Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond emergent church movement

Delete. I am sceptical there exists such a thing as the "Richmond Emerging Church Movement". No hits on Google. Visiting several of the supposed member websites I find no mention of any such movement, nor any indication they consider themselves emergent churches, nor even any awareness of each other. A random mishmash of unrelated church organizations in Virginia is what this looks like to me. Perhaps a gentle hoax? I'll leave a note for the originator & ask him to chime in with any evidence to the contrary. technopilgrim 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Looks awfully questionable. Interesting to see if the author can provide something. Fan1967 01:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete It might be a sort of gentle hoax, as Technopilgrim suggests, or it could just be a badly written article attaching a label to a phenomenon which isn't really a movement. I could be persuaded by some external evidence that such a movement had been identified, and was actually noteworthy, but so far there's no such evidence. BrownHairedGirl 02:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like original research. Delete unless it can be shown that verifiable external sources have noted that the emergent church movement in and around Richmond has the claimed distinct features. Thatcher131 02:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete this isn't a movement. It's just some observations made by an editor about certain churches in Richmond. Borders on original research. --djrobgordon 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and I agree with the borderline original research sentiment. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. It doesn't actually say what the "movement" is. ProhibitOnions 10:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Probably a good faith effort at original research. I would suggest that the author assists in Christianity in Richmond, Virginia article or some such encyclopedic topic that covers more than just the author's favorite postmodern-style Richmond churches. MPS 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Newyorktimescrossword 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o5 01:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alina and Billysan

Delete for obvious reasons Parudox 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and I also nominate we delete "her classmate known as Billysan the almighty god" while we're at it. technopilgrim 00:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Tries to assert notability as a "well known poet," but, as far as I can tell so far, certainly isn't. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete' - Non-notable
Delete' - nn Bucketsofg 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete' - not only is she non notable, but the information contained therein seems unverifiable or at the very least senationalistic. Montco 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Technopilgrim. Quentin mcalmott 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as poorly written nonsense. NN high school student. Fan1967 01:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete both, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixon Elementary School

This page is just 2 sentences. Do we really need a page on an Elementary school in a suburb of Vancouver? Pikachu9000 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It is verifable [1], but non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and generic information solely for the sak--Masssiveego 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)e of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't agree with WP:SCHOOL, but right now it's the closest thing we have to a policy. List it on Schoolwatch and wash your hands of it. --djrobgordon 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Expand and Keep per WP:SCHOOL, per djrobgordon. Quentin mcalmott 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per well-established consensus. Monicasdude 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for that, I am going to vote Delete as a reminder that consensus was hardly established to keep schools; consensus was established to stop the pointless debating as it was becoming emotional and disruptive. Eusebeus 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly referencing WP:SCHOOL; otherwise, I would have mentioned it. Mostly talking about the consistent results in parallel AfD discussions. Monicasdude 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand as per WP:SCHOOL. Carioca 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:SCHOOl says '"Thus, the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school"'. In this, not much, so delete. BrownHairedGirl 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that no verifiable, NPOV information can be found on this school, or just that this information hasn't yet found its way into this article? --djrobgordon 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per WP:SCH and all schools are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand all school articles. Hawkestone 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn elementary school --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and then Expand.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCHOOL and then curse whoever wrote WP:SCHOOL with an eternal hell of too inclusive policies. JoshuaZ 06:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete There doesnt seem to be much actual consensus for WP:SCHOOL so I don't feel bad changing my vote. JoshuaZ 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCHOOL. JIP | Talk 08:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. How would we ever have any articles about schools if they were immediately deleted? ProhibitOnions 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep and expand per WP:SCHOOL. I've listed a request for expansion on the WikiProject Vancouver page already (this school falls under it) but nobody's answered yet. I'll see what I can do as well. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and list on Schoolwatch. Does not currently meet WP:SCHOOL guideline, since it has only two sentences, but the guideline also suggests giving Schoolwatch a shot at it before deleting it. This vote is to do so. If Schoolwatch can't do anything with it, let it be deleted. Powers 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- The WP:SCHOOL proposal calls for merging, not deletion. Also, note that guideline pages in Wikipedia have --Rob 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Have what? And indeed, I know WP:SCHOOL calls for merging, but at the time I voted there was nothing to merge. Powers 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep ~~If a suitable target is found, and its not expanded, it can be merged if somebody wishes to~~. --Rob 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Amended: nobody is interested in doing any decent merges (or even discussing any issues related to them), so I shouldn't pretend that's possible. --Rob 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable elementary school; and per non-consensus nature of WP:SCHOOL.--Isotope23 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. To answer the nom's question: Yes, we need a page on an Elementary school in a suburb of Vancouver. The article had been expanded nicely and can only get better over time. Suggest that someone close this nom as soon as possible. -- JJay 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Per WP:SCHOOL --Larsinio 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and kill the author or WP:SCHOOL Are all schools notable in my opinion? HELL NO. Are some? Yes, but this one isn't. However my opinion is my opinion, not wiki policy. Mike _{(T C)} 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Osomec 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep needs expansion. --Masssiveego 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep if non-existant pokecruft can go in wikipedia see Perappu then ALL schools can stay. Oscar Arias 05:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep needs MAJOR expansion though. Newyorktimescrossword 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Just looking at the template on that page makes me believe that by this time in 2007 half of wikipedia will be articles about schools, roads, and train stations. However, pending a change in our school notability criteria it doesn't make sense to just delete the one's that get sent to AfD by unsuspecting newpages patrollers who don't realize that school articles never get deleted. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per the WP:SCHOOL project. Yamaguchi先生 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
While I personally agree that most schools (this one included) aren't notable enough to deserve Wikipedia articles, AFD consensus has fairly consistently gone against my view. I don't see a convincing case for singling this one out as a uniquely non-notable example of schools. Keep unless you're genuinely interested in trying to rebuild a consensus against schools in general (and good luck to you if you try.) Bearcat 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete its already clear that there are some people who feel that the debat on schools is closed and the result is that every school is notable. It's not clear to me that the debate is closed and it is clear to me that absent some dictate most schools are not notable, including this one. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's incredibly hard for me to imagine any school below a High School level as notable in any way unless it was at one point taken over by terrorists, and even in that case we don't have an article for the school itself, just the incident. WP:SCHOOL needs to be seriously revised. -AKMask 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- You get right on that, AKMask. And when you're done, you can start working on revising the inclusion criteria for Pokemon characters, professional ball players of all sorts, train stations, small towns, Star Wars fiction... Silensor 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Are you honestly arguing that 3 sentences means notability? I can not imagine someone thinking that WP:SCHOOL in its current state is acceptable. I can see inclusionist principals wanting to keep many schools, but 3 sentences for notability is beyond the pale. -AKMask 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  - It is really ridiculous though, I mean if you compare WP:SCHOOL for WP:CORP for example. JoshuaZ 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    - In the future, when you are dissatisfied with the length of any given article, try expanding it. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Silensor 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      - But we would never say that for a corporation. Sometimes they just aren't notable. Yet that never happens with schools because of this inane policy. JoshuaZ 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        Obviously not everyone thinks it is an inane policy, otherwise it wouldn't exist, but you are welcome to express your POV here or on the respective guideline pages. Silensor 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        It is not an inane policy, because, well, it's not policy yet. It's still at the proposed policy level, which is where anything starts in that field. It's an active policy proposal, meaning its being fixed, debated and utilized, which is better then the failed policies that pop up every now and then, but I could put up a policy proposal page stating anything I want and try to get it accepted. Doesn't mean it's binding till it reaches the accepted policy stage. -AKMask 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge after the debate here is finished. Vegaswikian 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
keep and please do not merge or erase this it is important Yuckfoo 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CSD G1 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabe

Delete - This article is total gibberish, as far as I can tell. Fabricationary 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable and jibberish. Fit's well in BJAODN though... Pikachu9000 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. Don't BJAODN. dbtfz ^talk 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete gibberish --djrobgordon 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
delete patent nonsense Bucketsofg 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Quentin mcalmott 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: G1 as patent nonsense; no BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Bollocks and patent nonsense. Fan1967 01:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bo and Constantine

Both of these gentlemen already have existing articles written about them. I don't see the point of this one. -- MisterHand 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Somehow I think it's for link SPAM. Pikachu9000 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless these two record an album or tour as a duo, they're not notable as one. Merge any useful information into their respective articles. --djrobgordon 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomMontco 00:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Djrobgordon. Quentin mcalmott 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN as duo, since they appear to be nonexistent as a duo. Fan1967 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, probably crystal ballery as one fan's dream duo. Not encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Maxamegalon2000 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it duplicates existing content. ProhibitOnions 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. does not pass WP:Notability --Larsinio 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Crap. Postdlf 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not noteworthy.
Delete being losers on a TV game show does not make you notable. Oscar Arias 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete what a stupid article. Newyorktimescrossword 07:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Speedy doesn't apply (it does assert importance. Hmmm... ). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margo tercek

This author is non-notable. Googling Margo Tercek results in 71 results, and "Margo Tercek" gives none. Also, the books "how to walk a meerkat" (or meercat) and Won-Joon end up with no results when adding "tercek" to the search Quentin mcalmott 01:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Patent nonsense. Feezo (Talk) 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. Same author also added her to the T Roosevelt article as a supposed mistress of TR. Fan1967 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete; this is a hoax at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete likely hoax, verification fails. BrownHairedGirl 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax --Khoikhoi 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity or hoax. ProhibitOnions 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense. --Larsinio 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete AprilFoolsHoaxCruft Oscar Arias 05:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete crap. Newyorktimescrossword 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Disambiguate (already done). kingboyk 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mieris

As I was proofreading some 1911 articles, I came across this (which I had imported a few weeks back); I then followed some of the links and discovered that each member of the family mentioned in the 1911 article has a separate article in Wikipedia (usually with an image as well). I think we should delete this article since its the same information as in the separate articles (Frans van Mieris, Sr., Willem van Mieris, and Frans van Mieris jr.. I imported it without searching deep enough; my bad. --FeanorStar7 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge any useful information into the individual articles and turn it into a disambiguation page. --Aim Here 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Aim Here took the words out of my mouth: merge anything of value and then {{disambig}}. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a self-nom, would it be out of line for FeanorStar7 to just do the merge then ask for a speedy close? Thatcher131 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it would be the best way. Uncontroversial manouvers don't need AFD. In fact as a user in good standing, if there's no delete votes at the time he can close the debate himself. --kingboyk 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguate, taking whatever info isn't duplicated already and adding it to the articles. Don't need AFD for this. ProhibitOnions 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Disambig and merge Straightforward here. --Larsinio 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for your input; I agree about the disambig and merge; how long do I have to wait until I can go ahead and do it; I seem to remember there is a time frame of 5 days before a final decision is made? --FeanorStar7 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You can do it now. The 5 days timeframe is for actual deletions, not for edits, which are allowed throughout. If the unexpected happens and we're inundated with a late flood of votes saying 'DELETE THIS MOST BOGUS ARTICLE NOW!!!!', the article can still be deleted. --Aim Here 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation complete; hope I did it right; feel free to correct or add info. --FeanorStar7 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Could use a merge. --Masssiveego 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DeleteNewyorktimescrossword 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Masssiveego. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Friendster

Political Friendster clearly fails all criteria of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; the website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation; and the content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The current Alexa ranking is 442,990. Delete. JDoorj a m Talk 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn student project, that probably violates Friendster's copyright, despite their claims that it constitutes a parody. Fan1967 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, but that aside, it looks and feels like a poor man's Friendster, and "created by students at Stanford University for educational purposes" sounds like it was made up in school one day to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, literally. Hadn't even thought of that one. JDoorj a m Talk

Delete, as per nom. BrownHairedGirl 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'd say a Yahoo Pick of the Week constitutes a "well known and independent award." --djrobgordon 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn website, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. WP:Web is 1 guideline and not a requirement: "page gives some rough guidelines". In addition, the violation is not clear. There is the already noted Yahoo pick. Google_test#Bias_in_the_Alexa_test Alexa also shows its 3 month change details are all up. 210,000 Google results, though most are hits on [2] pages (which does say something for the amount of content it has). 73 Wikipedia pages. SmartMobs has an entry for it. Answers.com has an entry for it. afterdowningstreet.org links to it. Knoxville News links to it. metafilter.com has an entry for it.--Halliburton Shill 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Google search for Wikipedia pages using this term come up with the article, one user talk, and 23 further unique hits (all of the ones I looked at either had the term as an external link, or no response to a text search for the term). The Answers.com article is a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Alexa says this site has not been in the top 100,000 websites at any time in the past two years. The Smartmobs.com hit[3] consists of three sentances and an image in a bloglike posting. The Knoxville news hits (although subscriber, so I can;t check thoroughly) are all classified under the heading Fun Stuff. The Afterdowningstreet.org hit is a link posted in a comments section underneath the main article about the voting over something in the US parliament. And, finally, just because a source is useful (and I am questioning this) does not mean that it is automatically notable. -- Saberwyn 06:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  - And, of course, according to picks.yahoo.com, Yahoo picks 5-10 web sites a week to be the "pick of the week," so, mathematically, it's more like pick of the day. JDoorj a m Talk 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete- I'm not sold on Yahoo's site of the week being a "well-known award". I see no other convincing claims to notability, and it sounds like something made up in school one day. Reyk 04:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --kingboyk 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep only because of Yahoo! ProhibitOnions 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Saberwyn, Kinu, etc.... Eusebeus 12:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Very weak keep. Notability is extremely questionable, but I believe we should err on the side of caution. Powers 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, relatively unknown site. Rhobite 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete as it seems not to be either remarkable or influential. Just another website, and WP:NOT a web directory. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Something made up in college one day. --Mmx1 16:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, relatively unknown site Jonas Silk 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 18:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Mr. Kinu. I'm not buying the Yahoo "site-of-the-week" as a "well known award", either. Not all that remarkable of a site. Kuru ^talk 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Data for other sources. --Masssiveego 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on that? JDoorj a m Talk 05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There are over a thousand Yahoo picks; it's practically a web directory in itself, and Wikipedia is not. Melchoir 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertising the site. not notable. crap article. Newyorktimescrossword 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep: it's an interesting concept that has fostered a large cult following. If you ask me, I think it's probably one of the more functional uses for social networking. Above all, the article was notable because of the other articles on Wikipedia that referenced the website, that was until User:Rhobite unanimously decided the "site is hopelessly POV and inaccurate". --Howrealisreal 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: More than anything, that seems to be a commentary on the fact that something non-notable can be quietly put all over Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. But I suppose that depends on your point of view. Regardless, if "above all" is that other articles linked to it in the encyclopedia anyone can edit... then it ain't above much: if existing in Wikipedia were a sign of notability, you could never delete anything. JDoorj a m Talk 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Seems to me that the external links section of articles (where Political Friendster is showing up throughout Wikipedia) is fair space for any POV, especially those that may not be "suitable" to be referenced directly in the actual article body. On the other hand, some editors have decided themselves that the Political Friendster is totally invalid, has no notability at all (playing down its large membership and Yahoo designation), and have decided to censor it completely out of the encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but how free is this encyclopedia when a website can only be added "loudly" to external links of relevant articles. This whole Afd is subjective and politically driven. How about altering the Political Friendster article to address your concerns about its validity (a reason why the article was created in the first place), instead of just trying to delete every reference to it? --Howrealisreal 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    - You should read the conversation about Political Friendster that went on at Talk:Dick Cheney for reasons why it's an inappropriate external link. And I think it's a fair bar above which external links must rise to say that, yes, you should be able to "loudly" add an external link to Wikipedia. You should be able to go onto the talk page and declare, "I am adding such and such a web site, the content of which is such and such" and there shouldn't be a violent backlash. I'm not saying you should have to do that, but you definitely should be able to. How is this AfD politically driven, exactly? And if I don't think Political Friendster is relevant, how is my altering the language of the article going to help that? JDoorj a m Talk 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment: Re JDoorjam's comments, if anything non-notable can be put on Wikipedia in the first place, then it has no place restricting more non-notable sources to comment on the earlier non-notable sources. As for the Dick Cheney talk page, that seems POV driven (and non-notable POVs at that) dislike to the humorous approach taken as opposed to whether its content is factual. Compare how many Wikipedia pages link to The Onion article, which is 100% parody news, yet very notable. —This unsigned comment is by Pro-Lick (talk • contribs) .
        
        I don't understand your first sentence. Non-notable things should not be put on Wikipedia. As Rhobite pointed out in Talk:Dick Cheney, the material is not factual. You'll have to give me some specific examples about articles linking to the Onion for me to comment on that statement. JDoorj a m Talk 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        After reviewing the conversation at Talk:Dick Cheney, I see that only you and Rhobite are strongly opposed to the use of Political Friendster as an external link (which clearly explains this Afd). Don't you think it's pretty unfair for both of you to personally decide what is legit or not for inclusion in a free encyclopedia? You make it seem like content needs to be expressed "loudly" and get your clearance or it is not relevant. If not, than why this Afd? You, yourself even know that is not correct. Furthermore, Pro-Lick is absolutely correct. If you have beef with Political Friendster that can be proven beyond your subjective POV (which has yet to be materialized), add it to the article about the website (noting the restrictions on original research). This is totally the wrong way to go about it. Regards --Howrealisreal 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        Actually, my opposition to its use is only tangentially related to this AfD: I was unaware of its existence until someone tried to link to it from Dick Cheney. For instance, I could oppose the use of an article from the Drudge Report on Hillary Clinton's page, but would not ever suggest deleting The Drudge Report. Political Friendster has the dual distinction of being hopelessly inaccurate and not notable enough to warrant its own article. As I very clearly stated in my comment, "I'm not saying you should have to (state it loudly), but you should definitely be able to." So, no, I don't think everything needs to be run by me, or anyone. With that said, no, I don't think it's unfair for anyone to personally decide what is legit or not. That's the whole point of the Wiki model. And I'm still not clear how adding "some people do not believe that Political Friendster is notable enough for Wikipedia" to the article about Political Friendster is going to fix anything (leaving aside its obvious violation of [[WP:No self references|Wikipedia's self-reference policy). Now, could you explain what you mean about my "subjective POV (which has yet to be materialized"? JDoorj a m Talk 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. -- pm_shef 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Yahoo pick of the week, as noted, picks way more then one a week. Site of the Day (more or less) does not cut it. -AKMask 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per djrobgordon. Stifle 00:08, 17 March
Delete Per nom. Cursive 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment from closing administrator: JDoorj hits the mark. Wikipedia is not "free" in the sense that you can add anything to it. In any case, it is not free because you agree to collaborate with others and subject yourself to policies, which have to be applied by fallible human beings, and yes, subjectively. How else? On the issue of notability: something has to be notable in some way to appear in Wikipedia, but the converse should not be considered when discussing the notability of something in e. g. AfD. That is, Wikipedia is not a valid reference for demonstrating the notability of something. The "keep" opinions have been taken into account, but the core of the matter seems to be disagreement on policies and on "delete" voters' opinions; those things should be taken to the relevant talk pages, not to an AfD debate. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrenium

Article is a dictionary definition (WP:WINAD), and is mis-spelt (should be 'quadrennium', see American Heritage Dictionary]). BrownHairedGirl 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:WINAD. Esquizombi 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not much use for a misspelled dicdef. Fan1967 01:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone --djrobgordon 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Maxamegalon2000 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete d/t misspelling. Alba 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Very little potential even for a correctly spelled version to be more than a dicdef. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per everyone else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, by golly. ProhibitOnions 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Incase somebody uses this term for political time spans.

--Masssiveego 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

go ahead and delete, though my dictionary says EITHER spelling is correct.Pastorwayne 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary:quadrennium --Karnesky 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete look above. sorry pastor wayne. :) Newyorktimescrossword 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megan Rochell

Delete as non-notable artist; signed to a major label, but hasn't yet released an album or met any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. —LrdChaos 02:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC) I'm also nominating You Me and The Radio, as that page is for the artist's first, as-yet unreleased, album. —LrdChaos 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC per nom. --light darkness ^(talk) 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. BrownHairedGirl 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article will reappear as soon as the single/album is released (and according to DefJam it will be [4]). Why make another editor do the work over again? --djrobgordon 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As much as I hate crystal ballery, I feel like being listed on the same dropdown as LL Cool J, Rihanna, and Method Man (see [5]) makes her notable enough. She's also been mentioned on Billboard, as a singer/fellow labelmate of Ghostface Killah, which seems to meet the non-trivial media mention aspect of WP:MUSIC. I'd also say it's pretty much guaranteed at this point that the album will exist, so as long as the article does not contain any speculation, I feel it's reasonable to keep. No prejudice to recreate if this is deleted, of course. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Kinu. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per djrobgordon Hawkestone 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Clear case of crystal ballism. Many artist sign for record companies and fail to make an impact. Just because she's sceduled to release an album, doesn't mean it will sell, it might not even get released, it has happend before. Eivind ^speak! 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep and improve. Major label, big producer, music-presss coverage; sounds notable even if the main album hasn't been released. ProhibitOnions 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all the site says is coming soon - doesnt mean anything Defunkier 13:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's not an ostrich, either. Monicasdude 13:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: as per nominator. --Ragib 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep to avoid wasted effort and discourage similar nominations. Osomec 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep somewhat known.
Keep Two frivolous nomination Hektor 06:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete look at first delete reason. Newyorktimescrossword 07:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per djrobgordon. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, WP:NOT an ostrich, whatever that means. Yamaguchi先生 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Cursive 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Rochell's album has been confirmed for a summer release date. The single has already been added to 38 radio stations, and has an official R&R radio package associated with it confirming that an album is on it's way. Jibertiber 010:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This article didn't deserve such attention, should have been {{prod}}ded. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powermuff

A neologism with a dicdef that's unsuitable for Wiktionary. Delete, no transwiki. King of Hearts | (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep The only legitimate reason I see for deletion amoung your comments is the last entry. "Whether its tasteful or not is irrelevant...No indication the word's in any kind of general use." I understand this.

However, the rest of you pseudo intellectuals should be ashamed of yourselves. Telling me I need to undergo testosterone reduction therapy, that this isn't an "urban" encyclopedia, and that wikipedia is not a locker room is totally obscene.

Shame on you! As keepers of Wikipedia you should not launch personal attacks on people who submit articles. You should judge each entry on its own merit as opposed to whether you think the user is a jerk. I read the comments and I think what a shame it is that you call yourselves intellectuals. Get over yourselves people!

Now, I do not like being vulgar here, but just listen to a few of the entries I have found. And now look at your petty comments and see if you still believe my entry is "locker room" status. Shame!

From Wikipedia (again I apologize...these are from your dictionary)

Fuck, Pussy (yes the slang term), Cunt, asshole, motherfucker, fingering (sexual act), Anal Fingering (do u believe this is in there???).

And get this one:

-A footjob (often shortened to "FJ") is also called a "toejob," "solejob" and "heeljob." Regardless of what part of the foot is used, it is often referred to as a footjob. The most common example of this involves someone placing both of their feet on their male partner's penis and stroking it continuously until he ejaculates on their feet, although they can also perform a footjob with only one foot. Multiple people can also perform a footjob on the same male. For example, if two people are performing a footjob on one man, they are giving a "double-footjob." A footjob done by three people on the same man is called a "triple-footjob."

So back off and reevaluate yourselves, except Fan-1967 who actually seems to understand this isnt' a popularity contest.

Thank you. - unsigned comment by Bri jazz

Delete Whether it's tasteful is irrelevant. ~500 ghits (mainly for porn videos) is non-notable. No indication the word's in any kind of general use. Fan1967 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary --djrobgordon 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WINAD and WP:NEO. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per terence --Khoikhoi 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a locker room. --E lkman - ^(talk) 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This an encyclopedia, not Roger's Profanisaurus. ProhibitOnions 10:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a dictionary. (aeropagitica) 12:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Did "Roget's Profanisaurus" give anyone else a visual of a Triceratops stomping around and cussing fluently? No? Just me, then. Carry on. Oh, and delete.Regina0613 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and recommend testosterone reduction program for article's creator. BrownHairedGirl 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as neo per nom. Oh, and up Ms. Regina's medication. Kuru ^talk 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vanity --Masssiveego 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Would have gone well in Sexual slang article if more people used it. Oscar Arias 05:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually now that I think about it, the term should be MERGEd to Sexual slang. Oscar Arias 05:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It does seem that the some of the deletes are coming from some sort of prudish stance based on the comments. Can we tone down the anti-sex terminology rhetoric??
  Remember Wikipedia is not censored. Oscar Arias 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Newyorktimescrossword 07:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Powerdelete! Brian G. Crawford 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.P. Nistades

Non-notable pianist, student. 0 Google hits. Delete. DMG413 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete IASAS is nothing more than a high school academic competition. I participated in a similar event, as have thousands of other student-musicians across the world. It does not confer notability. Also, the fact that the editor knows what Nistades is currently writing suggests that this is a vanity entry. --djrobgordon 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn student. The fact that the author is listed as "nistades" also suggests that this is vanity. Fan1967 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn pianist, student and most probaly vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO, likely vanity. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio. Bucketsofg 05:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete ditto. ProhibitOnions 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn bio per nom. Kuru ^talk 01:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unsourced. --Masssiveego 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. Unwanted fork. If there is anything to merge, the author can do it. -- RHaworth 09:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winnie The Pooh (Disney)

Delete. Topic already covered in sufficient detail at Winnie-the-Pooh. Powers 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect: WP already has all of the good info on this topic, lets just redirect it to Winnie-the-Pooh. --Hetar 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if there were useful information to merge, it's completely unsourced. Also, I don't think a redirect is warrent here, as nobody is likely to search for an article with that title. --djrobgordon 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect no reason at all to delete. Hawkestone 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge! good sorce of info, but, if neglected (deleted), it will be a waste.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, obviously. Alba 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. JoshuaZ 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. --Jannex 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. See comment below. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of magical negroes

Is this a joke? Delete as unverifiable and unencyclopedic. --Hetar 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as OR and listcruft. The term is real, but at least half the entries on the list don't qualify. Fan1967 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd love to vote keep here, but I just can't do it without some serious secondary sourcing. As it stands, it's a POV nightmare. --djrobgordon 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per fan-1967 --Khoikhoi 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Look, a lot of work has gone into this list, and I don't really want to bandy words like "listcruft" around, but that's what it is. Reyk 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to magical negro, which has plenty of room for such a list. dbtfz^talk 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Let me add that it already does have such a list--just much shorter. dbtfz ^talk 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Possibly useful category. --Masssiveego 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Surely Magic Johnson should qualify. The list is unencyclopedic. Bobby1011 05:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per dbtfz. Bucketsofg 05:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per dbtfz. Alba 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per dbtfz. & citing to references (reviews, etc.) to those characters as fitting the definition would be desireable. Esquizombi 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete altogether; article already has a short list. ProhibitOnions 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per dbtfz. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Few of the entries qualify, and most that could arguably qualify, are not discussed in other sources. The main article has 5 examples: all that is necessary for Wikipedia's purposes. This was split off to a separate article because the "Magical Negro" article had become too long and unfocused. Merging this back with Magical Negro would just bring down that article as well. Sir Isaac Lime 12:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Sir Isaac Lime, and because maintaining such a list invites POV. Powers 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Mixing historical personalities with those of uncertain provenance (the Three Wise Men); impossible to avoid POV clashes. (aeropagitica) 16:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete original research, listcruft, and I'm not convinced that "negro" is the accepted term these days. Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not the usual accepted term, you're right, but appropriate when that is the term being used regarding a specific subject, e.g. United Negro College Fund or Magical Negro#Reference. Esquizombi 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this nom and the one further down today's AFD for "Alla-Kitten controversy" prompt me to suggest we need a variant of BJAODN called Wikipedia:Weird titles from deleted articles. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Cool! I'd like to see that! -- Oscar Arias 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge but don't delete! -- While initially thought it was a joke, I read the Magical Negro article, and it all made sense! If we can have lists of Songs containing cowbell and piles of pokecruft lists this is acceptable. I do agree with removal of historical figures (ie. 3 wise men) from the list as I believe the article Magical Negro is speaking about fictional entertainment related stuff. Oscar Arias 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per dbtfz. Sandstein 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge look up. Newyorktimescrossword 07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Magical Negro (admittedly my first instinct was to delete, until reading the article). Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and merge into Magical Negro. The article has some merit, but not in its current condition, and possibly not anytime soon as a seperate fork. Regardless of that, the concept is still worth keeping.--み使い Mitsukai 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment from the closing admin: The main article explains the matter well, and has enough examples. This one is full of items that don't fit, and doesn't have a single reference. It's not listcruft. Cruft is a mass of useless true things; this is a list of potentially useful but completely unverifiable things. Merging was not a possibility; it would've moved the problems from here to the main article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justyn Gruesome

Seems to an author with two minor short stories TeaDrinker 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete probably a hoax. The band name only shows up on a couple of Myspace pages, and the magazine doesn't Google at all. NN, in any case. --djrobgordon 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax --Khoikhoi 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, grandiose vanispamcruftising at best, hoax at worst. "According to Wikipedia, Justyn Gruesome is also a former member of the group Streetband Hardcore." At least it cites its sources... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. Vanispamcruftising, indeed. ProhibitOnions 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing on Author's Den: http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=11138&AuthorID=5573 Listing for Barnes and Noble:http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0971927529&itm=1 namelessboy

Keep published author. --Masssiveego 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: You've got some pretty questionable keep votes (IMHO) in some other AfDs, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: please explain how nearly zero relevant Google hits and a non-notable likely vanity press book that doesn't seem to be available anywhere lead you to the conclusion that this meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete crap. not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 07:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Barry Ace

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Non-notable, vanity, WP:NOT a web directory, speedied before, etc. etc. I mean, really, people... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Zoe. Pikachu9000 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable amateur wrestler/manager. Google returns his personal website [6] and little else. --djrobgordon 03:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. I'm digging the cell phone camera pictures, though... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Speedied twice before, but was near empty with no notability assertion then. --kingboyk 06:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as above. ProhibitOnions 10:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Somewhat notable in more then one state. --Masssiveego 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete this article is a joke. vanity. not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
keep Barry Ace is for real, and deserves to be recognized.--Tredmen88 05:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edits are to this article and to the articles linked from it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Barry Ace here, and it seems some of you are a little in the dark or just don't know much about wrestling. You see, 75% of wrestling fans would much rather watch local wrestling than WWE and that is a fact. As far as this article being for vanity, even though I'm just local, I actually have fans in different parts of the world: some here in NE, some in New Jersey, some in Virginia, some in Florida, even some in Europe. And this article was created for them so why don't you try backing up your "vanity" claim and explain how it's vanity. As far as Google only returning my personal website, search engines are not mind readers, they only retrieve links with the words you put in the field. If you just put "Barry Ace" in the box you'll even get NWA results from the 80's that had BARRY Windham and Johnny ACE on the card. If you want sites that I'm on, just put some of the nicknames I've had in the past like "Too Hot For TV", "The Modern Day Icon", "The 4:20 Pimp", or even "Sebastion" in your search as well, you might even want to put in the word "wrestling" in it as well.barryace 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edit on Wikipedia, unsurprisingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jolly Roger (frog)

Non-notable character for a video game that doesn't even have a article Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Alba 04:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn character. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The game's name is misspelled in the article; it's actually Banjo-Tooie, which does have an article. Nonetheless, this is not sufficiently notable or have such a huge section in the main game's article to warrant its own. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge & Delete Merge relevant data (if any) with the main article for Banjo-Tooie. Bejnar 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Banjo-Tooie. Does not deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to barely notable video game article. Plus, it's not a (frog) but a (video game character). ProhibitOnions 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge all fictional stubs like this -- Astrokey44|talk 11:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the game's article already has more information than this one on the subject. No point to a spin-off article if it's going to have less topical content than the main article. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge look up. Newyorktimescrossword 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badass Xpress, Collision Pro Wrestling, WAW Logo Entertainment

nn amateur wrestling stable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Ace. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Local wrestling is non notable. Fan1967 03:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just added WAW Logo Entertainment and Collision Pro Wrestling to the AFD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I'll add my delete vote for all of them. Still local and nn. Fan1967 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete because Sarah says so. ProhibitOnions 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete them all as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
keep somewhat notable. --Masssiveego 05:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep WAW is very popular, gets regular press coverage, they have fans across the United States and even in other countries due to a popular weekly downloadable internet show. I'm not offended, because the people demanding its deletion are completely ignorant to the product. The Wikipedia article does nothing to promote, as it doesn't advertise the website, doesn't make mention of their free, weekly downloads (only that it has a popular multimedia website for information purposes), and it doesn't advertise the one local aspect of it which would be saying where, when, and how people can attend live shows. It just says where they are, not when or how to get tickets. wawwrestling.com does a well enough job of all those things. All the article does is the one thing wawwrestling.com doesn't do, and that's explain the history of the promotion, which people obviouslly want to know because that's the full extent of the media coverage. To the people that don't think it's notable, it's existed since 1998 and has been quite successful, especially in recent years, and it's one of many independant wrestling companies that are the primary competition for WWE and TNA, and the starting point of future wrestlers. To the one who said "vanity," back up your claim and explain how this article is "vanity." There's an official website and a myspace site for "vanity." This article is purely informative, the information has been demanded, and now it's been delivered. JAPW and ROH aren't the only notable wrestling promotions on the east coast, WAW, CPW, WFA, and CW are all "notable." --User:Samx3i 05:29, 14 March, 2006
- User's only edits are to this page and to WAW Logo Entertainment. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
keep Badass Xpress was a legit stable. WAW & CPW are legit wrestling promotions and all deserve to be recognized, it's not their fault you people voting on "delete" are such jealous morons! --Tredmen88 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edits are to this page and to the articles in question. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that, for my points to be valid, I had to edit more things. Fair enough. I'll go write an informative article about bias towards certain types of entertainment and then maybe you can actually take the time to read what I wrote above and consider it. You know what though? I don't want to be a part of any club that wouldn't have me as a member (Groucho Marx). You people have nothing better to do than to submit for deletion informative articles because they're not relevant to YOU but are otherwise in demand and are notable whether or not you like it. You make claims of "vanity" you can't back up and then dismiss my entire arguement because I'm new to this website and haven't done anything but edit the page in question and this one (yeah, this one, like I wasn't supposed to defend my own article). Maybe I haven't done more because I got laid off last Monday and looking for a job was more of a concern of mine that writing an article on Count Chockula Cereal. Honest, get over yourselfs, stop taking this so seriously, it's a website that collects informative articles written by its members. That's all I was doing. Why don't you spend your time writing something people want to read about instead of crying about waw. Or like I said, just delete it, I don't care anymore. This is all really pathetic. --User:Samx3i 05:29, 14 March, 2006

- - KEEPFrom Wikipedia's description of Encyclopidia "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also encyclopædia, is a written compendium of knowledge." Now nowhere does it say copelation or relevent facts or mass content of important information. All subjects listed are fact based infomative articles, WAW CPW and BX are all existing entities. I also submit to you that if a local wrestling federation is to be deleted then why not delete all the Radio station? I crated the CPW page because i noticed other small wrestling federations on Wiki and decided that CPW was just as notable to relevent information as any other. Sundergod9 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Please review WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:CORP and WP:CSD. Existence does not guarantee that an article will be kept. There are guidelines. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. Non-notable, violates WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. All of it. Ifnord 16:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

shouldnt all wrestling promtions then be deleted for the fact they are only catering to a small comunity of people?? Sundergod9 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Very notable, and 75% of wrestling fans would much rather watch local wrestling than the same week after week crap that WWE puts out. --barryace 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edits are to this page and the Barry Ace AFD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Closing comment: Some voters of the above need to read up on important Wikipedia concepts such as WP:N and WP:SOCK. It doesn't matter if other non-notable articles are kept; in any case, you put them up for AfD. Tu quoque accusations are no good. I've discounted all new users' votes, as per the usual guidelines. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy and Mandy the TV Movie

Nonsourced crystal ball fan fiction. See also Talk:Billy and Mandy The TV Movie. Maxamegalon2000 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ball. About a week ago I prod'ed another alleged movie for a Cartoon Network show (Aqua Teen Hunger Force). Like this one, it vaguely predicted a movie, with no timetable, no sources. That article was deleted without objection when the 5 days after the Prod passed. I wonder, if we start looking around, if we'll find entries for a bunch of other alleged movies based on TOON shows. Fan1967 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Alba 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A search of movie links for "Grim & Evil" at IMDB turned up no hint of a movie. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, crystal ball and/or hoax. (I feel like a similar article was deleted a month or so ago, though I'm not sure under what name, so I can't verify that... anyone?) --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The same editor also created the fanficruftacular List of Episode Ideas in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy and someone keeps adding a link to it back into the main article for the series. Since when did Wikipedia become a text dump for fan fiction ideas? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as above. ProhibitOnions 10:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, would be speedy as recreation of deleted content if only I could find the old AfD. -- Mithent 17:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is a recreation as Mithent said... I just don't remember when the AfD happened.--Isotope23 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, old afd here. Someone should slap one of those "do not re-create without good reason" template thingies here. Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that... I knew I'd seen this before somewhere.--Isotope23 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, yes! I looked for some time without success. -- Mithent 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete look up. Newyorktimescrossword 07:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shabooya

This was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. It isn't patent nonsense under WP:CSD. It is however unverifiable as a Google search does not verify this nor does the link. [7].Delete. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Fan1967 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment i don't think this was made up in school one day - i saw something very much like this in Get on the bus, a Spike Lee movie from 1996 --Xorkl000 13:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete if not as nonsense, then as unverifiable tripe. --djrobgordon 03:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Same user created another fake neologism, Wangstrom, which has been Prod'ed. Fan1967 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

dont know if it matters or not but iv heard of and participated in shabooyas, so they are a real thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.155.8 (talk • contribs).

Note: The above entry is the only edit ever from 65.96.155.8. Fan1967 04:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish this could be promoted to prod so we can stop wasting our time. Since this is now AfD, delete. Alba 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Is it a legitimate phenomenon? Probably. Is it verifiable? Not currently. Is it a related topic that should probably get covered in an article like the dozens? Yes, but once it's been researched further. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are two definitions for this word in Urban Dictionary. This article doesn't match either one. Fan1967 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Bucketsofg 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per fan1967. Bobby1011 05:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete I think this is a real phenomenon, but the wrong name. In any event, the link is non-relevant, and the article is otherwise unsourced. ProhibitOnions 10:57,

--This article is accurate--, I have experienced this occurence on tens of sporting buses and in locker rooms numerous times. It is also referred to in the Spike Lee film "He Got Game," adding to its validity. Article should not be deleted. 13 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.52.238.95 (talk • contribs).

Delete per prohibitonions. Newyorktimescrossword 07:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!!!! you must keep this article this is a true act on my sports rides. It is very funny and must be kept. I dont know how widespread this is but in Massachusetts it is very popular on sports teams. Please keep this article shabooyas are amazing and the legend/fad must be preserved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hallowedredeemer (talk • contribs).

Comment The above is the one and only post from Hallowedredeemer. Fan1967 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my one and only comment but I have recently registered here to attempt to save this article. I hope to participate more in the Wikipedia moderating process but this article must be saved! Not only is this a growing phenomena, it is hilarious and must be spread because it is such an intergral part of the cumrauderie i experience being a proud member of many sports teams in the local Boston area. I implore users of wikipedia to vote to keep this article since it is a true occurence and must be documented. I thank you for the time and hope my efforts will change your minds regarding this articles pending deletion. Thank you.

Delete. Wikipedia is for what is, not what is to be. If the goal of an article is to "spread the word" then it needs its own web page or a blog to advertise it, not an encyclopedia. Ifnord 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Closing comment: I'll take that and put it up somewhere in large bold type, Ifnord. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mike Rosoft 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TropicaI Storm Jason

There is absolutely no evidence that this exists. The user is pulling off a similar hoax with Tropical Storm Lance. Also, all attempts to tag either page for deletion get reverted with the creator calling the tagger a "vandal". He also used an "i" in place of an "l" in an attempt to hide the article from the public eye. Delete --Spring Rubber 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete G3 as vandalism hoax. The deliberate misspelling combined with the rvv's of deletion notices cause me to doubt good faith. Alba 04:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom and Alba. Bucketsofg 05:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, of course. --kingboyk 07:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, hoax. ProhibitOnions 10:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above -- Astrokey44|talk 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Folks, the writer of the article states this is a "fictitious storm from the film The Perfect Storm", so I don't think asking for evidence that it existed is actually germane. I would suggest that someone familiar with the movie check to see that indeed one of the storms in the movie is named that way, and if so, Merge with Article The Perfect Storm (Movie). I don't see either vandalism or hoax here, but I don't see why this should be under the tropical cyclone category, as this tropical storm is not part of our world in any case. I'd call the categorization a good faith error.Ramdrake
- I would suggest that, per the verifiability policy, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Dpbsmith (talk)
- The storm in the movie is called Grace (see Google). The hoax article contains very little information so it is hard to merge anything. Weregerbil 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless a good verifiable source is provided prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge with The Perfect Storm (film). I think the content belongs in Wikipedia, but I can't see there ever being enough material to justify a separate article. If kept, I suggest rename to Tropical Storm Jason (The Perfect Storm) because we're bound to have a real Tropical Storm Jason eventually. The categories should be taken out, but a category for Fictional weather events might actually be useful. Peter Grey 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax, unless anyone can verify that this is indeed the name of the storm in The Perfect Storm (film). I get zero Googles. -- Plutor 20:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment to all who are suggesting to merge this. I would think that if it was indeed a storm in the movie, a Google search would at least turn up some results to verify it. Also, given this user's history with Tropical Storm Lance, the fact that he purposely gave the article an misspelled name, and his comment on his user page, I think it's safe to say this is a hoax. --Spring Rubber 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete The film is based on the nonfiction book of the same name. The storm discussed in the book is known as the 1991 Halloween Nor’easter and was in the North Atlantic. Storms that do not originate in the tropics are not given names. The remnants of Hurricane Grace contributed to the storm. (The unused J name for 1991's tropical strom season was Juan). In short, no storm named Jason had anything to do the storm in The Perfect Storm. It's amazing what you can learn by reading Wikipedia. Dsmdgold 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge belongs with the film's article. Newyorktimescrossword 07:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dsmdgold.--み使い Mitsukai 03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Bobby1011 13.03.06

[edit] Allah-Kitten controversy

Non-notable alleged event on some guy's website. FreplySpang (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, probable hoax. --Rory096 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep It - Thanks in advance. - Chaz365 04:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This user appears to be Charles "Chaz" Miller, the creator of "Coptography" and the man who initiated this "controversy. Those should be deleted along with this article. --Rory096 04:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable nonsense. As with the Coptography article below, this guy likes excuses to put his name in WP. - Fan1967 04:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Drivel Palnu 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn hoax per Rory096 Alba 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete drivel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles "Chaz" Miller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coptography. bikeable (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy blatant hoax -Drdisque 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was kept post-rewrite. DS 14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hemobag

Blatant advertising. 72 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - Only if it were renamed to "Intraoperative blood salvage" or "Cell saver" and thoroughly reworked would I reconsider. Nephron 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I moved it again -- Intraoperative blood salvage is a more descriptive term - and in wider use in the medical community -- compare autologous blood salvaging (PubMed) vs. intraoperative blood salvage (PubMed). Also, it yields more Google hits 595 vs. 24 -- intraoperative blood salvage (Google) autologous blood salvage (Google). It is alright to Keep. Nephron 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Zoe. FreplySpang (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless it can be merged into a topic on the actual medical process of blood transfusion. Harr o5 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Well done Alba. Harr o5 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Advertising. Fan1967 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Looks pretty good, now. Excellent work. Fan1967 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I know for sure I saw the creator's arguments for keeping it on someone's talk page, and we should hear them. I just don't know where they are... --Rory096 04:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been argued that the article should be kept on my talk and on the article talk. Harr o5 04:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment and vote to keep: I have been bold, removed adcruft, and moved the page to Autologous blood salvaging. Please read new article version before voting. Alba 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep- Excellent rewrite. Reyk 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Alba. --Rory096 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alba's rewrite. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that the advertising has been removed. JIP | Talk 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments and questions. As the creator of the article, I cannot agree with the above comment, "excellent rewrite". All the person doing the revising did was delete 1 sentence in the introduction and about 5 sentences under the Hemobag entry itself! The rest of my work remains as is. The person also included a few more links to wikipedia pages, which I would have done myself - this was only a first draft.

About the entry being blatant advertising I disagree. Look at what was said about the Hemobag in the original. It's one of 3 methodologies used to for intraoperative blood salvage, specifically a new type of technology using an ultrafiltration reservoir; studies to date have shown it to be safe but studies using clinical trials are neede to show if it really is effective and safe. The rest of the entry was background material to show why blood salvage devices are needed and why they need to be improved. Moreover the scientific links to published research that I added (4 of which remain) are quite critical of blood salvage technology in general and present a balanced perspective.

Frankly, the Haemonetics entry is pure advertising with absolutely no redeeming scientific or education value! The Hemobag article was the opposite.

A general question - this article was written as an entry for the Hemobag and now has been changed into an entry for Intraoperative blood salvage. As the creator of an article that has been revised but is substantially the same as originally written (except for deletion of about 6 sentences), should I choose to (and it's only a maybe at this time), do I not have the right to delete the article? Not saying I would but am curious about wikipedia policy. ~~Blut~~

Reply: Your original material was otherwise OK, but the paragraph specifically about the Hemobag® read like advertising. The way the article is now, including both your work and the rewriter's, is encyclopedic enough to keep in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Creator's Reply:Thanks but the rewriter deleted 6 sentences - the rest (there's a lot of work there) is mine.

About interpreting the Hemobag portion as advertising, here's the 5 sentences I wrote:

The Hemobag® is a new type of ultrafiltration reservoir designed to overcome the limitations of RBC-savers and direct retransfusion in cardiac, vascular, and other types of surgery through hemofiltration. The methodology of blood salvaging with the Hemobag® in the operating room is depicted in this video.

Being a new ultrafiltration method, the Hemobag® was not included in earlier papers and studies. Studies to date have shown the Hemobag® to quickly and safely recover substantial proteins, clotting factors, and red cell concentrates (References 5-7). While the Hemobag® shows promise, randomized clinical studies of the Hemobag® are needed to more fully assess patient outcomes and to measure reduction of allogeneic blood products.

The Hemobag statements are backed by references. There's a link to a video; it shows the new technology in action. Believe me promotional copy reads quite differently, and does not have links to studies that question the entire process of cell salvaging!

Contrast with the Haemonetics entry (only a few extracted - the entire entry is an advertisement!):

It has offices worldwide... Haemonetics has been a global leader in blood processing technology. The Company has two families of products:....Haemonetics is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker HAE.....

Give me a break! User blut

Keep (as it is now Intraoperative blood salvage) without advertising copy. Looks fixed to me. ProhibitOnions 11:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep version now at Intraoperative blood salvage. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speed delete. User:Bobby1011 13.03.2006

[edit] Coptography

Neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Neologism and vanity. As with the Allah-kitten article, this guy likes excuses to put his name in WP. - Fan1967 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity nonsense. Palnu 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This article is about an emerging form of art, search on Google, you'll find something about it. - Chaz365 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment 26 google hits doesn't even get in the same zip code of anything considered notable. Fan1967 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Neologism. The 20 odd Google hits don't convince me of notability. I'm more than willing to reconsider my opinion if someone can dig up a half-decent source that asserts notability, but I doubt there is one. Reyk 04:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, WP:NFT. Alba 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Bobby1011 13.03.2006

[edit] Charles "Chaz" Miller

Asserts but does not establish notability. Self-promotional. FreplySpang (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The article has links to things supporting it, what more do you need? - Chaz365 04:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, links don't make it a viable article.Bjones 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity and pathetic self-promotion. Fan1967 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-noteable, vanity Palnu 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:AUTO, vanity and nn. Eivind ^speak! 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, has someone warned this guy on his talk page? Alba 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frenzyboard

Advertising, shouldn't be on the wikipedia J a son ^(talk) 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I was adding a speedy tag, you beat me to it. Utter drivel. Palnu 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KristinaMH02 I don't think it should be deleated, what if someone wants to know what Frenzyboard is? Then it won't exist to inform them. You're going to deny someone searching for information just because it's a web forum? Well, if that is the case you better delete anything that has to do with any author/ musician/ movie as well.

Delete. Forumcruft; doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn forumcruft. dbtfz ^talk 04:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, KristinaMH02, but if someone wants to know about Frenzyboard, they can google it. As for other items, we have criteria for each. See WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and WP:N in general. As Frenzyboard fails WP:WEB (unless you can provide an outside source to the contrary), we have to delete it. Alba 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Not because it's a web forum. Because it's an insignificant web forum. Fan1967 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete being used as a message site, not informatiom.Garrybowers 04:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If someone wants to know what Frenzyboard is, then they can just go to frenzyboard.com and find out what it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for an article about every web forum out there. Delete. --E lkman - ^(talk) 04:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn-website. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete KsprayDad 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable Kenji Yamada 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete article being abused; article shameless advertising—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.206.102 (talk • contribs).
Delete: "The band broke up in 2003 and the message board has since carried on." That's enough for me. Daniel Case 06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleteuseless.
Delete, non-notable forum. JIP | Talk 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if it's important, rewrite. ProhibitOnions 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Five Iron Frenzy, even if it's just a brief note that the forum has taken on a life separate from the band's fandom. Powers 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge seems fair, although delete works for me too Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to add it to the Five Iron Frenzy page, then fine; but a merge would imply that a redirect will be created and I don't think it deserves that. --J a son ^(talk) 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Whyever not? 'Frenzyboard' isn't being used for anything else in WP, and anyone searching for it would most likely be perfectly happy with the Five Iron Frenzy article. Powers 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge. per Powers. Bucky Covington 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above reasons. Newyorktimescrossword 07:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe the information on "Frenzyboard" can go in the band's page, but I somehow doubt Five Iron Frenzy are the only band whose forum is ongoing despite a breakup. -RomeW 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Merge per Powers, without the commentary, for the redirect (I am a FIF fan). Dan, the CowMan 16:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No merge, no redirect, do not pass Go, do not collect $200... Ifnord 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete & disambiguation page too, since it is no longer needed. (aeropagitica) 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Capulet

Self-promotion. Supporting links are all to subject's own website. Googling "Lord Capulet" + "International Idiocy" gets 5 matches, of which 2 are Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Note If this is deleted or redirected, need to also remove Lord Capulet (disambiguation) which links to this page or Romeo and Juliet. Fan1967 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Capulet. (Second choice: Delete) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable blogger. Fails WP:WEB. Fan1967 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per BorgHunter. Note: the International Idiocy tag means this is part of the User:Chaz365 series of vanispamcruft articles. Alba 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, it isn't! (Surprised me too) This has been around for a while, and as far as I know Chaz365 just started up today. FreplySpang (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Woah, what's going on here? This article has been around for a long time, why the sudden change of heart? - VanillaX 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nobody noticed it before now. Doesn't mean it deserves to stay. Fan1967 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete just add my voice to this one. All the User:Chaz365 articles seem to be unnoteable self-promotion. Palnu 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as notnotable. What? He campaigned in online forums? If everyone who did that was notable, then we would have to rethink the whole premise of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bobby1011 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and optionally recreate as redirect to Capulet. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, get rid of the wholly unnecessary Lord Capulet (disambiguation). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. --kingboyk 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. ProhibitOnions 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. FCYTravis 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
'Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 07:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity. Ifnord 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as a redirect to Joint Multinational Command Training Center. Ifnord 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOS Forward

Prod contested, improperly restored. Prodded as "attack page". I'm unfamiliar with the subject. No vote NickelShoe 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete- I have no idea what this is about. Does the article assert notability? What do the acronyms mean? Until someone with knowledge of this field edits the article so we know what on Earth it all means, and convinces me of notability, I say delete. Reyk 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge The NPOV that made it a CSD A6 candidate was one easily removed line. It's now a stub that probably has an article it should be merged to. Alba 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not notable testing center. Bobby1011 05:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - possibly interesting, but unsourced and not in the German Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It would be in this one first. It's a US training center located in Germany. German citizens aren't allowed to enter freely without permission as it's on a US Military base. Oscar Arias 07:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep {{prod}}. Give it few days. If it is as shoddy after a week as it is now, then speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep & Rename DOS Forward seems to be the wrong name. However Joint Multinational Command Training Center is verifiable. [8] Seems to be a very important training division. 65.223.100.226 00:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and or Merge/Rename - If I remember correctly this is somewhat related to SIMNET which hundreds if not thousands of US soldiers went through for M1A1 training back in the Desert Storm days (and probably still do, also located in Grafenwhoer, Germany). The article could use more information, but does not need to be deleted. Oscar Arias 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT after looking at the web site this quote caught my eye More than 15,000 soldiers and civilian employees and 9,500 family members make up the JMTC.' - Of course this has nothing really to do with DOS Forward, other than DOS Forward is located in JMTC, but the training center itself is VERY notable. Graf/Hohenfels training areas have been used by the US Army going back to the end of WWII to present day, I would venture to say that over 100K soldiers have gone through there at some point in their miliary career. Oscar Arias 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Further Comment - Made the redirect to JMCTC, added public domain government information to JMCTC history, wikified and fixed POV of history, cleaned up links. Feel free to change your vote! :-) --Oscar Arias 06:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Also added more information from website press releases. Oscar Arias 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT -- This article is SIGNIFICANTLY improved from when it was tagged with AFD. Please consider keeping or restarting AFD process. Thanks. - Oscar Arias 07:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. Newyorktimescrossword 07:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)--User has ONE edit in namespace Oscar Arias 08:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- - comment (to Newyorktimescrossword) in the 5 minutes period where you voted on NINE articles, did you even bother to check ANYTHING? Also having a special account for VFD sessions (as stated to your user page) I find suspicious. Oscar Arias 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, this article is much better than when I prodded it. Maybe in a few days if we wait a while it will take shape. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 12:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. existing location. Mukadderat 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entredonneur

This is apparently a neologism that didn't take. Its google hits are wiki references and this "Attainable Utopias" site (see Attainable-Utopias). Proposed deletion was removed by anon.

Delete, not a widespread term. Gazpacho 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO. I hate anon deprodders. Alba 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as paleologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn WP:NEO WP:WINAD Esquizombi 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nnneologism. ProhibitOnions 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, positive ramifications for introducing a word that we can associate with opportunity + altruism. User:Spellman
- No such user exists; comment was added by 158.223.1.117 (talk • contribs). Gazpacho 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as neo per nom. I'll live with the impact to society. Kuru ^talk 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete look up. Newyorktimescrossword 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Just because it is not on google does not mean it is failing to catch on. This word facilitates better description when conversing about game theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.64.152 (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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Yousef Haj-Ahmad

Comment- I read this page and it appears to be a biography however vain it may seem it is based on factual information. I vote it stays.
Comment- it seems like an informative essay, if it contains facts then it might as well stay.

I've read the article through, and I'm just not convinced of this guy's notability. The wanky effusive praise doesn't help either. Delete Reyk 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment- gone now. I assume it was a copyvio. Reyk 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment- well, I'm thoroughly confused and perplexed. How, when I use cut&paste, does an a change into an e? Reyk 05:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete ~~probable WP:AUTO~~, actually, probably it's his child writing about their wonderful father. Still fails WP:N, but only because I doubt his company meets WP:CORP. Alba 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dr. Yousef is truly a wonder! Who knows what opportunity he will pursue next? He surely is unstoppable! Self promotional drivel. Bobby1011 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Based on the material, the guy looks like a successful academic and scientist, but hardly notable enough to merit inclusion. It sure reads like vanity. Fan1967 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mr Ong. --kingboyk 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Any bio that begins with "a child was born" needs to go. I suspect it was copied from his own site, seems like the kind of thing people write about themselves. ProhibitOnions 11:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete What an odd article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Man, that was surreal. Kuru ^talk 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. This article is very poorly written too. my goodness. Newyorktimescrossword 07:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clockwork Storybook

I'm not sure; 497 Google hits seems low, especially for a website. I don't know; I figure I'd see what people thought. Abstain. Maxamegalon2000 05:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn website with "a small but loyal fanbase" that was shut down five years ago. Doubt it would have passed WP:WEB even then. Fan1967 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan-1967. Reyk
Keep google search for "willingham" and "clockwork storybook" together seems to indicate some level of notability. Willingham himself is apparently somewhat notable, and has a wikipedia entry (which was worked on by several different users, not just one dedicated loon). "clockwork storybook" apparently is also the name of a related publishing company...or something. Really not too clear. However, 401 google hits for "willingham" and "clockwork storybook" together (492 for "clockwork storybook" alone, 166,000 for "bill willingham" alone) seems to be sufficient for notability. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 05:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just because the guy is notable doesn't mean that every single enterprise he was ever involved in is notable. I don't find any mention of Clockwork Storybook in his WP article or anywhere on his own website. The Ghits I find for it all appear to date from the late 90's. Fan1967 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't check the dates on the hits. Changing my vote to delete Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 07:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Fan1967... historical application of WP:WEB applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above, but a merge wouldn't bother me either. --kingboyk 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge. You said it. ProhibitOnions 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Newyorktimescrossword 07:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn website. Mukadderat 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 18 March 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 flushed. DS 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pisslips

Sounds like a hoax. Google shows nothing for this. Besides, 59 suicides after a viewing sounds like an event that we'd all remember without having to have someone look it up. Daniel Case 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete obvious hoax. Vslashg (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax Palnu 07:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Melchoir 07:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Has a link to Something Awful... Lapinmies 10:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. It isn't "Gloomy Sunday". ProhibitOnions 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense! V i r tualSteve 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN. Hey, it was funny to me. Brian G. Crawford 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete {{hoax}}, {{hoax}}, {{hoax}} (aeropagitica) 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The JMA Show

I have userfied but it keeps getting recreated. This is blatantly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. W.marsh 06:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmaradio (talk • contribs).
Delete WP:N, WP:VAIN - Fan1967 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable radio show. JoshuaZ 06:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:VSCA, and if anything a passing mention on the station's article (if it exists) would be more than sufficient. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Since JMA is presumably Jason Allentoff I was tempted to speedy it as CSD A7. WP:VSCA comes to mind here. --kingboyk 08:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as VSCA. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Yawn. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Note Delete page was blanked by 71.250.159.212 - Fan1967 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete and protect against recreation as vanity in wake of vandalism of page and recreation of userfied material. Daniel Case 16:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 07:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ranger's Glade

PROD removed with no discussion. Articles is about a website, gives no evidence of meeting WP:WEB/WP:V. W.marsh 06:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WEB. gameforumcruft - Fan1967 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Yet another case of forumcruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable forum. JIP | Talk 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as forumcruft, nn-website. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete forumcruft. --kingboyk 08:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Well known by EQ players back in the day, but none the less not notable. kotepho 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. Just ain't notable. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Newyorktimescrossword 07:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 a content fork. JIP | Talk 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Japanese Nationalists Ideology since Meiji Times

The content of this page is, to all intents and purposes, essentially the same as Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era, although the linked article may contain somewhat more information. The two articles were posted by the same person. Both were unfortunately marked by absolutely horrendous and incomprehensible English. However, 'Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era' has been massively cleaned up and is now a readable article. There seems no need to keep this unimproved version under another name. Bathrobe 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era should be relevant to that time period, and Development of Japanese Nationalists Ideology since Meiji Times should be about after that period. So, the article is not another name, it is indeed a different subject. That said, they do read pretty much the same though (but one needing to be cleaned up. So, the article should exist, but needs different content. --Midnighttonight 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as incoherent babbling, likely lots of original research. I'd stick to dealing with the existing Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era article, and trying to sort that out. Harr o5 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I suspect it was done by an automated translation system. In fact, 明治以降 (literally "since the Meiji period") in Japanese includes the Meiji period. I don't think that the difference you point out exists in the mind of the contributor.--Bathrobe 08:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and either rewrite or merge the bits of this that are NPOV and coherent into the other article and rename. However, the article as it stands is neither, and even the title is unclear ("nationalists' ideology"? "nationlist ideology"?). ProhibitOnions 11:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, essay, unmaintained, beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete fork/OR, per nom Sandstein 07:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete serves no purpose. just goes on and on. Newyorktimescrossword 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Mukadderat 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Content forking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gianna_Jessen

Delete Non-notable biography CSD A7, not verififiable, the sources are circular and none provide any actual documentation (including video, documment scans, photos) to support the claimsWikipedia:Verifiability, vanity page Wikipedia:Vanity_page, WP:BIO#People_still_alive, point of view is dedicated to making a political argument, not simply providing a biography Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs).

Keep obviously notable prolife activist, testified before the United States Congress twice. 19000 Google hits for the name, I went up to page 43 and all seem to be relevant to this Gianna Jessen. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Appears notable based on above. It's an unusual enough name that it's a fairly safe bet those ghits belong to her. Fan1967 07:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I've never heard of her before, but judging by the above, she's notable enough. JIP | Talk 08:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, notable, but only linked to within Wikipedia by a few anti-abortion users/discussions. Please note that was my main reason for speedy deletion. Of more concern are the lack of sources and lack of NPOV.--Halliburton Shill 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above, though suckiness of article noted. ProhibitOnions 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems to be both verifiable and reasonably notable. --kingboyk 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sarah. Monicasdude 13:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and slap a POV tag on it if necessary. POV problems are minor, and the article appears sufficiently sourced. A biography of a person with a POV does not constitute a prohibited promotion of that POV, either. Powers 14:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable enough. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable and of interest. Dwain 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep this biography of a notable personality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment not really WP:V per se. I've tagged it because right now I see 2 sources that all are based on her personal account of events. There are vague claims of witnesses and paperwork in the BBC article, but that isn't adequate sourcing. I found no independent verification of the claims. I've no strong feelings about inclusion or deletion of this article, but it needs to be sourced, tagged, or edited.--Isotope23 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I was aborted and I did not die. There are many interviews and independent accounts, etc. and no dispute over her story. patsw 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are independent accounts then perhaps you could link them on the article talk page? I'll remove the tag if I see WP:V evidence other than Ms. Jessen's personal account.--Isotope23 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you looking for her doctor's report? Dwain 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for anything that isn't based on her own version of events. Don't get me wrong... I believe she is telling the truth, but un-corroborated personal accounts are not very encyclopedic material.--Isotope23 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This story UK Telegraph is full of names, places, and dates which even if the Telegraph didn't fact check, the pro-aborts would have in order to discredit her story, her interviews, and her Congressional testimony were it false.

I also want to make the point that while I provided this reference, I was under no obligation to do so. We assume good faith and the recourse to using external sources is a step taken after a dispute over the material is documented. For people who are well-informed on the debate over abortion, Jessen is well-known. For people who would passively rely upon the mainstream media to bring the stories of Jessen and other survivors of abortion to their attention, she and others like her will be maintained plausibly non-notable by pretending they do not exist. This is one way the abortion debate is being controlled. patsw 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You are under no obligation, but you certainly help your cause by doing some due dilligence... especially since it is a good assumption that the average person is not well-informed when it comes to the minutae of abortion debate. Let me read the article and I'll remove the tag and add it as a source if it has all the info you say it does.--Isotope23 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. The subject is notable and interesting. The nominator nominated this article for deletion after I used Gianna Jessen's existence as an argument against a wording that he was arguing for at the abortion article "removal of the embryo or fetus before it is capable of sustaining life". A strange response. AnnH ♫ 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete even though her story is interestign it doesn't make it notable. i have an interesting story, may I have my own article? . Newyorktimescrossword 07:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you meant Keep then Newyorktimescrossword?--Isotope23 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm going against the overwhelming majority here, but delete. There is not a single claim to notability in the article. She testified before Congress: big deal, probably hundreds of people testify before Congress every year, that doesn't make them notable. She ran a marathon despite having cerebral palsy: well, good for her, but hardly sufficient to establish her notability. She's gotten press coverage: same as with testifying before Congress, lots of nonnotable people get an article about themselves in the newspaper or on BBC. Angr/talk 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. She appears to be a notable ~~sideshow freak~~ political activist. Brian G. Crawford 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, person is a political activist of note. Suggest removing as per WP:SNOW. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Yes, she is notable, no doubt. Jesus should protect her article from partial-keep-deletion (it's an awful procedure!) the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-verifiable story; Telegraph article has no other names or references than referent. Vanity page to promote political agenda and public speaking career. Not notable and not neutral POV. CSHolocene 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- That was CSHolocene's first edit. A strange page to stumble upon just after registering. AnnH ♫ 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Someone who survives an abortion is notable and has a unique point of view. Suggest that it be kept as POV —This unsigned comment was added by 199.46.199.232 (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 Speedy Deleted (CSD G4, see link provided). kingboyk 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core Davidson

DELETE. Not a legit article. clear advertising. doesn't belong wikipedia author brought back the article AFTER it was agreed that it would be deleted. Kiwidude 08:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Davidson Education Services Ltd.. --kingboyk 08:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreated article. kingboyk 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core Davidson Education Services Ltd

DELETE Someone brought this article back after it was agreed that it would be deleted. clear advertising. see previous motion to delete. Kiwidude 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recreated articles can be speedied as far as I am aware. Any admin care to oblige? Cynical 11:19, 13 March 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core Davidson Education Services Ltd.

Delete Clearly an advert and is nn. Kiwidude 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:SPAM Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turgut Demirtepe

Article seems to be about a non-notable person, possibly the author. Dismas|^(talk) 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. the article need more work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 March 2006.
Delete not sufficiently notable vs the professor test MLA 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity and not-notable and unecyclopedic. V i r tualSteve 12:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per VirtualSteve. Bucketsofg 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was funny but delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man_flu

tee hee! - fun, silly page... but... seriously? really?? Petesmiles 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN it. Very funny article. --kingboyk 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN. Wikipedia is NOT an excuse to get out of work --Midnighttonight 09:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

change to delete for reasons of Herostratus below. --Midnighttonight 10:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN, may have a space at the infamous Uncyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete although I appreciate the reference to Benenden, I think the humour is too subtle for me MLA 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, send it to Uncyclopedia. ProhibitOnions 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsensical. V i r tualSteve 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete wow 37,400 hits but all forum/blog comments - nothing reliable -- Astrokey44|talk 12:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN for sure. -- Mithent 17:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN per most. Bucketsofg 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has been BJAODN'd. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. May I ask users to be careful in their voting, BJAODN is not considered by all admins to equal a Delete vote. A closing admin may review this, see 5 Delete, 5 BJADON = no consensus, keep. I'm not saying all admins do this but it does happen, so be very clear in your voiting.Herostratus 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete --mm e inhart 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete very funny but not for here. RicDod 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucky Covington

Article borders on vanity. Execpt for the fact that he's competed on american idol, I don't see this page as being encyclopedic. Mostly Rainy 08:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete AmericanIdolcruft.--Midnighttonight 09:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Idolcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep all other American Idol finalists get an article, there's no reason why Bucky should be the exception. MLA 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and stop the madness Idol is one of the most popular series ever and every finalist is famous enough to have an article. There is really nothing wrong with this article and deleting information that people look for is true lunacy! Also WP:BAND says that an artist is notable if "Has won or placed in a major music competition.". The finals of Idol is a very major music competition. Lapinmies 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Unless intention is to merge American Idol finalists into one page. Best idea would probably be to keep individual pages for winners and/or those who have gone on to do something notable in their professional careers (for example Jennifer Hudson, a former contestant, who is playing the lead, Effie, in the film version of "Dreamgirls" starring Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles) and merge the rest into a single page.

Actually, I think that if these pages must be kept we should merge them and make a American Idol Finalists (Season 5) page and combine all the finalst articles. Having them as individual pages makes them look more like vanity bios Mostly Rainy 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep as above.ProhibitOnions 11:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep He is one of the top twelve (or higher) out of all the people who auditioned, and mill ions of viewers voted him into the finals. --JamesB3 12:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Idol finalists are celebrities, and they have to show at least some talent in order to wind up among the top 12. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per WP:BAND. --DDG 17:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Idol(atry) Bucketsofg 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep American Idol is the top rated show in the nation currently. Millions of viewers have voted to keep him in the final twelve and he is an active and current participant, one of only a dozen right now. If he is dropped from the show in the next two weeks, before the final 10 are set which go on tour through the summer, I would reconsider. But he is very much a popular and current topic right now--User:MitchBell 12:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Note: This is not actually a registerred user, but an IP. User name link was manually added and has not been registerred. -AKMask
Keep American Idol is a pop culture icon. There is no reason to let snobbery and elitism determine the education and informational material that exists out 'there' in the world. If snobbery and elitism are the yardsticks of determining what is valid or invalid informational media...well, the world would still be flat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.52.76 (talk • contribs).
Delete and so are many other reality TV shows. Just because someone competed on one of those reailty shows doesn't mean he or she should have his or her own mainspace wikipedia page.
Keep. Becoming an American Idol top-twelve finalist brings sufficient notability. Even if he's the first of the twelve to be eliminated, he's made it this far which means he's received thousands of votes...and perhaps more importantly, he's automatically slated to go on the Idol tour and be on whatever Idol compilation albums they release. The top twelve overall get significantly more attention than the eliminated semi-finalists, so it's an easy line to draw. Postdlf 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep but expand. Plenty of people know who he is. ... discospinster 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not about whether Mr. Covington should have an article, but whether the topic is encyclopedic. More people know about him than about any number of topics on Wikipedia, including many that I care much more about myself. But Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of only the things that I care about. Logophile 11:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per Postdlf. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. "Except for the fact that he's competed on American Idol?" It's not like he was eliminated in the first round, he's a FINALIST, that's notable. --24.46.201.42 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (IP known to be User:Rory096)
Keep per above. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:05 UTC (2006-03-16)
Delete but merge all relevant info to an American Idol Finalists page. Do the same for all articles on Idol finalists (unless they become notable independently -like for example they win and release a record). Trödel•talk 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge to the finalist page per Trödel-AKMask 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death By Butterfly

Delete, does not meet notability criteria in WP:MUSIC. Bad ideas 09:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn-band. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable despite apparently being one of the top twelve bands in their area MLA 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, looks like a possibly important regional band, but that's still NN. ProhibitOnions 12:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity article - not notable - please come back when you meet WP:MUSIC criteria. V i r tualSteve 12:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete local stuff Defunkier 13:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --light darkness ^(talk) 13:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn band Bucketsofg 19:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as misguided nomination. — sjorford (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 18

Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a "Wacky unrelated facts" page. Most of the listed events are unimmportant or inane. Why bother cleaning up something so unnecessary The Anti Clutch 09:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Completely subjective. Doing it objectivly would require an innordiante ammount of space and time and would still serve no educational purpose. Save these lists for E-mail spam.
Closed as speedy keep - I suggest you take more of a look around Wikipedia before nominating such a high-profile page for deletion. — sjorford (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, consensus formed. Punkmorten 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brutal With Seven O's

Fixing AfD nomination by anonymous user. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a good wikipedia page, isn't necessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.36.224 (talk • contribs) .
Delete It needs to be investigated. If it proves true and that this page is not just an ad, keep it. Inventm 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 09:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete lacks apparent notability. Politepunk 10:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete this as it appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stachecore is also going to be deleted and this band's claim of notability is based on Stachecore. MLA 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless article can show verification against WP:MUSIC V i r tualSteve 12:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Move~~ to BrOOOOOOOtal. Geddit? No? just Delete Defunkier 13:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article exists only to justify inclusion of Stachecore, another one up for deletion. Daniel Case 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. WP:CSD A6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Matthews

Non-notable person, probable hoax. Google test for "Daniel Geoffrey Matthews" (with quotes) failed to turn up any results. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Matthews is a real person, but due to his extreme privacy you have not turned up any google references. I thought there was some degree of open mindedness and discussion on Wikipedia, obviouly not. Being a prude over the sex industry does not mean information should not be spread about this man.

Speedy delete blatant attack page. It's definitely a hoax as the reference to gay marriage is 19 years too early for it to have occurred. MLA 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Nonsense attack page kotepho 10:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator, possibly speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Possible libel, who knows. Unsourced. ProhibitOnions 12:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Attack page with a sexual tone over it. Speedied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Button Yer Ed Translations

this article deals with a very minor branch of one episode of the cartoon Ed, Edd n Eddy. The episode name was "Button Yer Ed" and the character Eddy loses his voice. He uses a bell to communicate. This article is nothing but a list of "bell" translations. --Philo 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've moved this AfD to where it should be on the daily log page to help those like me who browse the log page for AfDs MLA 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with main article if this information is important to the plot; it's just a sentence plus these translations. ProhibitOnions 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete the individual episodes don't even have articles so there's nothing to merge to MLA 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I deprodded this because it had previously survived AfD, but it should never have survived in the first place. This smells like original research, and we shouldn't have an article on trivia related to a single episode. NickelShoe 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, looks like it survived the previous AfD only through apathy. If there were individual articles for each episode, I'd say merge, but I don't think this is appropriate for the main series article. Kuru ^talk 02:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge, certainly. Not useless information by any means, but by no means needing of an entire article. I suppose the main article would be sufficent. -Zero^Talk 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert V. Gentry

The article states the person is a creationist, advocates his ideas and invented his own cosmology. Good enough, but it should be deleted unless it's shown that someone has paid attention to this. (Prod reverted.) Conscious 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now [9] [10] He has a book ISBN 0-9616753-2-2 that appears to be self published (at least Earth Science Associates seems to be associated with Orion Foundation. His press release on the lawsuit. He also gets hits from scientific journals. kotepho 11:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems notable enough, if it needs attention put {{attention}} on it -- Astrokey44|talk 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep looks notable enough. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Cmon, some totally unnotable, shit-disturbing, creationist whacko who hardly deserves encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) He may not be notable to you (2) You may feel disturbed by him, but "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." --Iantresman 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While I am strongly in favor of keeping the Gentry article, I think you are minsinerprting the no personal attacks rule, which applies to not making personal attacks about other wikipedians. JoshuaZ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian has a habit of misapplying this particular rule. --ScienceApologist 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about the lawsuit in Nature and decent coverage of it in various places. kotepho 19:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, borderline notable per Kotepho. And I won't hear anything against whackos here, young man! We have highly encyclopaedic articles on notable members of this species! Besides, beati pauperes spiritu and all that. Why, in my time... Sandstein 19:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, one book... self-published, part of a lawsuit, & a few journal articles. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Sandstein has a valid point... ideology isn't grounds for deletion.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per kotepho. Slowmover 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I made this stub because we link to him on multiple pages including radiohalo creation-evolution controversy and Creationist cosmologies. Finally got tired of seeing the red link. If he isn't notable, why do we have pages that wikilink to him? --ScienceApologist 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per ScienceApologist Homestarmy 13:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per ScienceApologist . Mukadderat 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep He hasn't created the page himself, he's known in the field, and he's peer reviewed [11] --Iantresman 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable creationist. JoshuaZ 19:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Buford

(Plus related article: The Accomplished Mirror King)

Claims to notability don't stand up. Can't find any mention of the novels on a Google search. Apparent vanity article. Delete. Spondoolicks 10:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete both, 19yo author just starting career is not notable for now -- Astrokey44|talk 12:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO, and probably WP:VSCA based on the prominently displayed blog link. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kinu. Sandstein 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity--Porturology 12:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 09:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set n forget cooker

After listing the article for proposed deletion, I was messaged by the author, and have given the article this chance to have its merits debated. I see allowing an article on one individual product as setting a bad precedent for allowing anything commercial but non-notable on Wikipedia in future. Harr o5 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep and cleanup This article is strange and somewhat confusing: it has a wealth of good pictures but very little text describing exactly what it is and how it relates to other similar devices. This describes a very large commercial device, but I've seen the "set n forget" label applied to normal small countertop cookers as well, the sort one might find in a home kitchen. Are those part of the same brand line, or has the term become generic? This article could use a great deal of clearification, but I think it's a good start toward describing a notable type of product. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything useful to Deep frying or Deep fat fryer. I have added a couple of the pictures there -- Astrokey44|talk 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Astrokey44.--Isotope23 19:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, and Userfy for now per creator's message. Bad precedent. Are all those pics legal? Herostratus 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below. Firstly, all the pictures are legal. They have been donated by the company and also fall under the promotional material fair usage policy.

Keep The product is not an ordinary deep fryer with a hand-held basket. This was a unique automatic deep fryer that tried to eliminate some perceived drawbacks of traditional deep fryer systems. Unfortunatly the product design never reached sales expectations and went out of production in the mid-to-late 1970's.

I believe it is an important time capsule on the history of deep fryers. I have added a background section to clarify its importance. I can't prove 100% another automatic deep fryer existed before this one, however, if the article is maintained it doesn't stop another person disputing another one was in existence before this one. A patented was pending... as it states on one of the brochures, however, the patent application would have eventually be cancelled once the company ceased production of the deep fryers. Ashleyjoyce 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Changing my vote based on 1) article has been expanded and improved, 2) Creator of article seems to be a dedicated good-faith editor and I do not want to discourage her, 3) arguments that the product represents a valid innovation in a commercial process are may have some validity. Also, article does not seem to be spam, However, I do have reservations and would like to see the material used instead to expand the "commercial frying" (or whatever we have) article and/or the article on the inventor... I do not like to vote Merge as a rule, I'm kind of on the border so I vote Keep but weakly. Herostratus 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, articles on "Commercial Deep Frying" or Commercial Deep Fryer do not exist. I did add a redirection from the keword search "automated deep frying".

This innovation really should have its own class anyway, its not generic. It can't be class as a standard deep fryer that uses hand-held baskets or like the home deep fryers that use tongs to handle the fried food. Its a machine that automates the deep frying process. I was hoping that over time people might expand further on the topic of automated deep fryers. Is there any other like this being actively marketed?? Were other similar products ever sold prior to the 1970's etc. It adds some trivia to the field of deep frying. 210.8.99.100 07:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

keeep moderately notable. Mukadderat 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J-ism

Complete nonsense, been suspicious since I got it on random page in December, but only just checked to see if there is anything about this anywhere else on the web. There wasn't. Seanlavelle 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese sharking

Was {{prod}}ded with the reason "neologism, as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Japan-related_topics_notice_board#Japanese_sharking}}". Someone objected to the prod tag, so I've brought it here. Kappa 12:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Only 130 Google hits does not indicate a lot of controversy on the internet, and I don't think we need article on every sort of sexual prank. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I originally found the article and PROD'd it based on the talk page cited, in order to try and save some time here. Oh well. Neier 12:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Sjakkale and Neier. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Sjakkalle. Sandstein 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Safehouse

It may well be "one of the best communities around. Ever", but it's still non-notable per WP:WEB. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn guild vanity MLA 12:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 13:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn, per above. --light darkness ^(talk) 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete This is the rogue version of The Ranger's Glade. If you played EQ you probably knew about it. That does not make it notable though. The Steel Warriors is probably next on the list. Maybe I'll get to make a sour grapes joke. kotepho 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

- Keep I think the article now asserts a reasonable amount of notability. I wouldn't say for sure it is the first to promote and have changes actually take place though. kotepho 01:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I edited the article and took out the vanity points. The Safehouse is unusual in the field of community gaming sites because they were the first to show that players could influence gameplay. This makes them notable, also, they have been a reference for several game companies and have official affiliate status from Sigil Games Online.
Delete per WP:BALLS. Random vanity, plenty of weblinks. Stifle 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Daughtry

I have nothing against this person. I am voting to merge this page into American Idol Finalists (Season 5). I don't think this person is notable enough to have his own individual page in the wikipedia mainspace. Mostly Rainy 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the American Idol finalists. It would perhaps be better to have a single discussion about the merits of Idol contestants having their own article rather than separately nominating them for AfD MLA 13:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep keep until the above discussion. Also, if the proposal is for a merger, then the article needs tagging with {{mergeto}}, not bringing here. Kcordina 13:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - American Idol is down to the finalists, they've gone from 24 to 12 (I think) and now it's the "finals", so I think at this point the finalists can have their own articles, and not just a little blurb on the American Idol page. --light darkness ^(talk) 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep the finalists are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not only is he a finalist, he is also one of Simon Cowell's picks to win, and leading the betting choices for who will win. Of all the people this season he seems like he's likely to have a fairly well known career whether he wins or loses. --JamesB3 16:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable, even if the show itself is mindless. --BWD ^(talk) 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'd certainly agree with you about merging semi-finalists, but I think becoming an American Idol top-twelve finalist brings sufficient notability. Even if he's the first of the twelve to be eliminated, he's made it this far which means he's received thousands of votes...and perhaps more importantly, he's automatically slated to go on the Idol tour and be on whatever Idol compilation albums they release. The top twelve overall get significantly more attention than the eliminated semi-finalists, so it's an easy line to draw. The finalist list article should be redirected to the season article. Postdlf 01:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep He's popular & in the news right now. I would re-consider removing the page if he loses the competition, or doesn't become a popular recording artist in his own right. But, for now, I say the article should stay.
Keep, American Idol finalists are celebrities who have performed on TV in front of millions of people. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
merge. I think all individual pages should be merged. Mostly Rainy 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is probably the only one of the finalists that merits a separate article at this point, because of the rumor that a well-known band, Fuel, is considering him as a replacement singer. However, merging all of the finalists into one article makes great sense. KriZe 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Would anyone want to delete this article!!!!!!!! American Idol is one of the most popular shows on televison and Chris is an amazing singer. He does deserve his own page. He is definatly entitled to it. DO NOT DELETE

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good city

Delete - just can't see any way article with this title can be possibly worthwhile --Xorkl000 13:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete No notable content in an article on a non-notable subject Kcordina 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Title makes little sense and content even less so. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete harmonically. Slowmover 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Agree that this articel has nothing to offerAyreon 18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no context, weak dicdef, and who exactly is Platon? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, it was the nickname Plato's wrestling coach gave him. No, really. Kuru ^talk 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Wow, I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen the Plato article myself. I guess you do learn something new everyday. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh...I was thinking Speedy Delete when I first saw this...no context or anything... -zappa 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, random with no clue as to context. Kuru ^talk 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The Republic, one of Plato's more well-known works, already has an entry. Brian G. Crawford 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obi Wan Bigbogie

Nonsense, non-existent person Fabricationary 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Tagged for speedy delete - nonsense. Kcordina 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I don't know if it classifies under CSD G1, because it isn't "patent" nonsense, but it is a hoax, and thus vote Delete. --light darkness ^(talk) 13:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete truly ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death charge

Neologism and dictionary definition. —Whouk (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as neologism, dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as Wikipedia isn't a cookbook. I think this is a mutation of the term "depth charge," which I think is another name for a boilermaker. Brian G. Crawford 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not a neologism, just ignorance. Brian's right. This is a mis-heard version of depth charge, which has been another term for boilermaker for decades, specifically when the shot glass of whiskey is actually dropped into the beer. Fan1967 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Depth charge since it's an understandable mis-hearing. Confusing Manifestation 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK - sounds sensible to redirect to Boilermaker (cocktail). —Whouk (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep or redirect, per Fan-1967. Stifle 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect. I considered relisting this, but it's had 14 days already and I think on strength of argument (particularly regarding the page's status as a POV fork) there is a consensus to redirect it. I've taken "redirect" to mean in this context "delete and redirect", given that there's no point in just replacing a contentous POV fork with a soft redirect that can be undone with a couple of mouse clicks. kingboyk 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian Kurdistan

Previously speedily redirected to Kurds in Syria. The Kurds in Syria article exists. There is no need to rename this article. It has to be Speedy deleted, as per talk --MysticRum 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep [12] or move it to Western Kurdistan. [13]

D iyako Talk + 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Kurds in Syria as before. This looks too much like a POV fork to me. Just zis Guy you know? 14:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per JzG. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Unlike other parts of Kurdistan Syria's Kurdistan is a small region so the region maybe is unknown for some people. But in fact the article is on the part of Kurdistan which is within borders of the Arabic country of Syria. The article is different from the article 'Kurds in Syria' as the second one explains the Kurds and their situation in Syria who a large number of them even do not live in this region. The article still is a stub and can explain more sides of the history of the region which by itself has its own long story. I see no POV fork here. Thanks. D iyako Talk + 16:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect or merge. There's no doubt that Kurdistan (q.v.) overlaps parts of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. But there's no justification not to include this material at Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria, since it is not yet substantial. Slowmover 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect. As it is now most of the article overlaps with Kurds in Syria. In the future someone may create valid and full featured article but currently it is not worth of existence. Pavel Vozenilek 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a term that is used for the region [14]. Article should be expanded, not deleted without the chance. --Moby 11:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think this answers the question of why it should be separate from Kurds in Syria. Nobody is saying the term isn't used. Slowmover 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A geographical name is different than an ethnic name. Heja Helweda 01:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's precisely the point. It's not a name defined by geography; it's defined by ethnicity. Slowmover 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Kurds in Syria --ManiF 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect for now. Mukadderat 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is information of the region in Syria inhabited by Kurds, whereas Kurds in Syria is about the general position of that ethnic group throughout the country; two separate topics, clearly. I am also getting tired of the repeated AfDs & CfDs of Kurdish related material it's censorship. If you don't like Kurds, or are fearful of their national aspirations, take your biases to your ballot boxes, don't try to censor WP. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It is to be expected that for many politically divisive topics (and Kurds are just one of them) there will be a large number of AfDs because there are a large number of people who want to use WP to promote their views on these topics and turn the encyclopedia into a soapbox.Slowmover 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and perhaps delete. We have all sorts of ethnic minorities living in the US and none get an article explaining their regional politics. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sentient fictional planets

Initially given {{prod}} but this was removed without comment except for "rmv prod". Covered in Planets in science fiction, will not serve as a useful redirect. (Although the target could use renaming following the related series of deletions.) brenneman ^{T}^{L} 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, I guess it's a reasonably well-defined list. -- Mithent 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete listcruft. Eusebeus 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, although it should probably be List of fictional sentient planets (in contrast, I suppose, to List of sentient planets). Maybe a category would work better? Peter Grey 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. I see no compelling reason to weaken our coverage of fictional planets nor has the nom even attempted to provide one. Perhaps this nom could also explain the meaning of "covered in Planets in Science Fiction". That may be true in an alternate universe or in a fictional article located in a fictional wiki on a fictional planet. Perhaps that is where the nom verified this info before adding his prod to the article. However, back in the real world, in a real wiki, known as wikipedia, in a real article known as Planets in Science Fiction- none of these planets are covered. -- JJay 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of these planets can be reached through the PiSF article. Ego, Gaia, Mogo, Zonama Sekot, and Unicron are available through the links to the appropriate existing lists (Marvel Comics, Foundation Universe, DC Comics, Star Wars, Transformers). Pandarve, Petaybee and Wormwood are in the alphabetical list. Gaea is listed under Artificial planets. RandomCritic 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have been quite busy editing since I made my comment, thereby proving my point. Had no one acted to remove the nom's prod, with or without comment, the information would have been lost. -- JJay 20:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete listcruft. If anyone cares to this could be merged to Planets in Science Fiction.--Isotope23 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. This is not a list of generic planets, but a list of planets which are themselves sentient -- rather a different thing, and not covered anywhere else. bikeable (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Isotope23. --BWD ^(talk) 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per BWD and Isotope23. --Larsinio 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, BWD and I both voted to Delete with a possible merge...--Isotope23 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Brian G. Crawford 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect bogdan 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but move to List of fictional sentient planets, since that syntax is clearer. List is well-defined and potentially useful. -Colin Kimbrell 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Keep and move; well-defined list about an interesting theme in science fiction. Add Solaris. David Sneek 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Colin Kimbrell. But wasn't the ocean in Solaris sentient, not the entire planet? Monicasdude 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the book; in the Tarkovsky movie I think you may be right and it was the ocean, but in the Soderergh film I believe it was the whole planet. David Sneek 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a planet versus biosphere distinction is important for this list. Peter Grey 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Colin Kimbrell. It's an interesting and easily defined grouping, and perfect for a list because the concept has been used in more than a couple, but less than a gazillion works of fiction. Postdlf 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Colin Kimbrell. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Interesting addition. Could use expansion. Dlohcierekim 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Unlike many song lists and such, this is a pretty useful, relevant, and non-arbitrary list. -LtNOWIS 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Interesting but move to better name. Meritus 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plamenko Cvitic

Page is unsourced and largely disparaging of its subject, however CSD:A6 has been removed at least once from it, therefore it's contested and needs to come here. Cordless larry put the tag on this last time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as attack page (whether or not the subject of it is notable). Slowmover 17:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unferenced, non notable, unverifable. --Larsinio 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic form, abandoned. Pavel Vozenilek 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Attack, unsourced, unverifiable, POV. Fan1967 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete possible notable in Croatia, but not for en wikipedia, not even croatian article. --MaNeMeBasat 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was gone. DS 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokebag

Non-notable and no other references to it found on google. OscarTheCat^talk 16:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Road

Article content is one sentence fragment?, followed by a mess of unsalvagable and perhaps irrelevant links. Let's chuck this and start over fresh. Rmhermen 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Possibly merge with Oregon Trail and/or cleanup. The author appears to be making a good faith attempt to expand material on historical trails. It's not vanity, a hoax, or nonsense, so give it some time. Slowmover 17:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to delete as copyvio per Will Beback. Slowmover 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article has already grown far beyond a single sentence fragment. The subject is verifiable and historically significant. Isn't there a policy about waiting 48 hours after an article is created before listing it for deletion? --djrobgordon 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Looks promising. Osomec 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Have edited this further and it seems notable and verifiable enough. Capitalistroadster 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This page is a copy of http://www.trailshead.org/tours.html#lawrence so I've blanked it for processing as a copyvio. -Will Beback 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Bobby1011 14.03.06

[edit] Talk:Toto/jesus cult

Delete. Test page created by User:Connorx. No content. All contributions by this user have been nonsense and those pages have recently been deleted (e.g. Namuh, Latsaoc, Arkanuk Obesh).Slowmover 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed AfD listing. Talk page for non-existent article... couldn't this go speedy?--Isotope23 19:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete CSDG8 Toto/jesus cult was deleted by User:FCYTravis [15]. kotepho 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Democratic Nations

Delete. This organization does not exist, and external links are to the author's personal pages. Stephen Gilbert 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fiction. Slowmover 17:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:NFT. [16]. PJM 17:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fiction, WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete a pipe-dream of some nut who thinks his organization is going to replace the UN. --djrobgordon 18:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as net.kookery. --BWD ^(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NFT per Mr. Pagitica. Kuru ^talk 02:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1/A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ConFREWcious

Delete - Patent nonsense Wwagner 17:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Slowmover 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: G1, totally incoherent and nonsensical. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete prod and speedy were made for this kind of thing. --djrobgordon 18:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD G1. --light darkness ^(talk) 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danger Trance Incorporated

this is a vanity article. a quick search on discogs.com and juno.co.uk gives no results for this group, and there's no way they can be pioneers of gabber if they formed in 2005. "Danger Trance Incorporated" gives a paltry 13 hits on google, and their label "TranceFusion Records" gives only 68 results. sorry to those who have put effort into cleaning the article up but i'm putting this up for afd. compare with nu style gabber/darkcore label enzyme records which gives 72,600 results. --MilkMiruku 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: convincing and thorough nomination works for me. Politepunk 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per WP:MUSIC --Larsinio 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. "TranceFusion Records" seems to have been a Detroit techno label in the early 90s, but now there is a new label in California, here [17]. It's not clear that there's any connection to the music mentioned in the article, and the "awards" have no verifiability. So, NN or vanity, or partial or complete hoax. Slowmover 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I whumped this page up a bit, as I wanted to see if there was an article buried in there somewhere. I agree that, in the absence of the sources and references that it so clearly needs, it does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. The lack of google hits is another nail in its coffin. Delete. Sliggy 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of years in Canadian television

Page was listed for speedy deletion by User:ZeroOne with the reason "A page full of red links." I'd like some other opinions on this. For an index page like this is redlinks ratio really a good enough criterion? ~~(I'm reserving my vote on this for now.)~~ - dcljr (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't it make more sense to create the articles first, and then use a Category to link them? Fan1967 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Week delete Two blue links and every likelihood that the links will turn blue eventually. Categories do not replace lists. Osomec 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
weak delete You could just get by through the Category:Years in Canadian television or with a template. There is no List of years in American television --Larsinio 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as Category:Years in Canadian television does the same job as this so-called article. --ZeroOne 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Okay, now that I see there's a category for this, I agree with the deletion. - dcljr (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And why does it go back to the 1900's for "Canadian television" when television didn't even exist then??? —GrantNeufeld 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Categories and Lists do different jobs and should coexist. Jcuk 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. As it stands, the list provides nothing that the category doesn't (now that I've added redlinks to the category). - dcljr (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a redlink farm. It would be listcruft even if it wasn't redlinked. The category is fine. If and when there is more content than wikilinks, recreation is possible. Stifle 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salo in Space

Not notable. Three google hits bogdan 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN --Larsinio 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Ukraine is not exactly an internet giant, so google is not good adviser here. At Talk:Salo in Space it is mentioned that "inclusion in comics.com.ua, which looks like a significant independent distributor of Ukrainian web comics, appears to fulfil point no. 3." mikka (t) 20:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how signifiant is a site with 400 hits per day... (see the counter in the bottom side of the page) bogdan 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep—it fulfils the notability criteria by being carried by an independent publisher, as mentioned by Mikka. I don't read Russian, but is that counter not showing 3,688 views and 442 referrers? Removing this article which passes the notability criteria would be a slap in the face of the young Ukrainian Internet culture. —Michael Z. 2006-03-13 22:07 Z
Delete You can't really fulfill the notability criteria by saying a site with an apparently rather low number of pageviews 'looks like' a significant site. Are there people who can assert notability other than the two editors who've made a bunch of edits to the article and hence are unlikely to vote against it? If the main site is significant itself, perhaps we could have an article on it? I might well change my vote if such things change. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my poor wording: I'm not fulfilling anything, nor saying that it 'looks like' something. I'm stating that Wikipedia's criteria for notability are unambiguously fulfilled by this article. The Criteria for web content specifically states "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: . . . 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.". There is no excuse to delete the article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-13 23:27 Z

You've presented no proof that the site is 'well known and independent of the creators', and as such saying things like 'are unambigiously fulfilled' and 'there is no excuse to delete the article' just makes me suspicious of your bias. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the site well-known? Is there a better-known Ukrainian webcomic site? According to Alexa, Salo in Space has about 1/10 as much traffic [18] as the number one Ukrainian recreation site, Students’kyy Forum [19], and traffic in a comparable range to the tenth-busiest Ukrainian recreation site, tourism.gov.ua [20]—look at the stats; they require some interpretation and the results are relative, but this is indicated as a relatively popular Ukrainian recreation site.

Is the comic independent of the syndication site? My Russian is too poor to find the specific answer on the site, but it does publish guidelines for submittors [21], implying that it is a true syndication site and does not produce the comics which it publishes.

This satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Michael Z. 2006-03-14 00:17 Z

Alexa data on sites with ranks above ~500k is completely irrelevant - Alexa themselves admit ranks above 100k are unreliable at best. Is it not possible to find someone whose Russian is good enough to research the subject? I certainly have nothing against the webcomic, but am just unsatisified that it meets the criteria. However, based on your assertion there are guidelines for submissions on the site, I've changed my Delete vote to a Comment, for now. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, even my site has a better Alexa rank than www.comics.com.ua! :-) bogdan 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking into this a little more, back to Delete, since no-one's bothered to try establishing notability further, as far as I can see, especially since editors are still claiming it meets the criteria "as indicated above". --Fuzzie (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: There's a million and one webcomics. This one's somewhere around 990,000. --Durin 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

But Durin, how many Russian-language webcomics are there? How many about topics relating to Ukrainian history and culture? This one is not only notable, it seems unique. —Michael Z. 2006-03-14 18:01 Z

I dispute its notability, and being unique doesn't make it so. --Durin 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not notable - sorry but it's just not enough. Celcius 14:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- It does meet the criteria for comics notability, as indicated above. mikka (t) 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. --Irpen 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not that I'm a hard sell, but I trust Mikka's judgement on this one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To expand, Mikka ain't exactly a keep-'em-all inclusionist and there's no doubt he knows Eastern Europe. If he says it's sufficiently notable, his opinion is worth a hell of a lot more than those of us who have just fiddled a little in Google. I will confess I do have an ulterior motive. I'd very much like our webcomics portfolio to include articles on a few non-English webcomics. Right now about all we've got aside from this one is Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet and Yenny (which is dual-published in English and is more of a print comic anyway). –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 22:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm exactly the opposite: I am a deletionist with respect to webcomics and initiated quite a few anti-Comic AFDs (many failed). IMO this one is notable for its uniqueness in form: Ukrainian folklore mapped to space opera. This argument was regrettably dismissed as nonessential and I agree it smells as original research, so I feel myself a bit uneasy here, since the only argument is that of Michael Z., and I like the idea of User:Mukadderat below to fold the article into Salo (food) for the time being, just like Salo in Chocolate. mikka (t) 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. comics.com.ua soes not appear to be a "well known." Being distributed by non-notable website does not make a comic notable. -- Dragonfiend 16:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into Salo. It has a very relevant section "Salo in popular culture". It may be recreated into a separate article when it becomes undisputably notable. Mukadderat 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. --DDima ^(talk) 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Michael Z. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Michael Z. Seriously people, it's not a good idea to start an AfD based completely on throwing Russian characters into an English search engine and getting nothing out of it. -- Zaron 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Sympathizers

"List of Alleged Nazi Sympathizers". I don't see this going anywhere good. Punkmorten 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak move To List of Nazi sympathizers, would have to be very closely watched however. --Larsinio
- Do you volunteer? It has heavy POV and verifiability issues. Punkmorten 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Brian G. Crawford 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Troll magnet. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. What do you define as alleged? Too speculative. mhunter 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This editor allegedly voted to delete with extreme prejudice. Slowmover 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV, OR. Troll magnet. I can easily see long edit wars in adding and removing the same names. Fan1967 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Initiate the final solution on this article. 65.223.100.226 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless someone steps up to watch this thing, I would say it needs to go.Montco 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are certainly some people that you could have verifiable information to put them in this list. Since when was being a troll magnet a reason to delete something? kotepho 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Since this page seems to be so controversial, I feel I should say a few words on why I started this page. I have a bachelors degree in history, so my interest is mainly historical. Over the week-end I was watching a show on the history channel that referred to Joe Kennedy’s pro-nazi stance. I remembered Lindbergh and the Duke of Windsor from previous studies on this subject. I think it is important from an historical point of view to be aware of how deeply imbedded racism and anti-semitism are in our culture. I am sure the families of these individuals would prefer to white-wash their biographical information of these now political incorrect sentiments, but I don’t think that is in the best interests of history. Note also that I included the word “alleged” in the article.
Delete. I'm not sure inserting the word "alleged" nullifies the policies Wikipedia has on articles needing to be neutral and verifiable. Actually, I'm certain it doesn't. Proto||type 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as irredeemably POV and highly unverifiable. Stifle 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Useless, OR, POV magnet. -- Nikodemos 21:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cop out of water

Non-notable neologism or dicdef, appears to be original research. PRODed, but author asserts notability on talk page. Article's title assumes that a police officer belongs in water. Brian G. Crawford 20:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Replace with category. The term seems to be commonly used by media websites to describe police dramas as claimed by the author. But there's no content for an article, it's just a category. Slowmover 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Excluding Wikipedia results arising from the creator's own edits, the term gets a grand total of 40 distinct Google hits. IOW, not a popularly recognized term; I'm not even convinced that this is generally considered to be a separate genre from plain old police dramas. And as for the category, I'm about to CFD that, too. Delete. Bearcat 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bearcat. Kuzaar 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bearcat. While this is a pretty familiar plotline, I have never heard this term used for it. Bearcat's application of the Google test suggests that this is original research. Thus it gets the hook. Daniel Case 17:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere Speakers Bureau

Blatant advertising page. The creation of this article coincides with a second spamming of links onto the articles of their speakers.[22][23] Will Beback 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, advertisement, no encyclopedical content. Pavel Vozenilek 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's a clear advert Cordless larry 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, while the page does not have very much original substantive content, I don't think its just advertising. In shows historical information related to the organization and these individuals. Since Premiere is their agent it would akin to talking about NBC News and not mentioning Tom Brokow or vice versa. However, I agree that the extent of the list should be changed to only discuss newsworthy individuals... As well as adding more profile information about the company. johnmcgary 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, clear advert. And apologies for the previous invective. Some bile from an edit war spilled over on to this page. Eleemosynary 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hey man, its fine to call me out on content all day long, but you dont have to be mean about it. johnmcgary 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. John is correct. We need to treat all editors with respect, even those who may have come with aims that don't match those of the project. The contributions may be unacceptable, but we welcome the editor. I suspect that, in good faith, he did not realize how things work here. If the company is notable, someone unassociated with it will write an article. -Will Beback 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigor

This looks like a vanity article about a musician with no releases. See also WP:MUSIC. E lkman - ^(talk) 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete vigorously nn, vanity Bucketsofg 22:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE JDoorj a m Talk 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stumpgrinder

Non-notable neologism Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --BorgQueen 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Delete hastily as a neologism. On the talk page, the author of the page declares they want to be "ahead of the curve" or some such nonsense and get the article up before the term is popular. WP:ISNOT a derogatory-slang crystal ball. JDoorj a m Talk 21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! You're doing it all wrong! First the term gets famous, then you get a Wikipedia article! Delete at any velocity per JDoorjam, and recreate as redirect to Stump grinder. -- Saberwyn 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Doesn't this qualify as hate speech or fighting words? Brian G. Crawford 21:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- CSD A7 (attack page) may be what you're looking for. -- Saberwyn 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If consensus, which seems inevitable, is reached for deletion, do so on the original grounds of non-notable (which is yet to be seen) neologism; With regards to the idea of hate speech or attack page, the entry is clearly neither, as the base reference is qualified and cultural influence is explained, and the allegations themselves are inflammatory. You may find the page ridiculous, which is your prerogative, but those implications surpass it. The page disparages no particular being, item or other entity. ToxinX
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of garbage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect as per Saberwyn.--M @r ē ino 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as either attack or nonsense. Sandstein 05:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macbeth (band)

Notability not asserted. Simply saying they are "popular" in some country isn't enough. No discography or list of awards. Can be speedied as A7 but I bring here just in case they are locally known. --BorgQueen 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete 8-word article. The only information I gleaned from that was that a band called "Macbeth" exists. Aplomado - U T C 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded. Haikupoet 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand/rewrite. There is an Italian band named Macbeth [24] that meets the WP:MUSIC standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as context-free substub. Stifle 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Mukadderat 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avaraline

Non-notable Web community relating to Hotline. No discernible media coverage, vast majority of Google hits are to Wikipedia or DMOZ mirrors. PROD contested. FCYTravis 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Ezeu 02:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 20:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teale Phelps Bondaroff

Entirely non-notable political candidate for the 2006 Canadian Federal Election. The page is un-encyclopedic, entirely vanity and reads like a resume. It could be possible to redirect to his entry at NDP Candidates in the 2006 election. mhunter 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect or Delete, per nom. —GrantNeufeld 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete 20 year old who stood for unsuccessfully stood for parliament. No evidence of significant media coverage. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Otherwise non-notable candidate is already mentioned in the group article. Atrian 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. not notable. Mukadderat 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect; that's a necessary part of the current standing consensus on merged group candidate lists. Bearcat 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep because that consensus, while a clear indication we don't want basic biographical information deleted, is practically ungainly and will (before too long) lead to absurdly long ganged-together articles, multiple pieces on the same repeat candidates in separate articles on each election, etc. Otherwise, yes, redirect. Samaritan 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, even disregarding the obvious sock puppets. JIP | Talk 09:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Corndog Day

del nonnotable celebration. Fails wikipedia:Verifiability: coverage seems only in blogs and at its own website. Only 106 unique google links]. mikka (t) 21:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. All the hits are from blogs, forums and personal webpages. bogdan 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. On reading the wikipedia:Verifiability, I wanted to add some additional info and research.
- User:Gnellie not qualified for voting. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- This year, more than 3000 people will celebrate National Corndog Day with 80 parties in 28 states (www.corndogday.com/parties) that anyone can join and host.

- This is not a flash in the pan -- it has been celebrated for several decades, with the formal national effort starting again in 1998. It has also been celebrated in 6 foreign countries.
- Several independent press reports have been written in the past about NCD, including:
-- The Oregonian: "Every Corndog Has Its Day", published on March 16, 2002. Now only available in paid archives, but findable in the Oregonian Search
-- Boulder Dirt: "Ladies and gentlemen, start your corndogs", published on March 17, 2005.

[25]

-- UVa Law Weekly: "The Dirty Side of Corndogging", published March 25, 2005 [26]
-- Several radio shows -- including one of Chicago's main Sports Radio stations -- of which I cannot find archived footage.

Please let me know what other information would be helpful in making this determination. (Full disclosure: I am a 7-time participant in NCD and a big fan.) --Gnellie 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP. National Corndog Day events will be hosted at over 50 different locations throughout the nation in 2006. The event has recieved extensive media coverage, and is attended by enthusaists, media commentators and politicians (as a reporter for a national publication, I am flying to San Francisco to attend a NCD event this weekend.) To delete the entry because it is an emerging, rather than mature, national celebration would be to deprive the wikipedia community of an important insight. And given the extensive pages of esperanto (an essentially unused language) and flash mobs (a 'movement' created by an editor from Harper's Magazine that is now dead and at its height involved less than 200 people), an entry about NCD is not out of place. -- Duhigg
- Not qualified. No such user:Duhigg. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Mikka: It is kind of mean to call Duhigg 'no such user' isn't it? I mean, lets look at the facts: Duhigg has posted to this entry, suggesting that if he isn't a user, he has mad user skills, huh? Also, Duhigg has taken the time to write about National Corndog Day. Now, I will grant you: Duhigg does not devote his entire day to trying to suck the joy out of people's lives by nominating wikipedia entries for deletion. Instead, he does things like go to brunch with his friends, hang out with his wife, and wonder why other people get so worked up over the status of newly created holidays (which, I will note, was not only profiled on WGN radio, but which also was enjoyed by hundreds of people on March 18, 2006.) This suggests that he is real, and although may not rise to the level of a "wikipedia user," my guess is that he has real feelings, real hopes and dreams, a real yen for corndogs. -- Duhigg
Delete. If a "national" day involves only 3000 people out of 250 million, it doesn't sound very national. BrownHairedGirl 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep
- The correctness of the event's name has nothing to do with its validity as a wikipedia article, or whether the article is verifiable.
- As far as the google test is concerned, the event's site is the top ranked google for "corn dog" and second for "corndog".
- I would guess (please don't make me check them all!) that many of the entries on the Fictional Holidays Category list are about as unverifiable and unpopular on google as NCD.
- Number of google hits is not a valid criteria for deleting an article or determining verifiability.
- I'm not sure what makes this celebration 'nonnotable'. Please provide some specifics on this.

Firebus 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not qualified. User:Firebus sole contributions are to the voted article. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Ezeu 02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is harmless, it is verifiable and the google search mentioned above give 557 hits. That it is mentioned in blogs asserts that it is of some interest, at least to corndog connoisseurs – and if we can keep ketchup on hot dogs, we should certainly have National Corndog Day. --Ezeu 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's no Steak and Blowjob Day. Proto||type 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly verifiable as the subject of articles in the Anchorage Daily News and the Oregonian. -- JJay 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention today's article in the Denver Post Firebus 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Unbelievable, amazing timing from a great newspaper. -- JJay 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very weak keep as a festival that's of interest to a limited number of people. Questionable verifiability, but since International Talk Like a Pirate Day has an article, I think I can't justify a delete. Stifle 20:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A nonnotable joke. Mukadderat 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A nonnotable joke. Imacomp 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
KEEP. These people are serious about their corndogs, and I'm OK with that. Articles in The Oregonian and the The Denver Post seem to suggest verifiability.In addition, Foster Farms has sponsered this celebration by sending out thousands of free corndogs, support by a major corporation also suggests verifiability.--Nirtak99 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Vote not qualified. mikka (t) 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Very weak keep provided very good independent references are supplied, though the sheer amount of sockpuppetry employed to defend this article makes me doubt how notable this event really is after all. I'll be sure to write an article about my hometown's local "Skip School Day", which involves far more people. (Really.) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IGene

Delete: Never used for any sensible content James 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I've reverted the page to it's pre-vandilised form, so that it does contain "sensible" content. The article is about a book by entertainment columnist Gene Geter (the article on whom was deleted in December, tagged {{cleanup-importance}} although no reason for deletion was given). Anyhow, the book doesn't seem sufficiently notable to gain an article, particularly given it's author doesn't even have a page. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. iGene is not notable. The author, Gene Geter seems notable though. --Ezeu 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. tv316 17:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldrewood tunnel

ATTENTION!

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

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

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

This article is about a tunnel connecting two university buildings, and is likely to be fiction — a recent edit to the article suggests it is an elaborate hoax. I had wondered about the authenticity of the tunnel previously, since the only references to it seemed to be for the student supporters group. To be honest, even if the tunnel does exist I don't really think a tunnel connecting two university buildings is sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article, and its existence certainly seems to be in some doubt. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, obviously. Slowmover 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. Feezo (Talk) 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per UkPaolo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously the tunnel doesnt exist...thats the whole point! To cut the story short the rumour about the tunnel was started by the Chaplain and it became very popular so now there is a Boldrewood Tunnel soc. however to be recognised as one of the university's clubs it needs to have "genuinely serious aims and objectives". Therefore it has been decided that our aim is to make life better on our campuses. This will be achieved by doing ‘nice things’ called Temporal Unifying No-specific Nactions of Evil-less Love (or T.U.N.N.E.L.S.) Performing a TUNNEL is going to be known as DIGging (or Direct Instigation of Goodness). Looking for somewhere to DIG a TUNNEL is going to be known as SURVEYING (or specific urban reaction… etc etc etc...

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

Don't Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.78.254.247 (talk • contribs).

This Club is the greatest society any univrsity has ever spawned. It is growing at a very very fast rate, and is and international society, with members across the globe. The tunnel itself is a very usful untaped resourse for the university, 17 students a year are currently run over on burgess road, and quite frankly the university needs international pressure to reopen said tunnel. As for obviously not existing, well that's rubbish, we have evidence and so on, see the main article for our web address. The Idea of DIGging a TUNNEL is simply and extension of our aims, that help the Students union affiliation process go a little more smoothly.

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - Elijah78.84 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus. The club has even spread beyond the knowledge of Southampton and is revered in other Universities all around the country (woo England!) and getting rid of it would be an offence to all who have heard of it!

DON'T DELETE !!!! - Emily 15 March 2006

This is the most totally awesome club ever - I am a member and don't even go to Southampton uni! That just goes to show how far the society gas united peoples of all calling and from all areas of the globe, not just those students of Southampton, but is strongly developing inter-uni links across the country, and as such is a more valuable resource than possibly comprehendable.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 141.163.84.17 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

DON'T DELETE !!!!

I am also a member, and the club should definatly not be deleted, I fail to see how our current stub violates Wiki rules. - Peter

There is a viable reason for the society. 17 ppl are run over PER YEAR. Opening the tunnel might help the situation. And I as a student at southampton would find the tunnel very useful.

DONT DELETE - Kieron

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 152.78.254.128 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 81.157.141.103 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The boldrewood tunnel is not so much a myth as a legend. Inspired by the new university chaplain, this club is now the fastest growing at the university of Southampton - and equally popular amongst current students as past students not even living there anymore - such as myself!

DON'T DELETE !!!! - Jon. 15 march 2006

Boldrewood Tunnel, a myth though it is, is really a somewhat quirky and successful social experiment that has spawned a society. The mere fact that a society exists demonstrates that people are prepared to associate with utter nonsense. What does this say about trends in society? In the light of potential deletion of this article, it would probably remove a case study that demonstrates new trends, in a similar light to Flash Mobs and other such phenomenon. Urban myths, as this clearly is, need to be recognised. I would not recommend deleting this article, but renaming it 'Boldrewood Tunnel Society'.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - Rob H 15th March 2006

Corrected spellings, but that's not the point - this wiki should exist to inform people of the tunnel (which has not been disproved).

"This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus. So please keep it!!!!

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 152.78.254.243 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC) "

DON'T DELETE!!!!!--Seb Maybe the entry for boldrewood tunnel should be slightly changed. The aim of the boldrewood tunnel society is no longer the reopening of the tunnel, we have developed into an international society with members from countries as distant as Germany and France. Thus we are actively puttting foward good relations between different cultures and different nations. The TUNNEL is just the symbol that brings us together, it is a mere idea we can all identify with and which we can relate to- i.e. the idea to do good in the world. Please take this into consideration.

"This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 152.78.254.243 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC) "

Our society is so unique, special and in it's formative years atm. The reaction we have received on campus cannot be undermined, with new recruits every week, who previously slammed our soc. There is more to the society than just the 'tunnel' itself. We aim to act as do-gooders, helping our common man..or student! Please don't take my tunnel soc away...:-)

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus. Dont delete! It is not an elaborate hoax, but something that people may want and need to find out about- it deserves an entry! DONT DELETE!

This club is unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus. I think we all need someone DIGGING for us one day or the other, so please, for your own sake, DON'T DELETE!

Well you seem to whant to delete it because it isn't refernced ... It's mythical tunnel! How can you reference that!

This club is totally unique and is currently the fastest growing on campus, and it's aims and purposes are deep and profound, something that must be shared with the world.

DON'T DELETE !!!! - 152.78.254.3 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To those at the top of ths page who want to delete this article, i wish to pose a question, or perhaps two. It would be nice to recive an answer. Firstly perhaps the article should be renamed rather than deleted as you propose, to "Boldrewood Tunnel Society" as the society most certainly does exist and noone can honestly deny that, even those fools who pretend the tunnel is a fake. Secondly i would like to contend the point made "I don't really think a tunnel connecting two university buildings is sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article". The whole purpose of an encyclopædia is to document EVERYTHING, thats what the name means, saying something is unworthy an entry is daft, an could lead to all sorts of pages being cited as insufficiently "notable to merit an encyclopedia [sic] article" Elijah78.84 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite your first sentence, you failed to pose any question, merely to make two points. In response, I would say that a university society, or a tunnel connecting two university buildings is not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "document everything" — see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You seem to ridicule the notion that saying something unworthy of inclusion is daft and that this could lead to "all sorts of pages being cited as insufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article" yet that is precisely what does happen. I suggest you read through WP:AFD where you will find plenty of nominations for deletions of articles deemed insufficently notable to merit inclusion.

As a side issue, I notice you feel the need to append sic to the spelling of encyclopedia without an a or æ. This is a perfectly well accepted spelling (see Encyclopedia) although admittedly more American than British in origins.

To the anonymous contributors to this page please read the warning notice above and realise that this is not a simple voting process. No-one is objecting to the article purely because of a lack of references, or suggesting that your club is gaining popularity. It is just not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion here (otherwise every club in every university around the world would want an article).

_└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reevolution

Delete nonsensical neologism—"the theory of when something evolves ,but more than it has to, so it can fight the problem rather than just adapting to survive with it." It looks like someone simply got confused by natural selection. The article was prodded and tagged for verification; the author removed both tags and only responded by adding the link to a subscription only source as "backing up" the "theory." As a sign of how carelessly this posting was made, the link was described as "J. P. Grime's book American Naturalist"; American Naturalist is actually a journal to which Grimes had contributed an article. Postdlf 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense. Slowmover 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pseudoscientific. Bobby1011 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: patent nonsense Alba 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Poorly written, nonsensical, and it offers us no reason why we shouldn't assume that this is original research. Aplomado - U T C 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as the original 'prod'er. It's pretty much complete bollocks. Hynca-Hooley 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete obvious nonsense. --metzerly 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic prophecies (disambiguation)

The proposed articles (99% of them don't even exist yet!) on this "disambiguation" page do not follow any known Wikipedia format. They are all basically extensions of one article and one theme, namely Messianic prophecies, which does not need a disambiguation page yet, if at all. Everything on this page is coming from, and being turned into a mind-numbing drum-beat of "Messianic Judaism POV of Messianic prophecies" again and again (after all, do we need twenty articles about each Christian group's views about the same subject of the Messiah since they will all cite the same Biblical sources?) This violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox (i.e. no propaganda, self-promotion, advertsing). In addition, there is a faulty premise at work here that assumes that all the other religions subscribe to "Messianism" (such as the "Bahais" or Islam) when they don't even call it that and they do not even believe in "Messianism" as such (a strictly Christian, or more precisely a notion and "slogan" popular with Hebrew Christians as is clearly implied all over this "disambiguation" page.) Thus this page promotes the spread of a neologism ("Messianism for the masses anyone?") and fans the flames of unwanted and unwelcome no original research. IZAK 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Rachack 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete the mess. --Ezeu 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I suspect there is a subsegment of comparative religion that compares such prophecies, but it does seem to beg the question to make this one the subject of lots of splinter articles and a particular phrase that is favored by one religious group. --Leifern 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. --Hersch 13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nuff said D'n 11:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
CommentThe creation of the page appears to have followed a consensus sought and reached at Talk:Messianic_prophecies which no previous poster here has mentioned. I have not read the detail of it - the topic is profoundly uninteresting to me - but it is clear that a group have been discussing how to work on a difficult article and have arrived at a modus operandi. That is a hopeful sign. I suggest giving them a month to write some of the articles, and also making sure that those who came to teh decision that starting this series of articles are engaged in this discussion. So -D-o-n-'-t- -d-e-l-e-t-e-,- -y-e-t- Midgley 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
delete While the above comment re: Talk:Messianic_prophecies has some merit, there is more merit to the opinion that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to proselytize. There is also the danger of this becoming original research because interpretation of such prophecies is very subjective. Rooster613 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
Delete. An excuse for POV forking. JFW | T@lk 12:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless there are already different pages, there is no need for disambiguation. Not to mention that a good article should discuss the various types anyway. Last, but not least, disambiguation is not a table of contents. PhatJew 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete articles that both exist and are related may be mentioned under see also or {{main|XYZ}} at the relevant chapters in the Messianic prophecies article. Disambig pages are for different concepts with the same name, not for POV pushing. gidonb 13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to vote Keep on the proviso that they make this part of a Wikiproject. This is in danger of being seriously POV simply because it looks like a very small group of people are currently involved. While the instigator of the scheme has not yet responded to the AfD notice (or comment on his talk page) we can hardly expect him to impressed, given the amount of discussion that this topic has already generated on Talk:Messianic_prophecies. However, I'm not convinced that this topic needs so many pages at all. So I vote Delete, and want to see genuine expansion of the existing pages to the point where this scheme is warranted. JGF Wilks 13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. ems 14:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per all of above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Don't need a disambig for non-existing future planned pov forks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me like a mess. There may be a topic here, and there may be some legitimate way to do this, but there is nothing here that calls for being handled as a disambiguation page. Yes, I think it would be legitimate to discuss the things that Christians view as prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, and similar beliefs in other religions, and the arguments for and against considering these matters related. But this does not seem to me to be the correct vehicle. Delete, but try to work out how to handle this topic, maybe through a WikiProject. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur, now, on that basis. But the effort to help the people involved produce an article useful to people comparing their imaginary friends is a proviso for Delete, provided that...Midgley 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. Yid613 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per PhatJew. What's with this throwing around of this 'POV' term? Anything w/r to religion is POV. While I think that a categoriation of this subject is in order, at this time with very few pages initiated, this page is not relevant. --Shuki 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above and to reinforce standards of quality yonkeltron 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per reasons provided. Evolver of Borg 05:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Rage

The article failed WP:PROD, with the explanation "fuck you,dont like it,dont read it". That said, it lacks evidence of importance, has a minimum of content, and will probably never improve. Deltabeignet 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. NN or hoax. Slowmover 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I get over 100,000 GHits for "robot rage" game. In glancing through the results, it looks like they're relevant to this. Fan1967 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep.Give it some time,it barely started.It may grow into a good article,but it wont if you get rid of it quickly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) .
Robot Rage appears to be a Miniclip game, and appears to currently be the one of the site's top 10 (from 150ish) games. ["Robot Rage" game] pulls 344 unique Googles, although a third of these appear to crop up in linkspam pages promising pornography. -- Saberwyn 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable online game. --Ezeu 03:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ezeu Sandstein 06:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Slowmover. Proto||type 14:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ezeu. Stifle 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep anyone who has played the game knows it is an overwelmingly popular game,and anyway it is not an official policy for it to be very notable,so let it stay. —This unsigned comment is by 192.30.202.11 (talk • contribs) .
- Its not a 'set in stone' policy, but being above a certain level of widespread knowledge outside of the immediate community (which is longhand for notability) is why George W Bush will absolutely always have an article, and Saberwyn's cat will absolutely never have an article. -- Saberwyn 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Mukadderat 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - describes every popular MMORPG, or Merge with Miniclip, if in fact they actually own it. Dan, the CowMan 05:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - It's not a real MMORPG like World of WarCraft or EverQuest; it's just another non-notable flash game that happens to have an online component with user verification and persistent stats. --Cyde Weys 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deleted per consensus here. Deletion was performed at 08:45, 20 March 2006 by (aeropagitica). I have recreated as a redirect to Starfury, per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star-Fury. -- Saberwyn 09:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star-fury

Delete because of changing article name to Star-Fury Alexx750 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedily redirect to Star-Fury. -- Saberwyn 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Now that Star-Fury is up for deletion, I'd like to state that I think this should go where that goes. -- Saberwyn 07:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- If deleted, redirect to the B5 starfighter. -- Saberwyn 10:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as a likely misspelling fo the new spelling. Bobby1011 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: technically speaking, this is an improper page move that will obscure the history. But it's not a big deal. Melchoir 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the nominator is the sole contributor (barring a few small grammatical changes), I don't think it's worth much of a hoo-hah. -- Saberwyn 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect both to Starfury.--み使い Mitsukai 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Debate has been up for 9 days which should have been plenty of time for salvaging the images (and of course there's time yet as images don't get zapped as soon as they're not used in an article). I will however drop a note on the talk page of the article creator. kingboyk 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People of Turkey between 1900-1909

I am nominating the following articles for deletion:

People of Turkey between 1900-1909
People of Turkey between 1910-1919
People of Turkey between 1920-1929
People of Turkey between 1930-1939
People of Turkey between 1940-1949
People of Turkey between 1950-1959

Wikipedia is not a collection of images. Delete. Pepsidrinka 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Horribly designed, too. Aplomado - U T C 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Use Flickr for photos Cordless larry 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as totally random and unencyclopedic; a hardly discriminate collection of information. Grandmasterka 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
STRONG Keep until moved to wikicommons. These are not "random", these are historical. Many of these images may be used to illustrate wikipedia articles about history of Turkey. A huge number of articles are poorly illustrated because of lack of free images, and you want to delete all them in one fell swoop. 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukadderat (talk • contribs).
Delete for the very good reasons given above, but first read this comment: I was going to delete this and close it myself, but the last voter has a point (and only that): (some of) this should be moved to Commons. I advise Mukadderat to do this quickly. Don't worry about the images, they won't be deleted together with the article; you'll have to get them one by one and re-upload them to the Commons. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Kibbutz. (aeropagitica) 19:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the kibbutz movement

Delete. It appears all this information was moved into the main article, Kibbutz, last year. Someone changed this to a one-sentence article which referred people to the main article, but I reverted it to its present form so people can see what it was. It does appear that it was merged mostly word-for-word to the main article, so I can see no reason to keep it. Aplomado - U T C 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to main article to preserve edit history. -- Saberwyn 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per saberwyn. BrownHairedGirl 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Saberwyn. Stifle 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. See comments below. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strampop

I have never heard of this term, the article is unsourced and a Google search turns up no results. [27] waffle iron 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

Delete. I was going to say keep at first, since the article seemed like a good attempt at writing about an interesting subject, but the fact that Google turns up zero results on the word is an amazing feat, even for a word that doesn't exist. Therefore, I must assume it's a hoax. Aplomado - U T C 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Aplomado. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs) .

Keep. The fact that the term does not appear on Google does not mean:

1. That it does not exist

2. That it should not be included in wikipedia.

This term has come to use due to an as-yet uncatalouged niche in the music scene, both localy and internationally. The term "alternative rock" is currently being used to describe a wide plethora of music styles which show no similarity. Hence it should not be deleted because it is in reality defining a part of a very ambigous style of music. (Always assuming alternative rock IS a style of music) Il magistrat 09:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

- This comment is Il magistrat (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. --waffle iron 16:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. as per Il magistrat. Google is not comprehensive, nor is it a reflection of cultural trends. Such trends should be documented in wikipedia, hence necessity for the article. 193.188.46.254 09:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP I agree with magistrat. I found this article to be very enlightening and fulfilling. Furthermore I happen to be a fan and occasional exponent of this style so kindly spare us your snobbish comments dear Aplomado. (best regards to pawlu l kant u l magistrat, jiena Alex btw). I also agree with the documentation of new genres. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazy-crane (talk • contribs).
- This comment is Lazy-crane (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. as per Il magistrat. Strampop is the local artistes' way of showing two fingers to the more commercial bands. An organised movement of this sort should be catalouged and chronicled. 195.158.96.82 09:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Golden/Blue sock puppet award, for sock-puppetry above and beyond the call of duty

- This comment is 195.158.96.82 (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. --waffle iron 16:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The term may, as yet, be alien to Americans and Brits, but it is fairly common among us Maltese, and I have often heard the term used to refer to the wide category of 'weird pop' which the article speaks about. English is a living language, and new terms should not be ignored just because they originate in some forgotten Mediterranean backwater as opposed to some prestigious university 217.22.177.86 10:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is 217.22.177.86 (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. Aplomado - U T C 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. as per Il magistrat. Strampop is a relatively new term and has only just shown up on the Internet. It's obvious that Google returns no results! The term 'Strampop' is commonly used among us locals, therefore Google can not be used as an accurate measure. Many words in the Maltese Language will not return any results on Google. Would someone like to say that they don't exist? The 'Google Excuse' is no valid reason to delete the Strampop Article. Quite a stupid reason if you ask me. AlanPulis 10:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is AlanPulis (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Strampop is part of the ever expanding Maltese culture, and is steadily becoming ingrained into University life. I have heard people talking about strampop, and others saying they would normally turn to wikipedia for clarification. My scope was to create a 'hit' for these people, once they type it into the searchbox (seeing as Google returns no hits). It should be kept, for completeness' sake. Kilbosh 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

- Well then why can't you cite a damn thing then? You're telling me this is a real movement when there's not any mention of it on the internet? I seriously doubt that. It doesn't exist because you say it does. Aplomado - U T C 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongest delete of all time, ever - possible sockpuppet voting. And to clarify. User:Kilbosh himself says that this article is "describing an as-yet un defined niche" on my talk page. This is a neologism. There is no sane classification of music that could suggest Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead, Pink Floyd and Weezer are in the same genre. I am also unsure how these bands are a direct part of Maltese culture. Proto||type 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC) vote restructured by Proto||type 15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Request: Please refrain from twisting words and citing only part of the argument. The origin of any term is to describe an "as-yet un defined niche". This page is an attempt at cataloguing a neologism which has now gained usage in the community. With regards to the merit of classification, one must accept that genres are very fluid concepts, and that music follows no science. Your failure to see the connection with the afore mentioned bands is not something which I can judge, but nor should it be the basis for the strongest delete of all time, ever. Kilbosh 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification No. 2 I think User:Proto is assuming that the article in question is flawless when he states that sane classification of music that could suggest Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead, Pink Floyd and Weezer are in the same genre. Assuming that User:Proto is an expert in musicology and a good connoisseur of these aforementioned bands I do believe that the article does need revision since it did not explain clearly enough the concept of Strampop still I think it should be kept. Il magistrat 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Proto can assume for himself, thanks. Kilbosh, in that case, perhaps you could provide sources for usage of this term in the community. Don't worry about them being in Maltese, although an English one is preferable. As stated on your talk page, there are no references to this 'term' on the Maltese Wikipedia, either (mt.wikipedia.org). And there's zero google hits (in any language). I have put a request on the Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board, hoping for a recognised Maltese wikipedian to provide some sort of guidance on the matter. Proto||type 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification No.3 This is not my first contribution to wikipedia. Although i am surely not to be considered a wikipedian i have made some minor contributions in the past. Thanks. Il magistrat 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I have heard Noise Pollution perform several times and I have to agree that their style is hard to pin down yet i can associate it with the afore-mentioned bands. The beauty of the english language is that it is an ever-changing language and constantly borrows words and phrases from other languages(albeit Maltese not one of them till now) so if one is finding it hard to define this new genre in current english, why not find a word to define it? 212.135.170.82 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Vazetto

KEEP. music is a subjective matter. I strongly believe in the freedom of expression oneself even through music. this is a new style... but so were all the others when they started. why not give these artists space to be creative in new and innovitive ways. i really hope this contribution is not deleted because it is a contribution to culture, something i have at heart. Zuli —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.56.128.2 (talk • contribs).

Comment: I think a sockpuppetry award is in order here. Aplomado - U T C 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutely no Ghits -must be a record!--Porturology 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Now, this is my second contribution to Wikipedia. And your point is??? AlanPulis 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is my third.. Wow what a difference it makes!!! AlanPulis 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, lack of Google hits, probable hoax. Stifle 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hold -- will ask around. _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete: It is obvious that user Kilbosh created the term and is using wikipedia as some sort of vanity soapbox.
Example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noise Pollution (band):

*Keep Our band's claim to fame is our coining of the word Strampop, which is gaining popularity in the local scene. I suggest that the validity of Strampop be ascertained, before the deletion of this page is finalised. Kilbosh 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis added.
Please check WP:VANITY for more clarification.
Please also note that this isn't some sort of culture/music war being leveled against you, strampop fans. If this term is as up-and-coming as you say, it will eventually be eligible for use on Wikipedia. --sigmafactor 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do strampop fans not deserve a say today?Kilbosh 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As I mentioned before, this isn't some sort of crusade against you and your band. Please don't mistake it as that. Wikipedia's purpose is to describe notable and vetted information, not all information. --sigmafactor 21:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

*Hold as per VodkaJazz. Comment Could we please await news from VodkaJazz, as well as any replies to Proto's request on Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board before further discussion is entertained? Kilbosh 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate vote struck. You can go back and strike your original entry if you'd like to change your opinion. BTW I did answer your question on my talk page. --Craig Stuntz 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP With respect to all the infantile accusations of sock puppet voting, I'd just like to comment that I am an entirely different person from the major proponents of the term strampop. Feel free to ask me for my personal details if St.Thomas is your boyhood idol. 217.22.177.39 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is 217.22.177.39 (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. Aplomado - U T C 18:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

KeepYes this term DOES exist and has been used for quite a while. It is part of our maltese culture and I am glad that after god nows how many searches I managed to find it hear. I think that the world should know about this new maltese genre and its attributions. Like it or not this exist amd including it should strengthen and not weaken wikipedia - after all it's the 'from the people to the people' that wikipedia is so known about, and its what makes it so updated and fresh. Off course I agree to some degree of control but in this case this genre does exist and we as 'the people' feel that this should be included, since its part of our culture. —This unsigned comment is by Richardpull (talk • contribs) .
- This comment is Richardpull's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 15:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

i have encountered this term, if rarely, and i think it should be kept —This unsigned comment is by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs) .
- You already voted. Aplomado - U T C 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- For the record that IP address is the one of the university labs at the university of Malta. As a result, multiple users may contribute from the same address (as can be ascertained from the highly variable edit lists). This neither proves nor disproves the virginity of the vote, but is merely a point of information. Kilbosh 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You guys don't seem to get it. Whether this is sockpuppetry or getting all your buddies on your forum to come to Wikipedia, this is not a vote so there's no point in stuffing the ballot, or did you not read the notice at the top of this page? Aplomado - UTC 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps what you perceive as 'ballot-stuffing' is in fact people's incensed response to your pooh-poohing of a genre they have come to identify with. Keep culture alive. Kilbosh 21:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hey You think we Maltese dont understand english? For your information we can all read and for your information there is no forum believe it or not. However Malta is a small country so if you want you could say the whole place is a forum. Anyway perhaps at the end of the day we are so small our culture should not be included in your so beloved encyclopaedia. Thanks for your time and interest however! Il magistrat 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Commment on the above Comment Please do not take the addition of the top warning or Aplomado's comment as some sort of bias or personal attack. --sigmafactor 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Malta, Maltese culture, and Maltese music absolutely deserve a place in this encyclopedia! However, not everything Maltese deserves to be in the encyclopedia, just like not everything American does. The purpose of the discussion is to figure out where to draw the line based on established standards of musical notability. --Craig Stuntz 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Sir, the established standards of musical notability have no guidelines reflecting the notability of genres. It is understood that any pages sprouting out citing such criteria would have weak strength, should the page be dated post-commencement of this discussion. Kilbosh 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment on the above comment on the above comment I am not taking it personally. Just wanted to make it clear that we have no forum. If we had youd be able to find about strampop on google. Thanks and i hope i'll be able to add more articles in the future Il magistrat 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Surely you can understand my reason for thinking this is either sockpuppetry or ballot-stuffing by your buddies when 7 out of 11 keep votes are by first-time contributors. Aplomado - UTC 18:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I do understand and quite honestly I do not blame you. Perhaps it is not yet time for strampop to be included in wikipedia. At the end of the day I do not think it has reached your notability standards - again we are quite a small country. Il magistrat 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep It exists and is known over here. Maltesedog 20:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is a good keep vote due to user's history. Maybe it is known over there, but it sure is hard to verify. Is there anything you can point us to that would assure us, Maltesedog? If you can, I would be willing to change my vote. Aplomado - UTC 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I voted "KEEP", because the term is frequently used to describe the music of quite a number of bands locally. It is a term which is getting more and more popular. Maltese bands are still new to the internet so for this reason I would retain. Its a valid contribution. I have heard of the band in question as well. Maltesedog 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment on Maltese bands working their way onto the internet If you are looking for an internet platform to spread the message of strampop, might I suggest MySpace.com? It is used by millions of english speaking users and has been getting massive ammounts of attention for non-USA bands within the United states.
      I wish the strampop movement all sorts of success, but unfortunately it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability at this time. --sigmafactor 21:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      - Ok.... if u say so. But just for the record if you wanted the advise of an experienced Maltese wikipedian, I have done my work. Terms used in Malta, are not so commonly found over the net. Internet is still a new concept and still only some 37% as far as I know have access to it according to the National Statistics Office.Not sure about rate, but that's the rough estimate. Maltesedog 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Simple as that! Batmanand | Talk 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep : If this is a hoax, it's a pretty convincing one! The definition provided is, in all fairness, reasonably acceptable. I find no difficulty in backing its authenticity. Google's failure to supply any evidence of the term's existence should not cause the term "strampop" to be thought of as a term concocted by some contriving rapscallion. If anything the contributor should be given a good old pat on the back for his cloudless definition of the term "strampop". magnolia_pink 00:24, 17 March 2006
- This comment is Magnolia pink (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia. --waffle iron 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I read above: Google's failure to supply any evidence of the term's existence should not cause the term "strampop" to be thought of as a term concocted by some contriving rapscallion. Right. It causes the neologism to be thought of as concocted by a sockpuppetmaster. Delete as a neologism. -- Hoary 16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- How very funny!!..Not!.. The gist of the phrase above is that the term "strampop" is, perhaps, a colloquialism and, as such, one would not expect it to appear on any Maltese site. Google is hardly deific!! The article should not be deleted on the grounds that the term's usage is informal, because even highly respected dictionaries incorporate colloquialisms. Although my earlier comment was my first contribution to wikipedia, it should not be considered less valid. I use wikipedia from time to time in my research but have never contributed an article. I inadvertently came across the strampop article, while taking a look at what information the site had to offer about Malta. You see, being a small coumtry we aren't usually mentioned in a great deal of things. ~~[magnolia_pink] 21:21, 17 March 2006~~ —This unsigned comment was added by 212.56.128.186 (talk • contribs) .
  - The indentation seems to suggest that the IP is referring to my comment. However, I don't know which "phrase above" is discussed; anyway, I would expect any real-world colloquialism of the late 20th or 21st century to turn up in web pages, and the question of whether or not "strampop" (if the word even exists) is colloquial is beside the point. It's true that dictionaries incorporate colloquialisms; this too is beside the point as en.Wikipedia is not a dictionary (of English, let alone of Maltese). The use of bold doesn't make any argument any more persuasive, and merely makes it seem as if you are shouting. Finally, I note that most of these, ah, new users voting here not only think alike but also express themselves in the same idiolect of English. -- Hoary 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete it, kill it, and consider blocking that IP address that keeps using all these friggin' sock puppets. Sparsefarce 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Sir, with you as a member of the [Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians], I would have expected a more sensible reason. Perhaps your membership there is questionable? Kilbosh 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems as though some people missed the point. Strampop is a neologism. It is a neologism which has been created in Malta a while ago because of the lack of a suitable genre to describe a certain class of music some people continue to call "Alternative Rock". The whole point is not whether this is a neologism but whether it meets wikipedia's "notability standards" which in actual fact have a lot to say about bands and grammy awards but say nothing about the inclusion of Music Genres. You may not want to accept this fact but strampop does exist. And you may not want to accept this fact but I still believe that it is and will be included in Wikipedia. Il magistrat 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not a sock puppet - Name Charles Cassar, Adress 62, Salina Street, Marsaskala, Malta. Come over for a chat if you want to assess my bodily seperation from the other proponents of the term strampop. I am sure the other proponents will equally glad to treat you to tea and crumpets. You can google my name to confirm my existence, since google seems to be the measure of all things. Also please do respect the definition of 'idiolect' given by wikipedia itself; 'An idiolect (sometimes spelled ideolect) is a variety of a language unique to an individual. It is manifested by patterns of word selection and grammar, or words, phrases or idioms that are unique to that individual'. Any one who suggests that my patterns of word selection are equivalent to Killbosh's or Il magistrat's has serious problems. There is, you will be amazed to discover, more than one individual in these islands who can string together five coherent sentences, and the fact that all the proponents of 'strampop' actually possess this ability does not imply that they are one and the same person. Please bring reasoned arguments against the inclusion of strampop not this sockpuppetry cop-out. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 217.22.178.42 (talk • contribs) .

Hear hear. Incidentally, the strampop page has been vandalized. I have reverted it. Please keep it monitored. I cannot be online non-stop Kilbosh 10:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Discussion Concern Condsidering the repeated cries of sockpuppeting and ballot-stuffing, I wonder if it is actually the delete vote that is trying to orchestrate its efforts! Is there some secret forum, somewhere, where you all meet up and decide to gang up on unexpetant fresh articles? I think its time to put the sock on the other foot, and ask the proposers of the delete vote wether or not they are 'meatpuppetting'.Chris Zuli 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Closing comment: No, Chris, there is no cabal. I have discounted all the votes by new and anonymous users as per WP:DGFA, given the horrible amount of blatant sockpuppetry, and reviewed the article myself even though it's very clear that this was either an unverifiable, non-notable neologism (unacceptable for Wikipedia) or a hoax. Deleted it is. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noise Pollution (band)

Vanity article created by User:Kilbosh (Paul Cacciottolo). waffle iron 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn noise pollution. Bucketsofg 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity and non-notable. (Hopefully User:Kilbosh will keep contributing and editing other articles.) Politepunk 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Politepunk. It seems that Strampop is the pet project of Mr. Kilbosh, who is probably its inventor. Aplomado - U T C 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Our band's claim to fame is our coining of the word Strampop, which is gaining popularity in the local scene. I suggest that the validity of Strampop be ascertained, before the deletion of this page is finalised. Kilbosh 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep I can vouch for this band. Paul may I suggest you upload a pic or 2, maybe these goons might find this article a bit more credible and realize that Noise Pollution really is a band and one 2 be reckoned with. -> Magistrat fejn mort? ejja aqbez ghal band :P
- Just because your band exists doesn't mean it meets notability standards. Aplomado - U T C 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
delete, notability not established Anlace 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per {{nn-band}}. Stifle 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, note campaign to justify this nn bands existence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strampop. Proto||type 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, well the band exists quite notable in Malta. But whether its notable enough to be on wikipedia is questionable. Its through they coined the word strampop, which is apparently quite widely used in the local scene. Maltesedog 22:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is obvious vanity and is well demonstrated when Kilbosh, the lead singer of the band, made this edit:

The band have the questionable accolade of having been refuted access to the KSU Students' Fest line-up two years running. When questioned on whether they're thinking of turning it into a hat-trick, the members say "Daqs dan", and the remark is ominously followed by slapping noises.

--sigmafactor 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Should that line bother you, then perhaps you should erase it. Kilbosh 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explore engine

Adcruft. The only references I could find were at this link, where the poster got in trouble for posting a commercial link in a forum for personal sites, and this link, where the poster claimed to have "found" this link. In other words, this is adcruft. E lkman - ^(talk) 23:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Hopelessly devoid of any information. The topic could be notable, but it's impossible to tell because the article doesn't say what it is. Aplomado - U T C 01:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No grounds for deletion

This article holds no misinformation, all text is fact and none promotional, the website linked within the article is a free to use public service supported by advertisers, as most services are.

A website being posted under the wrong section in a forum that is nothing to do with this website is hardly grounds for deletion also see:

QUOTE It probably will appeal to some and not to others.

Several of my sons enjoyed the sorts of computer games where you had to do lots of clicking around to even get started figuring out the game rules. Others hated it.

Same with the grandkids now. Love it or hate it.

There is probably a large enough market of folks who enjoy having to dig around to figure things out to make the site do well so probably optimizing for them is your best bet.

I'm in the "I hate it when there are no clear directions" camp so trying to make changes to appeal to me (or anyone with similars likes & dislikes) is most likely a complete waste of time.

I would be very interested in how the site is doing a year down the road so if you can remember, please post a status update here from time to time. from this website

QUOTE FROM THE WEBSITE LINK WAS REMOVED FROM

The site is a great idea but the bottom line is that it contravenes site policy.

You clearly state on several occasions that the site is there to make profit. As such, I'm afraid I will have to remove the link.

Good luck with your adventure and feel free to contact IPC magazines if you wish to officially advertise with them.

I'll lock this thread now. by forum moderator

and no point does anything in this article misinform or go against wikipedia policies fluidblogger 02:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Please read WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. --E lkman - ^(talk) 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or, moreover, a vehicle to announce your site launch. Stifle 20:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Just self-promotion. No asserion of notability. Reyk 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete per author's request. There doesn't seem to be much point in relisting this. kingboyk 11:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of announced CW Network and My Network TV affiliates

Delete Not really needed, does not really compare affiliates. CFIF (talk to me) 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that a comparison between the affliates in the two new networks is valuable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnw2000 (talk • contribs) .

Not really. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rework and Merge to relevant network pages. Alba 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have ceased all work on this page. I think the comparison would show what markets will be covered by each of the new networks in a single table. In fact, it would be valuable to have a single table for all TV markets that would show all networks and which stations are affliated with them. mnw2000

I agree that a unified article with a table of each market down the side and a list of the major TV networks on the top would be a cool article. However I would encourage you to wait on this for a few more months until the majority of stations are announced that will be affiliates of CW and MNTV. If you would like more input on an article like this I would enocourage you to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. —A 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am creating a new page called "List of US Networks and thier affliate stations" that will include all US stations in a chart based on market and by network. Any suggestions will be welcomed as I create this page. User:mnw2000

This doesn't even cover all markets so at least put this is a subpage at your userpage so we don't waste article space. E.G User:Mnw2000/Comparison then you can work on it before wasting article namespace. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

CFIF: Please feel free to delete the two pages that I created. I have taken your suggestion to test my new page (on my user page) before going public. Thanks. --mnw2000

I cannot delete them, but I will see if we can close this. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and the redirects too. Stifle 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment....this hasn't been deleted why? --CFIF (talk to me) 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No admin noticed it hadn't been closed I suppose. You could have contacted an admin and asked them to close it :) --kingboyk 11:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinwrath

Seems to exist purely to promote a machinima production. I prod tagged this about 5 days ago, but the tag was removed. Nothing links here. Item 3 in the list is ludicrous. Drat (Talk) 23:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

"Zinwrath: The Movie" has had over 500,000 downloads and was a winner in the Blizzcon Movie Contest. It has also been nominated for the Fourth Annual Golden Llamas award for best World of Warcraft movie. The Dementia-Myndflame team has also recently produced a new video, "Illegal Danish: Super Snacks" which won five 1st place awards and one 2nd place award in the Xfire/Blizzard movie contest, one of the largest Machinima competitions to date. To consider this to be a "non-notable" article is far from truth, as hundreds of thousands of people know the "Zinwrath" name. This article should be revised to provide more suitable information, not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.206.245 (talk • contribs) on March 13, 2005.
- All of that info should be in the article (with references). You can't expect readers to "just know"! Particularly if you are then going to complain when it is suggested it may not be notable! It is up to people who want the article to be kept to revise it and provide the information you ask for. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article is in desperate need to be cleaned up, because right now it's impossible to figure out what the article is about as is, but it appears to be at least somewhat notable in internet and gamer culture. According to this [28] website, it was (or will be) featured on G4TV's Cinematech on Oct. 19 (not sure what year). Aplomado - U T C 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Keep It does appear to meet notability but it needs serious clean up. kotepho 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete in its current form (the article makes no case for why it is notable). If (and only if) the argument above for its notability can be referenced, then clean up the article and add the evidence with references. Delete item 3 per Drat. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Aplomado. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless cleaned up and notability established. This is halfway between a dab page and an article, but is a bad example of both. Stifle 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
CommentI'll gleefully clean it up and add notability references, but I'm afraid I'm new to this, what kind of notability reference should I be looking for to refer to it? Charlam 00 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Preferably reliable, independant sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more info. Also take a look at the Red vs Blue article, to see the various kinds of sources cited.--Drat (Talk) 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks Drat, it appears this one doesn't have near the notability Illegal Danish :Super Snacks does, at least from the research I can do. Though it's funny, I'd have to say someone else will have to defend it's notability Charlam 00 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] March 13

[edit] Richmond emergent church movement

[edit] Alina and Billysan

[edit] Dixon Elementary School

[edit] Jabe

[edit] Bo and Constantine

[edit] Margo tercek

[edit] Mieris

[edit] Political Friendster

[edit] Quadrenium

[edit] Megan Rochell

[edit] Powermuff

[edit] S.P. Nistades

[edit] Winnie The Pooh (Disney)

[edit] List of magical negroes

[edit] Justyn Gruesome

[edit] Barry Ace

[edit] Jolly Roger (frog)

[edit] Badass Xpress, Collision Pro Wrestling, WAW Logo Entertainment

[edit] Billy and Mandy the TV Movie

[edit] Shabooya

[edit] TropicaI Storm Jason

[edit] Allah-Kitten controversy

[edit] Hemobag

[edit] Coptography

[edit] Charles "Chaz" Miller

[edit] Frenzyboard

[edit] Lord Capulet

[edit] DOS Forward

[edit] Entredonneur

[edit] Dr Yousef Haj-Ahmad

[edit] Clockwork Storybook

[edit] Pisslips

[edit] The JMA Show

[edit] The Ranger's Glade

[edit] Development of Japanese Nationalists Ideology since Meiji Times

[edit] Gianna_Jessen

[edit] Core Davidson

[edit] Core Davidson Education Services Ltd

[edit] Core Davidson Education Services Ltd.

[edit] Turgut Demirtepe

[edit] Man_flu

[edit] Bucky Covington

[edit] Death By Butterfly

[edit] December 18

[edit] Brutal With Seven O's

[edit] Daniel Matthews

[edit] Button Yer Ed Translations

[edit] Robert V. Gentry

[edit] Jeffrey Buford

[edit] Set n forget cooker

[edit] J-ism

[edit] Japanese sharking

[edit] The Safehouse

[edit] Chris Daughtry

[edit] Good city

[edit] Obi Wan Bigbogie

[edit] Death charge

[edit] Syrian Kurdistan

[edit] List of sentient fictional planets

[edit] Plamenko Cvitic

[edit] Brokebag

[edit] California Road

[edit] Talk:Toto/jesus cult

[edit] United Democratic Nations

[edit] ConFREWcious

[edit] Danger Trance Incorporated

[edit] List of years in Canadian television

[edit] Salo in Space

[edit] Nazi Sympathizers

[edit] Cop out of water

[edit] Premiere Speakers Bureau

[edit] Vigor

[edit] Stumpgrinder

[edit] Macbeth (band)

[edit] Avaraline

[edit] Teale Phelps Bondaroff