Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

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 deleted by Geogre. — FireFox • T [21:33, 6 April 2006]

[edit] Iainish

Seems to be a simple page of jibberish. Not suitable for Wikipedia. Gordo 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Appears to be a protected deletion now. Fagstein 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Note Fixed pointer (was "PageName" before). D'oh! Speedy delete as nonsense. Fagstein 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Let's see... {{nn-bio}}, {{nonsense}}, {{attack}}, maybe more. Grand master ka 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete attack page, tagged accordingly. --Bachrach44 19:39, 6 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. — FireFox • T [21:32, 6 April 2006]

[edit] Joncourt

I removed the prod and fixed the article. Are you suppose to put it up for AfD? My vote is Keep--Rayc 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, and no, you don't need to place this on AfD, unless of course someone contests your removal of the prod tag. --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per TBC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs).

I verify this fact--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, I believe we can close this AFD by now. Like TBC said, you don't need to place this on AFD unless an editor contests the removal of the prod tag. This town exists, definitely notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I put the prod tag on it. It still needs more work, it's barely more than a substub at the moment, but I'm happy for it to be kept in its new state. --Tango 12:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep wrong tag. : ) 69.64.140.71 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, mistaken nomination. Fagstein 17:35, 6 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 per nonsense _→AzaToth 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] என் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

Article apparently in Tamil, untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Delete unless translated (speedy keep if translation reveals this to be a useful article). Kusma (討論) 00:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki, if there is a wiki for that language, otherwise Delete, unless it gets translated. Vulcanstar6 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Title translates to "My new words...Me and Marijuana" and the article about the writer's relationship with Marijuana. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above, tagged accordingly. Brian G. Crawford 00:46, 6 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 per nonsense _→AzaToth 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] அ. முத்துலிங்கத்தின் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

Article apparently in Tamil, untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Delete if untranslated, speedy keep if somebody translates it into something worth keeping. Kusma (討論) 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Don't bother transwiking nonsense. Title translates to "My new words...Me and Marijuana" and the article about the writer's relationship with Marijuana. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Question Both this article and the one above translate to the same thing? JoshuaZ 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They have same content. Just two different titles. First one says, "My new words...Me and Marijuana" and second article's (this article) title reads, "A. Muthulingam's new words...Me and Marijuana". - Ganeshk (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as untranslated for 2 weeks and per Ganeshk--Dakota ~ ° 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Ganesh this meets two speedy criteria. That isn't common. JoshuaZ 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above, tagged accordingly. Brian G. Crawford 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
En.Wikipedia is not the Tamil Wikipedia? --maru (talk) contribs 00:49, 6 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 03:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks

There are hundreds, thousands of mere flash games on the Internet. The creator of the game only has two contributions. Non-notable. Hbdragon88 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd like to see the Kittyslasher Entertainment redirect axed as well. See a discussion on the user who created the page as well. - Hbdragon88 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn flash. Feezo (Talk) 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 03:53Z
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete newgroundscruft. Also possible copyright and trademark violation from nintendo over excitebike name and graphics ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Its not a copyright violation as its supposedly a parody of Excitebie--TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per above.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Weatherman90 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all flash games. Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per above Vulcanstar6 15:47, 6 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 corp spam. Royboy crashfan 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetCB Pty(Ltd)

NPOV, advertisement--Zxcvbnm 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: definately needs cleanup, but might have a claim to notability by being, "the Only Novell Technology Partner in South Africa" --Hetar 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM, though I will change to weak keep if someone can verify the above claim --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant link from Novell's site: [1] --Hetar 06:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. What about being the "only Novell Technology Partner in South Africa" makes this company notable? No doubt there's a company out there that's the only registered dealer for Hyundai in Lesotho; does that fact alone denote notability? RGTraynor 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spammy and not demonstrating notability Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, the first comment is irrelvent since we don't care if they are novell's technology partner in south africa since its irrevelent. Mike _{(T C)} 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, AdSpam. Deizio 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - spammish. Metamagician3000 03:02, 9 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 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scadaware

Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like an ad for this company. SCADA already has an article. Feezo (Talk) 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: article makes no assertion of notability, and if it did, it would be a blatant lie. Fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Spam to be deleted.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ad, spam. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as said above. Weatherman90 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ain't got nothing in common with WP:CORP Deizio 23:49, 6 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......keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamblen Elementary School (Spokane, Washington)

Non-notable elementary school. Delete because of the lack of differentiation from others of its type. We should not have an article on every school any more than we should have an article on every restaurant. Johntex\^talk 00:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment LOL I just did a google search and found at least three different "Hamblens" around the U.S. - Hbdragon88 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete too many schools with little to say about them.--Hooperbloob 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep based on many precedents. If it's not expanded, somebody is free to merge, if they so wish, based on WP:SCH. --Rob 03:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note WP:SCH is not a policy. Johntex\^talk 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note, I can link to a page that's not policy. I'm going along with WP:SCH-based merges, in the spirit of compromise (I prefer stand-alone articles personally). WP:SCH isn't policy, but its a good-faith attempt at compromise. --Rob 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You can absolutely link to a non-policy if you wish. It's just that we have so many policies and guidelines, I don't want anyone to get the mistaken idea that WP:SCH is either. Johntex\^talk 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't support elementary schools, the likelyhood of notability (which also is not a policy, but I use it) is slim to none. T K E 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No claim to notability --Icarus 05:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a redirect to Spokane Public Schools --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Next to no elementary and middle schools are notable, and the vast majority of high schools are not either ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I disagree that high schools (with the exceptions, say, of the Columbines and the HSPEs of the world) are notable; elementary schools sure aren't. RGTraynor 14:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per demonstrated consensus in past discussions. In addition, policy/practice recognize notability of every subway station in world, and schools are more significant than subway stations. Monicasdude 14:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, just as some past nominations of schools have resulted in a consensus to keep, other past nominations have resulted in a consensus to delete. We need to look at the merits of this individual school, where the article makes no claim of notability. Johntex\^talk 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a little misleading. Virtually all verifiable real school articles for several months have been kept. Looking over a year, it's the overwhelming majority. It's often the those wishing to delete, which will point this out. We don't delete municipalities, and we don't delete schools, if they are verifiable. I find it annoying that some people miscontrue deletions of schools lacking verifiability (which I've voted and/or nominated for deletion) as being a general allowance for deleting a verifiable school. We should not be deleting articles on an entirely random basis, as you're currently seeking. Please, don't try to go back in time, and undo what's done. This is a waste of time, and we all know it. --Rob 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think you mean to misinform, your comments are potentially misleading. You say don't "undo what's done" as if there had been some inflection point where policy changed. That is not the case. There is no consensus on a policy to keep all schools. The fact is we do delete schools that are not notable. I agree with you that we should not be deleting articles randomly, we should be doing so based on their importance or non-importance. The waste of time is in creating articles on non-notable subjects, which then take time to delete or (worse) take time to police them for up-to-dateness and vandalism in the case they are kept. Editor fatique is a real problem on these non-notable articles. Johntex\^talk 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please give a full list of recent examples of AFDs that resulted in K-12 school articles being deleted, that did not involve verifiability issues (or copyvio), but were strictly based on "notability". Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005 seem to disprove your point. You're trying to pretend a rare exception, is something normal. Given the level of your contributions towards schools, I don't see how you can be suffering from fatique. But, if you are somehow "fatiqued" anyhow, feel free to scale back your "effort", to be less tiring. I'm sure nobody will mind. --Rob 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to twist my words. The worst fatigue is in trying to watch over these non-notable articles. Johntex\^talk 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Non-notable" is your own opinion. How many times have you reverted vandalism to a school-related article? I would have to disagree with you, the worst fatigue is watching over Britney Spears, George W. Bush, Hitler, and any other entertainer, pop singer, or person of power, and you don't see us nominating those for deletion, do you? Silensor 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen. The vandals tend to hit the big articles which makes it really frustrating if you're trying to do a good edit on one of them. Yes, some do vandalize the small articles, but there are bots and people who just pay attention to the "recent changes" page to take care of that. Even if vandals DID focus on "small" articles that would not be a legitimate reason to delete, as we don't delete based on the possibility of vandalism. YellowPigNowNow 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

John Segenthaler shows how damaging vandalism to a fairly obscure article can be. All we need is for someone student to edit Hamblen Elementary School to say "Principle skinner molested me." and then for that to go unedited for a few months. Johntex\^talk 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying John Seigenthaler didn't deserve a page? Anyway, defamatory content can, and often is, posted on chemical pages that are not commonly viewed, but are important nonetheless. The problem isn't with obscure articles. It's with anonymous vandals. However, Wikipedia is based on the idea that anyone can edit, so vandalism is a risk the community is obviously willing to take. I don't think the possibility of vandalism existing in the future is a proper concern in the deletion process, but I realize you feel differently. YellowPigNowNow 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. You can't find anything wrong with the current content (or history since June), so you manufacture some scenerio that might happen in the future. Shall we also delete all the RAMBOT township articles because somebody might write "Mayor skinner molested me."? As somebody who regularly edits and watches many school articles, I *know* how absurd your claims regarding vandalism are (though like any article area, it obviously exists as a problem). As somebody who rarely edits school articles (except to nominate them) you simply don't know what you are talking about. At least research something before commenting. --Rob 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'm not digging through deletions outcomes on schools becuase it is irrelevant how many schools have or have not been kept in the last few months or the last few years. Just because a cabal has formed to try to blindly keep all school articles, regardless of notability, does not mean that the rest of us are to be intimidated. The fact is that even with the cabal to protect every school-phone-book entry, there has been no change in policy to protect schools from deletion. My arguments about vandalism apply not just to schools but to all non-notable articles. Schools are no different from restaurants or shopping malls. If there is something special about them, then by all means lets have an article about them. If not, then lets delete them and get on with more important articles. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of us spent a lot of time (wasted judging buy your comments here) discussing this issue. I personally started out from your viewpoint. However at Wikipedia:Schools the only possible compromise was the merge to district or town page with no loss of content and a redirect in place. You may well disagree with this but until you have gone through the archives you will not appreciate this position. Not to mention reopening the can of worms will just waste a huge amount of time from your own perspective. The original goal was to reduce the number of school AfD's since they serve no purpose other than to cause fights. As Rob says, how many verifiable schools have been deleted recently? It is a fools errand to persue this to the end game. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If somebody said "...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them..." [2], would they be part of this "cabal" you speak of? Would that be "intimidation" (as you imply)? p.s. Did you notice that your link goes to BJAODN? --Rob 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No to being a member of the cabal (so far as I'm aware) because he does not participate in auto-pilot keep-voting. No to being intimidation because he says he thinks people should relax, which is very different to inflamatory language such as "you don't know what you are talking about". However, I think his recommendation is a bad one. Especially when he says The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times. You have essentially demonstrated what is wrong with this statement when you tout the fact that some non-notable schools have survived deletion as an argument why all non-notable schools should survive deletion. That is exactly the danger with letting these kinds of articles stand. They continually lower the bar for what is to be included here. Johntex\^talk 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "you don't know what you are talking about". He has a point. Have you read through the archives on this discussion? They are long and tedious but necessary because all your arguments have been made before. As I said above, i was saying exactly what you are saying now. Don't waste too much time on this. i do believe the best compromise has been reached. David D. (Talk) 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What compromise would that be? What Rob is saying is that schools don't get deleted very often, so just keep them all. That is not a compromise. To answer your question, I am familiar with the debate over schools. I think some of the best arguments are in Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. So, yes, I know what I am talking about. I am aware some people want to keep all schools, regardless of whether there is anything special about them or not. I am aware some of these people have tried and failed to establish a policy saying we should keep all schools. I am aware we should be discussing here this individual school and whether it should be kept. Unfortunately, we are deviating off of that mark a bit. Johntex\^talk 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No I don't mean the project page i mean the talk pages, see the archives here: Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Archives. These arguments (delete, merge and keep) have been discussed to death. The compromise was that crap school articles can be merged and the school page would be maintained as a redirect. Do i think this is a good compromise? Not really. i do think it is likely to be the only comproimise that can work. Read the archives and see what you think. You will find that your position was well represented at the table. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not read every word of the discussion, but I have read large chunks of it. My favorite quote is "merged crap is still crap" - which Rob said at one point in Archive3. If I understand the context correctly, he was arguing to improve articles to good quality, versus just merging stubby stuff together to make it look more "keepable". However, there is no compromise there, as far as I can tell. Just within the past 24 hours the proposal has been marked as rejected policy[3] and Rob agreed to this[4]. Therefore, I don't see how any compromise has been reached. I see that we are left to discuss each case here on its merits, just as we do for non-school articles. Johntex\^talk 04:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Rob supports that move since there is a description of how to write a school page on the WP:SCH. i did notice man in blacks 'reject tag' although i was not quite sure what it meant. Wikipedia:Schools#Current_proposal_for_schools seemed to be a workable solution to keep schools out of AfD and therefore to stop these huge long discussions which are time sinks. i still think that solution is better than the strife that comes from AfD and schools. Crap yes worth my time no (although here I am again doing just that). David D. (Talk) 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I and probably most people, didn't really love the merger compromise. But, we accepted it, as the best so far. I voted to oppose it as *official* policy or guiedline. But, it was me, who put the merge compromise wording onto to the Wikipedia:Schools page itself (so it wasn't just on the talk page). I also regularly cited it in AFD. This was an effort, to support compromise, even when the compromise, wasn't my personal version. We all gotta live with a lot of stuff we don't like. That's the only way this thing works. You have to understand the compromise doesn't have to be official, to be used. No new policy is needed to do merges, as policy has always allowed that as a regular editing decision. However, some people misuse Wikipedia:Schools, and mistakenly used it to justify deletion. All the confusion over its meaning, led me to accept labelling it as a rejected guideline. Anyways. For this article here, I will happily accept a merge/redirect, even though it's not a perfect solution. I don't vote "merge" per se, because some misinterpret it as being "like delete", which it is not. Paradoxically, you've increased the chances for a stand-alone article. Had you just done a redirect, I doubt anybody would have minded. I have done nothing to prevent a compromise, and we can easily have a compromise for this article. Once the AFD is over, a discussion of what to (e.g. merging) can be done. --Rob 04:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love any discussion fork away from actual Keep or Delete opinions that is longer than the article in question.--Isotope23 05:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I am 100% supportive of articles for all high schools - but elementary schools is a bit too far. Weatherman90 14:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
redirect and merge if necessary to Spokane Public Schools, I don't see anything wrong with that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no consensus to keep any schools... but in my opinion anything below high school has about the same inherent notability as your local Walmart: none. Could support a Redirect per JzG. --Isotope23 14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete no consensus to keep all schools, look up in your local phone directory and you'll find numerous driving schools, traffic schools (for offenders usually), computer skills schools, comedy schools, etc. They all get WP pages, well we might as well incorporate the phone directories and say all people are inherently notable because they attend(ed) "notable" schools. Carlossuarez46 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, esp. Isotope. Eusebeus 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep As with the others. Osomec 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gflor e s^Talk 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per JzG. Fagstein 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge, schools are inherently notable. If there's nothing written about it, merge or redirect to whatever district it's in, mention there, and tag it {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge, per above. --Ton e 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as most schools are notable. bbx 22:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and the historical consensus to keep articles on schools. Silensor 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There is much precedent for keeping school articles. It has been the rare case where a school article was deleted for "notability" reasons. Other factors were usually at play. It's slightly misleading to suggest otherwise. YellowPigNowNow 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To put it in more precise terms, out of the past 430 school articles nominated for deletion, 24 were deleted. In most cases they were deleted because they were either unverifiable or proven to be a hoax. Enough of the myths. Silensor 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
weak keep, mostly as per weatherman, but weakly feeling that every school is as notable as every subway stop or chemical . . . --He:ah? 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge, if it's not expanded, based on Wikipedia:Schools and in the spirit of compromise. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete or Merge - Valid arguments on both sides, but in the end I fail to see any encyclopedic value in a separate article. -Big Smooth 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ninja Keep in otherwords keep this and kick the nominator squaar in the nuts </cartman> All schools are valid inclusions to a global encyclopedia. This is reinforced quite effectively per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep ALKIVAR™ 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. U$er 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Elementary schools are notable for only a few reasons (mostly morbid): bombings, shootings, and special needs accomodations (aka... only elementary school specifically for autistic children in all of new england, even that would probably warrant a debate). Delete, please. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If kept, do not add transient and generic information for expansion's sake. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
keep please the school is very important to note Yuckfoo 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
keep per Alkivar et al. - Jaysus Chris 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. ClarkBHM 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
keep - If an elementary school can be deleted because it is non-notable, why is Addy, Washington kept? Addy is basically a truck stop (I live a few miles north of Addy), yet it remains, but a school, whether its a primary or a secondary, does shape people's lives and the articles do offer somewhere for new people to begin to work on Wikipedia. Not to mention that Hamblen Elementary is tied into the former Spokane mayor Jim West scandle. Alemily 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the articles on towns start from material generated by a bot from a reasonably comprehensive, authoritative, accurate, and up-to-date database, and therefore the collection of town articles taken as a whole, is reasonably thorough, reasonably consistent in style, and reasonably accurate. That doesn't mean everyone approves of them by any means. However, it is not fair to compare the current set of school articles in Wikipedia, taken as a whole with the current set of town articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RAMBOT census places (which you refer to) applies to a country with 5% of the world's population. All the issues with currency apply to all the other places in the world (95%). Articles on places outside the U.S. is one of the largest areas of *human* created articles (full articles, stubs, and substubs). Thank goodness we don't waste time on AFDs on all those articles. Incedently the *vast* majority of those human made articles (with no bot maintenance) have no claim of notability, yet remain one of the most valued parts of this project, and are what attract a large portion of readers and editors. --Rob 17:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - elementary schools should not be kept unless notability is established. I don't see it established here. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per above reasons. Vegaswikian 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep all schools. Usual arguments. If you just don't see the beauty in an encyclopaedia that has a well-written article on every school (and every restaurant) in this world, then you're too dull to argue this with anyway. Grace Note 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep by default. Notable-non notable distinction is inherently POV. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep.as Grace Note.--Luka Jačov 11:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school. Wikipedia is not a directory. --G Rutter 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ninja Keep same as ALKIVAR. Notability isn't, fortunately for Wikipedia, a reason for deletion. --GTubio 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per User:Thivierr. --estavisti 20:49, 10 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 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Rosenbergs

Possible hoax or nn vanity. No sources given to assert notability. Unverifiable, Google gives 21 links for "Robert Rosenbergs", none of which verifies the existance of this person. Was tagged for notability and sources, but they were removed. Prod notice also removed. Ezeu 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. --Hetar 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. The only solid fact in the article is the claim the guy is in the Ranger Hall of Fame - I can find no evidence of that through Google or Lycos searching. Without that supposed claim, subject is non-notable. Repeated removal of tags makes me suspect hoax or vanity as well. Johntex\^talk 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, many other people reach rank of captain.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO, and possibly WP:HOAX and WP:VANITY --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn-bio, probaly hoax and vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-verifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Johntex Deizio 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete,non-notable, and per above. Vulcanstar6 00:11, 7 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. Not enough proof that it's not a hoax to transwiki --Joann e B 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witikon

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Hetar 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Was about to prod it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Vote changed, see below.
Transwiki. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure its an actual word? --Hetar 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand? Under What Grounds do you want it deleted? Epsilonrho 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Under the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles like this belong at Wiktionary. --Hetar 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ohhk. how do you move it too wiktionary? Epsilonrho 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I think its worthy of an encyclopaedic entry. it contains some history, and is more then just a definition of a wordEpsilonrho 01:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Patent nonsense; original research. Bucketsofg 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, isn't Witikon also a province in Switzerland? Anyhow, back on topic, delete this as an unverifiable dicdef--TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - If user wants to recreate in Wiktionary, let them, but I don't think we should Transwiki a a word which may not exist. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and do not transwiki: not found in OED or on Google(other than as Swiss district) Kevin McE 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I can find no evidence this word exists. "witikus" also doesn't look anything like a Greek word. --Saforrest 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Witikodelete per Kevin McE. Fagstein 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per nom. --Ton e 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fake Greek Bacchiad 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as steaming load of "Camelus-Witikon". Deizio 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that an unpleasant comment attributed to me on this page (deleted, can be seen in history) was posted by User:Epsilonrho. Deizio 11:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless proof can be found that this is a real word (I couldn't find any). Failing that proof, it should not be transwikied. Ziggurat 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, if it can not be found that this is "real", then it should be deleted and not transwikied. Radagast83 05:40, 11 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appadurai Muttulingam

This article was recreated after it was deleted on a previous AFD. Not notable. Has a bunch books that never sold. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Please note that less than 1 % Tamil literature is available in net and because many of those are not with Unicode, that may not come up in Google Search. As an author of books which are available in Amazon, this article has to be kept Doctor Bruno 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete only 77 Google hits, many referring to this article. Seems to be vanity or promotional. The results of the previous AfD apply. AdamBiswanger1 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Kalani ^[talk] 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Is it necessary for books to sell in order for someone to count as notable enough for Wikpedia? The charge in the archived articles that the book on Macros was from a subsidy press diminished the claims of notability for that volume, but what about the others? Standards for professors is that their publication exceeds that of the average prof at a university, right? There's no real requirement that people read the books they publish. This man isn't a prof, but he seems to have published a number of books in Tamil fiction. I'm not familiar with either him or his books and haven't read any Tamil literature in 15 years, but just judging in terms of the article, it seems NPOV and sufficiently notable for a keep. Interlingua ^talk 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete mindful of systemic bias, maybe the lack of google hits is due to searching using the Roman alphabet and/or searching with one of several possible spellings. But the fact that it was originally a vanity article and the list of publications is shaky (marginal vanity, little readership) makes me lean toward delete. Change to a keep if someone familiar with Tamil literature thinks this guy is notable. Opabinia regalis 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. "அ.முத்துலிங்கம்" gives 39 unique Google hits, which may not seem a lot, but Tamil is not strongly represented on the Internet. The article should be merged with A. Muttulingam (which I don't think was created as a vanity article); this may actually be the more common search term. There is also the spelling "A. Muthulingam", as he was referred to in the section "Famous contemporary authors" in the article Tamil literature until the whole section was deleted in this edit: [5]; see also e.g. the last entry on this page: [6]. And finally, you can also spell "A. Muththulingam". --Lambiam ^Talk 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Books seem verifiable e.g. [7], [8]. Probable systemic bias issues here. And no, I can't spell his name but Tamil-speakers may be able to. Dlyons493 Talk 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment It seems that this article and A. Muttulingam are both about User:Amuttu (who only contributes in Tamil; see his talk page). 145.222.138.134 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Lambian and Dlyons493; searching for Muttulingam and checking the English results closely finds several references which suggest the subject is considered a notable (and probably popular) Tamil-language author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep but... A. Muttulingam neeeds to be merged with this article. In addition, vanity elements such as the jobs of his children and the praise of his writing style need to be removed. Some minor references to the writer can be found in The Hindu newspaper here Bwithh 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep but merge with A. Muttulingam and clean up. - Parthi 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I own a couple of his books, and I can confirm that he's a well known short story author - for example, this archive[9] features his works (Nos. 46, 47, 85, 86, 87, and 132 are by him). If I remember right, he's even won a couple of literary awards. -- Arvind 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And in case there are still any doubts about his notability, the Tamil wikipedia has an article about him: see ta:அ. முத்துலிங்கம். -- Arvind 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article - hopefully this is sufficient to get it through this VfD -- Arvind 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. per above -- published author of a number of books. ImpuMozhi 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable within the Tamil language community. Eluchil404 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
keep please it is notabel and verifiable too Yuckfoo 06:00, 22 June 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gauge (gay porn star)

Okay, this one is a bit tricky. There is, of course, a porn star named Gauge, who is undoubtedly very notable as an adult actress. This article, however, is about a male adult actor. Because the article is unreferenced, I'm finding it difficult to verify his existence let alone notability. Because of Gauge's (the actress) overwhelming success in adult entertainment, Google is proving futile in that regard. I am guessing that the subject is Gauge McLeod, because that is the only other "Gauge" listed on IMDB. If this is the case, then it is a very obscure actor with only 204 Google hits and only 3 unique. I would say that this isn't very noteworthy. I am perfectly willing to see this article kept if it can be sourced and notability can be shown for its subject. In the meantime, I'll abstain. — orion eight (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tentative delete googling for gauge and gay also shows up too many unrelated things. However none of them on the first page seem to refer to this person. A search for "gay porn star" + Gauge seems to only turn up general porn sites where the Gauge in question is the female Gauge. JoshuaZ 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. There's no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 01:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I googled it with same result of being unable to verify his very existence, finding only a female Gauge pornagraphic actress but no male one. Vanity WP:VAIN.--Dakota ~ ° 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete porncruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per "porncruft." Never in my life would I think I would type that. T K E 04:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete: Here's his official website: http://www.TheGShow.com/ User:JJPeachum

Comment Alexa ranking of 2,336,818. WP:WEB. T K E 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete porncruft. Dayum, you have to work hard to be so NN as to have an Alexa ranking in the two millions. RGTraynor 14:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would like to note that the site has only been online for three months; I should have mentioned that before. But it goes to my point that the fact he has a website is irrelevent. T K E 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete porncruft. Is it bad that I watched the female Gauge perform, to uh...verify this? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Female, psh. I can see where your head is tonight. T K E 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:WEB. By the way, Swatjester, are you sure it was the female Gauge performing? :P --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Valid article stub. this article should be allowed some time to grow -- it is only a week or so old. Zeromacnoo 11:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- How big should it grow? "Freaky huge!" big? Fagstein 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn't matter if it's a week old; AfD is supposed to judge the potential of an article. Someone list those probable copyvio images for deletion, too. --Rory096 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable porncruft. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star) from the same author. I suspect he might be a photographer, since there are numerous images uploaded by him as released by creator. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Either that, or he got sick of OrphanBot removing Image:MarkDalton02.jpg from his article and so gave the rest of his images a fake license. Besides, wouldn't a photographer be contractually obligated to license his work over to the guy who hired him? --Rory096 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. Osomec 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn porncruft. Fagstein 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. He's notable enough in gay porn; a judgement of nn is mere puritanism. Bacchiad 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Prove it. — orion eight (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you can provide evidence for the claim I will be happy to change my opinion on the matter but right now I don't see any sign of notability. JoshuaZ 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall ever being called a Puritan before. Hmmm. Well, I admit to being a bit in the know of gay porn and I've never heard of this guy. Carlossuarez46 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN--Tbeatty 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I was about to vote "keep" thinking it was the well-known female porn star, while scratching my head about the "gay" part. Per many others above, this guy does not seem to be notable. Metamagician3000 02:04, 9 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 Userfied, since the username is the same as the (deceased) subject - this is probably a parent or close family member. Taking it to User Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masanori Uragami

Non-notable, "Masanori Uragami" on google gives 86 hits (perhaps it's a typo here, but he seems for me that he didn't exists) _→AzaToth 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It is also notable, I think, that the article's creator was Masanori Uragami (talk • contribs) who, together with an IP and Uragami Masanori (talk • contribs), is responsbile for most of the content. Until someone verifies something of this, I think it should be regarded as a hoax. Bucketsofg 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Masanori Uragami --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Only userfy if WP is now accepting dead users. Per the article the subject died in 2004. Tonywalton | Talk 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, sorry, didn't realize he was dead. Judging by the username of the person who created it, I thought it was a vanity article. --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 11:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think it would be rather discriminatory to not allow dead users, no? --Rory096 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article was created in May 2005, so this isn't merely a dead user, it's a zombie user! Woohoo! RGTraynor 14:39, 6 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. Thanks to Shadowoftime (talk • contribs) and Commander Bubble (talk • contribs) for the nice, civilised discussion at the top of this subpage. Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 2 Mod

This article seems to be an advertisement for an unverifiable nn Halo Mod when it isn't being vandalized. Shadowoftime 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We aren't trying to advertise our mod, just giving information, since in the whole article is no web or file link to it. If you want we could put a file link to verify it.

Even if this article is not an advertisement, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is not the place for information on non-notable game mods, however good they may be. In order for this article to be kept, there needs to be some sort of reason why this mod is notable such as a review by a major site, an appearance in a news article, etc. Also, articles shouldn't be based on original research. Shadowoftime 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We were trying to make the mod when one of our friends created this page, so i thought that i should make it a little worthwile for viewing. If it is no good, then delete it, but please let me know if you do. -Commander Bubble 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All the Vandalism was done by some other people who don't personally like some of one of the users. They have a vendetta against each other and are intent on damaging anything he does. It was possibly Amarsbar as well. -Commander Bubble 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: nn software mod, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Hetar. Thanks to Commander Bubble for civility T K E 04:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per hetar, also most major modding platforms (hl1, hl2, ut etc) have a "list of XXXX mods", it belongs there ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Hetar. JIP | Talk 09:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Hetar. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Shadowoftime and Hetar Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per all above. Vulcanstar6 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Good luck with the mod. Maybe one day it will become successful enough to be featured here. Fagstein 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 05:02, 7 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 as a recreation of deleted content Prodego ^talk 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cody, Hedman

nn bio, possibly inserted by the subject. Also has the author's comments at the end with the subjects email address --Ragib 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Speedy delete : as nominated. --Ragib 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, this is the recreation of the permanently deleted article Cody Hedman. --Ragib 02:26, 6 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sober cruises

Does not seem like a particularly notable phrase. 466 Google hits. Delete. DMG413 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism, unencyclopedic. I think if you're going on one you know what you're in for. T K E 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete kill all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn oxymoronic neologism. --Rory096 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sober Delete as neologism. Fagstein 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as obvious dicdef. I've heard of these, but it's not as if a definition is needed. Do we need a definition for "red cars" to indicate it means cars that are red in color? Fan1967 01:26, 7 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. Shanel 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Forbes

Non-notable biography about a high-school-aged "want-to-be actor and comedian". Only reference provided is a link to a family website. Prod was added/removed a few times, so AfD seems the way to go. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete: A7. In all that, the only relevant information I found was: "Now performing only small acts or telling jokes to spark conversation." Not much of an assertion of notability. Would be a delete regardless per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy A7 Beat me to it :-P — orion eight (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy A7 ditto--_Joe_ 03:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD A7, per all above. --light darkness ^(talk) 03:11, 6 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, default to keep Proto||type 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eire Og

Tagged for PROD as "Non-notable", tag removed without explanation by an anon. -Splash^talk 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete bandcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Quite notable in Dublin and Galway, Possibly the rest of the country too. Possibly too in Sctoland. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless some reference of notability crops up. RGTraynor 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up, appears to meet notability standard for touring. Monicasdude 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep seems to be slightly notable, they have an album out and they've toured. Gflores^Talk 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do we have verification on either? RGTraynor 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, here is a review of one of their gigs, and Here is a review an album. There are many blog entries ont hem, but I shall not include them--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Appears to have some internet presence, but no mention in media. Google is useless to verify notability due to term's wide use. Fagstein 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- except the third google hit is for tabs, meaning people care enough about this band to figure out how to play their songs and post it online . . . which is keepworthy, imo.
Delete per TBC ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. --Ton e 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, as a band influential in some circles, with an album and touring as per WP:MUSIC. If tabs are one of the first few hits on google, people definitely are/were paying attention to this band. --He:ah? 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable band - Jaysus Chris 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Extremely weak keep, weak as a very weak kitten with serious kitten-flu. Niche but not the place to start a mass eviction of bands. Don't rate the fancruft "tabs", they're just lyrics with single-letter chords thrown in. Deizio 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BAND. Would be notable enough, though, if the marching drums assertion were sourced. Sandstein 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Very notable band, influential and inspiring. It's important to have as much information accesible as possible, especially for bands like this.
Keep by default. Notable-non notable distinction is inherently POV. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as millosh and Heah. -- Luka Jačov 11:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per millosh. --estavisti 20:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --GTubio 20:27, 10 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 to acne Proto||type 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacne

This is something of a neologism, and of questionable encyclopedic value. It already exists in Wikitionary. I think we should add a sentence to acne mentioning the term and then redirect bacne to acne, but doing so immediately felt a little too ~~bold~~ unilateral, so I've brought it here to generate a little discussion. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per nom--Acebrock 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with acne, and I'ev always seen it spelled Backne ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect no admin action needed, just do it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom (perhaps to Barry Bonds...). Joe 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I've always wanted to know about it. Bacchiad 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Tombride 05:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge - in future I'd suggest using WP:MERGE to generate discussion instead. Ziggurat 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Metamagician3000 08:21, 9 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 concensus = keep. — FireFox • T [11:02, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Outward Blonde

Tagged as PROD: "film has been in development for over two years. WP:NOT a crystal ball.", tag removed without explanation so it comes here instead. Sources, sources, sources. -Splash^talk 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep The sole reason is that I've seen a dozen other articles on upcoming movies. I'd kill them all, but eh... T K E 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete delete unless some significance can be brought to the article that can be cited ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment IMDB isn't enough for now? T K E 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Appears that the project is moribund. And with a plot of After failing gym, a snotty New Yorker is sent to an Outward Bound program let's hope so. Eusebeus 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, seems notable enough with IMDB page, more or less confirmed. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, stars Hilary Duff, so will definitely be notable when it comes up. --Rory096 14:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as crystal-ballness. Will obviously see recreation due to its star if it gets produced. Fagstein 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per rory and terence. just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it shouldnt have an article, tag should be replaced. --He:ah? 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete If a movie has been filmed and is being edited, that's reasonable, but as a general principle, delete anything containing the words "filming will start". Too many projects fall apart before the cameras roll. Fan1967 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Filming hasn't even started. Let's wait until this pic is a sure thing at least before making an article. --DanielCD 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and delete Outward Blond as well. This project has been in development since February 2004 (see [10]). IMDb is far from a reliable source of information on upcoming films, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Also, the plot outline is a cut-'n'-paste copyvio from IMDb, though this is a secondary concern. Extraordinary Machine 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Luka Jačov 11:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Could the above two users please explain the rationale behind their votes? Films, even those with major stars attached, get cancelled all the time. Not even IMDb keeps the pages on them up once the editors (eventually) realise that they aren't going to be produced after all. Extraordinary Machine 22:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Extraordinary Machine. Sandstein 20:23, 11 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAD Data Communications

Tagged PROD: "This article has had an advert tag for more than a month; yet nobody has tried to make it sound more encyclopedic, or added any indication that the company satisfies the WP:CORP guidelines. This imples that it is probably not notable.", however on reading it quickly and on reading the talk page, a reasonable case is present that this doesn't warrant summary deletion. AfD can work its magic instead; those advocating cleanup might make a little bit of effort given the PRODding... -Splash^talk 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete I spent some time trying to find something that would meet WP:CORP. Unfortunately I didn't turn up anything. All the press coverage linked from their site are either press releases or articles written by RAD staff. Google didn't find anything significant either. Unless someone can turn up evidence of notability, I agree this should go. Gwernol 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per prod (my own). Henning Makholm 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Revenue of a billion dollars?. Keep. Fagstein 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment its a revenue range of $100m-$1b. Even so, I don't see revenue as one of the WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. Gwernol 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! — FireFox • T [11:09, 12 April 2006]<noinclude>

Delete per WP:CORP Computerjoe 's talk 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep 100m-1b in revenue, lots of installed bases. Varifiability may be difficult though.Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a copyright violation. See the first edit and this. -- Kjkolb 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --- 'THIS IS ABSURD, Omnilogic never owned the copyright on that text, but RAD owns it!! (www.rad.com)'

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Joann e B 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane P. Carey

Tagged for PROD: "Lost an election for state legislature in 1996, no assertion of notability", but I'd like an examination of his connections to the CyberConnect group and its work and derivatives. -Splash^talk 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete He lost his election, has run nn elections. The CyberConnect group is defunct; I see no reason to keep. T K E 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete state legislature losers probably count in the millions over all 50 states since elections began. Non notable for the losers. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fagstein 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete As the person who prod'ed it. Don't see that the CyberConnect reference is enough to assert notability. Fan1967 21:53, 6 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. --Joann e B 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of porn stars who deepthroat

Delete I don't think that this even needs explaning. This, IMO, is what's wrong with Wiki. Completely useless lists that help no one and provide no useful information. This doesn't meet the crieria laid out at WP:LIST and certainly doesn't meet any kind of notability criteria I could come up with. NN, Spam, etc. pm_shef 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep The current list is highly inaccurate (as another poster has correctly said, "Most porn starts *DO NOT* deepthroat"). Never-the-less, the list has value even though it is likely to always be somewhat out of date and open to debate. Personally I don't think something should be deleted just because it is a target for vandalism, it should just be made to be reasonably accurate and then increase the difficulty of editing (as has been done with articles in the political arena).
Delete - unless revised to include phone numbers and coupons - seriously, this reads like a bathroom wall, can never be complete, is not useful, etc. Johntex\^talk 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Deepthroat, ahem, I mean Delete per nom. --Mmx1 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete BJAODN T K E 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN the title, delete the list itself (way too big for BJAODN) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, way too long. :-D T K E 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

<spits coffee onto monitor> --Calton | Talk 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually done a bit of cleanup on this list, removing incorrect links, vandalism etc. While I chose not to nominate this for deletion (after all, there are even less useful and important lists here), I don't think I'll fight too hard to keep it. It's pretty much a vandalism magnet, like the other porn related lists. Delete. Colonel Tom 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, even if they offer discounts to Wikipedia editors. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Icarus 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an unmaintainable list. Perhaps the opposite (List of porn stars who don't deepthroat) would be maintainable, but who would care? Grand master ka 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'll have to verify each one. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should "borrow" Jimbo's credit card? T K E 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; too much to swallow. Eusebeus 10:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft, hard to maintain. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - are there any who don't? Vizjim 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Very good point, because I believe it's pretty much expected now. Fan1967 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete listcruft of porncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I usually am quite fond of lists but this one can serve no useful purpose will never been complete and --err, a certain subjectivity is required between what is mere felatio versus deepthroating -- but let's not go there. And, by the way, why no male stars on the list???? Carlossuarez46 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete If there are a enough notable porn stars who have turnned down jobs because of deepthroat scenes, then you might be able to create a list of those. But I suspect that, out of notable porn stars, almost all deepthroat. JeffBurdges 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a gag. Fagstein 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Uvaduck 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and smerge the more verifiable ones to Deep throat (sexual act), ones that appeared in moves with "deep throat" in the title or if mentioned in interviews. I believe most porn stars don't do this. Шизомби 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Tbeatty 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN per stillnotef A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. These days a more useful list would be of stars who don't deep throat. 23skidoo 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete porncruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, as well. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - insufficient notability for its own list, not useful as a way of creating redlinks to be filled, which is the other use for lists; use a category instead, if you must. -- The Anome 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't think a clear cause for deletion has been reasonably asserted here, and find the list no more arbitrary than many others on Wikipedia. — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Agreed w/ Adrian. This is what's wrong with wiki? I see blatant POV pushing in that sentence. Wikipedia is not censored. Mineralè 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LIST, as listcruft. I don't object to the porno aspect; it's the list aspect. We need to cut back on low-value hard-to-maintain fan-created lists generally. --John Nagle 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete Thank You

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 fancruft. Royboy crashfan 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Soul Calibur terms

This is not a article. This is merely a list of terms gathered cohesively on a document. Delete cruft. Zero^Talk 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete fancruft T K E 04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a Prima Guide. --Icarus 05:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above, that said, most of the material could go in the Soul Calibur articles ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as gamecruft. This is of no interest at all to anyone who doesn't actively play Soul Calibur. JIP | Talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Icarus. And because it is the only sane thing to do with this: you either know it already or you don't need to. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Transwiki. This would make sense in context of a game guide, so putting it in a wikibooks game guide for soul calibur would work. Night Gyr 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Command throw air control quick roll frame trap crouch dash soul charge ring out tier whiff summon suffering calamity symphony just impact delete. Fagstein 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT explicitly rules out articles like this. Pity, it's not a bad sort of list, and would go well somewhere else. Stevage 16:27, 9 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 Stripcreator. Royboy crashfan 12:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tick Acey

This article is about a character of an unrated webcomic strip on Stripcreator. Stripcreator itself is of questionable notability, and the strip this character is in has less than 20 episodes. It doesn't meet WP:WEB –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nifboy 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Rory096 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Weatherman90 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. I realise that would unbalance the current Stripcreator page, but we don't have to keep all the detail in the current page.-Mr Adequate 06:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MikeBriggs 20:22, 10 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 --Cyde Weys 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewas Avare Port

Portcruft Cyde Weys 04:27, 6 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 NTK 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Figueroa

person is not notable; only a passing news story about a government official who exposed himself to an under-aged girl. Dananderson 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep or merge; slightly notable incident; possibly find a place for a mention of this together with the previous similar incident in a "Scandals" section of Department of Homeland Security. The government being the government, this section is likely to grow, anyway... Sandstein 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, seems noteworthy because of the absurdity of his incident. JIP | Talk 09:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep the relevance of the incident to the position seems significant to me MLA 14:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, received significant amounts of press coverage. --Saforrest 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep The combination of his job role and his conviction constitutes a claim to notoriety, IMO. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment to the nom: make a note to bring this back in six months when it has passed from the headlines and it can be quickly dispatched then. Conflation of encyclopedic value with press coverage is a well-established bias that cannot be overcome except by time. Eusebeus 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pardon? So we should just delete the Intel 80286 article because those processors are no longer being made? There's no reason why this should be deleted more likely a few months from now. Fact is, there has been press coverage of this at some point, which means that it's notable. This fact doesn't change over time. —Michiel Sikma, 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope that when I look into Wikipedia in 20 years, I will still find articles on Natalee Holloway, Kristen French, and Ghyslain Raza. There's certainly a lot worse "cruft" in WP than this. --Saforrest

Keep for now, for reasons described above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep government officials being involved in even minor scandals should be notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim
Keep because it received attention. It also is listed in Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies as one of the "major controversies", so most likely there are people who know more about this than I do who believe that this is indeed worthy of noting. —Michiel Sikma, 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikinews. Not notable.--Tbeatty 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

_Fire! 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per, well, almost everybody. Notable public figure, substantial media coverage, etc. -Colin Kimbrell 06:36, 7 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 Userfied to User:RhondaRichoux/Felipe Madrigal and Bridgett Nugent. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felipe Madrigal and Bridgett Nugent

Non-notable. Gflor e s^Talk 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, agree with nom, it's nice to research one's family tree, but it's unfortunately not notable for here -- Samir (the scope) 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia != Online genealogy. Dananderson 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm a history buff, but per original research this don't roll as it's own article. T K E 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Toast it--Hooperbloob 05:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete FelipeMadrigalcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy per WP:BITE. I'll get right on it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 6 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, default to keep Proto||type 12:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Anime

Nominated for speedy by timecop ("vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.") and deleted by me. Ynhockey requested undeletion and I agreed, but Knowledge Seeker didn't, so I'm putting it here. -- Scott e^iπ 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete for lack of WP:RS to back up the notability assertions; even the linked-to website is down. Sandstein 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete original research vanity ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep article is not self promotional, the last paragraph (as of this writing) in fact clearly states that the quality is debated. Moreover, this can be re-written, and will be because Lunar Anime has changed entirely since the article was deleted in December. However, CSD A7 (the article under which the article was originally deleted), is completely different from the nomination (vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.). If the issue is notability, then please don't be quick to judge. I will now re-write the article so that the group is clearly notable (at least, compared to fansub groups). Just for the record, I am in no way associated with Lunar Anime. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Lunar is very notable within the fansubs community, but in truth we're talking about a niche within a niche. I would support their inclusion as an example of a fansub community, though I also have to admit it does present an issue of what groups are notable - does that make Lunar notable and, say, Ayu fansubs not? Does it make a case of quality vs quantity (Lunar is known for the former and derided for (lack of) the latter)? In any case, they are one of the more notable groups out there, so I suggest the keep, with the qualification that the article be vastly improved; otherwise merge into Fansub--み使い Mitsukai 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep: I've heard of them, and I'm not really an anime fan. 156.34.89.249 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Fansub. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fansubbers are not notable. Less presense than other net groups that wikipedia documents, outside anything but anime-fansub-watchers (which is in the order of a hundred thousand to a million people worldwide). Also, as the lifetime and membership of these groups varies so wildly, and there's no secondary sources to base an article off at all, I don't see how any viable article can be written on them at all. --zippedmartin 13:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt there are only one million fansub watchers, as Lunar's subs, without Bleach (which is more popular than all its other series combined), make up over 3 million downloads. Moreover, just because there isn't an article on Dattebayo Fansubs (assuming you were referring to them with the GNAA link) doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be one. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  
  You're misrepresenting the numbers, obviously many of the same people watch more than just one show, so you can't add torrent figures and claim independant users. Also, no, I was saying that the GNAA are more notable, and have a wider impact, than any fansubbers. When someone takes a group to court or something that gets *a specific group* recognition outside the really quite small fansub-culture arena, then maybe there'll be something to write an article on. --zippedmartin 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless someone finds some media mentions. Just because they are a well known fansub group does not make them worthy here. Also, how have they changed since December? Kotepho 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- It has stopped subbing Bleach, its website went down, and it became more known. Basically I was saying that, the article that was deleted by Scott Burley at the time, isn't the same as it is today. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They are still just one of many,many fansub groups. There really isn't that much you can say about them and almost all of it is going to not be from reliable sources. This journal article is the best I could come up with, and it is only a passing mention. The only thing that really sets them apart from other fansub groups is they aren't speed subbers. I would say merge with fansub but I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Kotepho 15:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep They're unique enough and the article seems to have been changed to fall outside of self-promotion. I'll second Mitsukai's motion. Wayne Hardman 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - well known and popular group. qwm 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Unless this has had media attention it should not be here. The only source doesn't even work, and that's their own website! Radagast83 18:29, 11 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. NTK 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mageba kaPhunga

I don't know if I'm doing the right here to nominate this to AfD, but I don't know what to do. All I can comprehend by the article is that someons son married his twin brother, or his father. or something else. What the article should be about I dont know. _→AzaToth 04:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's a crazy-sounding article, very poorly written, but he seems to be a historically-attested King of the Zulus. If so, it needs cleanup, not deletion. · rodii · 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per rodii. Sandstein 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The article needs to be modified so that it is clear who/what the subject is. Also the article's full title should be mentioned in the article. Finally, people's full names should be given the first time they are mentioned. -- Kjkolb 10:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 12:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - cleaned it up. Probably created by someone from a specific clan trying to prove descent from Zulu royal lineage, but a perfectly valid article. - Humansdorpie 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:12
Keep, per Humansdorpie & Rodii. — mark ✎ 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that proper context has been given to the article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Zululululululululululuofthelotuseaters. Heh, in all seriousness king of the zulus is a pretty notable title ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:33, 6 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 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life space

dicdef plus a couple of weblinks; created within minutes of topological psychology, an article I've prod'd. --Trovatore 04:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Appears an attempt to provide inbound links to a a link farm on wikipedia Dananderson 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a NN idea from WP:OR. Sandstein 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no content, aside from dicdef. Wickethewok 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spacecruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I thought I learned something, then I realized I didn't. _{Sarcasm per my user page} T K E 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopædic in tone and content, the article provides nothing that is not already available in the dictionary.com definition. (aeropagitica) 06:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, cruft, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak and pointless keep Link cited appears to refer to actual concept by one Kurt Lewin, not recent OR. That this is nonsense to a topologist does not, unfortunately, prevent it from being a genuine object in the social sciences. Septentrionalis 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think we should be obliged to keep around content-free articles on marginal topics merely because persons-as-yet-unknown could in principle write an article that would be kept. A more telling case would be the topological psychology article, currently on PROD and scheduled to go away tomorrow. There's enough information out there that someone could write a defensible article on "topological psychology", but I certainly have no interest in doing so and haven't seen any evidence that anyone else does either. If that changes in the future, then the new article should be considered without prejudice from the earlier deletion. --Trovatore 23:45, 10 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 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's Logic

This appears to be sexist rambling with no encyclopedic content, probably POV pseudo-fork of Sexual differentiation. Peter Grey 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are references to scientific theories contrasting the different outlooks of the world shared by men and women. --Celendin 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. To the (limited) extent this is not POV/OR, it should go in Gender differences. Sandstein 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per I vote to delete anything that makes my head hurt. T K E 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete pseudo-scientific "theories" of one person (read "rambling opinions"). No knowledge, but appears to be flamebait Dananderson 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd be all for an article that seriously covers the subject of differences between male and female perceptions and interpretations of the world around them, but this article is too flawed to be even a starting point for that --Icarus 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- How do you suggest we start one then? --Celendin 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Take a look at gender differences and sexual differentiation for starters. Peter Grey 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Barely scientific, heavily POV. --Soumyasch 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic drivel. dbtfz ^talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete logiccruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless article - I learnt nothing new about the subject as a result of reading this. WP:NPOV violation for sexism. (aeropagitica) 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Violation of WP:NPOV policy and more of an essay than an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wow. Delete, delete, delete. Unencyclopedic nonsense. --Simoes 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This article is way more irrational and given to pointlessness than any woman I've known recently. It's odd because the author appears to be an otherwise very upstanding editor. Grand master ka 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research, POV rant, and bad joke. JIP | Talk 09:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why everyone is reacting so badly to this article. "Women's Logic" is a term, it is a noun just like "encyclopedia" or "the internet". If you google the term, beyond some joke pages made to ridicule women, you will find serious discussions on how women and men in general approach situations differently. There are entire businesses which sell products catered to help men understand "Women's Logic" so that Men can become more successful with Women; Women's Logic is a thing which evidently most men don't understand. The Dating Wizard: Understanding Women's Logic. I wasn't trying to be rude or sexist, I started this article to try and bridge the gap between the male understanding of the world and the female's understanding of the world. Evidently, since most people refer the world as a man's world, there is a large disparity between the sexes. Gender Differences primarily focuses on physcial differences this article could focus on mental differences between the sexes. --Celendin 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an implication that irrational behaviour is a function of faulty logic. It's not. Women know perfectly well when they are being illogical, just the same as men. Why a man or woman might choose to behave illogically, and why that behaviour might be successful, is something completely different. Peter Grey 10:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- But that is not really a reason to delete the article. The implication of "faulty logic" is a POV shared by many men, but it isn't really a reason why we shouldn't describe "Women's Logic."
  - Try this, then. Wikipedia isn't a blog, a bulletin board or a soapbox. (WP:NOT) This rambling entry doesn't belong in a factual encyclopedia. Delete. RGTraynor 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
By creating an article solely about women you’ll assuming that being a man is natural and that women are an oddity. A nearly %50-%50 split in birth rates doesn't support this. Your also assuming that male psychology is easy to see and trivial.

You uncritically accept Ancient Greek views of women. The ‘Women's Logic applied to Dating doesn't fit with hard research into hunter gatherers. You also say most women would support Mede killing her children but offer no support.

The article isn't even about logic, it's about motivations and behaviour. There are plenty of articles covering gender-based differences. Peter Grey 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. There may be several pages where bits and pieces of this material might be merged to: no doubt references for most of these beliefs are out there. But this article seems a blunderbuss shot of pop-culture clichés about the difference between the sexes, assembled under a silly title. That would seem to make it original research. Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, there is a bit of worthwhile content here, once it is described as a POV and not simply asserted as a fact, but it belongs in other articles. One might as well write an article about "Men's Logic". --Saforrest 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "help men understand 'Women's Logic' so that Men can become more successful with Women" is offensively sexist. If you don't understand why, you won't understand why I'm voting Delete with prejudice. Vizjim 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I think Celendin was arguing that this organizations which purport to describe "women's logic" are examples of a phenomenon which exists and therefore merits an article, not that thie article should itself help men become more successful with women. On the other hand, the article was not written with that sort of distance from the subject in mind. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The title and subject of this article are inherently biased. You can’t talk about women’s logic with out comparing them to men. I'd say merge with Sexual differentiation if there was anything accurate worth merging. Seano1 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or better yet, redirect to Misogyny. Misogynistic essay, horrendously POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not changing my delete vote, but I think the pendulum has come a bit too far here. Certainly this article is biased and absurd, but the phenomenon it is attempting to describe -- that many men today regard women as having a unique and irrational style of reasoning -- is a real one, and does deserve to be mentioned somewhere. This idea is the reason for the success of garbage like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 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 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayisgames

Relevant policies: WP:WEB, WP:RS

I'm not convinced this one is notable. It has the reasonable Alexa rank of 18,791; but the Google hits are from blogs, forums and the like, and there is no indication of notability in a wider audience (e.g., no hits on Google News). The fanboy-style article provides no sources, of course, but the PROD was contested without comment. Sandstein 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete does not appear notable to me. Possibly does not meet the "overly commercial" criteria either. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:46, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Merda

Unprofessionally written, possibly copyrighted, irrelevant entry Breathefire 05:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete merdacruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic rambling. Feezo (Talk) 06:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
~~No vote yet~~. The story narrated, if confirmed, would seem to make a case for notability per WP:MUSIC. These unencyclopedic gushings might be helpful to someone who wants to write a real article. Is it true, or is it merda? Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sources found through Google confirm that the band exists. [11] Keep and cleanup if it isn't a copyvio. Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Feezo. Existence =/ notability. RGTraynor 15:28, 6 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 Moved to CfD. --Rory096 06:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Shania Twain songs

Already a category for Shania Twain singles, that list all of them, while this category is empty. Thankyoubaby 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This belongs in WP:CfD. Feezo (Talk) 05:48, 6 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 (sorry, sockpuppets!) Proto||type 12:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Audit Shell

Fails WP:SOFTWARE only 117 Google hits. Bige1977 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

in a matter of 1 day Google hits has increased to 180. Must be pretty popular. 65.208.210.97 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise Audit Shell was just released this month. Google doesn't know much about it yet.

The official annoucement has been recorded in the sudo archives at: Officia Enterprise Audit Shell announcement on sudo mailing list

The official open source project pages are at:

EAS has a significant history. Simply do a Google Search for Sudosh. EAS is the new version of Sudosh, hence the release 2.0.00.

Regardless of EAS started out on Wikipedia as AFB, it no longer fits the requirements for deletion. The article isn't a commercial advertisement, it's free Open Source software. The article isn't a vanity page about myself, I don't even have a page about myself on Wikipedia. No where in the article is my name mentioned. The article has been rewritten to be an informative and descriptive about the software. The article also meets the Software requirements that it must be innovative. The entire reason why Sudosh is so popular (all the Fortune 100 companies use it and many branches of the government) is because of its innovation. EAS replaced Sudosh and added newer innovative features on top of it.

The article has been completely cleaned up to fit the Wiki guidelines and is in similiar format to other Open Source software like sudo, sudosh and apache.

I don't understand why this article needs to be deleted.

Keep Article has been cleaned up and no longer violates any Wiki guidelines. Dhanks 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SOFTWARE and WP:SPAM. Also, of the 117 Google hits, only 47 are unique [12].--TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per TBC. Feezo (Talk) 07:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
(I initially prodded this) Delete as notability asserted but not yet verified. Colonel Tom 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
commment I'd rather see this cleaned up and wiki/encyclopdized. 65.95.124.5 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete For the record, afd was removed from article, I've reverted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. note- the user continues to remove the afd notice from the article.--Adam ^(talk) 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - article has been cleaned up and no longer fails WP:SOFTWARE or WP:SPAM Dhanks 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - You can't vote twice.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Yes it does fail WP:SOFTWARE. Please read that guideline and then explain why you think it meets it. JoshuaZ 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - It does not fail WP:SOFTWARE. Here is the reason:

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:

2) The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.

EAS is the new version of sudosh which has already been verifiable by reliable sources independent of myself. Please perform a Google search for "sudosh"

EAS is innovative because it's the ONLY piece of Open Source software that competes with the commercial UNIX auditting software Sysmark PowerBroker EAS is a very large piece of software that was developed over 1 year which was meant to be a free alternative to PowerBroker. Sudosh originally did this, but was not as feature rich. Sudosh was replaced with EAS. Sudosh already has a huge following and track record. The confusion behind this deletion is because of the NAME CHANGE. EAS IS SUDOSH

By deleting this article you are effectively killing the EAS Open Source project because Wiki has a strong link to Google. People need to know about EAS and this article needs to remain on Wiki so that information can be shared. EAS was just released under this new name and peope will learn about it. EAS is the alternative to PowerBroker, which costs $1,500 per server installed. EAS is free. Why delete it? If it gets deleted, someone else will add it, and we'll go through this all over again. Dhanks 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The known, currently notable software is Sudosh, at maximum some of the content here should be merged in Sudosh. If in a few months or so, it turns out to be as important as Sudosh is, it can get its own article then. JoshuaZ 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying EAS is sudosh is complete bullcrap, sudosh is sudosh. Feature-rich means nothing. This is an advertisement for EAS, it's trying to convince people that EAS is better than sudosh. If you want this article to stay you will have to make it read like an article rather than a pamphlet. If this is deleted it will be a good thing, then the person who comes along to make the new article may make one that read like an encyclopedia entry, rather than an advertisement. 65.95.124.5 04:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

EAS is sudosh. I'm the author of both sudosh and EAS. I know. This isn't an advertisement. I gain nothing from this, I receive no money or sales from this. All of this software is open source. I don't need to convience people that EAS is better than sudosh. Check out the sudosh mailing list yourself, you will see tons of feature requests back from last year. I worked for 1 year adding these features and what grew from the requests was a new version which I simply called EAS because a lot of the original functionality has changed. The article doesn't read like a pamplet, if you want it better, let it stay and people will edit the article, just like sudosh has been editted. Dhanks 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If EAS is really sudosh 2.0, why go through all the trouble of renaming it and just add a small section about it to the sudosh page? Satisfied customers would naturally look for an updated version of what they already own instead of looking up a whole new project. Simply using wikipedia to manipulate google search rankings is just plain wrong IMHO. Bige1977 04:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I crossed out a third vote.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: EAS has branched from sudosh and turned into its own framework leaving sudosh behind. The name change was required. This article WAS NOT created to change the ranks in Google -- it was created to let people KNOW ABOUT THE NAME CHANGE. I've made comments in the article sudosh that the name has changed to EAS. Obviously EAS has more to document that Sudosh, merging the articles would be confusing and large. Dhanks 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, spamvertisement.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Also, FYI, Dhanks has made a set of revenge AfDs of various articles started by or edited by people who said delete here. I have put this on WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to sudosh for now. If Enterprise Audit Shell becomes notable, we can always move sudosh to here later. Vslashg (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete solely on the grounds of using Wikipedia for advertisement. If your software cannot exist without wikipedia, then it ain't much. Thousands and thousands of programs before Wikipedia existed have thrived; get to work. --Golbez 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Compromise Proposal I think it is more likely at this time that a user of sudosh, the current established product, would enter the query sudossh to find more information about enhancements, future versions, or information on competing products. Since Open Enterprise Shell claims to be sudosh version 2.0, in the interiem it should be best that it stay in the sudosh article. If in the future various open source unixish distros decide to include open enterprise shell, it then should get its own page in a more abbreviated form than it is now. Personally I think that Dhanks energy should be promoting his fork of sudossh to be included as a package with various unix/bsd distributions which would be greatly more important to his market share than a mere wikipedia article. For now Enterprise Open Shell should be a redirect to sudosh, if dhanks promises not do change the redirect.. Sudosh should mention with a link to his project page that Enterprise Open Shell is a new fork of it. Bige1977 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article will remain as it is now without a redirect. If I have people, who know nothing about this article, start redirecting it, I will start reverting the article. I have just as much say how this article looks as anyone else. Dhanks 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to read the three revert rule. --Golbez 19:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to sudosh. If they're the same thing, I don't think two articles are needed. Ehheh 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep We've installed this software at our company. 65.208.210.97 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A search of this user's contributions reveals that he is a sockpuppet of Dhanks. Bige1977 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. —Ruud 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Hetar 19:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I initially 'prod'ded this. Dhanks left a message on my talk page : The Enterprise Audit Shell article has been cleaned up and no longer fails the WP:SPAM or WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Please vote for a Keep. It's not as much an advertorial as it was previously, but still a Delete IMO. Colonel Tom 09:15, 8 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 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slim K

Prodded, but previously survived AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim K. Prod by User:Eusebeus said "this is a self-authored vanity page (note the first-person throughout) and is being used as an online CV by a would-be singer and Michael Jackson impersonator whose musical career to date fails WP:MUSIC & who fails WP:BIO. This should be userfied." NickelShoe (Talk) 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete SlimKruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, delete as unverified. The article might make WP:MUSIC claims, including some sort of tours, but I see no verification. Melchoir 06:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per my (unintentionally out of process) prod. Eusebeus 09:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:V A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:22, 7 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 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless sites

Delete - article based on promoting a website. Wickethewok 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Pointless to keep, than T K E 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for spammishness --Icarus 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete someone's being unencylopedicly funny ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per above : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, it crawls over the WP:WEB line if it can verify the Times "Web site of the week" award, but google isn't much help. Had this on my bookmarks for over a year now so call me biased... Deizio 00:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, but remember "'Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it." — The Point! Шизомби 01:36, 8 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 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Haselhurst

vanity bio of student web designer. His his "1.75m visitors a year" website somehow generates only 77 unique Google hits out of 68,500. I smell SEO Calton | Talk 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't DeleteAccording to my AWStats program that is used for tracking visitors, I received 1.85m hits last year. The keyword here is hits rather than visitors, I phrased it wrong on the page. WAPhate
Delete nn vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Full of shit on the 1.75m visitors per year comment: www.bluesnews.com one of the top gaming sites took something like 4 years to get 5 million users. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable random Comp-Sci student, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete SWATJester and I are on the same page tonight. T K E 06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio Imarek 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 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 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Haap and his alias, Dean of Cincinnati

Relevant policies: WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:RS

Both are about a student and local activist for rather unspecific causes. The article has one mainstream media mention, but on balance, I think he fails WP:BIO: he is neither a "major local political figure who receive[s] significant press coverage", a "widely recognized entertainment personalit[y] and opinion maker" (my emphasis) or a published author with an audience of 5'000 or more. Sandstein 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 07:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Haap&action=edit&section=1
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 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 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tian Forest

Non-notable web comic. Only 14 unique google hits. Vanity. Template:Prod was removed by article's creator, who is also the creator of the webcomic. Icarus 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn comiccruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete kill all nonnotable webcomics in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No significance explained. Try Comixpedia for a wiki which accepts articles on webcomics more liberally. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is it with these obscure, NN furry comix for which Wikipedia articles are considered necessary? Delete with extreme prejudice. RGTraynor 15:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Does not meet standards of publication distribution to be considered notable. Could be in the future? Can't justify now. Delete : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity Imarek 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete interesting looking comic, I'll look into it later, but for now will I will have to vote "Delete" per reasons stated above. (sorry about that, forgot to include the little thingies. MikeBriggs 20:30, 10 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 as attack page/non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamal husseini

Apparent vanity. Google for "Jamal Husseini" and powerlifting give zero hits. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity, and a good chance that it is a CSD G3 - insult / attack page with the photo. --blue520 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious vanity; notwithstanding "there will be many other accomplishments", notable only when noted by others (typing yourself in doesn't count). Shenme 05:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Be aware, the author is occasionally removing deletion tags. - CorbinSimpson 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as {{db-attack}} page. (aeropagitica) 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Attack page.--Dakota ~ ° 06:33, 6 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. SushiGeek 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google rule

This should not exist in the main namespace, and there is already detailed information on this at WP:GOOG. Originally proded by User:Icarus3 and deproded by the page's creator without explanation. Delete. --Hetar 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, per nom —This unsigned comment was added by Soumyasch (talk • contribs) .
Sorry, this is still a work in progress. More time please. --Frankencow
Merge, into WP:GOOG ~~or redirect~~. 128.143.63.86 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging this article would destroy the simplicity of the Google Rule thereby irradicating the point of the Google Rule —This unsigned comment was added by Frankencow (talk)

I think there's valid material in this article. I just don't think it belongs under the heading Google rule. Maybe in a critique section of Wikipedia:Search engine test? 128.143.63.86 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- As stated this subject goes beyond the scope of simply Wikipedia's policies. Out of respect for Wikipedia they are mentioned first as the primary example in the article.
Redirect to WP:GOOG T K E 05:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Wikipedia:Search engine test, ie. WP:GOOG (otherwise uyou have a double redirect!). -- RHaworth 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good point, I didn't notice that. T K E 05:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, original research. A redirect from article space into Wikipedia space strikes me as a bad idea; isn't it against some policy or other? --Trovatore 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good point, I wonder if it is. 128.143.63.86 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its against a rule or guideline; it takes up a few bytes on the server because of the format. It'd be a quick link. T K E
- It has nothing to do with any drain on the server. Articles are articles; Wikipedia space is Wikipedia space. With rare exceptions they're supposed to be separate, the first being directed to users and the second to editors. Also see Hetar's comment below. --Trovatore 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a redirect, reason #5 to delete a redirect, listed at WP:R states that, "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." --Hetar 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Redirects generally aren't supposed to cross namespaces. --Icarus 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete this is WP:OR and essentially a WP:POV and non-verifiable attack on Wikipedia. How does the author know what "most Wikipedians" think? There is no way of knowing this, so the premise of the article is irretrievably unencyclopedic. (disclosure: I originally speedy tagged this as {{nonsense}}) Gwernol 05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an attack on Wikipedia. I was merely pointing out the irony of deleting the article. I have corrected myself to "many" although since this is Wikipedia's policy it would be logical to assume that most Wikipedians follow the rules. Just because you do not like what is being said does not constitute it to be nonsense or not notable. I believe this is a growing concern in our culture and rather than pressing for deletion everyone should be contributing more research. --Frankencow

Coment Where is this Wikiepdia's policy? Here's the only mention of Google on the notability page: "There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)." which says the exact opposite of your article. Also note that notability is a guideline not a policy of Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Self-referential. No need for a cross-namespace redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- If that is such a big problem then simply delete the self-referential part.

Speedy Delete Has nothing to do with wiki. Not really an encyclopedia entry, if people really want to keep it, it chould be in the wikipedia name space. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 07:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- If it has nothing to do with wiki why put it in the wikipedia name space? This is the beginning of an entry that will be expanded later and could benefit greatly from the help of others who are researching this growing trend.
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not to be ironic or anything, but "google rule" doesnt seem to bring up anything relevant on Google [13]. Also, this article fails verifiability for the idea that this has phrase has expanded past the scope of wikipedia. In addition, I think the author is combining a loose set of ideas that they invented a phrase for. Perhaps parts can be merged into Google and others into the aforementioned WP page. ---J.Smith 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Useless as a redirect (policy notwithstanding). I suppose someone should note that it's called the "Google Test", not the "Google Rule". Fagstein 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Royboy crashfan 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete wrong space ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:00, 7 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. SushiGeek 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Colin Boyd

Non-notable musician and very minor actor. Page had "Prod" tag added, but tag removed by article creator. Calton | Talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete; his amount of work seems borderline, but I found squat on Google, and without sources there is no encyclopedic article. Melchoir 06:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, IMDB entry shows work minimally satisfying notability criterion. Monicasdude 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't cite sources, no google results (far less than the advisable 100 per guideline). : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. IMDB is at least partly user-submitted material, therefore it is not a reliable source. Stifle 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Not everyone on IMDb deserves an article. Fagstein 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also afd was removed and readded ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete hardly notable at this time; author doesn't respect normal processes. Dan, the CowMan 19:58, 6 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. Royboy crashfan 13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Skrebowski

Trade-pub editor (for a red-linked pub put out by a red-linked org). Reads like a vanity bio/CV. Was Prod'ed, by tag removed by User:Monicasdude. Calton | Talk 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: google shows [14] about 20,000 hits on his name, including publications and external interviews from some apparently notable websites and publications. Looks to be a notable editor. Article needs to assert notability though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep If the reds go away, give it sixty days for links and cleanup. T K E 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Editor of notable trade publication regularly cited by news media. If you don't like the redlinks, write the articles; it's not like Wikipedia is finished and all notable subjects already have articles. Monicasdude 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I voted a Keep. The author of the article in wikifying has the burden of active links, not myself. Lose the attitute. T K E 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was aimed at the nominator; I was just trying to repeat my prod comment from memory. If I'd aimed it at you, I'd have indented it so it was more clearly under yours. Monicasdude 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- Under what basis do you suggest this is a bad-faith nomination? Fagstein 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  
  The nominator's history. Monicasdude 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Google suggests some notability. Fagstein 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep until someone makes a Petroleum Review article... then merge to that article. Skrebowski is less notable than the publication he edits. No evidence this is a bad faith nomination so auto-speedy out of process is not called for.--Isotope23 18:43, 6 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 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainmakers

DELETE Attempted prod but was contested with no comment. This is a completely NN group of homeschooled debaters. Doesn't meet Wiki Notability Criteria, Vanity article, Spam. Indiscriminate useless information. Google search comes up with about 40 articles actually on the topic pm_shef 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability for association, practically {{db-club}} candidates. (aeropagitica) 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Their national sweepstakes winners could be considered an assertion of notability. --Rory096 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Delete. It certainly is an assertion of notability, true. Is it actually notable? This "national championship" (which is six years old, according to the NCFCA website) seems to pertain strictly to this organization's member clubs, in contrast to any attempt to allow competition generally between debating clubs. RGTraynor 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Personal preference--That cannot decide what stays and what goes. If you feel home schooling isn't proper, that is your opinion. I don't see you tracking down clubs from other organizations. Simply because you do not know about something doesn't mean it's not suitable for Wikipedia.Nate Hanson 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Rainmakers is the most legendary clubs in the NCFCA (which has as many competitors as the NFL). Nate Hanson 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment As i told User:Nait I have nothing against homeschooling, or debating, I just don't see this as a legitimate Encyclopedia article. If you show me articles about non-homeschooled debate clubs i'll nominate those for AfD too! pm_shef 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Melchoir 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non notable club. --Rory096 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ There is no standard on Wikipedida for which clubs are notable enough and which aren't. Is it how many hits come up in a Google search (as pm_shef argued) or is it how well certain clubs have competed in their respective competitions (as was argued on another NCFCA club page: here.) Because there is no standard for clubs, it cannot come down to certain members deeming that one club is more notable than another or that there is a certain level of notability that is required. That level of notability is not concrete. Therefore a keep vote is definitely justified and strongly urged. - Nate Hanson 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I might add that this is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, btw. --Rory096 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed second opinion rendered... please only say Keep or Delete once per AfD.--Isotope23 18:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of external notability. If someone can prove that the Rainmakers have gotten press coverage from a WP:RS source or something along those lines, I'll reconsider.--Isotope23 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No apparent assertion of notability (though this Alex Harris guy might be notable having won these championships). Fagstein 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this club isn't any more notable than any other one Imarek 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete What is it with the massive homeschooler debate aritlces? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because they're actualy growing in popularity. The change has to come some time, boys. Nate Hanson 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The issue has nothing to do with home-schooling, it has to do with notability. NCFCA is notable. It's national, and involves thousands. The individual clubs or debate teams are not notable. You won't find any articles for school debate teams either. If you do find any, let us know and we'll be glad to take them through the deletion process, too. Fan1967 01:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable and almost no content --Ajdz 02:06, 7 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

[edit] Swat (debate club)

DELETE Attempted prod but was contested with no comment. This is a completely NN group of homeschooled debaters. Doesn't meet Wiki Notability Criteria, Vanity article, Spam. Their claim to fame is coming in 6th place in the national championship for home schooled debaters, not nearly noteable enough for an article pm_shef 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability for association, practically {{db-club}} candidates. (aeropagitica) 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete At first I thought it was named after Swatjester, but then I saw I was wrong. Anyway, NN per individual high school clubs. T K E 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Melchoir 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and User:(aeropagitica). JIP | Talk 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete a7, nn club, tagged as such. --Rory096 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - See arguments here. -- Nate Hanson 14:57, 6 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 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xenisucks

Poorly written, and already discussed as being non-notable in the Xeni Jardin talk page. Matt N 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete; there's a short but nontrivial review of the site here on nytimes.com, but WP:WEB asks for multiple sources. Melchoir 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn blog. Feezo (Talk) 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Mileage varies on the "nontrivial" adjective above, too. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable, can be adequately described elsewhere if relevent. Glowimperial 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability Imarek 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per melchoir ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm the article's creator. I agree the article's subject is too trivial to merit an entry. I created it to see if Matt N would seek and destroy the article. Matt has engaged in a revert war to prevent the inclusion of a link to http://www.xenisucks.com in the Xeni Jardin article. As far as the "poorly written" dig, Matt himself is responsible for removing content that made the article slightly more encyclopaedic. Matt is very fond of Xeni Jardin, and works hard to protect her Wiki presence. That said, I agree the article should be removed. I also think Matt should permit a xenisucks link in the Xeni Jardin article. Tafinucane 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt N is using this Vote for Deletion as justification to remove the xenisucks link from the Xeni Jardin article. Tafinucane 23:45, 10 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. SushiGeek 03:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraternities and Sororities at the University of British Columbia

Wikipedia is not for advertising; overall unencyclopedic material. Also, most of the information was summed up in the main university article already and needs nothing more, in my opinion. Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Its not advertising its merely stating facts now. It was advertising before though.

Delete Article split off from University_of_British_Columbia but no additional information added to justify new page. Unless the tone and scope of the spur are given a more encyclopædic sheen along with a significant expansion, there is no need to replicate extant information. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete ~~probably also a copyvio from [15] and the local version of [16] or [17], etc. Easy come, easy go.~~ Melchoir 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Just got rid of the copyvio of the sororities section, on both this article and the University of British Columbia article. Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's now material that doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but it still reads like an advertisement. There could be about two paragraphs of potentially encyclopedic information, tops; they can go in the main UBC article. Having a separate article here is asking for trouble. I'll hold my delete vote. Melchoir 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - original prodder.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe - I think the intention was to significantly cut down the information on the main UBC article and replace it with a link to this one. As it stands now it is far too self promotional, but I'm not convinced that it can't be turned into something relevent. As I said in the talk page, I think an article naming the fraternities on campus, saying where the frats are, what they do and giving a brief history would be an acceptably noteworthy page. I don't know much about the frats and sororities, but I'm under the impression they are a reasonably important presence at UBC. TastyCakes 06:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - takes this info away from the main ubc article. Also, STOP shatering the interests of new contributors. They are adding TRUE KNOWLEDGE, that is not getting in the way of other articles, about places which are notable. UBC is a very large University, and donated content should not be deleted. This article does not offend Wikipedia by it's presense, therefor include it. --Nick Dillinger 07:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The reason that not all true knowledge is allowed is that WP does not want to become a joke by letting all manner of frivolty have an article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Donated content? Yeah, someone worked really hard with the copy and paste commands. Take a look at the article now that the copyvios have been removed. Melchoir 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I may not be the greatest writer but the information is fact and isn't biased or trying to recruit anyone.
Comment:Not to sound cruel, but I'm kinda laughing at the article after all the copyvio removals... I certainly wasn't expecting the article to turn into THIS! hehe. Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete thinly disguised listcruft. RGTraynor 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete UBCcruft. Eusebeus 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become anything more than a stub. Fagstein 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete college cruft --Bachrach44 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fraternities and Sororities are notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. Ardenn 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep The Greek system is a big part of UBC. The information on this page is exactly that information. There is no bias on it anymore its simply stating the facts. I realize before that the info was just copied and pasted from other sites but now it is unique and doesn't have any copyvios. It doesn't promote the Greek system at UBC it simply states what it is and how it works. If it was promoting the Greek system and trying to recruit people through this page then it would be worthy of deletion but not as it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.180.73 (talk • contribs).

NOTE: Both this vote and the one below are by the same IP
NOTE: They're the same IP because all the computers where I live are on the same network. just so you know.

(154.20.180.73). Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep The greek system at UBC plays a large part in a lot of the functions at UBC. This article give an accurate and unbiased description of the greek system, and i can't see any reason why it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.180.73 (talk • contribs).

NOTE: Both this vote and the one above are by the same IP
NOTE: They're the same IP because all the computers where I live are on the same network. just so you know.

(154.20.180.73). Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete if its that important, make a page for all student activities, but a page just describing the greek community is pointless and unencyclopedic- how would this information be useful to someone in, say, China? pm_shef 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- China has nothing to do with this article. By the way, UBC has a large Chineese student base, and has active recruiting programs over in China as well. Maybe they would be interested in joining a Fraternity or Sorority when they arrive.--Nick Dillinger 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Useless listcruft. --Hetar 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as unencyclopedic listcruft and merge (the two lead paragraphs, along with an enumeration of the active fraternities and sororities, belong in the U of BC article, consistent with our work on other university/college articles). Joe 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- No such thing as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper, therefore true information should not be cut because of lack of space. There really is no "cruft", just snobbery by deletionists!--Nick Dillinger 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

- - CommentThe position espoused supra, recapitulated on Nick's userpage as "All factual information, as long as it doesn't get in the way of other factual information, should be included, open sourced, and allowed to be readily accessed through Wikipedia and its forks" is not altogether without merit; it is, though, wholly contrary to Wikipedia policy, which policy reflects a consensus of the considered and deliberate judgments of many Wikipedians. One may surely object to policy and even essay the changing of policy, but it is likely that his/her offering opinions on individual AfD discussions will not be as effective as his/her proposing broader or bolder changes to the sundry criteria of WP:NOT, inasmuch as that policy, more than any deletion guidelines, which tend simply to incorporate by reference and interpret WP:NOT, is the policy most at odds with the sort of encyclopedia envisaged by Nick (I should say that I would likely disagree with the changes Nick would seek to make, but seek simply to suggest that, if a debate is to occur, it needs to occur at a different level).

comment This has come up a million times before - students at various universities try to make pages specific to their university's, usually a frat/sorority page, and it always fails the AFD as non-notable. The truth is most large fraternities have a page for the national organization. Something specific to one campus is inherent unnotable. --Bachrach44 01:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

- - Comment This page isn't describing each individual fraternity so the fact that most Fraternities and sororities have there own page is irrelevant. It is describing the particular Greek system at UBC which is different in some ways than say a fraternity or sorority at another school. It is information and not "cruft" as some people seem to be referring it to. The information is plain and simple and there’s nothing trying to promote it, its just once again stating the facts about the Greek system at a University. This is supposed to be the most comprehensive encyclopaedia on the planet. Removing this page would defeat Wikipedia’s purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.232.27.184 (talk • contribs).

"Cruft" = extraneous, useless or pointless "information". Mere "information" alone doesn't make something Wikipedia-worthy; if so, my penis size or my cat's middle name (both, surely, "information") would merit Wikipedia articles. To merit inclusion, information must be notable. There's nothing notable here. Contrary to your assertion, the article describes nothing about the UBC frat system unusual to any other frat-bearing school; most frats have rooming houses, hold events and participate in inter-Greek councils. This boils down to a mere list meaningless to a non-UBC student and probably not meaningful to many of those. RGTraynor 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so writting in an article truthful information like "RGTraynor has a 2 inch dick and his cat's name is Tinkerbell Fairy the Pussy" would be cruft, as his small penis and the very wussy name for his cat would be totally extraneous, useless or pointless "information", ie Cruft. But this article, and many others tagged as "cruft" are just information that elitists and deletionists far too often label as cruft and then claim lack of notability. But guess what? RGTraylor's penis size is not included in this article. Neither is his cat's middle name. Therefore the analogy used by all you deletionists is pure bullshit and

relevant content (buildings and organizations are way more notable than penis sizes for Wikipedia contributors). Also, STOP BEGGING THE QUESTION by declaring something unnotable just because you are a snob. You are wrong, as there is significant disagreement about the definition of notability. Enough with the slipperly slope arguments!--Nick Dillinger 19:46, 10 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 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logically inevitable

Orphan since October 2005, found via Special:Random. This article doesn't make sense to me. "Logically inevitable" gets under 800 Google hits, so it's not an important legal concept or anything. Melchoir 05:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A "what...the...hell...?" and a delete That made no sense to me either... Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Is the scope of this article not already covered in Consequentialism? Possible redirect, if required. (aeropagitica) 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, the article makes no sense at all. --Soumyasch 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Deletion is inevitable. Feezo (Talk) 06:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Failing that, Delete as (incoherent) Dicdef. Peter Grey 06:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ BJAODN What, you don't understand that a logically inevitable action or result is something that cannot be avoided unless significant action is taken to stop it. These actions, being logically inevitable are similar to what happens when you take a breath, e.g. something that has a result so predictable as to be certain in happening. For instance, if i were to breathe then, unless somehow something stops them, my lungs will expand and then contract as the air passes through. This is logically inevitable.? T K E 06:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Melchoir. T K E 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ja! Melchoir 06:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It is logically inevitable that I say delete. "...something that cannot be avoided unless significant action is taken to stop it." -- does that make sense to anyone? Fagstein 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete bjaodn ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - irredeemable. Metamagician3000 05:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article makes sense to me, although badly written. The American Heritage Dictionary uses the phrase but that doesn't stop this from being a dictdef. If I keep flipping a coin, I will eventually get heads, Entropy and heat death, etc. Kotepho 11:46, 9 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 NTK 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prison Planet

Non-notable B-movie (a rip-off of Mad Max, if the box cover is to be believed), not even available on DVD. Last time I looked, this was an encyclopedia, not "IMDB 2: The Sequel". Was Prod'ed, but tag removed by article creator. Calton | Talk 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep as it claims to be shown on the Sci Fi Channel, a notable television network --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 06:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per IMDB entry; any number of films meeting notability requirements haven't been released on DVD. Monicasdude 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, an IMDB profile does not always mean a movie merits an article, as IMDB is partly based on user contributions--TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Eusebeus 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I thought this was about Alex Jones Night Gyr 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, if it is indeed shown on Sci-Fi channel. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Calton is a vandal (check his user talk page) who is wikistalking me and tagging every article of mine for removal. Calton literally judged this movie by its cover and decided that is was to be deleted. Evan1975 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- - check his user talk page The one that says "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"? That page? --Calton | Talk 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Fellow, I have nominated exactly two of "your articles" for deletion, the other being the exceedingly wanna-be actor/musician Robert Colin Boyd
    - Calton literally judged this movie by its cover I judged its PLOT by the cover, AND SAID SO.--Calton | Talk 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see two related nominations for deletion, and nothing from you on his Talk page. Hardly wikistalking. Fagstein 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - He is indeed a noted vandal who stalks new entries and marks them with delete tags. Can't say anything about Wikistalking, though. 67.183.189.78 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    - A "noted vandal", hmmm? Mind telling me where I'm "noted"? Is there an award? Discounts at Starbucks? Maybe free use of the "Vandal of the Month" parking space near the front door? --Calton | Talk 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Barely notable. Fagstein 18:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as "notable". Snargle 18:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete unless it can be proven that it was shown on sci fi ⇒SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - imdb, Sci-fi, etc. more than qualifies unsigned user inserted this into my sig.
Keep per Monicasdude, not on DVD means nothing but that the DVD people are lagging - for crying out loud I cannot even get The Unsuspected on VHS, let alone on DVD, and that is an underrated classic starring Claude Rains - not to mention Passage to Marseille which stars Bogart and Rains is only available on Canadian VHS, and that is not only a good film but also historical WWII propaganda (there is no justice in this world.) Excuse the personal rant, I could list hundreds of movies more deserving than those two but I happened to be looking for them recently and the puppy's unhappy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In case my little rant confused things, this is not a good movie. It is a bad movie with a bit of a cult following. Still keepable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable film. DVD availability is not a criteria for inclusion (nor, for that matter, is quality). 23skidoo 17:49, 7 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 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre slavic imhabitants of russia

del. The article is hopeless in all aspects. Total confusion of ethnics and areas. It is bad to bite newcomers, but I would suggest the contributor not to start with so vast topics while so obviously lacking expertise. `'mikka (t) 06:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Germanic tribes were the most notable inhabitants of Eastern Europe and Russia"? Is it a quote from Mein Kampf? If not, the author of this original research obviously needs to consult Kurgan hypothesis. And what is "imhabitants"? Delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ghirlandajo abakharev 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ghirla. --Khoikhoi 07:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I tend to avoid very broad topics myself. Grand master ka 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Witty and funny. Just kidding. Delete.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 12:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete it would be a good article to have if spelled and capitalized appropriately, however this is not its kernel. Carlossuarez46 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete imhabitable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'd like to be able to vote to keep this. It's one of those subjects that is just interesting enough for me to want to read a well written wiki entry on. However, this article is hopeless. Tombride 05:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete- A subject that deserves a decent article. The El Reyko 01:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article is irredeemable in current form. Metamagician3000 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not much good to say about this - according to the author Germans originated in Russia and took over Germany after the fall of the Roman empire. There is so many things wrong with that sentence - it boggles the mind. Gardar Rurak 08:00, 9 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 NTK 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girl Power! Live In Istanbul

Two concerts by the Spice Girls. I added the Prod tag with the reason, "One (1) stop on a Spice Girls concert tour. That's it. WAY too trivial for an encyclopedia." Article creator removed, with the comment, "...the concerts were not 'part' of tour, they were the tour," which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it even MORE non-notable and trivial. This ain't Monterey Pop or Woodstock. Calton | Talk 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The article does not refer at all to the fact which may make it notable: this was actually a 1998 video release which I remember sold very well at the time. The video is ranked as a fairly high-seller on Amazon.com [18]. Rewrite to clarify that this is a video, not just a Turkish concert date. -Canley 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I remember the promo around this being released. Notable --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable concert(s) which were released as a decent-selling video. The video has 44 reviews on Amazon, not at all bad for a concert VHS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. - As I mentioned in the edit summary when I originally edited out the tag, if you check the discussion page I've made a short list of the additions that will be added to the page. I haven't had time to do it yet - but hopefully will make time later today. The 2 concerts were significant for several reasons. (i) They were the first major concerts performed by one of the biggest selling pop groups of all time. (ii) They were released on a best selling, US-platinum video. (iii) The concerts set a record in the US for the most watched Pay-Per-View concert in history - beating the previous record set by Woodstock '94. Therefore the concerts and video release are more than worthy of being noted on Wikipedia. Rimmers 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Andrew Lenahan and Canley, whose solid arguments make it unnecessary to consider the other claims to notability. Monicasdude 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Andrew Lenahan... it's no Spiceworld: The Movie but apparently notable.--Isotope23 18:25, 6 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. DS 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Homosexual Chapter

Based on their official website, this is nothing more than a joke article. Acacia, Purdue --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: nn group, reads like a statement of purpose and not an encyclopedia article. --Hetar 07:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Hetar. JIP | Talk 09:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, attack page of Acacia, tagged as such. --Rory096 14:39, 6 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 NTK 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smallwood Reservoir

Delete. Non notable. Article also doesn't give enough information, or even sources and/or external links. Soumyasch 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The subject is important enough for an article: it is part of one of the most important hydro-electrical projects in Canada, one which has an interesting history. I've stubbified it and added a few links. Bucketsofg 12:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as explained above. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:16
Keep the reservoir is one of the largest in the world and significant for the overall description of the Upper Churchill Power station. HJKeats 14:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - actual reservoir. For great justice. 18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Unquestionably Keep. One of the largest in the world, if not the largest. Strange that the article had not been created before. Luigizanasi 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; deservedly expanded. Supremely important. Samaritan 06:58, 7 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, defaulting to keep (although transwiki to wiktionary appears to make little sense). Kusma (討論) 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic report

This is nothing more than a dictionary entry, transfer to Wiktionary. --Hetar 07:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and move to Wiktionary Snailwalker | talk 11:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. (aeropagitica) 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete does wiktionary even want this? --Bachrach44 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
transwiki/del. Mind you, the idea of a supergroup featuring Winwood, Capaldi, Zawinul and Pastorius is intriguing... Grutness...wha? 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (see below)
Keep Enthusiastic editor flagged this within the first minute of its appearance, give it time to grow. --Hooperbloob 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- mmyeah. Does look a little better already. changing vote to a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep This could prove to be a useful article, and is growing beyond the scope of a mere dictionary entry.Sethimothy 00:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Radagast83 18:32, 11 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. -Doc ^ask? 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Ramsey

Finance-industry executive (SVP) whose big claim to fame is that he gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it. Otherwise not a WP:BIO candidate. Was prodded, but tag was removed by User:Monicasdude with the reason philanthropy is notable activity, suggesting he believes writing checks to one's alam mater is notable. Calton | Talk 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails to assert notability. Proto||type 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Aside from being identified as the largest single donor to the University of Georgia (well in excess of $20 million, with a major building and a scholarship carrying his name, he was also chairman of the executive committee at Merrill Lynch, a notable achievement in the financial field. Admittedly, this record of substantial real-world effects is hardly in the same league as the records of such Wikipedia notables as Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Craphonso Thorpe, but I think it justifies his place in Wikipedia. And yes, philanthropy can be a notable activity; it's astonishing anyone thinks otherwise. Monicasdude 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - That argument may well be a fair one. However, bandying around accusations of bad faith is not helpful - please assume good faith. —Whouk (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Response. My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Being the largest donor in the history of a major public university (in the mid- to high-eight figure range) is not appropriately described as "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater." I also think the borderline personal attack on me in his nomination comments, setting up a straw man argument, is arguably a sign of malice and bad faith. I believe that an editor who nominates an article for deletion has an obligation to accurately fairly describe the disputed matter. I think that misrepresenting the contents of the article or the nature of its subject in order to promote its deletion should be viewed as vandalous, as a deliberate action to impair the integrity of the project, since it manifests an expectation that the article would not be deleted under the application of consensus policy and guidelines, and indicates that the nominator is attempting to avoid the guideline. Frankly, I find it unsettling that so many AfD editors find it appropriate to make caustic comments about article authors -- usually charging vanity and self-promotion, forms of bad faith editing, quite often made without any sound basis -- but find it inappropriate to call those who make such baseless comments to account. Monicasdude 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    - My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Looks more like it's based on anger-management issues and reading comprehension problems/mind-reading delusions. Whether Ramsey donated $20 or $20 million to his university (you know, "giv[ing] a bunch of money to his alma mater"), that's not an achievement as far as I'm concerned, which is what I said. I failed -- and still fail -- to see anything he did on the way to piling up the cash for the donations he made makes him the least bit qualified under WP:BIO. There can be a difference of opinion, but that gives no call for you to, as a friend of mine puts, "make shit up" about motivations, nor to distort the English language to justify your pouting. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Quite; that Monicadude disagrees with the nomination doesn't make it bad faith by definition. I'm curious myself as to how this fellow qualifies for notability. Delete. RGTraynor 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This cannot be speedy kept as there were other delete votes before Monicasdude, who should know deletion policies well enough by now. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RGTraynor. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Per WP:BIO's guideline for deceased persons (Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?), Ramsey qualifies -- his significant donations have made him an important part of the history of a major American university. He is widely recognized by anyone associated with UGA, which is a considerable number of people. Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, a person doesn't need to be a household name to be included. There are many, many notable people who should be included. Regardless of what you think of Monicasdude, can you honestly tell me that Air Force Amy belongs here but Ramsey does not? I added a stub tag to this article in the hopes someone will add more to it, but for now I'm not sure who it's hurting by not being deleted, when it clearly is verifiable and not a vanity piece. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC) This would the article's creator, despite the trademark "Air Force Amy" reference. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and the bottle of O Olive Oil with Organic Meyer Lemons sitting in front of me are all verifiable. Doesn't mean they're getting articles. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you think of Monicasdude, can you honestly tell me that Air Force Amy belongs here but Ramsey does not? Bernard Ramsey is being discussed here; Air Force Amy isn't.--Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I could make articles for a hundred different major philathropists who donated to various universities...doesn't make them deserving of an article. Accusations of bad faith will get you nowhere and are bad practice. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Hundreds of new articles would just be a drop in the bucket. This guy's name is going to be all over the university and people may wonder who he was. Seano1 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then put a note in at the university article. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Not important enough for wikipedia. Now if he was to give us a large sum of money though... U$er 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Donations are not notable per se. Sandstein 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep An article about someone donating money to seems ok. Anonymous anonymous 21:28, 10 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 NTK 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bolling

Wikipedia is NOT a geneaology project. Bio of ordinary American colonial gentleman, who died long before the American Revolutionary War was even a concept. Calton | Talk 07:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, close relative of notable people (and not notable as in movie stars- notable as in having a movie made about you 300 years after you died). --Rory096 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. State legislator, linked to famous people. RGTraynor 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This belongs on someone's genealogy page. Eusebeus 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Ignoring the genealogy (which adds a useful gloss to the article), there is enough of a kernel for an article based on this man's own life, rather than the lives of his relatives. Fluit 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as colonial legislator. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
keep. Actual historical information. It boggles the mind why anyone would list this for deletion. For great justice. 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Fluit's reasoning; ignoring the genealogy it is a stub that should be expanded. Accurizer 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (I was the creator of it) I am working on related articles and expect to be able to expand the information about his life and work. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per RGTraynor Imarek 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough to be remembered 300 years after he died. BTW, is there a geneaology wiki? --Tbeatty 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Nickel. YellowPigNowNow 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:04, 7 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. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminist horror film theory

Personal essay and coined term. Doesn't appear to exist outside of Wikipedia or Everything2.com Google.Lotsofissues 08:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Personal essay, violates the no original research policy. (aeropagitica) 12:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete personal essay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge any useful information into slasher film, where these matters are already mentioned. Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom or delete and merge as WP is not Personal essays. I do think some of what is in the article could be verified and that WP would benefit from more info in this area (there's no article on Carol J. Clover for instance). Шизомби 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Essay per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete someone's term paper ---Bachrach44 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete useless, non notable or verifiable, or sourced ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone nom and others. Hbackman 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Potentially a valid topic but this is not the way to begin. Would need to start again. Metamagician3000 08:50, 9 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 Userfied to User:TCAarchives. Creators admit it's fictional, but wrk has gone into it, so let them have the content until they've copied it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Caledonian Academy

Schoolboy hoax, featuring a faculty including Arnold Schwarzenegger, and "Will Hung". I at first thought this was vandalism, and there was a real school article somewhere behind this that some kids had messed with. But they'd created it much as it appears here. It seems to be a sort of parody of The Scots College, which the same IPs have been vandalising - there is no Caledonian Academy in Orbost, Australia. There's one in Scotland, but this has never been about that place. I would strongly recommend against moving to BJAODN, as it's not actually funny, and this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged. I had prod tagged it, but decided they'd only remove it. Sadly, it asserts notability so couldn't be speedied. Strong delete. Proto||type 08:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

the caledonian academy is a fictional place based on that found in William Thomas's novel "William in the Middle." Deletion of the article would be unfair to people intrested in viewing the fictional school that William has created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.167.112 (talk • contribs).
Comment - this fact has just been added to the article, also. Note that no such novel exists, as far as I can tell. Proto||type 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment We're sorry, in retrospect we should have put it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I'm not sure how the rules work, but maybe our admitting it's all a sham allows it to be shifted to speedy deletion? We don't want to be blocked- at least not permanently. We didn't see it as being such a serious problem, but now we can see the issue. Sorry about this.

Comment i have read the book, and i liked this wikipedia entry very much. found it useful for english analysis.

Comment I the main creator of this site never intended readers to believe the school was an actual place and so I only labelled it as fictional when I realised that people were considering the school to be an actual place. The novel in which this school is found is not well known and this site is aimed mainly at a small few that have read or are interested in the contents of the book, for this reason it would be unjust to delete the site as there are some people that have genuine intrest in its contents.

Delete While I accept that the article was not malicious, it is certainly not verifiable, and given that the book William in the Middle is not listed in Wikipedia, Amazon or Google (with Orbost) I would challenge whether it is well known. To give the details of a character or institution as they exist in a novel or TV programme/film is sound, to invent details that were never the author's intent is not.

Comment The article describes the fictional academy in the book fairly accurately and though the book may not be well known, who is to say that it won't have future success.
- when and if the book becomes popular enough to be noteworthy, then this article may become relevant as an encyclopedic entry. An encyclopedia records that which has become notable, not everything that has ambition to become so. Kevin McE 12:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
merge with william thomas or william in the middle if an article on either exists, otherwise Delete. Niz 16:57, 6 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 three. SushiGeek 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seren Anturia

also nominated are its sequel Vision Venture and the filmmaker Erik Johnson

All three are unverifiable (WP:V), and are a possible hoax (WP:HOAX).--blue520 09:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For Erik Johnson google can find two film makers by that name [19]. Both from the U.S., one had a film at Sundance 2004 - "Foo-Foo Dust" (Eric Johnson & Gina Levy) and the second is the director/producer of "Tweek City" [20], but but neither are the Erik Johnson in question. Which is kind of strange as as you would expect a Nebula and Cannes award winner to get some hits on google, also there dosen't seem to be a "Nebula Cinematic Achievement Prize", there is a Nebula Award for Best Script but Erik Johnson is not a winner.--blue520 11:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For Vision Venture the images are strange, one is a modification of a 2000AD cover that can be found here [21] and the other carries the comment "made it myself" in the image summary.--blue520 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete hoax. Incredibly influential films winning non-existent awards, yet nothing on google or IMDB. Weregerbil 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm pretty convinced that my initial instincts here were right. --bjh21 12:09, 10 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. SushiGeek 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indignation

A two line dictionary definition. Was tagged with prod, but removed and tagged 'Transfer to Wiktionary'. The article already exists on Wiktionary, in a far better and dictionarial form. But it can't be reprodded (nor is it a speedy candidate), so now it has to go through AFD. Delete. Proto||type 09:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, speedily if possible as CSD A5. Perhaps A5 should include the criterion that something already exists on a more appropriate Wikiproject, rather than just covering things that start off here then are transwikied. Tonywalton | Talk 09:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 13:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom --Bachrach44 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and with extreme indignance Deizio 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Ipeltan 04:41, 10 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. SushiGeek 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Pay

Not particularly noteworthy. Vanity page if not advertising for TSE2. The author (user:Twiterror), AKA Josh Whelchel, does music for Pay's games. Radix 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete If the game/invention becomes truly noteworthy, and the inventor/developer has other biographical events of general interest, at that stage the person might be deemed to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is not the place to record people who have an ambition that that might one day be the case. Kevin McE 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete just-another-developer. Just zis Guy you know? 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete NN --Bachrach44 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per jzg ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable programmer Deizio 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 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. SushiGeek 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa tour

"This page will list all the tour companies. Incase you want a company to feature, please add it on this page.". This page is unlikely ever to be useful. In case you want a company to feature, please add it to Yahoo. In other words, unencyclopedic, open invitation for spam ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unencyclopedic, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per norm. --ΜιĿːtalk 10:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is not Yellow pages Kevin McE 10:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam magnet Just zis Guy you know? 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, AdCruft stub with the stated intention of becoming AdCruft list. Deizio 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:24, 7 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 Userfied to User:Edwardandrewlane/Sandbox - This AfD has been closed early because the new user who created the article has expressed a sincere interest to learn how to be a Wikipedian and edit articles. See the user's talk page for details. Thank you. --HappyCamper 12:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion / ethics

Was put for speedy delete but didn't seem to qualify for any of the criteria. Nevertheless, this essay is a pile of POV and original research. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact not Point of View, nor is it Original research, I have merrley explained the views of different ethical systems using a few figures from sites to back them up. It is primarily aimed at AS level R.S. in which the candidate must be able to apply different ethical systems to a medical practice. —This unsigned comment was added by Edwardandrewlane (talk • contribs) .

This is in fact not Point of View, nor is it Original research, I have meerley explained the views of different ethical systems using a few figures from sites to back them up. The views expressed by various people are in fact views ofrelativley famous philosophers, such as Ramsay and Curran, as well as systems like Natural Law Theory (N.L.T) which is a morall code widely used by the Catholic church. It is primarily aimed at AS level R.S. in which the candidate must be able to apply different ethical systems to a medical practice. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.135.105.186 (talk • contribs) .
Delete "I have explained the views" and the fact you have actually stated it's "By" whoever looks very much like OR. The nature of the text makes it look like a cut 'n' paste job from somewhere as well. Is this a copyright violation from some website? If this is to remain it needs a huge amount of cleanup and renaming to something like "Ethical aspects of abortion". Tonywalton | Talk 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Author has explained on my talk page that this is in fact a cut-paste from his own work as a PowerPoint presentation. Fair enough, no copyvio then, but it's still OR. Tonywalton | Talk 11:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - some usable information, but probably better to show these new Wikipedians who wrote the article how to incorporate information into Wikipedia properly instead. --HappyCamper 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - done that, HappyCamper, on the new user's talk page. He's off having a read of the links I provided now. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 11:48, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben myers

Written by the subject of the article. Was speedied for nn-bio, but there are assertions of notability, so I've redirected it here. None of the assertions appear to be untrue, but none of them are very important in the scheme of things. And the article is a vanity advert for the writer. But nevertheless there may be some merit in it. No vote from me. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete His books are listed on Amazon.co.uk, and one of them is in the top 10,000, so must have sold some number. But the article is self-publicising, and makes no attempt to conform to a Wikipedia style. If the author is given time to have it conform to standard presentation and it subsequently attracts other editors, it might have a value, but otherwise it appears to be vanity publishing. Kevin McE 10:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - could be worth keeping, but needs rewriting. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. IMHO, neither vanity nor failure to conform to Wikipedia standard formatting do not in of themselves disqualify an article as long as the subject is otherwise encyclopedic and notable. RGTraynor 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I think self-authored entries should not get the benefit of the doubt, although RGTraynor's point is well-taken. In this case, the notability asserted is questionable, and amazon sales rankings after a certain level are highly arbitrary, since one or two sales a day can push the rank up by thousands, or tens of thousands. As it stands, this is vanity and should be userfied. Eusebeus 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and point out WP:AUTO (also WP:VAIN and I guess WP:BAI) Just zis Guy you know? 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. and cleanup. Otherwise no reason to delete. For great justice. 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy, don't see anything here that meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Keep, Amazon site lists reviews from major media (like The Guardian) satisfying notability standards for published authors. Monicasdude 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up. Seano1 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. Satisfies notability standards. Metamagician3000 08:47, 9 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 deleted. Grue 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban racr

Nothing to speedy this under, really, so it comes here: Non-notable newly launched South African magazine being advertised in our encyclopedia. That would make a great speedy criteria, you know ;o) ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per norm. --ΜιĿːtalk 10:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete What would it look like if edited to be NPOV "An as yet unestablished local magazine abour cars. The first issue cost R20 and had 80 pages" Non-notable. Kevin McE 10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV, original research. I mean the writer writes I in the article -- Snailwalker | talk 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertising a Capetown-based unestablished car magazine. (aeropagitica) 12:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 13:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as pure advertising Imarek 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 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 12:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Frankl

I do not beleive that this person is notable enough for an article. The relevant criteria on WP:BIO appears to be "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", as there is no spefic bullet for people in the legal proffession. The claim of notability in the article is that he represented the Attorney General of Canada in a notable court case. However, a Google Canada search for "David Frankl" Canada gets "about 21" hits, of which 3 are about this person - and one of those is this Wikipedia article. A search on Google.com for David Frankl results in 731,000 hits; of the first 20 results two are about this David Frankl, one of which is the Wikipedia article (most of the hits seem to be about a doctor from Oregon, although there are at least three other high-rating David Frankls).

While a non-notable biography is a CSD criteria, this article does make a claim notability. Also based on the recently deleted Elliot Frankl (undergoing a deletion review that will almost certainly uphold the deletion), I expect this nomination will be contested. This nomination should be taken as an explicit delete vote. Thryduulf 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Asserts importance, and is probably similar to the various "celebrity lawyers" in the US. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:19
Delete as Vaughancruft. Brian makes a good point; however, Lexis/Nexis shows nine articles, all on May 3, 2005, 5 of which are duplicates of a Canadian newswire story. Unlike the many (grrrr) celebrity lawyers in the US, Frankl has not received any coverage on any other issue or case. As Stifle said in a different AfD, his fifteen minutes are over. Thatcher131 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete; there is no such person listed in the Ministry of Justice website. [22] RGTraynor 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: RGTraynor posted misleading info, person is on Ministry of Justice website [23]--67.71.85.9 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Possibly the article creator should have spelled Mr. Frankel's name correctly, then. RGTraynor 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I think the spelling on the Ministry's website is incorrect, not sure though--64.228.150.230 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, then the B.C. Court of Appeal is wrong too in their decision on R. v. Bryan. Samaritan 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete vaughancruft. Is that barrow getting heavy guys? Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Eusebeus 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability is not the only criteria. See WP:BIO. Thryduulf 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, but that is opinion, not deletion policy. For great justice. 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio Imarek 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete verifiability isn't the only standard ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is policy, whereas notability is not. For great justice. 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, verifiable as working lawyer. And that's that. Deizio 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO, just a lawyer. --maclean25 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Ardenn 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this misspelled article, consisting almost entirely of a (wildly overstated) peacock term claim to have been "thrust into the spotlight and received national attention". No prejudice against an article on the real S. David Frankel, Q.C., a senior counsel for the federal government in Vancouver, who might be notable. This article, based entirely on a one-time newswire misspelling, is useless, and we should avoid creating a spelling redirect by moving this piece itself - especially since there's at least one David Frankl, the Oregon doctor, who may merit an article. It strains my mind that somebody rushed out to create this article here. Samaritan 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Some are born great, some become great, others have deletions thrust upon them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Deckill e r 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Samaritan's well thought out reasons. Luigizanasi 06:07, 11 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 12:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Queen Hypothesis - non-Darwinian view

POV, original research. Also unformatted and unwikified, although that can be fixed. Considered a merge with Red Queen but couldn't find any useful material. --Canley 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Canley 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Red Queen & blank text. (aeropagitica) 12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per aeropagitica. PJM 13:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this uncited idiosyncratic original research. Create a redirect if anyone thinks it's a likely search term (I don't). Article is an orphan. Aeropagitica, please clarify - when you say blank the text do you mean blank it and leave the history, or do you mean delete the history as well? Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Clarification Text and history deleted together, only a redirect is required. Strengths and weaknesses of the Red Queen Hypothesis can be demonstrated on the original article page. Apologies for the unintended ambiguity. (aeropagitica) 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Its not the sort of title to require a redirect. JeffBurdges 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, OR.--Ton e 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete oroginal research ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect necessary for such an obscure titling. Maybe mention the "controversy" in the Red Queen article if there seems to be a real controversy (i.e. not just some deluded scientist posting their theory here.) —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 02:18 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Red Queen. Seano1 02:47, 7 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 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lah.cc

Suspect a lack of notability, but don't know enough about famous Singapore websites to be sure. Anyone? ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- Errr ... if you "suspect" but do not know, why did you nominate this article in the first place? ~~Keep~~. RGTraynor 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Errr ... maybe because it has no content, except for a spamlink, and doesn't meet WP:WEB?? Delete. Slowmover 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    - That's grounds for Keep/Rewrite, not to strike something down on no more grounds than failure to recognize it. That being said, I pulled up the site in question, and it's still explicitly in beta, so that would seem to put paid to its notability. My vote changes to Delete. RGTraynor 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      - Google's services have been in beta for quite a while now... The lah.cc forums make it clear that it is a very popular site. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 22:59

Keep. Appears to be very popular. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:25
Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to meet WP:WEB, still in beta. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEB does not appear to meet the criteria of being deletion policy. BTW - your sig is really really difficult to edit around. For great justice. 02:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Swat. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just because it is verifiable does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not here to advertise sites that have barely developed, ~~there are what, 2 whole topics on the entire site?~~ The site is still in Beta and they admit that, how could it pass notability? Radagast83 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, notability neither asserted nor self-evident. Sandstein 20:26, 11 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? 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Live A Lie Records

Repost of vanity page previously deleted in 2005. Big in albania 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First deletion vote here: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/To Live A Lie Records

Delete. Non-notable, vanity listing. Already deleted once, nothing's changed since then. —Chowbok 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not a repost, but tolivealie (talk • contribs) would appear to be associated with the subject, which apparently fails WP:CORP per the evidence of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - this deletion entry was blanked before the debate concluded. I am relisting it here and suggest this article as a possible candidate for a speedy delete.
  - Comment—I originally submitted this as a speedy delete and was told by the editor it was different enough from the original to not qualify. Just FYI. —Chowbok 15:54, 11 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? 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So i herd u like mudkips

Non-notable and unverifiable internet meme Stifle 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I feel that it is notable. On other websites all over, I have seen users saying "So i herd u like..." whatever. Maybe we should just change the title to "So i herd u like" b/c they don't always use "mudkips". But mudkips was the origin. So basically, if this should be deleted for that reason than O RLY? should be deleted at well. If I must do more research and find stuff, I will. But first, try Google searching "So i herd u like" (keep the quotes). You'll find a lot of stuff, about the MudKipClub too. But if it still doesn't seem notable, is there anywhere I can add this to another article about Internet memes and phrases? I don't know if Internet phenomenon will work, I don't know if it will fit in the quotes section or anything, and deviantART won't work... if there is any where that it will fit elsewhere in Wikipedia, I will gladly surrender the article. Or make it a redirect. Matty-chan 13:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm a longstanding DeviantART member, and I've never "herd" of this. The associated DevART account, MudKipClub, has just 2,527 pageviews (for comparison's sake, my account has over 22,000+). The phrase gets just 147 unique Google hits, and most of that very modest number are all from the same site (not even DeviantART, but a belgian site). Doesn't seem widespread or well-known, either on or off DeviantART. And then there's verifiability to consider... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nowhere near notable, even for DeviantART -- Astrokey44|talk 13:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - barely qualifies as an Internet meme, let alone an "Internet phenomenon". --Canley 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all internet memes. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Andrew; I've never seen this on deviantART myself. I'm sure it has a place on WikiIlliterate though. RGTraynor 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and all above. And this one time...!? At deviantART...!? I made something up one day! Шизомби 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So i herd u don't like forumcruft. Delete per Starblind. --E lkman - ^(talk) 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
D L337 non-notable meme.--Isotope23 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I've seen it around a few places, if it's worth anything. Eh. -Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not actually a meme ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per the debate on the pro-meme policy that someone recently suggested. Deizio 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Starblind. I would have gone with a merge and redirect to Mudkip but research shows that this is not worth even of that inclusion. Personally had I come across this article that's what I would have done right away, as a matter of fact.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per User:Starblind --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Influential and famous memes might be encyclopedic, but non-notable meme of a few people butchering the English language consistently is not encyclopedic. --Wingsandsword 04:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not really the place for this. Sadly, people will come here looking for it. While it isn't unverifiable or original research it is still fails WP:V. I prefer Gardevoir anyways. Kotepho 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Tyhopho 13:27, 9 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALT+CTRL

Non-notable band. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 12:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nn-band, fails WP:MUSIC. --light darkness ^(talk) 13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. [24]. PJM 13:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
They forgot delete. --Rory096 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! Fagstein 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, they are a major trance music act, they are about to release a record on a well known trance label, they have played in countries all over the world. Read more at The DJ List. bbx 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
keep please very important electronica group Yuckfoo 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ctrl Alt Delete. per Rory ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Windows has experienced a fatal error at address 0000xx000x000 and must restart. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Ctrl F4. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Internationally touring artists, on many independant label compilations. Band is better searched for under the name "Alternative Control" see their discogs page here for a listing of their 21 compilation album inclusions (not a small number really). If we end up keeping this, article should be moved from ALT+CTRL to Alternative Control the listing which returns more hits. ALKIVAR™ 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but merge per Alkivar and rewrite to take away the adjectives like "glowing". Jdcooper 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- ("glowing" is not actually there, on non-stupid reflection, but its clear what I meant hopefully) Jdcooper 16:55, 10 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? 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tab, slang

Neologism. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 12:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - in fact, add a speedy deletion tag --Philo 12:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? --User:Bench1 14:13, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
I can't see it meets any CSD criteria. Transwiki to Wiktionary as it's basically a dicdef. Tonywalton | Talk 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, do not transwiki. Not only is that song sung with minor variations by many much larger groups (e.g. "I'd rather be a leper than a Basic" by senior cadets during army basic training), but there is a much more common slang definition of tab, which is cigarette. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and do transwiki. Wiktionary allows for multiple meanings. --Rory096 17:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 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. Unfortunately nobody has said which parent to merge it into, and there's not much to merge. I'll see if I can work in a mention of him and his dob and then replace with a redirect. kingboyk 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Luft

Non-notable. Random children of celebrities don't deserve their own pages, as if this precedent were consistently upheld there would be innumerable nonsubstantive stubs about un-important people who happen to descend from the famous. Ashwinr 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, luftcruft. Ok, sorry, had to do it. Anyway, relatives of celebrities are not notable. --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to parents. Clear consensus that nn relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. Stifle 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Stifle. --Rory096 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. It's normal policy to allow a redirect for non-notable relatives. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete no need to merge, there's not any notable information here to use in the articles of highly notable relatives MLA 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. SoLando (Talk) 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and merge, as above. For great justice. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Stifle.--Isotope23 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Stifle. YellowPigNowNow 23:43, 6 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, wrong process, possible WP:POINT and no reason to delete anyway as it's in user space. Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rebelguys2/images

Should qualify as a vanity page. This page/article as no intrinsic value on its own as information for those using Wikipedia. User needs to consider a personal website (i.e. Bravehost.com, Batcave.net)for a gallery to save Wikipedia server space and bandwidth Noles1984 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Not only is it userspace, where he is allowed to have collections of images if he wants, but this should be on MfD. --Rory096 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as a WP:POINT violation. User was uncivil in response to me nominating a copyright violation for deletion yesterday and has some sort of vendetta against me, though the deletion nomination was valid and explained on IFD. [25] [26] [27]. Regardless, all images are free and used in an article, minus one in project space (a Wikimeetup) and one in userspace (a personal photo). If not speedily kept, move to MfD. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:56, 6 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 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huw aled lewis

Delete non-notable professor at Edinburgh University. Fails WP:BIO and specifically the professor test since the article asserts no notability beyond being a lecturer (UK equivalent of an assistant professor in the US) Gwernol 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:BIO, noting the upholding of Geogre's Law. Just zis Guy you know? 16:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't obviously troubled google scholar. Delete per nom. Ben Aveling 10:32, 12 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 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communique Conferencing

Even though this company gets over 600 ghits I don't think it is notable. If it was, it's unlikely that the anon editor they employ to linkspam the project would need to do so. Private company, no turnover, no employee data, no evidence of WP:CORP. And then there's the linkspamming. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Advertisement. Article fails to assert notability. No third party is writing about or discussing this company. There is an industry white paper here [28], where they appear as one of about 150 conferencing service providers. There are many more recognizable names on the list. The report is from 2003. Slowmover 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice, WP does not exist as a linkfarm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The page mentions WebEx. I can't live without that application. If this were the company that developed WebEx I think it would easily pass notability tests regardless of number of ghits. But it's not, from their site " Communiqué's partnership with WebEx™ offers best-of-breed Web conferencing solutions. Voted best Web conferencing solution by PC Magazine and with over 64% of the web conference market share, WebEx is unequaled for security, reliability and functionality. " So... delete ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 10 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stevie Wilson

The high point of this football player's career seems to have been the reserves of a major club, and then a spell with second rank clubs. Is he really notable? DJ Clayworth 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn-bio. The reserve team can't count as notability, and the first teams of the various non-league sides isn't notability. Had he played for Leicester City's first team then I'd have been recommending keep. MLA 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:33, 7 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 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porkrunk

Combination neologism and hoax. (Note: PROD tag removed by article creator) FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable using reliable sources. FreplySpang (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As a rich, white kid in Chicago I can definitely assure you that this is a word. There is a rather large community of people using this word and I think the fact that I can meet a total stranger at a party and hear them use this word warrants its having it's own entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.23.111.128 (talk • contribs).

Delete zero google hits, nonsense protologism. Weregerbil 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:V/WP:NEO. Google returns a big zero. --blue520 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as scoring the coveted zero Google hits of the archetypal protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN neologism; unverified. Bucketsofg 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:33, 7 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 (7 good deletes, the 5 keeps were weak, unexplained, anonymous, first contribution and anonymous, in that order). Proto||type 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dalton (porn star)

There are several Mark Daltons of varying degrees of notability - I'd say this is one of the less notable. Total externally verifiable data: pretty much zero, if we use only reliable sources. Article is unencyclopaedic in tone. Porncruft, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No opinion for now on notability, but when one googles for "Mark Dalton" the first thing that shows up is his personal webpage and multiple other porn sites. He has much more of a chance at notability than the male Gauge. JoshuaZ 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually a lot of those are for a genuine (non-porn) actor by the same name - that's not the porn star on IMDB, it's someone else. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the very first listing for "Mark Dalton" on Google is for this exact guy. YellowPigNowNow 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep it seems he just squeaks into notability. Someone has to be the least notable notable, right? maybe it's Mark. By the way, as for verifiability I think you could check out his videos to see if his claims measure up. :-) Carlossuarez46 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn porncruft. Eusebeus 16:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn porn star. --Rory096 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Osomec 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - v. For great justice. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. V? --Rory096 18:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment For great justice has argued in other AfDs that anything Verifiable should be kept. Notability is not a factor. Fan1967 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable porncruft. Brian G. Crawford 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely verifiable. Borderline "notable". We can't use the same standard for porn stars as we do for regular actors.
- Comment 1) why not? 2) If so what standards do you propose? JoshuaZ 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Participants in the commercial sex trade are not notable per se. Monicasdude 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Monicasdude. --Khoikhoi 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep if the criteria for deletion is that porn actors are not notable, then they should all be deleted. My argument is that they ARE notable in their own profession. Furthermore, the listing of porn stars allows a centralized listing of information so that you don't have to weed through the plethora of useless links and pages that have no pertinant information. If there are other "Mark Dalton"s out there, then certainly the designation "(porn star)" should alleviate the confusion. Archer 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to say how absurd I think it is that all of these porn star articles are going up for deletion. If you check the playboy playmates on wikipedia, you'll notice the inclusion of tons of them, many having their own pages. I did a bunch more research on this man,Mark Dalton, and he was the 2002 Men magazine man of the year, the equivalent of playmate of the year for gay men. Suggesting these are somehow unworthy, while keeping all of the rest of the articles for hot women, is just hypocritical. YellowPigNowNow 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP--Definitely keep. Dalton is one of the most notorious/famous gay (for pay) stars circa 2006.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party? 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vision house software

Non-notable company. 27 google hits, no claim close to passing WP:CORP. Three non-notable articles in prod process. Prod deleted by article creator without comment. Weregerbil 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--blue520 15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. -- RHaworth 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

delete pure advertising, as a note the authour is also removing the afd tag from the page.Benon 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

the author is trying to work out why wikipedia allows large corporations to advertise on wikipedia but not small businesses.....it smells quite bad. you are going off google hits to rate whether a company is worthy? how sad in a forward thinking world.
the author is also getting lost in the ridiculous amounts of links you place in your messages....one wonders where they are supposed to click to get the right informationFluidcreativity

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life of a Peasant

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a repository for original research Habap 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:OR Gwernol 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable Warcraft map Barneyboo (Talk) 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Niz 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete What exactly is the subject of this article? A WoW map? A how-to guide for playing on the map? Too confusing and unencyclopædic. Some context would add greatly, as the text makes too many assumptions as to the knowledge of the reader at the moment. (aeropagitica) 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is a user created map for Warcraft 3. The article tells you this, in bold, as the first sentence. World of Warcraft is an MMORPG in the Warcraft setting and the previous games are Real-time strategy games. Blizzard provides map making tools for their strategy games that can allow for complex rules and scripted events. Some people use this to make maps where the rules of the game are redefined or completely done away with (there are also some offical maps that do this). This is an example of one that is more of an RPG. See the Warcraft 3 article or StarCraft if you seek more information. Kotepho 12:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Totally not notable. Even a pokèmon surpasses it. We don't even have an article on Big Game Hunters. Kotepho 12:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We do apparently have a decent number of articles on such maps though. They should all be smerged into something like List of user created Warcraft 3 maps with only the official ones described in the main article and maybe one or two examples. Kotepho 12:26, 9 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? 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gammby

This is a vanity page WWC 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Niz 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete (speedily? Would {{db-bio}} be too much of a stretch here?). --Rory096 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete {{db-bio}} candidate - non-notable random American. Why this wasn't spotted and deleted back in December, I'll never know. (aeropagitica) 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 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 14:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The losses begin

inappropriate title for article, should be in a merged episode summary article --Dunstan 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or maybe merge if anyone knows where to merge to. I knew less by the end of the article than I did to start with. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete no context Niz 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete ugh. Eusebeus 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 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? 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashlee house

Non-notable? I had trouble finding stuff on the band in Google Gflor e s^Talk 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn-band Niz 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nn band. Wickethewok 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 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 (nomination withdrawn) Proto||type 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraidy Cat

~~A cancelled Disney film that is nothing but trivia. Please delete unless:~~

~~The film is back in production~~
~~Another meaning of this phrase that this title can be for exists. Georgia guy 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete — Non-notable trivia. — RJH 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT crystalballism. If this were a sequel to a successful franchise slated for 2010 I might be of a different opinion; but as it stands this movie has maybe a 50% chance of ever seeing the light of day at this point.--Isotope23 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Make that .05%... somehow I missed that production was cancelled.--Isotope23 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm fine with the rewrite.--Isotope23 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep it WAS in production by disney, that is at least notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete failed projects are not generally notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Replace with an article on the 1942 Tom and Jerry short. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Change my vote to Keep in response to my rewrite. Georgia guy 21:15, 8 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Elite Guard

This was an extremly short lived TNA stable that is easy explained as Jeff Jarrett and his mercinaries in every article that features them, which doesnt even include Jeff Jarrett himself (no links even go to this page)... it is a poorly written, non-informative, non-notable article that shouldnt be featured in wikipedia --- Paulley 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge any necessary info into Jeff Jarrett, then make it a redirect. PJM 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP and link it to the TNA stable page where all the other stables are. WillC 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

side note: its not the fact nothing links to it that's the problem it's the poor quality of the article if you want it kept then i would expect to see the article expanded and clearly written -- Paulley

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sic And Sinister Industries

Delete - no relevant google hits. No assertion of notability. Hoax? Wickethewok 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFT, WP:OR, WP:N and WP:BALLS. Gwernol 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Gwernol. Bucketsofg 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. PJM 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable group of people, as per Gwernol. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 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 Alabamaboy as a copyright violation. --Rory096 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Installing hl2 mods

Delete - clear violation of WP is not a how-to WP:NOT. Wickethewok 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom. Gwernol 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Thue | talk 17:11, 6 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeb Atlas (porn star)

Non notable porn star. See also Mark Dalton (porn star) and Gauge (gay porn star) by the same author. The magazine he was "Man of the Year" in is barely notable enough to get a substub on WP. --Rory096 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure if he's notable, but I highly doubt those images are {{GFDL-self}}. Gflor e s^Talk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, see my comment at one of those AfDs. His first image at Mark Dalton (porn star) was "unsure," so OrphanBot kept removing it from his articles (and he kept replacing it), so he must have gotten annoyed or something. --Rory096 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about the magazine's "notability" is incorrect. I checked Google and Men Magazine is a well-known magazine in the gay community, easily exceeding the circulation suggested by the guidelines. YellowPigNowNow 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertistment/promotion. Abuse of Wikipedia's bandwidth. Osomec 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all and so goes for the images, curious licence. --Ton e 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Borderline "notable", but there are legitimate concerns about the license. YellowPigNowNow 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Participants in the commercial sex trade are not notable per se. Monicasdude 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Monicasdude. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete good grief. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. nice pix though. Carlossuarez46 05:51, 9 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 deleted as attack, also noting WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trangleball

Doesn't seem notable. About 200 Google hits. Removing the insults doesn't leave much. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, vanity; probable hoax (or perhaps something-thought-up-in-school) Bucketsofg 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. [29]. PJM 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, attack page per "The Trangleball video game will available sometime in the near future, and will feature 'Red Shirt', the second biggest gay in the universe (next to Mark Miller, of course)." --Rory096 17:53, 6 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. SushiGeek 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RENEW

Support. Borders on vanity page, possible copyvio, verifiability problems. --metzerly 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite to address copyvio (http://www.renewtot.org/About.html) or else Delete. Certainly notable and verifiable, it seems deserving of an article but this isn't it. Accurizer 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: in the future, the copyvio template would be more useful in cases like this: {{copyvio|http://www.sourceofcopyinfo}}. --Hetar 23:31, 6 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 (G7) by author request. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMoo

Non-notable web-based software toy. This was originally put up for speedy delete for this reason, but the article's author has debated it in the article's talk page, so I thought this could do with some wider consensus Barneyboo (Talk) 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. eMoo is not only a software toy but is a cult icon in our local peer group. It is a humorous item we have and we would like to share it with the world. This is my first article and I am upset that you choose to riddicule something of ours, which I have prooved noteable. My Website is noteable as it provides graphical design services (3rd Party Reference: VGFuture). eMoo is neither rude or offensive and is a fully justified existant item.

The page you cite is not in itself of note - its forum has less than 100 registered members, for example. Also, please put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages so we know who's posting :) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlsoft Designs does not pick or choose whom it designs graphics for based on the size of the website but on discussions and relations with the website owner. (sorry, didn know about the tidle thing) CarlBooth 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but that is irrelevant. You originally cited the website as evidence of a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, which it is not. It does not show the notability of your website, or of EMoo. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well how can I proove its notability then? The site is notable to people that use the graphical design services. And btw, its eMoo :) CarlBooth 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm trying to show you in a fairly long-winded way that if you can't prove its notability, it's because it is not notable ;) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is notable. Why are you being a Kill Joy? Im not offending anyone or causing trouble I'd jsut like our cow to be on wikipedia for people to chuckle about when browsing. CarlBooth 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm appearing to be a killjoy is because I choose to isolate the article from its author. You made a perfectly valid point that there are many policies, guidelines and criteria and it's close to impossible to know which are enforced, which are just unspokingly assumed and which are ridiculous. So, whilst this article is unlikely to threaten any endangered species, and I'm unlikely to lose too much sleep over it, I still have to make a judgement based on the various widely held perspectives about matters such as this. It just so happens there IS a widely-cited guideline for this very type of article, and since I have seen no verifiable evidence that it meets the criteria of WP:WEB the judgement I've had to make is that it is in Wikipedia's best interests to not include a somewhat frivolous advertisement. Make sure you've had a look at WP:NOT for similar information. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell that noone really cares? Its a bit of fun for christ's sake. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) MrLiam

Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would I advertise an 8-ball? I have removed the link to my website to show I have no interest in using it as advertisement. It is purely intended as an ammusing article to brighten the day of people who read it.CarlBooth 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. an ammusing article to brighten the day of people who read it? I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia we were working on. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. for cyring out loud, what is it with you people? I cant be bothered with you anymore, ive wiped the article and you can do wtf you want cos your all idiots. im just trying to make people smile and if all you can do is sit at your computer all day picking holes and pull it to bits then thats pretty sad for you.CarlBooth 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: nn per their own admission: "a cult icon in our local peer group." --Hetar 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[sarcasm]Your observant![/sarcasm] You clearly havent read that I would now like this article deleted.

Delete non-notable meme(?) and unencyclopedic. Don't take it personally CarlBooth; you can make people smile at your website, but this is an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:12, 6 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. SushiGeek 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quad toilets

Delete - no claims of notability. There is really no need to have this article about a specific bathroom. Wickethewok 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

delete non-notable; original research. Bucketsofg 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
delete I would've speedied this nn stuff. Bobak 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - what could I have speedied it for? Wickethewok 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment sadly it doesn't seem to fall under any of the CSD criteria. Perhaps we need a new one, {{db-toiletcruft}} perhaps? Gwernol 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, unverifiable. Accurizer 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per above. Gwernol 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. —LrdChaos 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. School toilets? A WP:BAI candidate if I've ever seen one. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Amalas 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete toiletcruft. Or would that be shitcruft? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep My hands are dry, I'm happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.163.253 (talk • contribs) .
Keep Yes and every one loves the new tiles!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.51.240 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embarazada

WP is not a manual of how to speak good Spanish. Flapdragon 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Embarazado (pregnant -- and yes it should be quoted in the masculine out of context) is not even a word of English, and though the content may be useful it's certainly not an encyclopaedia article. Maybe Wikibooks could find a home for it? Flapdragon 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep It just has to be streamlined. Much of the article isn't notable, but the fact that it's so commonly misused as to be part of an international marketing campaign makes it worthy of an article. Much of the article can be removed, and the important parts expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baiter (talk • contribs) , at 19:38, 6 April 2006.

Strong keep. Responding to Flapdragon: An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge (it comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education.) This article is not a user's guide, it simply describes the word. This includes how it is usually used by people. The fact it isn't in English is irrelevant, as that sounds like an argument to delete other entries like "Russian language," as well. That article describes how Russian is spoken. Does that mean it is a how-to?--Primetime 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that "Russian" and "language" are words of English. So in a Spanish encyclopaedia, would you expect to find English words commonly misused by Spanish people learning to speak English? No, an encyclopaedia is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of "all forms of knowledge" (and the Greek etymology is neither here nor there). For example, it's not a place for bus timetables, details of how to work my washing machine or your sister's school timetable. It's also not a manual of how to do things such as change a car tyre or speak a language. Articles on the grammar of a language are not aiming to teach you to speak the language, and more than a diagram of the brain is there to help you do brain surgery. Can I suggest read you read the page on What Wikipedia is not? I'm not saying what you've written is no use to anyone, far from it, but this is definitely not the place for it. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If I were reading the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana--a Spanish encyclopedia with embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries--I would expect to see it. Also, Wikipedia is larger than the Espasa (as it is sometimes called). I have read "WP:NOT" several times, over time, and I think you are misinterpreting it. For example, there is the Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia passage, which states: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability . . . since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments". Finally, I hope you are not inferring that the entry is a collection of indiscriminate, non-notable information, as this word is used by millions of people every day. I think it illustrates how complex the history and usage of a word can be, and how much meaning can change over time. It also illustrates the need for native speakers when preparing advertising campaigns.--Primetime 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the above -- the fact that WP has lots of space, the fact that a word "is used by millions of people every day", nor incidentally the fact you've worked hard on it -- makes this an encyclopaedia article. So in your ideal world you would just go through adding every word of every known language detailing its nature, etymology and possible misuse by non-natives? That would be, well, kind of, a dictionary, wouldn't it? Just like the ones you mentioned above. I'm not trying to be snide but I really think you need to sit back and think a bit about what an encyclopaedia is. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, under what circumstances do you picture anyone ever looking up the (Spanish) word embarazada in an English-language encyclopaedia? Flapdragon 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been here long. But this article does not fall under the description "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes" that do not belong in an encyclopedia...it's not a lesson on speaking Spanish, it's an exploration of a linguistic phenomenon. You'll find other such phenomena with their own articles, such as nucular. Whether or not someone would look up the word is irrelevant; no one can really judge what information someone will have a need for in the future. Who's gonna look up Atif Rauf? Keppa 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, maybe someone who's just heard the name Atif Rauf and wants to know who he is? Nucular is a word of English (well, more or less!). Embarazada is the Spanish for pregnant, and not even the citation form under which it would normally appear. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have a problem with the form of "embarazada" then suggest the article be moved, not deleted. Yes, "nucular" IS a word, just like "embarazada." Both have their own articles because both are examples of linguistic phenomena. I really think that because "nucular" is more well known, being English, no one's disputing its article, while this article remains under fire. Keppa 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This seems like a great example of a linguistic "false friend." If a major corporation made the mistake, I'm sure plenty of others with little Spanish training do also. I think the etymological comparison and the exploration of various aspects of the confusion are things that very much belong in an encyclopedia article, and considering the obvious amount of work that went into this, why get rid of it? Keppa 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're not judging the quality of the material or the points it makes but its suitability for Wikipedia, which is not a compendium of false friends. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article should stay but could do with slimming down a bit. Boddah 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Sourced, NPOV and notable. Why get rid of it? Me lkjhgfdsa 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Great to see the Inclusionist community out in such force, but please guys, read WP:NOT. Also see http://en.wikibooks.org. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read it and I don't understand what your issue is...could you perhaps cite a particular part? Keppa 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? As I've already mentioned more than once, WP is not there to teach you how to do things, for eaxmple to help you avoid pitfalls in learning a foreign language -- it's not an instruction manual, nor is it a usage guide, dictionary or manual of idiom: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" if you want a verbatim quote. I'm sorry but I really think I've explained this about as clearly as it's possible to. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Parts of the article do fit the passage you just quoted. But it is, for the most part, an acceptable encyclopedia article in my eyes. I think certain offending sections should be removed or altered to a more appropriate form, but I don't think deleting the article is the answer. Check Wikipedia:Delete; deletion is clearly the last choice, when all other forums have failed. That's what this discussion is for, and so far the people who have responded are overwhelmingly in support of the article. So try to fix it before you throw it away. I don't want all this work and an interesting article to be lost here. Keppa 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already said (and I think this demonstrates that some basic concepts have not been fully understood here) that while some of the content may be useful somewhere, it's inherently inappropriate here -- which is the case with dozens of sort of useful or entertaining information. It's not possible to "fix" it, since there is no scope for an article on the "subject" of embarazada, which is a word of Spanish not a subject like Russian grammar. That's why it should be deleted. What's so wrong with simply giving it whgere it belongs? Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not every word deserves an article. It could be mentioned in false friends as an example of one Imarek 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Boddah YellowPigNowNow 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete Having been made to list all my arguments, I realise I feel quite strongly about it. Perhaps a mention in False friend. Perhaps one in Parker Pen Company. But its own article? I don't think so. Con Dem^Talk 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CommentI don't know if this is relevant, but I notice that Keppa and Boddah were responding to Primetime's identical messages on their (and about 10 other) talk pages, asking them to vote simply because they were listed on the inclusionist wikipedians category. Con Dem^Talk 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Nothing wrong with that, though. Thanks to Primetime for pointing it out to me because of our shared interest. It's not like we have an agenda. This is still my opinion. I reviewed the article and made my own decision. Notice he didn't say how to vote, he just asked us to vote. Keppa 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly "like you have an agenda". And yes Primetime did ask people to vote to support him. He contacted you without (AFAIK) any reason to believe you would have specific thoughts on this article, but because he saw your names on a list of people who inherently disapprove of deleting stuff. Furthermore he didn't just bring it to their attention, but specifically asked people (most of them very new to WP) to support him "as a favor" (or even "a huge favor"): "I would be greatly in your debt" -- no doubt a favour that could be returned when asked for. Even so only a few of the people contacted have shown any interest, so maybe that shows that even among hand-picked inclusionists itr's hard to find a much interest in keeping this one? Of course Primetime didn't mention that this was the reason for the sudden appearance of a troop of inclusionist cavalry over the hill. While I'm not aware of anything that specifically forbids this behaviour, this is certainly not the basis on which such decisions should be made or influenced. I wonder how it squares with good faith? Perhaps I should alert a gang of deletionists and then we can have a great big generalised debate about the merits of deleting versus retaining things?Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not quote snippets of my message out of context. I asked some people not to support me but simply to vote. Your first quote is not even what I wrote, so I think that it should be crossed out. In any case, tallying the votes of those who weren't invited shows that consensus is clearly for keeping the entry. Further, your assertion that Keppa has an agenda is unsupported by evidence. He has given a much more clearer rationale for keeping the entry than your "because my unique interpretation of a phrase in a policy told me to". (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition. That WP:NOT passage seems to me to be designed for banning descriptions of slang and dictionary definitions.)--Primetime 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of context? How does the context change things, please? And if we're getting snippy, please withdraw your allegation of misquotation. The three phrases I quoted come directly from your appeal for support. Clearly the people you contacted wouldn't be doing you a "huge favor" by voting to delete your article. You appealed to their sympathy, but the question of how much work you'd done to it is of course not a valid argument for keeping an article. Again I ask, why would it hurt you to move your lovingly-honed text to an appropriate place? Flapdragon 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument is largely over. But I want to re-emphasize just what an encylcopedia is by asking you to read these definitions from reliable dictionaries: Funk and Wagnall's (Encarta), Oxford Concise, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, Random House Unabridged, Cambridge, and The American Heritage Dictionary. They all emphasize how encyclopedias cover all fields of knowledge (or rarely, everything about one subject [e.g., literature]). You are advocating moving a two-page article from an encyclopedia onto a site for books. Think about how ridiculous that seems. It doesn't help that moving it there would make the entry nearly impossible to find (as no one would look for it there and few visit the site).--Primetime 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He may not have said "Vote to keep my page!" but he certainly implied that he'd like you to vote to keep it. Anyway, this is not a poll, it is a way of finding consensus, so no one is actually "voting" here. And I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought it might defeat the point of this if people go round asking people to give their opinion simply because they are inclusionist. I just wanted this to be taken into account when administrators try to see where the consensus lies. Con Dem^Talk 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Keppa sincerely believes that the page should not be deleted. Your implication that he did so simply because I would like it if he did is proven false by his well-reasoned justifications given above. In fact, he has given the clearest justification of all the voters for his opinion. For example, you have not stated what you think deleting the page would accomplish. You have not stated why visitors to Wikipedia do not deserve to get an explanation when they type in embarazada in the search box. If one were to distill Flapdragon's reasoning for nominating the page it would look something like this: "Because a phrase in a paragraph designed to bar short definitions and slangwords from Wikipedia told me to do it." (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition.) In any case, those who browse through the articles nominated for deletion do not represent the general Wikipedia usership, so I'm unsure what your definition of "consensus" is.--Primetime 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't passing judgement - I'm new, and I noticed it, and thought it might be relevant to the discussion. My reasons for wanting the article deleted are that I don't think the word is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, and that Wikipedia ought to have articles on things, rather than words. I agree that the fact that the word Embarazada can be funnily confused is interesting, but an etymology of the word doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you remove this section of the article, you are left with a short fact about a false friend and an example of its usage which is now also on the false friend page. I also think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would try and find an entry for the word Embarazada in an English encyclopedia. Con Dem^Talk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And as I've said numerous times in numerous deletion votes, or whatever we're calling them now, telling people about a vote in progress isn't stacking the vote. I should hope that we're all independent enough to read the article and form our own opinions.

Speaking of which, I just did that, and will abstain due to an insufficient understanding of the material. Rogue 9 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but urging a dozen or so strangers to vote in a particular direction as a favour doesn't seem exactly in the spirit of the thing. Flapdragon 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles that contain information about etymology. I gather from this fact that etymology is something that the wikipedia community finds acceptable in an encyclopedia article, or they'd all be up for deletion. I think the comparison of etymology is appropriate in this article. The only thing I would object to is the many examples of possible usage of the word; I think this is what most people refer to when they say the article should be "streamlined" and I agree. If it doesn't directly relate to the linguistic phenomenon being discussed it should be removed.

But please don't complain about the army of inclusionists that has suddenly come to persecute you. Inclusionists do alert others of pages that may deserve attention. We're still free human beings. I reviewed the article and formed my own opinion. If there are people who share your viewpoint, they're obviously not aware of the issue, so find them and bring them here. It's really the only way we can even try to determine consensus. Keppa 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia debe estar avergonzado cuando nosotros quitamos palabras españolas famosas como está para nada. Que Lástima--God Ω War 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's three more words that should be added to WP on the grounds they can be misused by learners of Spanish: este (ésta), porque (por), que (qué). I'm not trying to score points, but where is this going to end? Presumably not till every word of every language has an entry in the English encyclopaedia. Surely we can all see that's ridiculous. Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Sorry, Flapdragon, but this seems to be such an important issue, that may well be required to be in the public eye, precisely because I am sure a lot of people will want to refer to it in an encyclopaedia and it has nothing to do with textbooks, tutorials or readers as such. We are not trying to teach anybody anything as such but it has become important enough to become a concept, and as the "embarazada" concept it has taken on a life of its own and people, will appreciate to be warned not to "embarrass" themselves using the word in the wrong context. By all means, use an disambiguation article and put all this and similar problem usages into it, but somewhere people should be able to read up on it in Wikipedia. It was bad enough to keep the English "hopefully" controversy out of Wikipedia's pages, but at least you would not have embarrassed yourself using "hopefully". But this... Well, I think it needs to be in Wikipedia. Dieter Simon 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've put the question twice now, but no-one has been able to explain how someone would find this entry (except perhaps by the far-fetched links from irrelevant articles that Primetime has been adding!). Hopefully is a different matter: it's a well-known linguistic controversy in English that someone might well look up to see what WP had to say on the subject. This is just one of untold numbers of mistakes English-speakers might make in translating into Spanish. Are they supposed to look up every word they produce in WP to see if it might be a mistake? And why the obssessive emphasis on this one single example of the well-known phenomenon of the false friend? Are we to expect in-depth articles on every foreign word an English-speaker might be misled by? The mind boggles. Flapdragon 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Super Ultra Uber Strong Keep The article is notable, culturally significant, and justified. KirbyMeister 19:23, 8 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 article was redirected — sjorford (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004-05 OHL Season

This page is identical to 2004-05 OHL season, which is properly formatted without the capital letter on "season". BoojiBoy, 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to 2004-05 OHL season. Gwernol 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Suits me fine. I didn't want to just do it without going through the red tape though. BoojiBoy, 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - When there are two identicle pages someone made, you really don't have to. Although redirect is sometimes the outcome of these debates, this place is designed for discussions about deletion, not redirection. --Bachrach44 20:22, 6 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? 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 4

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page has been deleted only by PROD and so it is not a speedy candidate for reposting previously deleted material; I removed the speedy tag and am listing here as a courtesy. No vote. Stifle 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Currently the article is just fan speculation and should be deleted because "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." No official announcements have been made about a 4th Spider-Man movie yet. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, crystal ball...'nuff said. PJM 18:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, deal only inked for 3 films at this time.--Isotope23 19:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Sony pictures deal is for three films, no fourth film has been mooted as of this date. This page will be valid if a press release to this effect is released but not until then. (aeropagitica) 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete until movie is announced ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 16:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. Her Pegship 19:20, 11 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? 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mogroide

Unverifiable, does not google, non-notable. Note: Prod'ed, tag removed without improvement or comment. Accurizer 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability, no evidence that he's anything but a rap fan. A clear delete. Gwernol 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Gwernol Imarek 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

do not delete* he is an inspiration and thank God i found some one to write a short play about in my school-- 03.23, 7 april 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.193.38.10 (talk • contribs) .

you guys are very unfair, would you stop a erson from growing, just give him a chance although the articles' kinda scanty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.193.38.10 (talk • contribs).

thats no reason, am still working on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mogroide (talk • contribs) .

Comment Hi, Wikipedia has some guidelines on what makes a person notable - see WP:BIO. If Mogroide meets one of these criteria, please add verifiable sources to the article. Remember that the requirement for Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth" so you need to show that Mogroide has made an impact that has been recorded by third party sources. Otherwise it is likely this article will be deleted. Good luck, Gwernol 14:17, 11 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. SushiGeek 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story Teller Discretion

This article has been unsourced since January 2006 and the subject doesn't seem like a very notable term, based on what I find: [30] or [31] PJM 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete (or Very Weak Transwiki). At best, this is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic topic. However, I don't even think it merits a transwiki to Wiktionary, as it's simply an example of the use of the word "discretion". Fluit 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete at closing admin's discretion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - term isn't notable, just common words strung together. "Rule Zero" at least is a more common neologism for it that is more notable, but I wouldn;t suggest an article is needed for that one (didn;t check if there is one). DreamGuy 13:26, 9 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of games in the public domain

First off, in it's current state, the list is wrong, and is completely uncited. Also, it is redudnant with various other entries on Wikipedia, like Abandonware and List of freeware games. It is simply un-needed. THollan 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article was subject to a previous VfD discussion which ended Keep (no consensus) Gwernol 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This list is virtually impossible to make exhaustive and therefore in inherently subjective and unmaintainable. Gwernol 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete shouldbecategorycruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per my comment in the previous AfD: "Maybe if it was a list that had languished in obscurity for months." Nifboy 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Furthermore, the games aren't in "public domain" (Most are still copyrighted even when the copyright holder has agreed to distribute them without restrictions), so it's mistitled too. This can be done in so much better ways. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:20, 11 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten Blogs

Inherently POV-centric listcruft. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this is inherently subjective and non verifiable. Gwernol 18:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Gwernol & Redvers reasoning.--Isotope23 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an experiment in using community knowledge as a filter for authority. Technorati, Google Blogs, and other blog related search engines have constructed mathematic algorithms that do a poor job of filtering through unique content and informationally valuable blogs (primarily because of the relatively new explosion of blog popularity and the inherent vulnerabilty of the blogosphere to spam). I'm interested to track the progress of this page as it gets edited by wikipedia visitors, to see if "the group" can come up with a better top ten list than the search algorithms.

If allowed a significant lifespan on wikipedia, i beleive this page could generate a very interesting reference page on a) the wisdom of crowds theory, b) verticle blog communities, c) user perceptions of authority in the blogosphere. —This unsigned comment was added by Kbzimm (talk • contribs) .

Comment then this falls under WP:OR. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a forum for experiments like this, no matter how well intentioned or interesting. There are plenty of other places on the web where this would be a welcome addition. if it takes off, then an interesting Wikipedia article could be written about it. Gwernol 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOR, also blogcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete; original research, bloglinkcruft, inherently POV and as such is bait for edit wars. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm open to suggestions for other sites, but wikipedia is the only wiki-format site with such high traffic and participation. I expect it'd go thru phases of blog spam at first, but even out eventually to collections of "the most relevant accumulated knowledge on each subject."--kbzimm 20:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete "...considered the best in their subject area." Considered by whom? Where are the research citations and statistics to back up such a claim? If no papers can be cited to this effect, no original research applies. (aeropagitica) 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete blogs aren't allowed on wikipedia, so listcruft for them shouldn't be allowed either ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete um, duh? A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 04:44, 9 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REC Studios

Non notable, juvenilia Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no google results for "REC Studios" and any names mentioned on the page. Wickethewok 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What? - It's the first Google result for "REC Studios." Are you sure you spelled it right? As for names, I'll move the names to the top of the article. Caster2000 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I realize that there exists a website on it. I was trying to determine how notable it is. Simply searching for "REC Studios" brings up many many unrelated topics, so I thus searched for "REC Studios" + Mitri and got very few results. If you want this article to be kept, you need to prove why this studio is notable. Wickethewok 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: nn by the articles own admission, its film's are "still largely unknown." --Hetar 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Just go ahead: I really don't care if the article's deleted or not, as long as that horribly inaccurate one I replaced it with is off... --Caster2000 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 7 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 Userfied to creator user:Geoffreyclarke, clearly a personal work in progress. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romance (novel)

Unsalvegable gibberish Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Delete as nonsense, per nom. Slowmover 19:19, 6 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Baptist colleges

This article has been tagged as original research for a month now and nothing has been done - I think because nothing can be done. Although it survived its previous AfD as no consensus, two months ago, and there were some thoughtful comments, the fundamental problem of the institutions not identifying themselves collectively (at all, let alone by this label) and a complete lack of any sources whatsoever remains unaddressed. Some proposed merging it with another article which no longer exists as it, too, was deleted as unverifiable and original research. The article is an orphan, the only inbound link in main space is a redirect, which itself has no inbound links. I think this is a hangover form the bad old days of the Gastrich Wars and should be given a quiet funeral. Just zis Guy you know? 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom (except for the Gastrich bit, which I remain uncertain of). Melchoir 19:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete gastrichcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete but lets hold a wake and skip the funeral. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:19, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik S. Bäcklin

Twice prodded as a hoax. No google hits on article title. 53 unique hits if you omit the middle initial. I can't read Swedish, but several of the hits are clearly different people. As far as I can tell, not notable (WP:BIO), not verifiable (WP:V). NickelShoe (Talk) 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I believe this to be a hoax. If the books do exist they are so obscure and unreferenced that they render this article non-notable. Gwernol 20:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete is either non-notable or non-existent. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Likelihood of it being a hoax just went up after anon added him to the listof 1989 births. --Nlu (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I completely forgot to check it hadn't been prodded already when I prodded it, but given the major disparity between the claims made and the level of google attention (i.e. none), this has to be either a hoax, or at best a fictional character in a not particularly well known kids programme. I'd put my money on the hoax though. Average Earthman 15:35, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiciest Hits

The existance for the greatest hits album has been continuously denied by EMI and Virgin Records - not just in Britain, but in Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries. There is no evidence whatsoever that the album will be released - or if indeed ever even existed. It is pure speculation based upon an email recieved by a fan - who is known to be unreliable. Rimmers 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete An article that consists of a denial by a record company that the subject of the article is even being considered for release? WP is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per aeropagitica ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BFI (game)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13:29, 1 April 2006 by User:Trevor macinnis, but the nomination was orphaned. Listing it now. E lkman - ^(talk) 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As the writers admitted, it's a game they made up when they had nothing better to do. --E lkman - ^(talk) 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not much else needs to be said about this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree totally. Freddie 13:11, 9 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 3x G7 speedy deletes at request of author. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celegaytions, Celegaytions.com, Www.celegaytions.com

Just another website. There are millions of them, you know. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment See also identical article Www.celegaytions.com ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an important and informative website. Please keep! —This unsigned comment was added by Cyn0208@aol.com (talk • contribs) .

I fixed the duplicate - it was accidental!

Delete, not notable. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete a fine website I'm sure, but that doesn't make it notable. Fails WP:WEB. Gwernol 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment See also third identical article Celegaytions.com ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Basically advertising. --John Nagle 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all--Ton e 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per Ton. Bucketsofg 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete gaycruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No links to the site in google, no Alexa ranking, fails WP:WEB. bikeable (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete wp:web wp:corp A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: Look harder. Here is the google link. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=celegaytions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.108.130.11 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Um, I don't mean to be rude, but other than the first two Google hits, the rest all appear to be a massive spamvertising campaign of "customer" reviews and guestbook signings. Links from non-notable sites do not add to the notability of the website in question. The first two hits are to the website itself and to Delaware Pride, an unrelated organisation. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't mean to be rude either, but you act like this website is the holy grail, when basically everything on here is an advertisement.

Please delete Celegaytions.com today. We do not wish to be affilated with your site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.108.130.11 (talk • contribs) .

Comment To do that, you'll need to sign into the account you created the articles under and request deletion by putting {{db-author}} at the top of each page you wish to be deleted. We can't delete on the say-so of an anonymous IP address. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:06, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endor Holocaust

Renominated for the 2nd time in hope that discussion will generate a clearer community consensus. Previous nominations: 9 May 2005, 19 November 2005

Delete Per WP:NOT:

1.3.1 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not primary (original) research such as proposing theories.

1.8.3 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Speculation on fiction is still speculation. See WP:FICT

If this article is actually about the debate on whether the Endorian Holocaust actually happened then delete per WP:CITE or WP:VERIFY since no reputable sources can be provided to verify that the debate even exists. Also the current page for Forest moon of Endor has a section of the Endorian Holocaust, which states "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. Page should be deleted. The stub in the Forest moon of Endor is all that is needed.--Geedubber 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous nomination four months ago, when these same issues were raised. This is article is not research or speculation original to Wikipedia, it is about other people's research and speculation - sources are cited liberally throughout. The nomination claims that no sources are provided to verify that the debate exists within the fandom when down at the bottom of the article in the clearly-labelled "external links" section are two links to very extensive pro- and con-Holocaust pages. As for the section in the article on the moon, after the first AfD an attempt was made to merge the whole subject in there and it was ultimately split back out again because it took up an inordinate amount of space there. Bryan 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the point that fan discussions are not reliable verifiable sources was ever properly addressed. Ziggurat 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They're reliable, verifiable sources for an article that's about fan discussions. I refer once again to Star Trek versus Star Wars. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Things have changed. As I said above "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. PS. can someone help me list this on today AfD page, I had trouble getting it on.--Geedubber 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But that only supports my argument. If Inside the Worlds sees fit to address the issue, that indicates it's considered significant even in official circles. The "topic" is not nullified by this. Bryan 08:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I think that proves that the discussion is cruft, not canon.--Geedubber 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the book addresses it in such a way that it's clear the moon was never damaged and that the supposed event never happened. I still think we can merge it in the Forest Moon article and note that it has been a significant discussion point between fans, but an entire article is overkill. Perhaps the forest moon article can get a link to the Star Wars Wiki. Surely they have a similar article there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - The first two nominations did not reach consensus, but there are virtually no verifiable sources for this, so it should absolutely be deleted unless reliable sources of the information can be found. Ziggurat 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article does cite sources. Most significantly, these sources indicate that the debate has some presence within "official" material:
  - In one of the Star Wars Tales comics, an Imperial veteran of Endor makes an apparent reference to the holocaust theory, after telling the story of his unit's trouble with the Ewoks in a bar. Another character dismisses it as a myth, saying that most of the Death Star's mass was obliterated in the explosion, and that the Rebels "took care of the rest."
  - Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy describes how the Rebels managed to use shields and tractor beams to protect their strike team on the moon of Endor
  - The First issue of 2005's X-Wing minisiers from Dark Horse comics, begins one week after the battle and shows Rebel ships dousing a forest fire begat by debris from the Death Star.
- And of course the two external links at the bottom of the article show how much attention has gone into the issue in the unofficial "fan" community. Other sources are cited throughout the article when specific issues such as the Ewok's survival post-RotJ are discussed. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requires multiple reliable sources about the topic, and the information contained within the topic. Of the three official sources you cite, only one of them even alludes to the possibility of an Endorian Holocaust ("apparently"), and contains none of the information about it presented in the article. The other two refer to circumstances around the destruction of the second Death Star but don't actually talk about even a hypothetical Endorian Holocaust. Fan discussion is not verifiable, and the overuse of phrases like "are speculated to be", "Pro-holocaust debaters", "some also argue", and "has been proposed by fans" are indicative of inherent unsourced POV. Which fans? How many? How do you know this is a representative sample? Are you referring to Internet fandom only? This is the reason that verifiability is required, because these claims are not falsifiable or provable in any reputable source. Ziggurat 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire when ready, commander. Sorry, that should be delete. In May last year I said This is not canon. Everyone lived happily ever after, that's why they all were dancing (badly) at the end of the film. It wasn't in those awful books set after the films either. Delete, lest be we swamped with articles like Theoretical genetic mutations that would have arisen if Leia had married Luke or The sex lives of Ewoks. Is every piece of fan speculation on anything that exists notable? This isn't about being pro or anti star wars (I love Star Wars), or even about how much genuine Star Wars information deserves to be on Wikipedia, this is about non-notable non-canon unverifiable speculation about something that didn't happen in a film., comments I stand by. It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. And as a debate meme it isn't notable as say, Star Wars versus Star Trek. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- So books don't count? Star Wars books are canon too. Just because it wasn't in the film doesn't mean it's unimportant. Feel free to vote delete, but don't use the argument it wasn't in the film on its own. You need to address the comics, books and other media too. - 131.211.210.17 09:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - All books and comics refered to suggest it never happened. The only people who do are fans. Thus, Cruft.--Geedubber 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Exactly. In the books and comics that I have read (in some cases to my misfortune, Kevin J Anderson should be thrown into the Sarlac) that had references to Endor, said forest moon and it's irritating furry semi-sapient race were fine. Ergo it never happened. Thus not only is the debate pointless and daft in the extreme, but it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has). As such while maybe worthy of a brief mention on the Endor page (with the citations being used to show why the wretched place survived) or fthe Star Wars fandom page, it does not require a detailed examination of the evidence on it's own page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic conjecture. It's original research/speculation about a fictional event that exists only in fanon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP. One thing deletionists forget is that this article is NOT about the theory itself. This article is about the PHENOMENON among the Star Wars fandom. It's purpose is to explain the issue, and give the two points of view. Please take that into consideration. The Wookieepedian 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, I forgot so badly that I wrote it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has) and It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- "among the Star Wars fandom" exactly! that means it is cruft!--Geedubber 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Good grief, weren't two AFDs enough? --maru (talk) contribs 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as speculation, trivia, and industrial-strength fancruft. It's a real testament to the systemic bias against reality that this wasn't deleted sooner. Brian G. Crawford 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Isn't there a Star Wars webspace or Wiki that this can live on instead? A description of the phenomenon experienced by some fans as they speculate about unfilmed non-canonical happenings. This appears to be on the upper limits of fancruft. (aeropagitica) 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Completely neutral comment added only for information: Yes. Silly Dan 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:(aeropagitica). --Hetar 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and mention it in the Endor article. --Ton e 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The paragraph this gets in Forest moon of Endor is more than enough. David Sneek 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with David Sneek that the paragraph in Forest moon of Endor is enough, and the whole thing is non-canonical at any rate (a notice on the Wookieepedia article notes that "Events, opinions, and individuals described in this arcticle are neither present in any authorized source nor claimed to occur in the Star Wars universe"). It might be worth adding the two external links from Endor Holocaust to the main Endor article, so people can read the arguments for themselves if they really care, but a seperate article is too much, even for me. I love Star Wars, but this is really exactly what Wookieepedia exists for. BryanG 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete'. Wikipedia is not a crystalball for hypothetical fictional futures. Bucketsofg 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean hypothetical fictional pasts? In a galaxy far far away? *grin* Ziggurat 23:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Future" refers to ROTJ as the starting point, I guess. But nevertheless, we can't say if the Star Wars events happened in the past or future compared to our time. Their location in the timeline is simply unknown. - Sikon 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that the "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" in the opening of Star Wars referred to its relationship to our time and location. Not that it's important... :-) Ziggurat 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The event is conjectural and exists only in fans' minds. We hardly need articles about fans' discussions. Imarek 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fictional constructs all include some degree of internal inconsistency, and vanishingly few examples of such inconsistency are notable. Theories attempting to explain the inconsistencies away are even less notable. Monicasdude 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete When this article was available I was/Drinkin Colt .45's with lando/I was hanging out in the cantina on mos eisley/...Original reeeeasearch where are you tonight/ and who's laying right there by your side./ Everynight, I AFD with you / And I wake up alone. (shamelessly ripped from the Blink 182 song and perverted to my standards). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete whether OR or a compilation of references from the Star Wars media giant, its cruft at its cruftiest. The mention in the Endor article is plenty. Thatcher131 01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge what little can be saved into Forest moon of Endor. Redirect works, too. —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 02:14 (UTC)
Delete better location identified above by Silly Dan --Ajdz 02:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ajdz. --Khoikhoi 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
DeleteMontco 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge. The article is interesting, but I don't consider the debate to be as significant as, say, Han shot first. Therefore I say condense the article and merge it into either Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars or a totally-revamped Physics and Star Wars article (or both). -- wacko2 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This stuff belongs to Wookieepedia. - Sikon 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, highlighting what has been said above: non-notable fan speculation. Belongs on Wookieepedia. Sandstein 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not just a non-canonical name, a non-canonical interpretation. See a similar discussion (which resulted in delete) at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:13, 12 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. SushiGeek 05:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tchernobog

A two-liner about a character in Blood (computer game) - It should be merged in that article, and the article change to a redirect to Chernobog, as it's an alternate spelling (of German origin) for the god, occasionally found in English sources. bogdan 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect--Ton e 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Disambig--Ioannes Pragensis 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per nom. - Liberatore(T) 20:24, 12 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 a non-notable (probably non-existent) person.--Alhutch 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noah dudziak

Unverifiable, hoax article. Prod'ed after finding that he was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence as claimed. Author removed that claim with the prod tag. Upon further checking, John A. Campbell was the first Governor of the Wyoming Territory appointed on April 3, 1869. Francis E. Warren was elected as the first Governor of the State in September 1890. Also, I'd bet decaf coffee wasn't available in the 1700s. Reads like Forrest Gump of the American Revolution. Accurizer 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Brian G. Crawford 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax Imarek 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax, and not even a good one. Senator, you are no Austin Purfleet. Also see Geogre's Law. GRuban 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, {{db-vand}}, tagged as such. --Rory096 20:39, 7 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Painterwork

After reading this EB-11 article, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't apply today _→AzaToth 20:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep and cleanup, possibly move to more appropriate title, possibly Painting techniques (currently a category with no main article by that name), merging any excessive content from the individual sections to the appropriate articles, leaving only a brief description. Add links to main articles where appropriate, such as Marbling. All of these techniques are still being used, and are considered skilled labour techniques. Some, such as gilding, are considered practically art forms, and skilled gilders are in demand. Consider also the historical aspect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: those working on cleaning up and updating the 1911 Britannica articles have expressed a desire to keep such articles for the time being so that they are not mistakenly reuploaded (with all of the OCR errors and formatting, it takes a lot of work just to cleanup the articles enough to be able to post them to Wikipedia, let alone update them, so this is not a trivial amount of work). -- Kjkolb 12:29, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automoboat

Neologism. Prodded by another user as non-notable, but tag removed without comment. Eight unique google hits [32]. Delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom.Bjones 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As the (or a) prodd-der, may I concur with the delete -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 7 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furry Broadcasting Corporation

Anonymous user removed {{prod}}, so posting here. Site does not meet WP:WEB. "Furry Broadcasting Corporation" returns 19 google hits from 13 sites. Official webpage is hosted on a subdomain, but even still *.jaieproductions.com has an Alexa rank of 3.5 million. Delete or possibly Redirect to 2 the Ranting Gryphon Vslashg (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominated. I've just tagged 2 the Ranting Gryphon as a possible speedy delete, since the article was recreated after being deleted on AfD, so redirecting there probably wouldn't be appropriate. Brian G. Crawford 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete more furry nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Belongs at WikiFur:Furry Broadcasting Corporation; and its not more furry nonsence SWAT... A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment At least get the link right. WikiFur:FBC
Delete - per above --Haham hanuka 08:25, 12 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 as a copyvio. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telangana jagarana sena

Press release? News report? Unencyclopedic. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete copyvio of this link. Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:18, 6 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 - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latent human factor

"Latent human factor" gets seven google hits. None when filtered by "Lisa Williams". The survey "published online" is a blog. If this is a real study, there should be real sources. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe this is a joke article. User:Reyhani, not the article creator, but the blogger cited, removed external links in the article and the prod notice without comment. I'm not sure why, but the article still appears unverifiable. I'm open to verification if provided. Otherwise, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable. Feezo (Talk) 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, it might be unverifiable right not, but see what happens in a few weeks time when this study is circulated in academic circles. Being new to wiki I am sorry for any mistakes on our part but please do not just dicredit this study. This study is of great importance to our interpretation of how teams work when they have to succeed. It explains the phenomena of why "underdogs" win at time when it seems impossible. In short, please bear with us. We hope to also post the entire study or at least important pieces of it. We feel that this study is a contribution to the content of wiki and will be appreciated by informed readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs) 17:48, April 6, 2006.

- Comment If it's not verifiable right now, it should probably still be deleted. If it becomes verifiable later, then it should be posted then. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Original research and unverifiable Imarek 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Imarek. WP not a crystal ball, etc. Perhaps someday this will be a notable topic; not today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What a pity that you are all looking at this matter so pesemistically to not value good material. Can WP not pride itself by being timely and even ahead of other medias. WP should be proud to contain such material and I truly hope that this research will not be deleted and we will not be robbed of this valuable contribution. PS googling something should really not become a standard of judging, especially when we are dealing with fresh academic research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs) .

I understand your position, but "fresh academic research" needs peer review, yes? And Wikipedia doesn't have the kind of setup to do that, so we have to wait it out. You read WP:V and WP:OR, I assume, but simply disagree.

As far as Googling, that's just our way of looking for references when none are provided for us. We do that so as not to jump the gun on calling something unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:28, 11 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. SushiGeek 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fusible plug

Transfer and delete: This is nothing more than a dictionary entry, which belongs at Wiktionary. --Hetar 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (obviously) it is far more than a dictionary entry. — Dunc|☺ 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Ton e 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. - Liberatore(T) 20:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Definitely not a dictionary definition. Article could still use some improvement though. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:24, 12 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 without prejudice against a re-nomination for individual articles. This is too many articles, only tangentially related to each other, for there to be any meaningful consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 please relist seperately. -Doc ^ask? 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conner Rayburn

This is a child actor that appeared in 5 episodes. Not notable. And the same goes for more soap opera child actors (funny, several of them played Kyle Jenkins on The Young and the Restless). IMO, cildren that appear in the show without singificant contribution, do not belong into enciclopedia. MAybe when they become adult and perform in prominent productions with important roles but certainly not now.

Ellis Hollins
Marissa Poer
Madison Poer
Amanda and Rachel Pace
Oliver Guynes
Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray
Cooper Guynes
Amy and Emily Walton
Scott and Zachary Benes
Bronwyn Tosh
Brenna Tosh
Alena and Gabrielle LeBerger
Rebecca and Vanessa Rogers
Jason and Kristopher Simmons
Cali and Noelle Sheldon
Kara and Shelby Hoffman
Aaron Aulsebrook-Walker
Alyssa, Jaden and Brandon Morgan
Rebecca Pike

--Ton e 21:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Imarek 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep all w/o prejudice toward separate relisting. Some of these are clearly notable actors, whatever their ages -- The Tosh sisters, for example, were in 30-odd episodes of Six Feet Under, while Hollins is credited with an apparently notable award nomination -- while others are just working as interchangeable bits of stage business. They should be listed separately (preferably over several days). Monicasdude 00:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and re-nominate per Monicasdude. Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw and renominate individually Thatcher131 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Getting your mug on TV a few times (and not making any further impact) is a meaningless measure of encyclopedic worth. Child-actor-cruft. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No vote -- Concur with the "renominate individually" camp -- I don't mind voting on 2 or 3 articles with the same subject or source, but this looks like a class-delete, and it'll be schools again next -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I see I nominated too many people at the same time. If you think any of them is notable enough,just remove it from the list. Shall we start voting again, I think that is the procedure. --Ton e 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- No Vote -- Simon Cursitor 14:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all nn group. Carlossuarez46 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete mainly non-notable JackO'Lantern 05:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Although I agree with Tone, if there are any particularly identifiable children, a case should be made for them. (For example, I'm personally for the Kara and Shelby Hoffman page as they have appeared in both television, and a mainstream film. Daydream believer2 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep all This mass nomination is unacceptable. The onus shouldn't be on me to check which ones are notable. Hawkestone 02:37, 12 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. SushiGeek 05:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sadha

Excuse this confused AfD nomination... This editor has added several identical articles under many different titles. Some of them he was kind enough to upload with nonsense vandalism intact, allowing for G1 deletions. Others are like this one - I don't think the article matches the title and the picture. So the question here (and it is a valid one for AfD to consider) is: can this article be rescued or should it just be vaporised? No vote from me. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge in case it is the same person, otherwise Delete as it is confused. --Ton e 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but redraft to be about the correct person even if it's a minor stub.

Note that I've been a little bold and created Asin Thottumkal, turning Asin (actress) into a redirect as that is what I understand to be the case with all people known by a nickname or pseudonym. MLA 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone finds valid info about Sadha that can validate the retention. --Madhu 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as we now have Asin Thottumkal and there's no indication it's her alias or something. Sandstein 04:28, 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Rail Mark 5

As the article states, there is (as yet) no such coaching stock, the 390 vehicles aren't designated mk 5 LHCS, and although a future possibility (see HST2), anyway is a WP:NOT a crystal ball. See also cruft. — Dunc|☺ 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Henrik 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Duncharris is not a crystal ball cruft (or something like that). Thryduulf 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 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 and expand. Kusma (討論) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car dealership

dicdef UtherSRG (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Car dealerships in the USA; disambiguation page can be created later if necessary. --Alan Au 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It will get expanded in time. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Brian G. Crawford 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Alan Au. -- JLaTondre 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - obviously valid topic. It is a tiny stub at present, but so are many other articles. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Er, can't really dicdef this. It's could be an article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep there is plenty of potential for expansion. It should not be a redirect to Car dealerships in the USA, as redirecting from a general topic to a country-specific one makes the creation of the general topic much less likely (and reinforces an Amerigocentric bias as well). Ziggurat 03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per the 60+ backlinks and longish information at car dealerships in the USA. (would prefer not to redirect... though much of the information in the USA article is applicable to this one, it would be better to get started on a worldwide version of the article sooner rather than later) --Interiot 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep do not redirect. Promoting bias is hardly a good argument for a redirect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JesseW; do not redirect. · rodii · 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Valid topic, we already have an article for gift shop as well as a host of other pages on storetypes no reason why this should be deleted. Deathawk 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JesseW FloNight ^talk 16:39, 11 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. -Doc ^ask? 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarabbean Society

del. nonnotable, unknown, invisible secret student society. `'mikka (t) 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Feezo (Talk) 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn club Imarek 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 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. SushiGeek 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veloso (artist)

Abstain This is a page about me. I don't make this nomination lightly: It feels slightly improper to nominate "your own" article, and as such I have abstained from voting. I feel odd simply nominating it, and have posted an essay for those who want to know my thoughts and motivations. That said...

Animation may be notable but artist is not. Personal web page has Alexa rank of 1.2 million. Article is a stub that doesn't appear it can ever be suitably expanded. Redirect to Yatta#Irrational_Exuberance and fix disambiguation page Veloso to do the same. Vslashg (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep the author of some of the most famous web animations and memes is notable. That being said, the page needs to be rewritten ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. Lhlhlh 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge & redirect -- if Mr.V would prefer not to be on Wiki, but his facts can be merged in what Swatjester reckons is his "claim to fame", and a redirect left to guide "lookers-for-the-name", I see little harm -- Simon Cursitor 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It's not that I'd prefer not to be on the wiki. Having an article here is actually pretty cool. I'm just not sure how the article could ever be expanded beyond its stub state. If Wikipedia concensus is to keep, I'll happily live by that. I'm not on a crusade to get the article removed, and beyond my notability concerns, I don't have any problem with the article existing. Vslashg (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Swatjester. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 9 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. -Doc ^ask? 12:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical Power Levels

Absolutely no proof, sources quoted, badly formatted...just pure fanon. Delete. Thanos6 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nifboy 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft. Feezo (Talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unsourced, possibly OR, non-notable, unencyclopedic, highly killable article MLA 10:23, 7 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. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Ljalková

No real notability claimed, although she had a pretty productive military career. Google pulls less ~125 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn-bio Gu 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I originally removed the speedy due to the fact that I thought she may have a claim to notability. However, after looking at this list of snipers I see that she does not. If in this case notability is claimed by the number of kills then there are alot more deserving of an article than Ljalková. We have two female snipers from that list Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- While there seems to be several reasons why Lyudmila_Pavlichenko can be seen as notable, Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya looks more similar to the case of Marie Ljalková and should maybe also deleted if this one is. Gu 11:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that snipercentral.com is a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions, just FYI Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, google indicates very little because the Western-centric internet does not have many records on Soviet heros, for that you must turn to books. She is verifiable, and Wikipedia helps combat western ignorance of foreign veterans. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I speak english very little, unfortunately. What is "pretty productive military career" ? You need more info ? Nina Lobkovskaya has so brevity biografy. Is not problem. I look trouble only with text in English. I need helph - repair errors and redaction this text. User:Snipermouche
Weak Keep - marginally notable Jonas Silk 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete non verifiable sniper. Haven't stumbled across the name yet from Snipershide.com ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Reasonably notable. One of the few female snipers with that many kills, and the only Czech one. Apperars to be verifiable: there is a reference in the article. Certainly more notable than many other people than have been kept (e.g. musicians) Imarek 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per Imarek, but without the music bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: also per Sherurcij, combat systemic bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable sniper, appears verified. Sandstein 08:45, 8 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 both as self-referetial dictionary definitions. Kusma (討論) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia war and WikiWar

Irony of ironies, it appears we have a bit of a war going on over whether WikiWar or Wikipedia war is the name used for an edit war on Wikipedia. One must die... or redirect to the other... or both can go if it's a self-reference. No vote from me. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete both of them as self-references. This sort of stuff belongs in the Wikipedia: namespace, but there really isn't anything worth moving over. BryanG 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as self-references. Would move into Wikipedia:Edit war if there was any real content. The main article space could hold some text about edit warring on wikis in general, if some verifiable, not-OR source could be found for it, but this isn't it. Henning Makholm 22:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Vslashg (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bucketsofg 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as self-reference. Brian G. Crawford 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as not notable enough for its own article, more than as self-reference; edit wars are already covered in Wikipedia. --Allen 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
'Delete as self-reference. How did it happen we got two different articles with the same content... both apparently believing WP is a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Hmm... merge User:Dr Sachs with User:Woodrov. Шизомби 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The text at WikiWar implies that the creator copied all the text from Wikipedia war, not having enough seniority to be able to just move the article (isn't the threshold 25 edits?). Henning Makholm 00:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete all self references belong in mainspace ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as self reference. Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both Neither is of importance outside Wikipedia community Imarek 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both, as they say on wikt, "tosh." Also, Wikipedia is not an online dictionary. --Rory096 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete both. Discussion of Wikipedia edit wars should be confined to project namespace (where they are already well documented, to say the least), and edit wars as a topic aren't large enough a topic to make an article of (can be discussed under wiki and subarticles.) We have WP:LAME and that's how we like it, thankyouverymuch. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:28, 11 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. (I would relist for too few votes, but since no-one is arguing for deletion, it seems pointless. This closing should not prejudice an immediate renomination, if someone wishes to presss for deletion)-Doc ^ask? 12:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bamboos Pourgol

Tagged as a non-notable bio, but the article does assert notability (an album with 3 hit singles and heavy international airplay). I haven't checked to see if these are verifiable or not. no vote. Thryduulf 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The stated title of the album gets all of five Google hits. Bamboos & Banafsheh does better - it seems he's really best known for performing as a duo with his sister Banafsheh; they were featured on CBC Radio One's major national program Richardson's Roundup. It appears we'd get more hits if we knew what to search for in Persian script - anyone? Tentative keep, but if your claim to notability is the music duo you started with your sister, it's tremendously unclassy to write her out of your biography. Samaritan 07:38, 7 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. Grue 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay of Starcraft

Delete: Game instructions and strategies aren't encyclopedia material. Lhlhlh 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as gamecruft and how-to. Brian G. Crawford 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete gameguides must die ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Well written and relevant article. An encyclopedia is meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive collection of human knowledge. It provides more than just a guide alone but relavant information regarding the mechanics of the game, which is of use to those desiring research on the game, just as much so as a discussion of the mechanics of basketball or poker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.140.121.137 (talk • contribs).
Keep Significant sub-article of a good (featured) article. This is also *not* a strategy guide or instruction manual, but rather a description of the gameplay (among other things). Try actually reading the article next time. ShardPhoenix 06:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: ShardPhoenix fails to disclose that he/she is a previous contributor to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.90.110 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Such disclosure is not necessary. And please sign your contributions. Sandstein 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete cruft, and yes it reads exactly like a cross between a manual and a gameplay guide. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. You guys seriously need to read the article. I admit I used to contribute to the article, and I've been a fierce opponent of fancruft, but realize the article isn't so much about how to play the game as much as an analysis of the gameplay and the professional scene. It's well written; it's not just a compilation of strategies; at the very most it should just be rewritten. Certainly not deleted.--Etaonish 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We've read it. The first half reads like a manual, the second half like a strategy guide, and player rankings don't really belong here either. 156.34.89.249 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the content could be added to the existing wikibook, though. 156.34.89.249 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Mostly cruft. Some content has merit, as per Etaonish, but it's still unsourced WP:OR. Sandstein 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Request I don't see how any of this is "cruft" in the sense of being either a strategy guide or a manual. Can someone quote some objectionable section if you think so? I didn't write the upper sections but to me they read like a description (that could be useful to a number of people), not a prescriptive guide. People seem to be aggressively slinging around terms like "fancruft" just because this is an electronic game. I doubt a similar description of a sport would attract this level of negative attention. Even if the article needs to be modified somehow, simply deleting it would seem a huge waste given the large amount of information here that is not easily available in compiled form elsewhere. Also see Magic:_the_gathering for an example of a similar article that is also perfectly worthy of Wikipedia (it's even on the "good article" list). ShardPhoenix 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The MtG article isn't similar at all, actually. Transwiki-ing it into the existing StarCraft wikibook would save the effort from being wasted. -156.34.95.245 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to wikibooks. This is actually decent well written, and I would call for the same to happen of an article of this same nature on say football. Kotepho 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We do apparently have things such as Category:Football (soccer) tactics and skills, American football strategy, American football defensive schemes, American football rules, Category:American football plays, etc so there is clearly acceptance of this sort of thing. That doesn't mean I like it though. Kotepho 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I see no reason for deletion and it is actually a very good article. Freddie 13:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIN -156.34.95.245 13:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is not a gameguide at all, but a reference for game mechanics and history of professional players. This featurette has a wealth of information and the author put a ton of research into it. The analysis of gameplay is spot on, this article is very well written and informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.183.233 (talk • contribs).

Still doesn't belong on WP. 156.34.95.245 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is there someone besides the anonymous IP user crusading against this article that would like to comment on:
- How this is different from the football articles noted by Kotepho, and the MtG article (which is in fact quite similar, especially many of the subarticles)
- What sections in particular are "cruft" (As ShardPhoenix pointed out, it isn't a manual so much as a guide to the mechanics of the most popular nonMMORPG online game; it isn't a strategy guide so much as a description of what top-level games are like)
- Why things like player rankings (objectively determined) are not permitted for an electronic sport, but entirely permissible for say, tennis
- Why deletion is preferable to say, putting up a request for sources; cleaning up some of the bad sections. Considering the fact that so many think it is an encyclopedic entry, do you really think it merits deletion insofar as it is "beyond hope to ever become an encyclopedic entry?" --Etaonish 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Most of the accusations of cruft seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it happens to be on a game. As a non-player of Starcraft, it seems entirely permissible to me, considering what else we allow on Wikipedia.--TheEvilLibrarian 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete As a player of starcraft, I still think it's cruft. The majority is OR; the rankings may be barely notable but it could go either way. --Mmx1 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Has anyone seen how much time has been put into this article? Take a look. You delete it and relevant encyclopediac information goes down the tube. This article isn't a "guide", it merely describes the mechanics of the game and how professional gamers play. Relevant information.--Nissi Kim 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki this should be in wikibooks- Melaen 16:08, 11 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. -Doc ^ask? 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TR-3B Stryker

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]}}

Homemade flight sim aircraft. That's it: a non-notable fake aircraft for a PC flight simulator, created by a group of hobbyists with pretensions ("Made by Aeroworks-Technologies...", which was the subject of a speedy deletion today. Calton | Talk 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Is there some way of speedying this? Proto||type 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. PJM 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep A homemade aircraft for flight sim 2004 that is extremely popular/notable at 3000+ dowloads from just one website. Made by one of the most notable concept developers for flight sim. Whats wrong with listing a concept Flight Sim aircraft? Not so different from the X-02 model under fictional aircrft in my opinion. The TR-3B is based on a rumored aircraft in the real world named the TR-3A Black Manta. This artical has been aronund sine 2005. If its the fact that I added a snip about who made it, I can simply delete it if thats the main problem here. Elgae Nacirema 04:03, 31 March 2006
- 1) The fact that an article flew under the radar (as it were) says nothing about its value or whether it should be kept.
- 2) The "this other article exists, so mine should too" argument is one of the most common -- and least successful -- arguments seen around here. It's also irrelevent: we're talking about this article, not any other. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is just pointing out you are pretty well going after the same thing my friend. If you're going after this, you might as well go after all the other fictional aircraft. --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs), 05:55, 31 March 2006

Keep I agree with the above statement. 3000 plus downloads seems pretty notable. As a designer of Flight Simulator Aircraft I must say EVERY aircraft is notable and unique, even if it has been modelled after a real world aircraft. To have a wikipedia aritcle on a unique aircraft that MAY BE real, but has been modelled in a flight simulator constitutes a unique and notable a)article and b) aircraft. To say that the aircraft is not unique is to say that every fictional plane or aircraft based on rumor is not unique...and obviously this is not the case at hand. Although I see how bandwidth may be an issue, I do not agree that the stipulation of non-notable applies. That would be the equivilent of saying a hand built model is not unique, and each modeled aircraft for flight simulator is painstaikingly modeled part by part. ASSUMING the black manta is not real (which it may or may not be, I don't know) just because there is an article about an aircraft that was made for a flight simulator is in itself unique. Therefore the aircraft itself is not entirely unique, however, it is notable that a designer went through the effort to build an aircraft. I will also add that this aircraft is worth of distinction and has already won an award from another design group. I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. As per your guildlines for deletion, all of the titles of non-notablility, non-excellence, and not worthy of distinction do not apply.MachJok 04:42, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, AND NOT THE LAST
- I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. Ah, making an argument and judging the quality of the argument, both done simultaneous. No no, one person makes the argument and others decide the argument's validity, that's how it works, otherwise it's just talking to yourself.
- And as for our guidelines -- which according to you, you understand better than anyone else here despite this being your very first edit -- look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) for some hints as to why this very minor piece of a minor hobby is up for deletion. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Calton, I claim not to be an expert on wikipedia, my username maybe new but I have been using wikipedia for years. I do not appreciate your assumption that I believe myself to be a self proclaimed expert, and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth thank you. MachJok 05:51, 31 March 2006
  - I put no words in your mouth, merely observing your (sadly common among new posters here) behavior. As for your "self-proclaimed" -- well, you had no trouble proclaiming rhetorical victory based on your interpretation of policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Carlton, I proclaimed nothing, I showed objectively how this article fufills everyone of wikipedia's stipulations. And you still assume that I am new....I am not.MachJok 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      - I proclaimed nothing, I showed objectively... Claim and contradiction, separated only by a comma. One rarely sees that. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
KeepThis aircraft, although fictionary, has a significant impact on the users of Flight Simulators. This aircract is, to my knowledge, a commonly "flown" aircraft in the world of flight simulator. People deserve to know the origins of the aircraft; similar to the reason why people need to know about the orgin of the United States just on a smaller level. If this article is deleted, it might fluster up some commotion within the Flight Simulator community. There are also lesser articles on Wiki which i will leave unamed that make this article stand out beyond belief. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts and concerned regarding this article. kflyer89 05:35, 31 March 2006 User's first edit

You can't judge the aircrafts popularity based on google hits my friend, mainly because there are only a few MAJOR flight simulator sites where you can download such things, Flightsim.com, and simviation.com are the two most major sites to download aircraft for flight sim, and if you were to look up the aircrafts stats just at flightsim.com you would see that there are 3000+ individual downloads... If you need proof of the aircrafts downloads, then go to www.FlightSim.com and do a .zip search on tr3bjt.zip. At the time of posting this it had Downloads: 3226 --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs), 05:58, 31 March 2006

Here are the notability guildlines:

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer. A single story in major news media or an independently written book would be sufficient, but multiple works would be needed for lower-profile sources.

2. The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.

3. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.

4. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that for very large distributions such as Debian, some of its packages are not widely used; use judgement or statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest.

5. The product is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization. (ibid.)

6. The software has won an independent award or honor, including mention as one of the top ten applications in its class in an independent published list. Notes:* Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.

- * The number of users has been considered for some times as a criteria for notability; however, a fixed number does not make sense when evaluating different kinds of software, and agreeing on a specific number does not seem feasible.

- * Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, JoeBloggsDiskEditor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)

1) does not apply, this work is not trivial. you may find the aircraft at www.flightsim.com, www.simviation.com/aeroworks and others.

2) does not apply, 3000+ downloads plus numerous repaints is influetial, as no degree of influentiality has been required this does not apply.

3) This is a core product for this developer. Not everyone is a bigshot like M$. size of a developer is irrelevant. unless the name adds profit, since this is NON-PROFIT it is irrelevant

4) Are you telling me that 'ALL of the fictional aircraft are part of a "major operating system distribution"??

5) Not all of the fictional aircraft are well known...sorry this stipulation is irrelevant

6) THE SOFTWARE HAS WON AN INDEPENDANT AWARD see http://www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com/CDAAWARDS.htm

As I have shown the article follows wikipedia's guildlines. MachJok 06:09, 31 March 2006

Ah, yes, more unilateral declarations of victory. However:

1) "Because I said so"? Less than a convincing argument for saying it's not trivial. See Begging the question. And finding a piece of software on a website doesn't a priori make it non-trivial.

2) That barely rises to the level of assertion, let alone argument. How many copies of Flight Simulator have been sold? What percentage is 3,000 downloads of that? Why does such a remarkably influential thing like this get only 18 unique Google hits?

3) You somehow left off the adjective "notable" from "software developer". Hmmm.

4) Irrelevent/inapplicable.

5) Clearly fails, though not really applicable.

6) Ah yes, the "Team MoTIS" award. Clearly very major, despite that fact that "Team MoTIS" gets only 21 unque Google hits and '''www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com''' shows NO incoming links according to Google.

Your comments fail.

1) This article also fufills the first criterium.

2) the number of FS2K4 copies sold does not reflect anything, every plane is influential in someway and once again no definition of influential has been given.

3)Are you saying that I have to be a big wig to post my stuff on an open source encyclopedia? hmmmmmm I thought encyclopedia's where about expanding the knowledge of the human race and sharing it with others.

4)you are right #4 is totally inapplicable to either argument

5)No generalization....on any of the fictional aircraft

6)The Motis award fufills the stipulation for an independant award. web engines are not reliable for "unique" or incoming links.

Re-rebuttal

1)Objectively speaking it fufills the terms of deletion There you go, I'm glad you agree with me.

2) If you're going to claim that this is "influential", its installed base as a percentage of FS2000/FS2004 copies in circulation is completely the point. Once again no definition of influential has been given. Then why the claim it is?

3) Boy, as Wolgang Pauli once said, that's not right, that's not even wrong. What it is, is a bunch of tangential handwaving.

6) The word "objectively"? I do not believe it means what you think it means.

--Calton | Talk 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was using the wrong word...Thank you, you may want to delete your rebuttle with the word objectively...MachJok 08:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep

First, This is not a "ballot stuff" - I don't know who originally put up the TR-3 article but I am sure they never thought it would get contested. Really, deleting things from an encyclopedia? I am the designer of the aircraft in question so consider my bias. I use wikipedia religiously, and to see one of my own creations on this site was the realization of the sum of all our efforts (I didn't create this plane alone) and to the impressiveness of how the Wikipedia works. How do you define notable? I think the fact that the Federation of American Sceintists has their own page on the alleged aircraft TR-3 speaks volumes. A quick google search on the aircraft in question should yield plenty results. Or perhaps it's the fact that it is an aircraft for Flight Simulatorand you may be thinking the flightsim hobby itself is not of any notoriety. If you go to www.flightsim.com and do a file search for *.* all your doubts about the popularity of the flightsim hobby will swiftly be laid to rest. What is the problem with leaving the article? Logic suggests, that if it's not notable to you - don't read it. Leave it for those who enjoy such things and let it go. Alot of aircraft designers for FS make aircraft such as Boeings and Cessna's - this is the rule and not the exception. People get what they expect when they download common aircraft. But every once in a while an aircraft comes along that people download and they just have to ask the question "why not?" When people download an aircraft such as the TR-3 it makes them wonder and ask questions. It inspires creative and constructive thought - something all too rare nowdays. That is the driving force behind what I do and why I make "fake airplanes" So it's fictional - yes. So is Star Trek - it's still here. So it was created by a bunch of flightsimmers - yes. Pretentious? - Well it's not any more pretentious than people who feel they are obligated to correct and cleanup things, and leaving it here would do no more harm that useless pages such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton You see, in our hobby alot of people spend their hard time making things for free - Microsoft has known this for years and has always created their sims as an "open source" that anyone can edit and modify as they see fit (Hello Wikipedia...?) red_ace1 12:14, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, quelle surprise

calton, I appreciate your personal message. I did not delete anything but that red box. Do no accuse me of deleting comments, those are people's personal ideas that I would never touch. So please once again: do not put words in my mouth and do no accuse me of actions that I did not commit. That red box does nothing but discouraged a vote.MachJok 06:36, 31 March 2006
- I did not delete anything but that red box. You deleted that box -- period/full stop -- which the weasel-wording of "anything but" doesn't change -- and your claim also happens to be untrue: you changed "User's first edit": you DON'T do that. Capiche?
  - are you making a personal threat? If this is open source why can i not change anything that is directly related to ME and you made an INVALID comment about me deleting a comment. I deleted no comment. Ma tu pensi che puoi usare Italiano a un Italiano? Ma va.
    - Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Not to mention, YOU DID DELETE THE DAMNED BOX. My comment was not "invalid", but true. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- That red box does nothing but discouraged [sic] a vote. Read what's in that box, and the fundamental misunderstanding in your sentence will become clear. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  - - - I will be reporting your profanity in a public forum, That is unaccaptable.MachJok 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        <Rolls eyes>. You do that. Need any help in finding one, or as a user of many years can you find it on your own? --Calton | Talk 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I already have thank you for your help.MachJok 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fishhead, what is pernom and y do you want to delete the article? MachJok 06:59, 31 March 2006
  - It means "per nominator" -- something I would expect that someone who's used Wikipedia for years would recognize.--Calton | Talk 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

KeepWhy get rid of it? I think it's a neat idea and it's also something that has a right to be on here. This is a stupid dispute to get rid of it CmpsdNoMore 01:12, 31 March 2006User's first edit, quelle surprise

Merge all fictional aircraft into 1 article, leaving redirects as appropriate. The information remains, but it is clearly flagged as fictional. Non-notable craft can be elided as the transfer progresses, and someone knowledgeable can monitor subsequent additions. -- Simon Cursitor 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats the better idea in my opinion. --Mongo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 March 2006, and altered by User:Elgae Nacirema.

Merge all I agree but those stipulations are still there and prevent people from making articles about not well known aircraft. Deleting this article does more harm than good. You are saying that you get to decide what people get to see, now for profanity and illicit articles yes i agree but not about an article that has none of thoseMachJok 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and improve Not an especially well-crafted article, but hardly a candidate for deletion. Simon Dodd 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
current vote as of 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) is 6 - 4 infavor of keeping the article.

Calton - please stop putting silly remarks after our names because it is our first post, big deal - we havent had a need to post before today - accept it.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable fictional aircraft. Stifle 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; subject has very few google hits that aren't Wikipedia content. Vslashg (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia only goes that deep, esoteric knowledge like this needs to be branched off to some niche wiki -O bli (Talk)^? 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable fictional aircraft. --Hetar 23:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to be an important aircraft to the Flight-Sim community. YellowPigNowNow 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete neither notable nor important. Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable. A pity though, I never heard about this in flight school ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, and noting what I perceive to be sarcasm, what does that have to do with the validity of this nomination? It has to do with flight-sim, not real life. YellowPigNowNow 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Stifle No Guru 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. bikeable (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Montco 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. While I'm not opposed to the notion of including fictional aircraft in Wikipedia, there's very little evidence that this particular model is significant. If there's any verification that it's notable to the flight simulator community, that information isn't presented in the article. --Alan Au 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable imaginary aircraft. 156.34.90.110 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. Sandstein 08:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

- excuse me but would you mind EXPLAINING why you think this is non notable. and if you would like to seach the database of Flightsim.com and look at all of the conceptual aircraft 3000+ downloads is quite significant for the type of aircraft that it is. plus it fufills the articles of deletion. all aircraft could be argued not to have an impact of the flight simulator community, there are so many aircraft out. However, the fact that someone not affiliated with the company dedicated the time to create an article about this aircraft shows that it had an impact. And Obli most of the Fictional Aircraft have NOTHING to do with real life...unlike this aircraft which is rumored to actually exist. The purpose of Wikipedia was to create an online encyclopedia that people could access. If you want to split everything up into Fictional and Non-Fictional on 2 seporate Wiki's good luck handeling the overlap.....and Obli are you telling me that ALL the article contain only "deep, esoteric knowledge"??? AND WHY is every one counting google hits? the plane will be more widely sene on the download page for Flightsim.com not the company page...........you are making assumptions that have no credibility...google hits count for very little when the most widely seen page is the page on flightsim.com where it is downloaded. So far the main aircraft has been downloaded 3266(main aircraft) + 560(non company repaint) + 372 (non company repaint) = 4198 times....where as the most identifible airliner the 747-400 has been downloaded 9107 and both were put up within a month of each other, and for a concept aircraft that is really good. If you want proof look through all of the concept aircraft at flightsim.com MachJok 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. You may receive more favorable results from improving the article rather than arguing here. I would also point out that the 747-400 has notability outside the scope of a flight sim model, and is probably not a good example for comparative purposes. In other words, a dedicated article about a particular flight sim model representation of the 747-400 would probably be equally (in)appropriate for inclusion. --Alan Au 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Stifle. --Mmx1 03:58, 11 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. -Doc ^ask? 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalachakra King

Jonas Silk has no past on Wikipedia and is requesting deletion practically exclusively for this page. He created his account at Wikipedia just for this. Not reliable. Request for deletion to be rejected by Wikipedia. No experience on Wikipedia. Sock Puppet. Unreliable. Geir Smith 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tag and clean up tag. Wikipedia policy on deletion says that deletion should not be problem and create unnecessary disruption. In the case of doubt one can always keep the article and/or undelete an article. This is a case of doubtful nomination.Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I also have a link to the latest person, Nat Krause and his intervention on the deleting process of another page in which he shows excessive use of deleting without exchanging, and thus shows unrestrained use of his account bordering on vandalism but also POV in view of his belonging to a religious group. Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now today, Nat Krause deleted two times without previous talking to people on one page, repeatedly (the same section of the same page), in his usual pattern of behaviour. POV and against Wikipedia of wrongful deletion. I've warned him there that three reverts in less than a day makes his editing rights be suspended by policy : so he's been warned if Wikipedia chooses to suspend him. His vandalism is wrong and his POV in his obstinate reverting and deleting is also wrong. How much can one stand from the same person over and over ? Geir Smith 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing incomplete nom by Jonas Silk. No opinion at this time.--Isotope23 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A new version of the deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kalachakra. It's a POV fork of Kalachakra, most of which is reproduced wholesale. unsigned by Jonas Silk

I'm not going to fight for this deletion because the issue has been taken up previously. The present content is not the same as the New Kalachakra page at all and is totally changed from other versions before it. Someone claiming it is identical is not in good faith. I prefer for people to unvote the deletion tag here and not intervene myself. People can just make up their own minds about it. Also, how can one see New Kalachakra so as to compare the claims of Jonas Silk ? I'll just let people judge and it's really just one keep vote that starts the ball rolling to keep it. The best test would be for people to look at Kalachakra to see if they're the same and then they'll see that Jonas Silk is just saying rubbish. Each paragraph is different and the outcome of the articles are opposite in their messages. Geir Smith 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a POV fork. Stifle 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Question: is Kalachakra King really just a recreation of New Kalachakra? If so, then there's no question it should be redeleted. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- If an admin could compare Kalachakra King to the deleted New Kalachakra, it would be helpful.--Isotope23 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  - They are different. Stifle 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Thanks Stifle!.--Isotope23 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      - It is only about 10% different than the deleted article and the original fork. Jonas Silk 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete asassinate all POV forks in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this article is almost wholly a POV fork of Kalachakra. Compare this edit on Kalachakra, March 7, with the current version of Kalachakra King (an article which was started March 18). Kalachakra King is framed by a short introduction Mr. Smith wrote, which, unfortunately, adds basically no intelligible information. In addition, this introduction contains a self-referential quote from Kalachakra. Therefore, I vote to delete, although it would be just about as good to simply redirect to Kalachakra. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

* Comment:: I believe that this is at least the 3rd delete on articles within this direct subject-area, and on at least 2 I feel sure I have seen notes that there is a "dispute" on theological grounds between two sides. I know nothing of either, but I feel that whichever admin resolves this nomination needs to be sure that Wiki-process is not being used to push one PoV and throttle another. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite plausible that there is a real theological dispute here. Unfortunately, this has never been documented on Wikipedia with anything resembling useable sources; instead, what we get is a series of half-intelligible rants citing mostly unrelated websites. Assuming that there is an underlying real-world controversy, it's actually quite unfortunate that the one user who seems to know about it has so far been unable to productively add info to Wikipedia about it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute about this. Simon Cursitor, the camps that are hashing it out in this are the following : the Dalai Lama camp that's trying to silence the camp of Shugden that suports a kind of demon-spirit called the King-spirit aka Gyalpo or "Dolgyal", another of its names. Then there's the camp of others that are not really concerned with this mess in politics of Tibet, which is my Sakyapa, (Ngorpa) school, Tibets second bieggest behind the Dalai lama school (both the feuding parties above - Dalai and Shugdens - are of that same school feuding amonst themselves !!!). ALso compounding on this dispute and overlapping it is another closely related dispute : that around Jonang. They're actually the same because Shugden was taken from our Sakya school in the 17th cent. and used by the Gelugpas and produced their fighting about it today. (It's very complicated unless given good space on the page to elaborate scholarly a bit and not just quick like here). Now, Kalachakra was the main teaching of Jonang and passed down to all from it. It's main master was Taranatha. Now the person who knows about this all is me. I can make this page go in other directions : englobing the subject of the king-sprit and the Jonang page of Ban on Jonang. This will thus make it lose even more of what was part of the Kalachakra page (which is already not important on it). I know this seems complicated for those who don't know about it, but I'm tryig to explain here. Those who know here, will understand this though, and maybe weigh in seeing the intent is honest and good on my side. I can make an effort to reformat and wikify the page. I can encyclopedize it with references to all the words in the first introductory part and so forth. I've never taken the time to go into such detail because of the flak from either of these parties involved always meddling in each and every move I make. Now the people intent on getting me deleted are doing so from POV motives because they're either with the Shugdens or with the Dalai. There are also those who want to further the ban on the Jonangs against the Kalachakra being claimed back by the Jonangs and this is POV too, of course. This is furthering a three hundred year old ban. But all these guys want me deleted so they can basically go back to bashing each other. My article doesn't really bother them, because I speak about neither of them, just about my own schools approach that's non-sectarian and non-confrontational, being part of a tradition that came before them, and has no links to them (either of them). The Jonangs belong to my school before the Dalai school took it over and banned it forcefully. If I can get even half a mandate to be able to work peacefully and just work on making this page legible, well good. Or else I give up. These boys jumping me and ganging up for lynching because this is a disputed subject makes me laugh honestly, because it's like building a sand castle in a hurricane. They're so POV that it's laughable too. So, yes, Simon, it's a disputed subject. The people deleting it will only go POV back into in their own camp and the subject will still; not have been resolved. I propose to make a different article altogether and take it into real historical research without POV whitewashing which is what is going on at the other page that doesn't accept anyone giving a different version of a history that they admit themselves is "a mass of contradictons" (that's what they say on the page itself. Ha ha ha ! They can't go forward and are too stubborn to back up and admit they're stuck in deep trouble. Ha ha ha ! None of them have done my research and can't even match their own facts up. They just say they don't know and it's all full of contraditions. Ha ha ha !). If I get that mandate peacefully from you all, then I admit you all pitch in for correcting and so forth but not all the POV attacks. I can scale down the similarities of the pages and make up for different approaches to the subject. We can enlarge the new approaches and minimize the common parts. This is thus an honest proposal to solve a problem that indeed is an internal Tibetan dispute. I'll make all efforts to make this good with all my best efforts. I'd like people to carry this with me and bear with me in this. This is not a clear and easy case but a difficult thing to be worked out peacefully and relying rather on scholarship than on fanatical POV writing. Geir Smith 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, this is Rudy Harderwijk, (webmaster of www.kalachakranet.org, www.jonangfoundation.org and www.rimebuddhism.com); if I may give my POV; I think the basic information on this page is OK, but this page is called Kalachakra Kings - to begin with, an expression I've never seen or heard of before, then the page meanders out on all kinds of subjects - very good as such, but why is that information not simply where it should be - on the pages of the Kalachakra tantra, Shambhala etc.? All the references to the "ban" and Shugden give the strong impression that this page was not created to supply information, but to give a POV. (Rudyh01 - April 9, 2006).

Kalachakra is a page that doesn't respect NPOV. It's not a space where anyone but the Dalai lama followers can write. It's a cult-following ambiance recreated on a Wikipedia page... using Wiki for POV purposes. Plus it admits itself that "its sources from Tiebtan historians are a mass of contradictions". So, that's the blind leading blind, (even admitting it themselves). Better be on ones own and sticking to real scholarship. Kalachakra is all lies and blind. Don't bluff people with your fake sites, Rudy. You know your site closed down because the things I published didn't jell with the offical Dalai Lama line. Don't try to tell people here you're just an innocent poster. You're here to bait me for the Dalai Lama. He's not that kind of person but compassionate and you're using him for your own agenda : protecting your sites that would be invalidated by this page because it invalidates most of your outdated, sectarain and POV data. Admit that much, eh ! You're trying to claim that the Dalai lama didn't ban the Jonangpas in the 17th cent. Ha ha ha ! Geir Smith 22:10, 10 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 transwiki and delete. SushiGeek 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trains Command

Dicdef which doesn't seem capable of expanding to be a proper article Kcordina ^Talk 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat preemptively I have begun the transwiki process - wikt:Transwiki:Trains Command Kcordina ^Talk 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and move to Wiktionary. This article is just a definition... --Francisco Valverde 18:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to wiktionary. Thryduulf 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Transfer and delete --Hetar 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per Francisco A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:36, 7 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. — FireFox • T [11:34, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Warring Factions

Non-notable browser game. -Lhlhlh 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article uses exclamation marks, for Pete's sake. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't appear to be notable MLA 09:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't see any notability or proof of membership - for all I know, it could have half a dozen players. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 11 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. --Joann e B 10:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal branding

Article reads like a sales pitch, totally unencyclopedic and non-contextual, half of the article consists of vanity editing, while the subject of the article seems legit, judging from a Google search, there's no way of understanding what the article really is about at its current state, and having it around certainly doesn't improve things. It might qualify as a neologism too, I'm bringing it here because I'm uncertain. -O bli (Talk)^? 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep If I hadn't sold my Intro to Public Relations textbook, I'd bring it up. Branding is a huge concept in public relations and marketing, and personal branding is an extension of that. This said, article needs a major rewrite ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Swat. Real concept, poor article. Rewrite per DP, don't delete. Thatcher131 01:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, is an actual marketing term per Mr. Swat; googles in the hundreds of thousands. Mr. Obli's concerns are completely valid however; the article as written is a spam magnet and littered with tool-speak. Improve by editing; but don't delete in entirety. Kuru ^talk 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Upon closer inspection, the latest major contribution seems to be a copyvio, while the one before that was vanity editing -O bli (Talk)^? 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep well known, deserves article. Cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:31, 7 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. --Joann e B 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakland

Non-notable bass guitar company. Delete. DMG413 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Lakland is a very prominent bass guitar producer in the United States, and has dealers in 20 countries. Lakland's bass guitars are considered as some of the best production basses available, are endorsed by several influential and highly regarded artists, and have received national recognition numerous times through publication. "Non-notable" is nowhere in Lakland's description. (255,000 Google Hits, By the way.) Stephenrheard 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Highly-regarded bass guitar maker. YellowPigNowNow 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Lakland is a bass guitar company that has created a unique series of instruments that major artists and recording session players have adopted as their primary instruments. (UTC)

Keep. Lakland is a reputable instruments company whose basses are used and endorsed by professional bass players worldwide. Their sound and workmanship is second to none, and their customer service is without parallel in the industry.

Keep. Used and endorsed by major studio players and recording artists throughout the world, both old and young. Attention to detail is superb, value for the dollar excellent. Revolver323

Keep. Lakland is a widely known and respected manufacturer of high quality bass guitars used by many top name professionals. However, if the likes of the Rolling Stones and U2, as well as bass playing icons such as Joe Osborne, Bob Glaub and Jerry Scheff are "Non-Notable" then I guess Lakland would be also.

Keep. Used by Adam Clayton so notable enough for mine. [33]. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Probably notable, but current article as written fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. --Alan Au 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Lakland is well known, and hold a specific niche as well. If an article is poorly written, you tag for cleanup you do NOT delete. Would you delete Fender Stratocaster if the article was poorly written? Ignore the socks but keep and cleanup the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The endorsement list and signature models offered by this builder make up a who's who of the bass playing world. The basis for the designs are from time tested classics, refined by many of the best players out there.HighMileage

Keep and slap a cleanup tag on it.--Isotope23 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Lakland is possibly the most notable bass manufacturer to crop up in recent years gaining many many big name endorsements including Bob Glaub, Joe Osbourne, Jerry Scheff, Adam Clayton, etc. Even the import Skyline series is being utilized by many professionals and rivals the quality of Fender.--tplyons 20:16, 8 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, CREATION BY SOCK OF BANNED USER. GTBacchus^(talk) 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Tannen

non-notable person in the music industry Hoopydink 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I am still building up the external links. Google this person. OK, she is not a rock star making millions, but she has hundreds of hits. I admit that she is marginal, on the order of Nikki Craft, but I think she makes the grade, barely. Anyway, she makes a good test case. -- Iheartdrann 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Article contains no claim of notability. No evidence of her being known outside Mendocino, which is a small town. Imarek 00:42, 7 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. --Joann e B 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etwe

Wikipedia is not an English-to-Akan dictionary Booyabazooka 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Flapdragon 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, transfer to Wiktionary? SCHZMO ✍ 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not sourced to even consider a Transwiki (if this sort of thing even appears at Wiktionary; I don't know). —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 02:20 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, don't transfer. GRuban 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, do not transfer to Wiktionary Ande B 21:55, 10 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. — FireFox • T [11:33, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Chinaclimb

Non-notable rock climbing company. 340 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete No claim to notability. Imarek 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Chinaclimb is the most notable rock climbing company in China and has played a big part in the history of tourism development in Yanghsuo. Gkeys 06:49, 8 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, unverifiable. --Joann e B 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of the Unexplained

Recreation of PROD'ed article. While the claim that it is heard on 100+ stations would make it notable, I am througly unable to substantiate or source this claim. It's clearly and obviously self-promotional; Ommnisound is doing massive Internet promotion, with little actual information that I have been able to identify. Delete as unverifiable, promotional and simply not yet notable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per above.--Alabamaboy 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Self promotion, advertisement Ande B 21:52, 10 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. — FireFox • T [11:33, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Sean Hood

Non notable screenwriter, possible hoax ("uncredited writer?"). Also a violation of WP:AUTO. Rory096 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity, reads like an advert, creation edit sum was "I am sean hood and I wrote this article about myself" ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a hoax. All the information is true and verifiable on the internet movie database. But I'm new to Wiki... so I see that I may have violated the guidlines by writing about myself. Seanhood 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, even when you kick out all the "uncrediteds" and uncast films "in production," there's still a residual body of produced screenwriting that qualifies him as notable enough, even though I wouldn't watch a frame of them except under duress. Monicasdude 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Translating one into Polish and one "screenplay," which I take to mean a minor part of writing it, and the rest aren't even notable enough for articles. --Rory096 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Empathic delete as this article runs contrary to WP:SELF pure and simple, and reason being the article becomes subjective and thereby violates WP:NPOV. If a 3rd party had created a new page of this individual, I may have decided differently. I do commend him on being WP:BOLD in using his real name rather than an alias, and look forward to his future contributions. Netkinetic 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I reserve judgement for the moment. Sean, if you read the guidelines on notability and biographies of living persons and verifiability (WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:N), and think you meet the guidelines, you can take a crack rewriting the article as if a neutral 3rd party wrote it. I would consider overlooking the fact that it is an autobiography if it otherwise meets the guildelines. The key to remember is that wikipedia aims to be a verifiable neutral encyclopedia; why would someone look you up, and what should they be able to learn here that they won't learn from IMDB or a myspace profile? And are you prepared to have your article edited and rewritten by others, possibly to include negative information about you (assuming it exists and is verifiable)? Thatcher131 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Improved and reasonably well verified. Any remaining concerns can be dealt with by editing the article. Thatcher131 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment/ReplyThanks for the feedback. I've editted the article so that it is brief, neutral and verifiable. I think "Sean Hood" is notable because he has written several produced movies, one of which, Halloween:Ressurection, made 30 million at the box office. See Halloween (film series). I understand the problem about writing my own bio, but I leave that to the judges.Seanhood
- Comment. Interestingly, Halloween: Resurrection says it was written by someone named Larry Brand. --Rory096 20:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment The on-screen credit is "screenplay by Larry Brand and Sean Hood" see [Halloween Resurrection on IMDB]. The wikepedia article Halloween: Resurrection should be editted to reflect this. Also, a screenwriter's filmography is a list of the films the writer has worked on; the screenwriter's co-writers are usually not listed. See William Goldman as an example. Note also, that films are listed for which Goldman's work went uncredited, such as Fierce Creatures - 1997 (uncredited). All the information in Sean Hood is correct. The only question is whether to allow it, since I myself wrote it. Seanhood 04:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, and refer Seanhood to WP:AB - please refrain from writing your own bio. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep supportive of KillerChihuahua's suggestions. --ElectricEye 04:56, 10 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critias (Dragon). — FireFox • T [11:31, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Critias(dragon)

Duplicate of Legendary Dragon Critias, a notable card in Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. kelvSYC 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect it, then. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And then delete Legendary Dragon Critias because it's NOT notable enough (no single card from a TCG is). -- Grev 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. --Alan Au 05:48, 7 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. — FireFox • T [11:29, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Eternal paths

Non-notable advertisement. The only google result on it is the author's MySpace page. Booyabazooka 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - my Googling doesn't even yield that much. Also very crufty, almost reads like a sycophantic review. --Sam Pointon United FC 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn advertisement Imarek 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, advertisement, possibly drafted by the author of the web page to which it links and that site is largely under construction. Ande B 21:43, 10 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. — FireFox • T [11:29, 12 April 2006]

[edit] Critias (Dragon)

Another duplicate of Legendary Dragon Critias. kelvSYC 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge into YuGiOh or Delete Bridesmill 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect . F e tofs ^Hello! 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And then delete Legendary Dragon Critias because it's NOT notable enough (no single card from a TCG is). -- Grev 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing at a time Thatcher131 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect, or whatever you end up doing with the above is fine with me too. --Alan Au 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge content if appropriate, then delete (do not redirect) Thatcher131 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No one is gonna search for "Critias (Dragon)". Danny Lilithborne 07:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fork of non-notable card. Sandstein 16:51, 8 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orvis Jordan

Delete non-notable, local pastor. --Hetar 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete agree with above.--Alabamaboy 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Gwernol 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

- Keep and improve. I believe I did not assume sufficient WP:AGF regarding this article. User:Parkridge1998 makes some valid points and I am sufficiently convinced that Jordan is indeed a notable figure in the Community Church movement. If this AfD results in keep I will undertake to work with other interested editors to improve the article and provide sources. If this cannot be done I will personally relist it for AfD by June 1st. 2006 gwernol 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

do not delete Jordan is mentioned in Melton's Encyclopedia under the ICCC article. He was also the president of two national orgainizations, the CCW-USA and the Campbell Institute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkridge1998 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Hi, I did a quick search on Google and couldn't find any mention of Orvis Jordan in connection with a Campbell Institute or the CCW-USA. As I'm not familiar with either organization, can you provide further information about them so your claims can be verified? If you want to make a compelling case for keeping this article, then please add verifiable sources for his notability to the article. Also, I assume "Melton's Encyclopedia" is [34], correct? Many thanks, Gwernol 05:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what: if it is that important to you to delete my article, go ahead and delete the article. The entry on ICCC, CCW, and Jordan's role in the CCW is in Melton's most recent ENCYCL. OF AMER. REL. You may have to dig a little in hard copy books to confirm OFJ's role in Campbell Institute. A google reference to his listing as "heretic of the week" in an old CHRISTIAN STANDARD journal used to be on the web. Jordan wrote an article disputing the historicity of the Jonah story. This will be my last attempt to ever write or edit wiki. Parkridge1998 (signed)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! — FireFox • T [11:16, 12 April 2006]<noinclude>

Keep for now and expand, as per gwernol, renominate later if not improved. Tupsharru 11:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep instincts say delete per WP:V, but let's give gwernol a chance. --Doc ^ask? 12:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BIO. The fact that he's not notable to many people doesn't mean that he's nn to everyone, and he clearly has a strong standing within the community. Kind of like putting, say, the mayor of detroit up. nn unless you happen to be from detroit, in which case hes very notable. Qleem 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per Hetar - Glen ^T _C 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:15, 12 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 6

[edit] Iainish

[edit] Joncourt

[edit] என் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

[edit] அ. முத்துலிங்கத்தின் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

[edit] Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks

[edit] NetCB Pty(Ltd)

[edit] Scadaware

[edit] Hamblen Elementary School (Spokane, Washington)

[edit] Robert Rosenbergs

[edit] Witikon

[edit] Appadurai Muttulingam

[edit] Gauge (gay porn star)

[edit] Masanori Uragami

[edit] Halo 2 Mod

[edit] Cody, Hedman

[edit] Sober cruises

[edit] Kevin Forbes

[edit] Eire Og

[edit] Bacne

[edit] Outward Blonde

[edit] RAD Data Communications

[edit] Shane P. Carey

[edit] List of porn stars who deepthroat

[edit] List of Soul Calibur terms

[edit] Tick Acey

[edit] Rewas Avare Port

[edit] Frank Figueroa

[edit] Felipe Madrigal and Bridgett Nugent

[edit] Lunar Anime

[edit] Mageba kaPhunga

[edit] Life space

[edit] Women's Logic

[edit] Jayisgames

[edit] Black Merda

[edit] Category:Shania Twain songs

[edit] Enterprise Audit Shell

[edit] Slim K

[edit] Pointless sites

[edit] Michael Haselhurst

[edit] Jason Haap and his alias, Dean of Cincinnati

[edit] The Tian Forest

[edit] Jamal husseini

[edit] Google rule

[edit] Robert Colin Boyd

[edit] Chris Skrebowski

[edit] Rainmakers

[edit] Swat (debate club)

[edit] Xenisucks

[edit] Fraternities and Sororities at the University of British Columbia

[edit] Logically inevitable

[edit] Prison Planet

[edit] Pre slavic imhabitants of russia

[edit] Girl Power! Live In Istanbul

[edit] National Homosexual Chapter

[edit] Smallwood Reservoir

[edit] Traffic report

[edit] Bernard Ramsey

[edit] John Bolling

[edit] Feminist horror film theory

[edit] The Caledonian Academy

[edit] Seren Anturia

[edit] Indignation

[edit] Mark Pay

[edit] Africa tour

[edit] Abortion / ethics

[edit] Ben myers

[edit] Urban racr

[edit] David Frankl

[edit] Red Queen Hypothesis - non-Darwinian view

[edit] Lah.cc

[edit] To Live A Lie Records

[edit] So i herd u like mudkips

[edit] ALT+CTRL

[edit] Tab, slang

[edit] Joey Luft

[edit] User:Rebelguys2/images