrase" - not an academically-identified distinction and not a "movement" that individuals or groups ascribe to (some seem to call themselves "Reconstructionists" instead). This largely defeats the purpose of having such a list - it's a lot like having a "List of politicians described as idiots by their political opponents and critics, although not generally characterized as such by themselves, or their supporters, or by the media in general, and despite the fact that academic work has identified neither a coherent pan-idiotic movement nor a wider phenomenon of independent movements sharing similar characteristics that can be labelled as idiotic" and then giving the article the name "List of idiotic politicians". In general, if an article is badly referenced, we tend to let is sit there with a "please fix my references!" tag on and just hope it isn't going to be harmful until it gets fixed. Since this list seems unlikely to ever be fixed in this way, and has the potential to be harmful until it is (who can tell which parties should be listed on it?), it ought to be removed, at least for the moment and until better references present themselves. TheGrappler 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, no prejudice against recreation if notability can be asserted (as process went a bit wonky here, but the end result is the right one) Proto||type 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProUnreal (second nomination)

Website-cruft--Zxcvbnm 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per research in the first nomination. Normally I do not look kindly upon re-nominations, but the first one was clearly neglected and with only two votes hardly had a chance to garner a consensus. In that kind of case I think it is fair to move the nomination back to the most recent day's nominations without closing it, in order to give it more time, rather than closing it off and starting from scratch. NTK 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:Actually, the first nomination had three votes: 2 for delete, one for keep. It should have actually been deleted: there was a 66% consensus.--Zxcvbnm 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all Proto||type 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazoness series

We don't need a ton of pages on all these YGH cards. It's useless, unencyclopedic and other than the most important (e.g. Dark Magician, Blue-Eyes), they all need to be deleted. Frenchman113 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also being listed are:

Archfiend series
Dark Scorpion Gang
Elemental Hero
Elemental Hero Neos
Jinzo
Neo Spacian
Ojama Trio

Delete them all. Yu-gi-cruft. Given Pokemon precedent though I am not hopeful on this one. NTK 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I know there's a precedent for having articles on every single pokemon, but I'm interested in knowing where the exact discussion/policy/ruling is?--Frenchman113 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no "policy" or "ruling." Everything is done on a case-by-case basis by "consensus" of whoever happens to make themselves heard. It's always possible to point to something on Wikipedia that is more obscure/ridiculous/non-notable than something else. NTK 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a precident to keep all Pokemon creature article but if we tried to create an article on every card or every anime episode, thewy'd be deleted too. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Apparantly I forgot to list this on the deletion lists. Or, someone blanked it.--Frenchman113 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Yugicruft.--Zxcvbnm 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all but Ojama Trio, which should probably be merged to Chazz Princeton. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Those were deleted before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists. Speedy delete all. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good find. I second the speedy in this case.. NTK 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. Speedy. And in that case, I say we vape Elemental Hero, Elemental Hero Neos, Jinzo, and Neo Spacian while we're at it.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Hmm. Someobdy ought to tell Markcambrone not to make articles mostly out of copyvio card text. He's created most of those articles. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Just sent him a stern message, now bracing myself for user page goatse vandalism. Anyone care to protect my user page till this is over?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. FWIW, there's also the precedent of not keeping individual Magic: The Gathering cards: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serra Angel, among others. -Colin Kimbrell 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I say delete all BUT Jinzo. Leave it alone. Weirdy 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I must say that Jinzo seems to be least notable of them, appearing in the series only twice as I recall. Far less than say... the Ojama Trio which are also being nominated.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Jinzo hould be the only one deleted(Markcambrone 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
- Okay so isthere any way to keep these, except Jinzo Markcambrone 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
Delete all except Jinzo SSJ 5 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Important Just so you know, I only did all of neo Spacian, and I only added the first two fusions on the Elemental Hero Neos page, which is my favorite one on this whole website since I ve seen the monster in the anime and it looks coolI jsut put some of the translation in my own words(Markcambrone 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
- When I was looking for the translation, there were two of them for Neos, I just added te shorter one
Delete the Yu-Gi-Oh! card categories, and every single page involved with Yu-Gi-Oh!, except for Jinzo. Weirdy 21:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay so why is Jinzo so important? Markcambrone 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because I like Jinzo. Weirdy 09:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
Jinzo is one of Joey's most favorite cards. And also is widely used because of its effect (At least in my country).--unsigned
We should leave the Ojama Trio page up for their history in the Anime. That goes for the Gravekeeper's series too. Rtkat3 08:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
Comments: Do you guys have ice running through your vains or something? First off, you shouldn't try to handle all these pages at once. Talk about stupid. Geez.
- We're handling them all at once because they're all equally notable (zero).--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely keep Jinzo (>.>) since he's been used by three duelists including himself and is generally a very popular card. Ojama's have a story get featured through the Chazz. Keep them. Nuff said. Dark Scorps where all brought to life and the feature of a whole episode. Before that, they were somewhat popular amongst players (especially their leader chris walk...I mean Don). Keep them. DMG is only in a slightly better/different situation. You wanna remove them but not her? I wonder why... Perhaps the Amazon and Amazoness cards should merged. The odd name change (seemingly due a writer shift) and multiple rogue/enemy duelists using them justifies an Article. Keep them. I could careless about the others, should i won't even bother with them, but i'd just say you'll regret deleting a article about the new protagonist's cards. Ace Class Shadow 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping individual card articles on the basis that they were the feature of one episode is ridiculous, you might as well keep articles on individual episodes then! Remember, this isn't a vote, you need a reason or your voice will go unheard. Also, articles on the protagonists' cards should be merged with the article on the protagonist. That's what people actually care about.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

About Jinzo, can a theam consisting of users improve the article a bit? Give it a chance, as it is widely popular (in Australia). I'm glad to see some Jinzo supporters out there. Well Done. Weirdy 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Ain't have no user talk page you nitwit!

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Proto||type 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crib Master

This AfD was orphaned (title in the wrong case). The original reason was: "because i created it as a joke and now i am deleting it Safinuk 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"

Delete as requested. It probably would have qualified as a speedy delete, but other users have edited the page. --E lkman - ^(talk) 21:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:N. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete the band article, make the redirect (Jetpack) into a dab page. Proto||type 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jetpack (band)

Non notable person/band. A quick google search of the user that created the page (User:xraydeltaone) and the person's last name (Standiford) shows they are the same person. [35]

The article Jetpack seems to contain a duplicate of that article. I propose that it be deleted and redirected to jet pack. waffle iron 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Jetpack, but make it a dab to Jet pack and Jetpack (computer game) and perhaps also to Jetpack (band) if that is notable enough to keep. I have no vote on the band, but its info should be removed from the main dab page, as most people who type Jetpack will not be looking for this band. --Doc ^ask? 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Jetpack to Jet pack, delete Jetpack (band), nix the content at both articles, delete Image:Jetpack.jpg. Band is clearly nn per WP:MUSIC. NTK 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's just one bloke and a guitar. --Joe^Talk!_Work^Esp_Mail 03:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboy crashfan 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Celtic Connection

I guess I'm supposed to bring this here. It looks like someone is advertising their website on Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted. Erik the Rude 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per WP:WEB, completely fails to establish notability of this forum. NTK 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable. Bucketsofg 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Oh! Oxygen Proto||type 11:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen Network

I don't think there needs to be an artical for this because I it's just somebody advertising their website and it needs to be deleted. --Caldorwards4 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This article has been around for a while, and a few people commented on it and blanked it, but it was neither AfD'd before nor has its notability ever really been established. The article does look very promotional, and most of the sites on this "network" have little or no content (such as WikipediaX), and certainly seem nn. The article provides no context, it claims that the network is a "nonprofit organization" but provides no references. NTK 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Oh! Oxygen the women's TV network, which is what probably 99.999% of people searching for this term would expect to find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect: per Starblind. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - superceded by a category which does the job better. Proto||type 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of companies headquartered in Tokyo

Obsoleted by Category:Companies headquartered in Tokyo. The only redlink on the page has been listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan#Business. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to nom-mentioned cat. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to a category. Redirects to category namespace are troublesome. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (very, very quickly). -Doc ^ask? 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam_Baker_Pancake_Craving_2006

Not a valid subject for wikipedia Lawlor421 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. Bhoeble 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
speedy no clain to notability and now so tagged.Obina 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. More nonsense than vanity. NTK 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and don't forget the image too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children_of_artemis

Duplicate of page with correct capitalisation in name Benvaughan 22:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirect. No need to AfD this kind of thing. NTK 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep, particularly now article fulfills WP:V. Proto||type 11:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhamamd Yusuf Khandlawi

Delete one line stub that has had a clean up tag on it since Sept. 2005. No sources, so fails WP:V (only 'source' is this image). Fails to establish WP:N. A google search comes up with only 24 matches. [36] Jersey Devil 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If he's notable someone will have to write a better article than that, later. But it looks like he's not. If someone can rescue the article or at least add some serious references, I'll change my vote. NTK 23:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Keep. Still needs a lot of work, but at least there's something to go on. NTK 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Muslim scholar that wrote notable book, fullfills WP:BIO in having a audience. Hard to find sources for Arabic writers on english. Is Wikipedia runing out of hardrive space? Let the article be untill someone with more expertice arives. --Striver 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Striver. Nominated as part of Jersey Devil's long-running crusade against Striver. The book is notable enough, and thereby its author. Lambiam ^Talk 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As is, this is a substub which says nothing to notability other than the fact that he's a scholar and published a book. Lots of scholars publish books. This man could be anyone. Could we at least get a year of birth, a date of publication, some links about this guy and a sentence or two about the subject matter of the book? As is there is no context. NTK 02:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! NTK 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Striver is correct on this, it is very difficult to find reliable sources in English on foreign authors and scholars, especially those from the subcontinent. This scholar is actually one of the most famous scholars within the Tablighi Jamaat organization in the middle of the 20th century. The article, though still a stub, is now referenced and defends the individuals notability. Pepsidrinka 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Better references will emerge in time. What we have at the moment is a start. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after MoP userfied the article to User:Artapi. Sango 123 (e) 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Apicella

Delete: This article is more vanity written by a user with a strikingly similar name (Artapi) than a real article; the only semi-notable thing here is the fact that the individual was a contestant on a reality show. _-M ^o P-_ 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, likely vanity. Bucketsofg 23:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --MaNeMeBasat 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ... hmm, make into a disambiguation page. Proto||type 11:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The People of Monotheism

Delete and Redirect to Druze. No reason for a term for Druze to have its own page when it could simply be put into the Druze page. Jersey Devil 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Its a name also used by Salafis ans other groups. Druze dont own the name. --Striver 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment This has pretty much the same content as Al-Muwahhidūn I suppose one could be used as a disambiguation page with a redirect from the other, which would require paring its content down, or their content could be merged into Druze and Salafi. Not sure at the moment. Шизомби 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep either this page or Al-Muwahhidūn as (essentially) a disambiguation page, merge the other one into it and make that one a redirect. Lambiam ^Talk 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Merge as per Lambian, but also Fix Article implies on 1st reading that Salafi & Druze are one and the same. I'm fairly certain that will offend more than one person in each of those groups.Bridesmill 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it takes a 2nd reading to see that this is essentially a dab page (something for which the nominator apparently had no time to spare, what with how busy he is nominating articles for deletion). It needs fixing, like so many other articles. Lambiam ^Talk 04:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NVnetbackup

Advertisement for software on Sourceforge. Delete. RasputinAXP c 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's complete crap, there is a wikipedia article on openoffice.org, windows, linux, etc. Are you going to remove those as well? This isn't an advertisement, it's documentation with a comparison of why someone would use this software. 19:42, 13 April 2006 (EST) Do not delete. Musashi5191645

Delete as per nom, it isn't notable software. Musashi is trying to make this into a straw man argument by stating highly notable software. Ans e ll 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So just because something is new means it's worthy of deletion? How are people supposed to find out new information if the people with access to said information use that sort of mentality? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Just because something isn't popular does not give you or anyone else the right to censor it. Musashi5191645

Wikipedia is not a democracy. RasputinAXP c

00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the sense in being able to freely contribute if you are only going to be shot down by territorial billigerence? if there's something wrong with the article the tell me, because I refuse to accept the notion that an article can be nixed just because the subject matter is new and not too well known. Isn't the purpose of an 'encyclopedia' to provide a reference for otherwise unknown information? Or does everyone who reads the articles on this site already have all the knowledge contained therein? DO NOT DELETE Musashi5191645

Apart from looking like half a marketing report and half a user manual, neither of which things are what WP is about, it is NOT notable. Ans e ll 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles that could easily fall into the same category. So the only thing you have on this particular article is that it isn't notable. FINE, but that's still no reason to just delete it. How is it supposed to become known if people like you keep trying to withhold information? You say it looks like a 'marketing report' ... how can you market open source software? Usually you market something to make money but I'm not trying to make any money here, I'm trying to save people some money while at the same time, making them aware that they do have alternatives to common backup software. There's a stub on Veritas Backup Exec listed, so why can't mine be listed? Because it's not notable? Have you used it? Would you even know how? I have this bery same backup system implemented at over 100 of our client sites and it has never failed me. Of course, these are all banking and finance business who aren't known for going online and discussing how they backup their data so it's popularity (notability) is limited to the audience in which it has been exposed to. Your behavior about this is completely out of line, you are 'Biting the newcomer' something that's supposed to be explicitly prohibited here. Are you too good for the rules? My article does not deserve to be deleted, I am willing to hear your suggestions to make it better. Musashi5191645

Actually, now that you say it. There may be other articles with exactly the same reasons that should also be here for AfD discussion. I notice above that you talk like a marketer, particularly speaking of course of those who market Open Source software. They have their own particular style (also known as their POV). You are a maintainer of the software? A distributor? Both of these things come under the Vanity policy. Please note that we are not biting the newcomer. We are not biting anyone, if the article was notable, non POV, and possibly had some reason why as you point out, people would come to wikipedia to get information about it, we would not be going to all the trouble of putting it here and discussing the issue with you. Please dont make personal attacks, It is not your place to tell people they are biting newcomers. If someone else sees this then they may be in a neutral enough position to see that. Interestingly, the fact that you know about the policy reveals your depth of knowledge about wikipedia so far. Interesting how you have a customised signature, something which reveals your depth of experience. Ans e ll 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you were really serious about this article, Musashi5191645, you would write it so it sounds more like an encyclopedia article and less like a promotional pamphlet. That is all. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. 28,000,000 Google hits for Openoffice.org, which has been around for years and is well-established and widespread. 93 hits for NVnetbackup, which appears to have been released this week. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new products. Fan1967 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. --blue520 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Over 15490 packages are available in Debian and not one is related to this software. I think that is a very liberal notablity guideline for linux based OSS. Good luck though. [37] ccwaters 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Muwahhidūn

Delete and Redirect to Druze. No reason for a term for Druze to have its own page when it could simply be put into the Druze page. Jersey Devil 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Its not name only a used by the Druze, evident for anyone that actualy read the article.--Striver 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete blah blah is a word that means this is a dictdef that has at times had different meanings. Kotepho 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep either this page or The People of Monotheism as (essentially) a disambiguation page, merge the other one into it and make that one a redirect. Definitely do not delete both. Lambiam ^Talk 01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to cavalier (as redirects are, indeed, cheap) Proto||type 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentleman Cavalier

AFAICT (using Google) this is a neologism. The article was added by a newly created user account in one edit with no corrections --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete because Wikipedia has an article on Cavaliers which covers at least half this article in more detail and without the errors. The second half of the article builds a case that the "Civilian member of Household Cavalry regiments are referred to as gentleman cavaliers, much as membership in the Household Division was once restricted to the nobility. " I have searched on Google using ["gentleman cavalier" "Household Cavalry"], ["gentleman cavalier" "British Army"], ["gentleman cavalier" "Blues and Royals"], and the same search using "gentleman cavalierS" and the same second strings, none of them returned a page close to the description given in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Cavalier. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? pleases cite a source to prove that this is not a neologism. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not a neologism. Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest redirect to cavalier here. There is some support for the article's assertion that the term Gentleman Cavalier is in use in commonwealth nations to describe civilian horseriders attached to cavalry regiments.Here for instance, the Canadian Akaash Maharaj, who rides with the Governor General's Household Cavalry, once referred to gentleman cavaliers in this sense, though since then he has updated the term to "civilian cavaliers" (presumably as the sex requirements have been relaxed by the cavalry) Although this is far from an adequate reference, it is enough to convince me that the information is substantially correct and verifiable. It would therefore be a mistake to remove the entry altogether because someone might see the term gentleman cavalier and want to look it up. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peloponnese Democratic Union

This article is under heavy doubt. There is no separatist movement in the peloponnese, this area has been the oldest part and heartland of modern greece. Moreover, as far as i know there have been no candidates of this "party" in the municipal elections (the next ones are upcoming in October). Linking to an nonexistant page with just an email adress.Unless the user who created it presents some credible information, I think it should be deleted. The same article, containing the english text and the link, appeared in the greek wikipedia and was speedy - deleted. - Badseed 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtually blank website, fails Google test in both English and Greek (zero, count 'em, zero hits both ways). Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. Likely vanispamadcruft. Delete. Alba 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Alba. Bucketsofg 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverified and unverifiable. Also has no page on Greek Wikipedia, for what that's worth. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 13

[edit] Democratic Underground

[edit] Progressive Independent

[edit] ITheater

[edit] Reid Horkins

[edit] List of bloody video games

[edit] Google Generation

[edit] Wikiletics

[edit] User:Romarin/WikiProject Common Era

[edit] Netburner

[edit] Anuthin Wongsunkakon

[edit] Ric Romero (investigative reporter)

[edit] Baseball business rules

[edit] The Rescue Rooms

[edit] Tom McLaughlan

[edit] Galactic Conquest

[edit] Kaitlyn Filippini

[edit] Tony Le-Nguyen

[edit] Australian Vietnamese Youth Media

[edit] Aussie Bia Om

[edit] Chay Vong Vong

[edit] Children of the Dragon

[edit] Steve Chappell

[edit] Black Dogs Leeds

[edit] Matthew Leskowitz

[edit] Charles Guo

[edit] Nathan Fisher-Koeln

[edit] American Council of Private Colleges and Universities

[edit] List of Pikmin Creatures

[edit] Sonic cavitation

[edit] Outlaw 8

[edit] Ask those who know (book)

[edit] Husain Mohammad Jafri

[edit] Fecalism

[edit] Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

[edit] Massasoit amateur radio association

[edit] 19 Bar

[edit] Slaves freed by Abu Bakr

[edit] William Grammer

[edit] Sohan mikkilineni

[edit] Personal vision workbook

[edit] NameSecure

[edit] "chopin impromptu in gb major"

[edit] List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp

[edit] Petricore

[edit] Brandon Transit

[edit] Emergency File

[edit] List of Gran Turismo cars

[edit] Laurentian University Model Parliament

[edit] Laurentian university political science association

[edit] Scouting in Vatican City, Scouting in Equatorial Guinea, Scouting in Guinea-Bissau, Scouting in Mali, Scouting in São Tomé e Príncipe, Scouting in Somalia

[edit] Justin DiCenzo

[edit] Stimulism

[edit] TotalGirl Magazine

[edit] The Ongar Experiment

[edit] Oliver Guynes and Cooper Guynes

[edit] Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray

[edit] Defend Your Castle

[edit] Scott and Zachary Benes

[edit] Amy and Emily Walton

[edit] Johnny Violence

[edit] Sandritter Productions, Inc.

[edit] Craig Bradshaw

[edit] Businessrealmz

[edit] Vincent Loechner

[edit] Warlord2000ad

[edit] Digital Blasphemy

[edit] When 6021 Met 4267

[edit] 2River

[edit] Recto ratio factibilium

[edit] Bodytalk

[edit] AIFC

[edit] Andrew Justin Kussmaul

[edit] Alistair Crosbie

[edit] Alexandria Potomac Little League

[edit] Sample mass

[edit] Eivaagames