Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G7 by User:Starblind. Royboycrashfan 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Schmidt

I originally {{prod}}ded this page, but the creator objected without reason. Google search for "Christian Schmidt" "Molecular Cancer" brings up 46 unique hits; when searching for one alone, the results given make it difficult to justify a conclusion. Implies notability, though I doubt many people have heard of him. I have to say delete. Royboycrashfan 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What justification do you need in order to change your mind ? In other words, how 'well known' should a person be in order to be included in Wikipedia?--Schmidt102 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• You should know that vanity pages are looked down on. Royboycrashfan 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, extensive publication record, journal editor, signficant Google Scholar presence. Notable subject, neutrally written article. Content is more important than authorship, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as self-promotion. Brian G. Crawford 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up and agree with you. Go ahead and delete the page as soon as possible. --Schmidt102 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have deleted the article per the author's request, seen above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 29 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. I think it's fair to close this as "delete", as there are considerably more delete votes than keep votes, and most of the keep votes are from users with very few contributions. JIP | Talk 07:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah and Azuu

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.

A webcomic hosted on DrunkDuck, a free webcomic host which is described in its own article as "a small community", it has an Alexa rank over 100,000. And note, that this webcomic is just one of many on that 100,000+ ranked site. Is this comic notable? A look on Google for "Elijah and Azuu" brings up 125 hits, and looking through the first 70 or so links, not a single one of them was a review or critical commentary from a semi-respected source. - Hahnchen 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as above RobLinwood 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As two above Leidiot 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RoyBoy ConDem^Talk 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --Ugur Basak 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Am I reading the Google hits thing wrong? Because the description above says it only has 125 hits, but when I click it I see 1,540.
  • For some reason, when I click on it now, the amount of links is reduced to under 80. I'm counting the amount of "unique hits", you can find out the unique hits by clicking through the google pages until the end. The reason I count unique hits only is because for webcomics, literally thousands of hits are all from one site like buzzcomic. And I had a look at your additions to the article too, they're pretty informative additions too, but I just don't think that singular drunkduck comics do not have that large a following. - Hahnchen 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I dunno, is it really fair to judge a comics viability based on its choice of hosting service? I really think that the comic should be looked at as a seperate entity from Drunk Duck.
• Do Not Delete: I definitely believe that this comic falls under the "noteable" category, as it is the top-read comic on DrunkDuck, and it was nominated for several prestigious awards at BuzzComix, but has since opted not to compete for awards. This does not change the fact that it was obviously of a high enough quality that it was nominated in the first place. Experimentmonty
• Do Not Delete. I second the above reasoning.
• Keep High quality, several award nominations and a large fanbase. Seems with articles about obscure pkanets in star wars books have articles this deservs to stay--Seth Turner 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As above --85.12.80.1 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1,620 hits on Google. The wiki page is second.
• Do Not Delete. This comic has been around for a while, and was once in the top 10 on webcomicslist.com (which is now defunct).
• Delete - 1,620 hits is not notable by my standards -sorry. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep E&A is the webcomic that got me hooked on webcomics. I have yet to see another that can really compare. The hosting's only part in the comics standings is that because the hosting was crap for so long, the comic lost a fair bit of its following. We're coming back, but you can't judge its validity or lack thereof so soon after such a major crash. This comic has been around for years, is well produced, is near a thousand strips, and has a major loyal following. If webcomics list were up I have no doubt it would be in the top ten. This sounds like a cornerstone of the webcomic industry to me, not a negligible side note. Do not delete this, please.
• Delete, arguments for notability not convincing. Sandstein 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do guest comics done by the author have any impact on notoriety? Because there have been at least guest comics for RPG World and Alien Loves Predator
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You ever seen a drunk duck? Sorry sight. T K E 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Now now, there's no need to attack Drunk Duck; I've seen a lot of very quality work come from there. They provide a helpful service and don't ask for anything in return. Anyway, although E&A is an important comic to me, I have to admit that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seaterra

Looks like an advertisement Indiana Fats 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. 129 unique hits, which is not much for a real estate company. Royboycrashfan
• Delete RobLinwood 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Leidiot 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ConDem^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like an ad to me.--MONGO 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 10:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advert. For example, in comparison, Donald Trump is a notable real estate developer whereas Seaterra is not. Hanako 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Ugur Basak 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spice Girls Historical Preservation Society

I have no idea what this is supposed to be. Does note establish notabilty or even wether this organization actually exists. Google has never heard about it. Mstroeck 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, tagged accordingly. No Google hits. Brian G. Crawford 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 per above. Royboycrashfan 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. probably a joke 02:01, 29 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 `'mikka (t) 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey C. Wynn

No real significance. It seems like a person's resume. Red dwarf 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Keep per below. Royboycrashfan 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a Scientific American article (circulation >5000), two patents and 220 articles, books (Amazon has 14) and papers seems to meet WP:BIO requirements. The article needs to have its POV/vanity elements editied down, but he seems notable. Gwernol 01:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol. Those 14 books does it for me. --Lockley 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol Leidiot 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol ConDem^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above. Cnwb 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. But for heaven's sake, stop calling him "Jeff." ProhibitOnions 09:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol. --Terence Ong 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Monicasdude 14:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not all notable people have to be in the form of an action figure or bobblehead. --Jay(Reply) 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. Don't tempt the bobblemakers Kuru ^talk 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, meets [WP:BIO] per above. Kuru ^talk 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, `'mikka (t) 18:48, 30 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. The number of new voters here is so high that I cannot count them. Arguments presented regarding notability revolve around the Alexa rank which is below 3 million. If people are interested in a wiki for webcomics, I suggest you go to Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits

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]}}

A webcomic, which can be found here on a website with no Alexa rank. Is this website notable? I tried various Google searches, "Eight Easy Bits" brings back 40 hits and so does "8 Easy Bits". Is this website notable? Is it influential in the webcomic world? Signs say it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE - Currently the website is unavailable due to Domain name expiration. So the link above won't work for for a while. - Hahnchen 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -Check the date. April 1st. I'm betting it's a joke, not Domain name expiration, unless there is something big I'm missing, which I may.Pariochial
    • Comment - If it is an April Fool's joke (which I doubt) then it's pretty realistic. Because the entire site and forums are down and the whole thing has been replaced by a placeholder advertising portal you see at "parked" domains. The webmaster has still got the domain reserved, only the former webmaster may renew it for the time being. - Hahnchen 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, yet another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Leidiot 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ConDem^Talk 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• deleteKeep: This should be put in the transwiki for wikibooks sections how to's. --CyclePat 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) After reading the comment below I realized this is not a how to book. My modo is in this instance is to delete articles that don't have proper citations as per WP:CITE. --CyclePat 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please take a look at the article and at my nomination, this is not a howto. The article can also be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be better to give the article the proper citations? Mind you, in the case of webcomics, most if not all citations will direct to single episodes. If that's okay, expect citations once the site is back up. No problem there. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete For the obvious reasons, delete, but weak only because it's a very well-written article. I don't quite understand CyclePat's transwiki proposal... this isn't a how-to, but a sprite comic. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep 11,100 hits for "8 easy bits" [1] and seems to have a following of sorts plus positive reviews. Reasonably good article. ProhibitOnions 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The reason it generates 11,000 links is because roughly 11,000 or so of those links are from one source, Buzzcomix.net. Every single entry portal into Buzzcomix contains the phrase "8 easy bits". - Hahnchen 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Hahnchen is right about this, drops below the notability threshold. ProhibitOnions 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Unique story perspective. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with the little hen. Eusebeus 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "unique story perspective" does not warrant WP-ness. No traffic rank data on this website from Alexa.com, no it is definitely not a notable website. Wickethewok 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this Alexa rate only numbers? Since when is pure traffic important when it comes o determining things like artistic merit? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete too crufty by half. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly. This is not cruft, it's a concise, encyclopædic article about a meritorious work. I, for one, have visited the article independently before it came up for deletion. Leave it alone. There's real cruft and real advertising on wikipedia. Lebob

• Delete most web comic articles should be deleted on sight. There have been quite a few of late. --Jay(Reply) 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: As an example that a sprite comic can be more than a poorly put together rip-off and can be, dare I say it, original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.51.18 (talk • contribs).
• Delete No assertion of notability. Google search doesn't suggest notability either. Fagstein 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Alexa statistics found here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=8easybits.tk and comic is inventive in contrast to its competing sprite comics Bananaboy32 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A rank of 3,721,599 hardly makes a website notable. The Google test recommends it be 100,000 or less (even though it says it shouldn't be a criteria for notability). Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: even after the Alexa it still looks nn. --Hetar 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Is the Alexa rating important for determining relevance or isn't it, now? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa_test. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • As that paragraph clearyl states that "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites", I must ask why they were brought up in the first place. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: 8 Easy Bits has a fundamental uniqueness to it. So far as I know, no other webcomic shares its premise or style. Some might say it is similar to Captain SNES, but 8 Easy Bits is definitely its own comic and not a clone of another as so many are these days. 64.72.87.113 (talk • contribs)
• Keep and I know my vote won't count. 8 Easy Bits is literate, topical and funny. There's nothing else to say: the comic has artistic merit and Wiki is not paper. The fact of the matter is that there are people who care enough about this comic to have the article kept, and there is nobody who cares enough about twenty kilobytes on Wikimedia's servers to have the article deleted. Or nobody who should care enough, at any rate. Honestly, this is a good article, and deleting it isn't worth the effort of voting.66.245.141.71 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See What Wikipedia is Not. It's not about the 20kb. It's about the fact that it doesn't belong here. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: For a very well written and highly underrated webcomic. L hypnos (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Under-rated, eh? That explains why the evidence of notability is lacking I guess. What a pity that WP:NOT for promoting things. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is this user's only edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: unlike any other webcomic. Really good and original. linked to by VG Cats, so you can't really just dismiss it as unknown.
• Keep: Because it's still one of the best webcomics I've read, quantity of readers regardless.Pariochial (talk • contribs)
  • Note: User's only contributions are to this AfD. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Original, clever, and frankly one of the few comics left that can make me laugh. I encourage anyone whom has voted to delete it to take the time and read through the archives. Destroying a sensible article on an exceptional source of entertainment makes little sense.Breadinator (talk • contribs)
  • Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The Alexa rating is obviously there (albeit for the older domain), so that argument is invalid. Apart from that, it's a higly original comic in its genre and does things very few others do (reference the use of sprites, not just rehash the game's story etc.) --R. Wolff (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Added later: It was linked in the article on sprite comics even prior to creation, so it has to have some significance, no? Actually, that's what prompted me to create it in the first place. --R. Wolff 11:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It really shouldn't have been linked from the sprite comic article. I mean, Cheesy comics was originally linked from there until it was deleted, and if I see redlinked webcomics in see also sections, I normally delete them. - Hahnchen 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why shouldn't it have been linked? To me, a redlink indicates someone saw the need for an article. --R. Wolff 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the article can still be found at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: One of the best web comics I've read, Im always checking for updates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.92.249.1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, March 30, 2006.
  • Please Sign your entries --SirAPKered 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep: I have little experience with Wikipedia itself, but I have helped work on other Wikis. I feel that a Wiki is for informational purposes about everything, no matter how mundane. I have found other articles in Wikipedia that had less of a reason to be here than this, and they're not being discussed for information. Why? Because it's handy. Give this webcomic a chance, and spread the word rather than pushing it back into oblivion. --SirAPKered (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to review this policy, and this guideline, which indicate that your ideas of what a wiki is for do not necessarily apply to this wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and I'll keep that in mind. Vote changed from "Keep" to "Week Keep". I still believe it has some merits. --SirAPKered 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As others have said, this clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for website notability. RaelImperialAerosolKid 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I changed my mind. Weak Keep. As others have said, this does seem to be fairly unique and somewhat popular in the webcomics community. When you factor in its longevity, I think that gives it enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, but only just. RaelImperialAerosolKid 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It's been around since 2003 (ancient history in terms of a webcomic) and I 4,700+ google hits even ignoring the wikipedia and buzzcomics entries. Stev0 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you take a look at "eight easy bits" on Google now, it only gives back 45 unique hits and about 300 in total. The reason for the high amount of links beforehand was because Google was indexing roughly 3000 links for a forum user with "eight easy bits" in his signiture. I do disagree with the synopsis that being launched in 2003 makes for a long running webcomic, it has only managed 97 strips and if you look at List of webcomics, you'll find many more webcomics which have lasted much longer. - Hahnchen 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Eight Easy Bits comics tend to be at least three to four times as long as typical webcomics, and have exceeded seventy panels on a single page. Not to mention that it's a very sprite-intensive comic, with sprites and graphics extracted from many different NES games. You can't dismiss it out of hand based on the "97 strips" criterion. Lebob
• keep For reasons listed above. it is notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia. Wutasumi (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep The Wikipedia policy says nothing about notability. It merely states that it isn't a dumping ground for random information, and with the organization and content in the article, it isn't random information. 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the comic is often linked by other webcomic authors, and thus seems to be somewhat notable, at least in the webcomic community. "Notability" is such a fuzzy criteria anyway, and there's little to no mention of it in Wikipedia policies. This does not seem to be a vanity or advertising page, and that's the closest thing on WP:NOT to a "notability" requirement that I can find. --HBK|Talk 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nifboy 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-webcomic. Stifle 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the fact that Hannchann's own links link to 916 and 11,600 sites respectively, I find the statement to have little merit. It is linked to by VG cats, whose author is himself quite notable, giving it plenty of merit in the webcomic world. Beyond that, several of the comics written are four or five pages long, giving the sparse updates a good reason. --Funk Masta K 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep While I personally don't hold any strong like or dislike of this webcomic, and I'm sure that my opinion isn't as valid or accepted as some more established members, it seems that it has some notable points. The comic is linked by VGCats, it has been online for something like three years. It's fans seemed to believe that it was worthy of an entry, which show's that people feel strongly about the influence of the comic. The entry seemed somewhat well written and I don't actually see any reason for the entry to be deleted, though I don't see much of a reason for it to remain either. -- Moggy 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As the "ATTENTION" template clearly states: "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." So how is it important whether it's someone's first or only contribution? The arguments are still the same. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/New Proposal: I nominate User:Hahnchen for banning from the articles for deletion category by method one in section two outlined under Wikipedia:Banning_policy. I believe that he should be allowed to continue to contribute to other areas of the project, but he has shown vast amounts of immaturity in regards to deletion in his defense, nomination, and support of deletion of articles. Additionally, he appears to nurse a vendetta of some sort against webcomics in general, and has been problematic enough to incite multiple users to vandalize his page with such things as putting a request for deletion* on his user page, or stating that the only thing in his vocabulary was "please delete". 64.72.87.113 13:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One which did not follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia, but this seems to show that it was meant as a sarcastic attack against the user rather than an actual request for deletion.
  • Considering the number of delete votes above, I would say these nominations have merit. Please don't engage in personal attacks. Thank you. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As stated by User:Hahnchen, the domain name has expired, it is apparent by navigating the site that this is not an April Fool's Joke. If the domain name remains expired, the terms of this entry deletion might be different. (Ex - Votes to keep to preserve the history of the comic.) Perhaps it would be best to make sure if the domain will be renewed before continuing with the discussion of deleting this entry. Maybe someone could contact the author of the webcomic to get some insight on this? -- Moggy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kurt Cobain and Tupac Shakur notwithstanding, things don't become notable after they cease to exist, and non-notable webcomics shouldn't be kept just because they don't exist anymore. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, you think we shouldn't preserve history? Then just vote to delete it, don't criticize another users comments just because you don't agree. Besides, I was stating the possibility that others may feel that way, I don't particularly feel that it's disappearance merits it a free ride here. Moggy 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Moot point since the site is back up. --R. Wolff 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It does have a proper citation. "How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits" is the entire name of the webcomic. How else would you put it? And why doesn't it belong here? It's not advertising, as the author of the comic was unaware of its creation until someone pointed it out to him (or so he claims), and it's well written. A bit more professionalism would be good, but other than that, it's quite descriptive and is up to date. Besides, plenty of comics, especially webcomics, don't become famous from the get-go. It's a well written comic, one that lies under the shadow of its crude presentation (the website, which is just the comic, is pretty ugly). I'd be willing to bet that if the site were to get a complete makeover, it'd receive a lot more traffic.206.248.72.52 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Ipsum

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pam Bondi

Seems minor and non-notable. --maru (talk) contribs 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not suggest this person is notable. Royboycrashfan 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She's more famous than Flavia Colgan, who has a Wikipedia article, easily survived a vote for deletion, and has essentially the same job: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flavia Colgan

Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/ Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player. Beisnj 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not Significant person Leidiot 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. dbtfz^talk 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. Article now makes a better claim to notability. dbtfz^talk 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. My first instinct was delete; however, her prosecution of Dwight Gooden is likely to gain her enough notoriety in a "newsworthy event" to meet WP:BIO. Furthermore, her name does return 16.000 hits on google (though we can be sure all of those refer to her), and apparently there is some corporate interest in making a show out of her. I don't really see too much danger in preserving the stub and letting others expand it, if they are so obliged. How embarassing for us if we deleted her and she became a world-renowned prosecutor. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep minor notablity.--MONGO 04:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- assunming article is correct, this looks to me like the sort of person someone might well want to look up -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks notable enough through TV work Gu 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears regularly on national TV. ProhibitOnions 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 10:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; aside from the logical arguments made above, also meets the deplorable Air Force Amy standard. Monicasdude 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and toss Air Force Amy out of the plane as well. Fishhead64 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has clearly achieved a lot and is in the public eye. -- JJay 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Meh. She was on TV. Low on the notability scale, but still present. Fagstein 03:29, 30 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. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dee philosophy

Non-notable philosophy. Was originally proded as a hoax, but was deprodded by the article's creator. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. They can't even spell "doctrine" correctly. Royboycrashfan 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax RobLinwood 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RoyBoy. Not even amusing. Fan1967 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RobLinwood Leidiot 02:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RobLinwood. ConDem^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not amusing and unencyclopedic Leidiot 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep expand before reconsidering AfD —This unsigned comment was added by 165.123.180.151 (talk • contribs) 00:20, December 13, 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as pointless gibberish. dbtfz^talk 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just a monologue.--MONGO 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, hoax, joke, or otherwise non-notable "philosophy". JIP | Talk 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it quacks like a hoax. ProhibitOnions 09:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dee-Dee-Dee-lete per WP:NFT. Lame joke, not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth BJAODN. Editor included do-not-delete blurb in the main article. I was hoping this would at least be the Aleister Crowley fan talking about the stuff written under the "John Dee" name. Barno 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very informative about a budding philosophy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thakathi

Article about a word in an unidentified language (Google seems to suggest that it may be in the Zulu language); questionable for English Wikipedia. Mareklug ^talk 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Royboycrashfan 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RoyBoy ConDem^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a translating page Leidiot 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A2Kafir 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete not an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing seems to come up when searched...it's unfinished though.--MONGO 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — mark ✎ 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If rewritten, then keep per Humansdorpie. — mark ✎ 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and maybe move to Tagati. Tagati is a South African English (taken from Zulu) word of long standing that means A witch or wizard; a practitioner of evil magic; an evil-doer (Oxford Dictionary of South African English, 1996); the ODSAE's earliest reference is from 1836. Thakathi is the usual modern transliteration of the Zulu word. I cite the precedent of tikoloshe and inyanga - Zulu words which have entered the English language with a specific meaning. Humansdorpie 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above explanation by Humansdorpie. Yes, I am the nominator, but I have not voted until now, pending such an explanation. -- Mareklug ^talk 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've swayed a nominator! I've redirected the page to Tagati as I proposed - I'll try to expand it over the next couple of days. Humansdorpie 17:24, 31 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 by MONGO. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Theta Chi

Delete: A local sorrority with only 26 members, very non-notable. The article states they have "NUMBER alumnae across the United States." --Hetar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no way this is notable. Royboycrashfan 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have tagged it as {{db-empty}}. Royboycrashfan 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• No vote. I think it's a little premature for an AfD vote, as the article was created only an hour ago. It's not empty, it's just unfinished. Brian G. Crawford 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not tagged for Afd because it's empty, its tagged because its a non-notable organization - and its notability isn't going to change any time soon. --Hetar 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Royboycrashfan Leidiot 03:02, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tete du boeuf

Nominated for {{prod}} twice by two different users, both times reverted by JJay, who is unlikely to change the state of this article in any way shape or form, and i'm getting tired of it. Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:00] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete per nom. jacoplane 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tired of what? Violating prod rules by reprodding? I removed the first prod with a message to transwiki. If it has been transwikied then delete is fine with me. If not keep particularly as your fatigue is not yet a reason for deletion and you have not provided any other argument for the removal of this article. -- JJay 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You didn't make much of an effort [2]. I'd be happier if you stopped following my edits, or reverting all {{prod}}s, or whatever it is you do around here. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:32] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • Following your edits? Reverting all prods? I'll ignore the last crack, but those are rather serious accusations. Or is that the fatigue talking?-- JJay 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Somehow I continue to unwillingly encountering you at every turn. Do you have any better suggestions? — Mar. 29, '06 [03:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • Try reality since the only article where you ever encountered me was this one, and I edited it before you. I would have also suggested WP:CIV and WP:AGF, but what's the point, you are well beyond that. -- JJay 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • • I have a suggestion: take it elsewhere. Please. dbtfz^talk 03:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At the very least, pointless. A slang phrase which literally means "head of beef" and is figuratively used to mean ... what? Fan1967 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ain't nothin' but a dicdef, y'all. Brian G. Crawford 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967. Gene Nygaard 02:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian ConDem^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom Leidiot 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly improved. The article implies that the term is slang for something else, but doesn't say what that something else might be, or assert why the slang term is notable. --Hyperbole 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki as dicdef. dbtfz^talk 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• {{Move to Wiktionary}} Royboycrashfan 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Totally contextless phrase, I'd probably speedy it. Don't transwiki, do we transwiki definitions like "tete du poulet", "tete du merde"? - Hahnchen 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear dicdef Gwernol 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without purpose...not encyclopedic.--MONGO 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Pointless. I know tête du boeuf is bull head, but what's the alleged slang meaning? And even then it would belong in the French Wiktionary. Peter Grey 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it can be used as an insult? I need a few new ones, I'm running out of them. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• I hadn't thought of insults, but that could work: "Boy, you're really acting like a tete du boeuf." I thought of a few other possibilities, like: "Man, I had 10 margaritas last night and this morning I really have a tete du boeuf." Any number of things it could be used for. Fan1967 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Head of beef" means "head of beef", eh? Fascinating. ProhibitOnions 10:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef without the def --Deville (Talk) 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per just about everything above. Deizio 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete le boeuf per Deville. Sandstein 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not Transwiki, this is just a French translation of some English words. If there were some discussion of its notability, importance or cultural significance, it might merit an article. But this is without merit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't Transwiki per Zoe. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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 speedied. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Zaraza (hacker)

non-notable, and probably vanity. A quick WHOIS shows that the anonymous editor that created the page comes from the same town as the hacker himself, alluding to vanity. Delete, and possibly speedy. Firestorm 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, tagged accordingly. This didn't have to come to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Leidiot 03:09, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew (Matt) William Cooke

Non-notable. See [3] [4] [5] and [6].

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ConDem^Talk 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Leidiot 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a promo of a notable wannabe.--MONGO 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn (if keen and well-educated) student politician. Deizio 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan J. Brothers

Does not meet the WP:PROFTEST criteria. The author (Hjb) is clearly the subject himself. Is this a vanity page? Ogdred 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He seems notable enough to me. Last I checked WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO were not reasons to delete verifiable bios on notable people. Although, I would cut out some of it. kotepho 02:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has a few patents. Notable enough for me Leidiot 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kotepho, the mathematical work seems notable enough. --Lockley 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I wish people would stop submitting their autobiographies, this does seem to be a notable-enough person and a fairly well-written article. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. Royboycrashfan 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep may be vanity, but still notable.--MONGO 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiably satisfies WP:BIO. dbtfz^talk 06:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in my opinion and I would like a cleanup to be done so that it would not read like a vanity article. --Terence Ong 11:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; number theory is one of the few areas in mathematics where nonprofessionals regularly produce notable work. Monicasdude 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems ok. The article could use some cleanup though. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT, to say the least. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:57

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vespa

Non-notable software that is stated to cause 'whiplash' and 'death'. Speedy delete pulled twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 02:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfunny jokes, contains the word "solutions," author does not suitly emphazi notability. Brian G. Crawford 02:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ConDem^Talk 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Leidiot 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete and purge from system. A2Kafir 03:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Grandmasterka 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not even a BJAODN candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even funny.--MONGO 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs).

• Delete, some sort of hoax or joke. JIP | Talk 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Brian said it above. Unfunny, badly written, "solutions." Nuff said. ProhibitOnions 09:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Send it to BJAODN. --Terence Ong 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. --Off! 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

wow, pride is a sin, you guys aren't Brittanica —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabud (talk • contribs).

Personal attacks against no one in particular aren't very effective, now are they? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Calling this a "hoax" would also require throughout readjustment of the definition of the expression "stating the obvious". Not funny enough for BJAODN. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't seen the commercials? Farce? I think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs).

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad D. Alagaban, Jr.

Delete - fails notability in my view, but cannot be speedied as article asserts notability in political activism exolon 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ConDem^Talk 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -does it fail notability on grounds that person has no impact on a larger portion of the world? A young individual with interest in politics is noteworthy in influencing others to participate via activism. Must a person have a Ph.D to be counted notable?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmanuel05 (talk • contribs).
• Delete not notable; many students out there. A2Kafir 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the notability threshold for politics is generally office-holding, and not just any office at that; city councilmen are regularly found nn. Someone involved in politics at Alagaban's level is clearly not yet notable enough for Wikipedia on political grounds; it's a vanity page. --Hyperbole 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probable promo of wannabe.--MONGO 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self promotion and most probaly vanity. --Terence Ong 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and probably vain student with an interest in politics Deizio 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn student, could have been speedied, in my book. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn student. Write an article after the person does something important. Fagstein 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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 70% of all votes are for deletion, and POV forks are against Wikipedia policy. JIP | Talk 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russsian claims about Warsaw Uprising 1794

This article is just a copy and paste of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article. User:Molobo disliked its sourced expansion and tried to blank it. When blanking was reverted he pasted the entire content into the new title creating a duplicate article Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am a nominator. --Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. This information btw doesn't describe Warsaw Uprising but is simply a example of Russian propaganda aimed against Poles and their attempt to win freedom from Russia --Molobo 02:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per fork. Plus wrong spelling for title of page as is (three s in Russian).--Jersey Devil 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Work out your differences on the original article, don't create a new one for clarification. Let a user know if you need some mediation. TKE 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an apparent textbook example of a POV fork. --Hyperbole 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is pointless
• Delete per all the others, but at the same time instruct Irpen to try to reach NPOV from time to time. //Halibutt 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all POV forks against concensus.--MONGO 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Warsaw Uprising (1794), then delete (no need for a redirect with such a strange name, I think). POV forks must die.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Love the spelling. 23skidoo 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Molobo's opus, as all his previous efforts has been. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deletion as Halibutt has taken to correcting the article from info coming from Tsarist propaganda book.--Molobo 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Stab POV fork in face. In case you didn't get it, that meant delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Important details for the main article, pointless fork. ProhibitOnions 10:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. --Terence Ong 11:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Don't put the onus on anyone else to merge. If the person who added the details wants them in the main article they should go back to the main article and negotiate with the other contributors to it. Bhoeble 12:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and fantasize about seeing an Uncylopedia AfD with "fork" in the title... Deizio 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above, then delete. Ak47K
• Uncertain can I be bribed to vote for one side or the other? Dr. Dan 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back, POV forks are bad karma. Stifle 23:49, 31 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 — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kendall Roberg

Not notable per WP:BIO. --Wolf530 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Leidiot 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Leidiot ConDem^Talk 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. A2Kafir 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability asserted. Royboycrashfan 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete {{db-bio}} Gwernol 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.ProhibitOnions 10:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per Gwernol. Deizio 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Gwernol, and tagged as such. --Rory096 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:35, 29 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 move, but the deletion during the debate now requires a history merge. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inforwars.com

• Speedy Delete Move to Infowars.com Well, for one thing I wouldn't mind this topic having a page. Infowars.com is indeed notable, but this thing is misspelled to " Inforwars.com" not "Infowars.com". The creator removed a speedy deletion tag so I thought I might as well put it here for a speedy. Jersey Devil 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move Can't we just move it? Don't want to disrupt the AFD process, though. ConDem^Talk 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedie Move Sure, lets move it, im the creator. --Striver 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Move to Infowars.com. Do we really need afd for this? It's non-controversial. --Hyperbole 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There, I created Infowars.com with the same information... someone should feel free to delete this article now... --Hyperbole 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I opose delete, JD, the guy creating this AFD is infamous for afding everything i creat. They even rather afd and make a POINT rather than just move it in good faith. Dont give in to them, dont delete this, just move it. --Striver 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Errmm... moving is done by creating and deleting, no? I created an identical article at Infowars.com (where all further improvements should be made) - now, the second half of the move is deleting the remaining article at Inforwars.com. This really is non-controversial and everyone agrees on it. --Hyperbole 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Admins can make a move. I hate giving JD the satisfaction of having the article deleted when he simply could have moved it and not made a fuss about it.--Striver 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, never mind, im the one maknig the fuss now... Just redirect it :)--Striver 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Move per everyone ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly Redirected to Infowars.com. If anyone has a problem with this, go ahead and add back the AfD.--Isotope23 18:58, 29 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Berger

not notable, possible vanity page A2Kafir 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even mentioned by the article in the movement he is supposedly "prominent" in. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Changed my vote, he is mentioned on there. However, he is only linked from there with little contextual mention. This gives him at least some degree of notability. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep prominent in the 9/11 Truth movement, just as the article says. The easiest proof for that is hím being choosen as a commentator by CNN. --Striver 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A friend of mine was on Fox News to talk about Amtrak. She doesn't have her own article. One TV appearence does not notability make....A2Kafir 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not notable for being on CNN, he is notable as a member of the 9/11 truth movement, and being on CNN is a proof of that, not the other way around. --Striver 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. A2Kafir 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning = A => b => A. That is not what im saying. Im sayin Notable => CNN, not CNN => notable. Get me? --Striver 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Googling "Michael Berger" brings up a voice actor, an artist, a karate trainer, and a physics professor by that name on the first page, but no mention of this particular Michael Berger. He really doesn't seem to be notable outside his role in the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews, and even in that context, his importance is questionable. I don't even see any evidence that he's even a notable member of the 9/11 truth movement. --Hyperbole 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Try [7]--Striver 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable...at all--MONGO 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established by one television appearance. -- Samir (the scope) 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hyperbole. (man, that sounds odd) --Mmx1 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Me follow what MONGO say. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, again, he is not notable for being in the television, he is notable for being the Media Coordinator of 911Truth.org, and that is so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement. Does it get more notable than that? --Striver 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement.. In other words, he's notable precisely because he's a media representative, i.e., being on television, not because he's on television. Right, got it. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. And that is not the case. He was and is one of the prominent figures for one of the most prominent parts of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was due to that he was invited to CNN. He was prominent and notable in the movement before that, and not the other way around--Striver 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. Got it in one. And all your handwaving about how prominent he is inside your walled garden doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, one interview on an entertainment news magazine != notability. Striver has conveniently neglected to mention that Showbiz Tonight airs on Headline News, not CNN. It's an important distinction, and I don't doubt that this is an intentional distortion. Striver is the same user who billed Morgan Reynolds as George W. Bush's chief economist, when he was actually the Department of Labor's chief economist. Rhobite 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you quite assuming bad faith?! I take offence in your accusations!--Striver 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: don't assume bad faith. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the HN/CNN mixup was anything but an innocent error, and every reason not to. --Hyperbole 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not after the Morgan Reynolds thing. Striver is either being willfully deceptive, or he lacks the attention to detail required of an encyclopedia editor. Rhobite 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above.--Jersey Devil 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, one TV appearance as an advocate of a kook organisation does not an encyclopaedic article make. Proto||type 09:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely nn. --Terence Ong 11:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, nn --Deville (Talk) 12:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content to List_of_people_questioning_the_official_American_911_account, and delete this article (no redirect). JeffBurdges 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nn, nn. Eusebeus 13:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. Deizio 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn walled garden attempt. We all know 9/11 was orchestrated by Aliens anyway. I mean, the PLANE HAD NO WINDOWS !!!!eleven!! - Hahnchen 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. Fishhead64 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Fishhead64. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, let me change that. Move to Michael Berger (9/11 Truth Movement), remove the redirect, then merge and redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, here is another radio interview with him:

29/3, CJBK--London, Ontario--10am Eastern. Listen Here: http://911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/CJBK%201290AM%20Talk%203-29-06.mp3

His been in Showbiz Tonight, and has been interviewed by CJBK, both times as a representative of the 9/11 truth movement, he is the media coordiantor of one of the bigest 9/11 movement groups, and you call him non-notable? C'mon, he is far more notable than a whole bunch of the guys in wikipedia and easly fullfills WP:BIO:

• Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
• A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
• Name recognition
• Google Test , michael berger "9/11" 557 hits
• audience of 5 000

Its simply wrong to delete him. --Striver 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First, if you quote his name, it's only 557 hits [8] Reply: Yeah, sorry, i just saw that you commented before i corrected it. --Striver 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why the "5000" is a guideline, not a rule. I've been quoted in several papers with a daily publication of several million; I get a few hundred ghits (and I have a non-common name), and I've been quoted on Fox News. I'm just a dopey college student and I don't rate a wiki article. Getting quoted in a paper is not alone a sign of notability, regardless of how popular the paper is. Hell, they quote the neighbors in the New York Times when a building burns down. Are they notable now? --Mmx1 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not debating your notability, and further, he has not been simly quoted, he has been called as a representative of a nation wide movement, and also given time to talk long about his issues on both TV and Radio! His notability is being the media coordinator of a nationwide movement, deleting him is a blatant violatioin of the spirit of wikipeda. --Striver 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He's the media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement" I'm using myself as an example why his credentials aren't that impressive. I know I'm not notable, yet in my uninteresting undergraduate career I'm still managed to pretty much match his media credentials. And I'm not even trying to pass myself as the rep for some movement. I'm sure I could get an hour on Art Bell with that claim.--Mmx1 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont need to have any education to begin with in order to have notability. Have you been invited to talk on both national tv and local radio? If you have, then you are also notable according to WP:BIO, SPECIALY if you are the "media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement"! Again, have you been called to talk in both radio and national TV? Do you have a large number of people you represent? Are you the media coordinator of the prominent website of a group? Are you working on a movie that is being relesed 9/4/06? Bereger has all of this, and you are deleteting him as nn?--Striver 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he less notable than: P. J. Abbott, Achille Valenciennes, Adélaïde Dufrénoy, Adrien René Franchet or Bernard Picinbono ?--Striver 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have something against the French ;-) And yes, I was quoted on Fox News because I couldn't get an interview taped before the story broke. That's a bit more significant than Showbiz tonight. He does NOT represent the movement, he only claims to. Who represents the Anti-War movement? Lots of people claim they do but I doubt you'll find consensus.--Mmx1 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? And it does not matter if he is truuly the representative of them, he was there as the representeative of the 9/11 movement. Further, i challenge you to find one single 9/11 movement activist rejecting him as a notable and prominent representative of the movement. angain, he was not quoted or taped, he was there live on both the tv and now, yesturday, on local radio, and he is working on a movie that will break in 10 days. --Striver 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? Clearly, the really important question to ask is exactly how many angels dancing on the head of a pin makes the pin notable. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont know if it maters, but he also has "his own plastic recycling company and movie production company": end of tape--Striver 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More Michael Berger: [9], deleting him is just wrong! --Striver 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, anyone can start a blog in 30 seconds. You're beginning to sound like Sollog. A2Kafir 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Stifle 23:48, 31 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. JIP | Talk 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield: Apocalypse

This could be considered cruft, the mod is unreleased and the article isn't wikified.--Zxcvbnm 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Delete 231 unique hits on Google; official English website has only 1029 members but asserts almost 3 million page views. I'm really finding this one borderline. --Hyperbole 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm pretty sure this is WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 04:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, WP:CRUFT --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into the lists of battlefield 2 mods ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Battlefieldcruft. --Terence Ong 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ignoring the Battlefieldcruft and non-notability, it hasn't been released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fagstein 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These people see, to hate Battlefield 2 Modications... ----
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasteland 2042

Cruft--Zxcvbnm 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruftish...not an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. I don't think game mods in general are notable. JIP | Talk 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Strong keep its a released mod. That in itself is notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Jester. The original game certainly seems to have a large presence, and Battlefield 1942 definitely has a fleshed-out article. If BF 1942 is notable enough, seems to me that this is enough for a stub. Maybe delink all of those weapons, like "crowbar" etc.? --Deville (Talk) 12:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete game mod. Has 189 unique Google hits, which isn't much at all for something videogame-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, other than through extreme systemic bias. WP:CHILL there. Deizio 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Battlefieldcruft, no evidence of sufficient notability. Fagstein 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Sockpuppets not included. Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G10 (Canadian universities)

Unverified, and non-notable. I've never seen this used in relation to these Universities. Delete Ardenn 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - So because one user hasn't seen it, we should delete it? It is verified, many instances on UWO's website, as cited on the article itself. This is the equivalent of the Ivy League in the US, would we consider deleting that? I think not. This is a very noteable group of the most prestigious research-intensive schools in Canada, there is no reason for deletion. pm_shef 03:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the page better asserts its notability. So some University presidents purportedly (there's no link to verify it) meet once in a while. So what? That needs to be answered. --Hyperbole 03:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Brian G. Crawford 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. — Deckiller 04:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just added a primary source to the article that proves it's existance and notability. Seraphim 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Pm shef makes a good point about the nomination. Royboycrashfan 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. While the designation is special, and should be retained, there's no need to have an article on this, as it is a finite list with enough Google hits to satisfy notability (though most of them come from the constituent schools). It would be much more useful to do a "List of G-10 schools" and add that bit of information to the individual articles on each school. I'll propose this on talk. MSJapan 05:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please also note that the G10 Template has also been nominated for deletion. pm_shef 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and delete. As per MSJapan. Poche1 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per pm_shef, notability established. Silensor 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Universities have "informal gatherings" all the time. If there were a funding connection that might mean something. Peter Grey 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note the question is not whether the schools are notable, it's whether this ad hoc consortium is meaningful or is just a top ten list made up in school one day. I attended University of Waterloo 10 years ago and never heard the term, although there were other grouping of universities (Maclean's rankings, government post-secondary programs) that were commonly known. Peter Grey 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many of the uses of this term can be found on the Western Ontario site, but I've been able to find it on other sites in the G10 and a few mentions elsewhere. May not be a term very well-known outside of Canada, but seems used enough to be notable nevertheless. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question: How likely is it that a Wiki-user would look for this infiormation under this title ? Unless it is significant, I would suggest that the material be transferred' to a Canada-specific l,ocation. -- Simon Cursitor 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer: Pretty damn likely. G10 is a disambiguation page. That's how Wikipedia works. Silensor 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bur "Formed over 10 years ago"? A little research wouldn't hurt. ProhibitOnions 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete without prejudice should further supporting info become available ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Group of Ten (Canadian universities) (G10 is rarely used online at least). There are many similar cooperative groupings of Universities that are notable. Most references online seem to be to student exchange programme cooperation. See my search here. This does not mean that research cooperation is not a big part, but that exchange programmes are much more likely to have search hits, whereas research cooperation is much more internal. The article needs to be improved, but it should certainly be kept. jnothman ^talk 11:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per jnothman. Also, quite a convincing Gsearch. Certainly, if we have Ivy League and Atlantic Coast Conference and tons of others, this can stay. And as others say, it is true that this organization is most trumpeted by UWO and not so much by McGill, but this is also natural. Harvard doesn't spend a lot of time talking "Ivy League", but Dartmouth and UPenn do. --Deville (Talk) 12:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the above google result inflates the numbers. If I add in the names of the universities themselves [[10](Here McGill and UofT, two of the most prominent), the result falls to under 1000. I noticed following the above link I was hitting room numbers and the like pretty quickly. Eusebeus 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the consensus is to Keep, I will take it on myself to dig up some more detailed (non-online) sources to expand this article. pm_shef 16:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I was aware of this association before stumbling upon it in Wikipedia.Ramdrake 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and Rename per jnothman -- I'm from Michigan, and I've heard of them! Makes me wonder who is this Canadian named Ardenn, why s/he thinks Old Four was a hoax, and exactly what university s/he attended? -- William Allen Simpson 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith. That said, it doesn't matter what Uni I attended, I still haven't heard of either of them, and I'm from Ottawa. Ardenn 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• While I understand the Assume Good Faith rule, one does need to wonder why this user has been attacking everything to do with McGill. The Redmen, the G10, the Old Four, etc. pm_shef 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not attacking. I'm asking questions and asking for in the case of G10 and Old Four for verification, and for cited sources. It's a free society, I'm allowed to ask questions. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and as also mentionned above, strongly support renaming to Group of Ten (Canadian universities) --Stephane Charette 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I'd never heard of them before, but a quick google on Waterloo's site suggests that certainly Waterloo knows what it is; one of the documents is dated August 1995, so 10 years seems reasonable as well. Kraigus 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. --BDD 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Peter Grey. Skeezix1000 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I didn't know a thing about it, but the references are there and it seems fair enough. --DarkEvil 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Heqs 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, to allow for promised expansion; perhaps rename per voters above. Encyclopedic subject. Samaritan 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable if referenced. This guy is wasting everyones time. 130.113.111.210 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "I've never heard of them" isn't grounds for deletion; otherwise, Wikipedia inclusion would be based on its editors' ignorance rather than their knowledge. Monicasdude 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, It will grow, give it a chance.--Greenmind 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've heard of it before. I think someone is bitter because their alma mater is not on the list. This group is similar to the Group of 8 in Australia and the Russell Group in the UK.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.0.223 (talk • contribs).
  • Assume good faith. Ardenn 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are no grounds for deletion. But the article definately needs to be expanded. Deletion may be coming up because this article hasn't been listed as a STUB. if someone has the time/knowhow, that could help--Soorej 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. the wub "?!" 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Hamm(musician)

Google disproves notability when cross-searching with "Hellboy" [11] or "Hell Boy" [12] - both frequently mentioned in article.

• Delete per nod JackO'Lantern 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 per above. Royboycrashfan 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per everyone ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, A7. --Terence Ong 11:55, 29 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 by MONGO as patent nonsense. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamworth jesifesto

Delete. Seems like just a bunch of made up nonsense. CharacterZero 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy G1 Royboycrashfan 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Per RoyBoy, it's complete and udder bullocks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:14, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Heymann

An associate professor of architecture who fails WP:PROF. Only possible bit of fame is designing a house for George Bush. Seems to be part of a "Get as Many UTexas People in Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Calton | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - subject is a notable architect who has designed the house at Prairie Chapel Ranch for the current President of the United States. Article was just created today as a stub and has not had much time for expansion. I'm not sure what the nominator has against people who attended a certain university. Johntex\^talk 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have something against alumni of any university blindly using Wikipedia to promote their alma mater. Was that clear enough, or are you going to twist those words, too?
  • And as for his big commission: it's a HOUSE: not Fallingwater, not Dumbarton Oaks, not Monticello, just a McMansion for the President. You misuse the word "notable". --Calton | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you implying that I am blindly creating articles? If so then you are mistaken. His name was redlinked in another article, he seemed notable to me, so I made a stub. You are free to disagree with me about whether he is notable or not, but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL by accusing me of having anything other than the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Johntex\^talk 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • ...but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL As opposed to your extremely civil and fact-free accusation that I hate UTexas people. Uh huh. Consistency not a virtue in Texas?
      • Maybe "blindly" was a poor choice of words. Promiscuously? Thoughtlessly? Without regard to actual encyclopedic merit?
      • Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with WP:PROF and ask yourself how this guy overcomes the "average professor" test, or even the "average architect" test. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:PROF does not now, nor did it ever, represent consensus. Wikipedia doesn't even have an "average Pokemon" test. Monicasdude 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
          • • That's weird: you often refer to a non-existent "Air Force Amy" test, but have trouble with an actual guideline? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:PROF isn't a guideline; it's mentioned on a guideline page only as a proposal, and if you bothered to follow the link to the proposal itself, you'd see that the version you favor has been rather solidly rejected, and the existing proposal (still under development) is quite different. As for Air Force Amy, I cite the recent Afd [13] as a precedent (as other editors cite previous AfD decisions), and don't pretend that that there's a consensus WP:Air Force Amy policy or guideline. Monicasdude 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Not only does WP:PROF not represent consensus, the nominator has not even produced any evidence that Heymann fails the so-called test. Johntex\^talk 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It's called a "standard" -- they DO have standards in Texas, right? -- and it's widely accepted as such, no matter how much handwaving you and Monicasdude do. More to the point, as a standard for article creation, it's not up to me to prove anyone fails it, it's up to you to prove he passes it -- or are tests done differently in Texas? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not a matter of how things are done in Texas, its a matter of how they are done on Wikipedia. The deletion process states "When in doubt, don't delete"[14] In other words, the default position is always to keep the article - the burden of proof falls to anyone who wants it to be deleted to achieve at least rough consensus to do so. And I notice that once again you make a gratiuitous comment about Texas, rather than sticking to the substance of the issue at hand. Perhaps that is because there is no substance to your nomination for deletion? Johntex\^talk 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Johntex. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I created the article with info from another Wikipedia article, which may have been out of date. According to this he is now an Associate Dean - I'm still investigating. Johntex\^talk 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, an assistant academic bureaucrat! That's notable! --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Johntex. Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Monicasdude 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per John and MD. I warn Calton to be civil and comment on content not contributors (or their origins or affiliations). We have to remember that Wiki is not paper. There is an article about something that he helped to design and build. He certainly merits this article about him. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - there doesn't seem to be a perfectly applicable policy here, but being selected by the President to design a house does seem to imply greater notability than the average professor. --Hyperbole 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral - see comment Far more notable professors have been cheerfully deleted. Only conceivable reason to keep is that he designed a house for a notable person but notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment His publication list seems non-existent - he's a good teacher who built a house. Keeping him as a professor would set a whole new standard for professors. He not only fails the average professor test, but probably fails the fourth quartile professor test! If he's to be kept, it can only be as an architect. I've moved some material around in the article to reflect that. Also removed some personal details which, while verifiable, have no relevance to his notability. Dlyons493 Talk 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Dlyons493, who beat me to it. :-) A U.S. president's doctor or personal attorney would not qualify for an article either, if that is their only claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, their attorney would automatically qualify, not sure about their doctor, but their archetect probably not. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think their attorney would qualify. By "personal", I meant someone who does an occasional will or trust or something, not someone who defended them in criminal/civil court or sued people on their behalf (even then, I think the case would have to be significant for an article, though). -- Kjkolb 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per johntex ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete He's an associate dean, a plus. OTOH, I can't find his publication list and his award is only for teaching excellence, and hence not relevant to notability. JeffBurdges 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my vote to abstain or keep if his publication list looks half way decent. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, none of the little bits taken alone would satisfy notability, but it seems that when you put it all together he makes the cut. --Deville (Talk) 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, article does asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete profcruft, pure and simple. At some point, we need to weed all these minor prof entries out pour encourager les autres. Eusebeus 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, he's looking at the notability bar at eye-level through those pretty glasses of his. Get some more impressive press coverage about the house-building thing than "cowboysindians.com" and for Wiki's sake he must have something decent on his publication list, he might sneak over. Deizio 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as an great example of what should be done when you think something should be kept. "The Heymann Standard" perhaps... Deizio 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm still researching the subject of the article. There are a lot of Google hits to wade through. I've expanded the article today with an another award he earned and press coverage on another commission - an interpretive visitor center for the Audubon Society. Johntex\^talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-sourced good little article. As well, if the President of the United States asked an academic to prepare a report that would well and truly establish notability in my book. The President of the United States asking a Professor of Architecture to design his ranch falls under the same category. It is now a notable building in its own right for all sorts of reasons and we have an article on it at Prairie Chapel Ranch. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, per discussion above. Fishhead64 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The client he designed the house for may be notable but that does not make him so. Nigelthefish 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the article now details 5 awards he has earned. I've also added several other press citations. I'm still working through the Google hits on this guy. Johntex\^talk 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Very good treatment of this architect and academic. Thanks to Johntex for his work on this. -- JJay 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Prairie Chapel Ranch. The house may be notable, but I don't see any evidence that its architect is, other than the fact that he designed the house. Fagstein 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Verifiable and notable, imo. --Gurubrahma 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It should be noted that I have just completed migrating all of the external links to ref|ref style notation. This article actually has more references than some FAs I've seen out there. This certainly indicates verifiability and notability. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Scm83x. Your changes and those of Dlyons483 have made a big impact to the article. It is very much improved today compared to when this process began:diff Johntex\^talk 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The structure designed for Bush is more notable than just being for a president. The environmental design features incorporated into the structure are also noteworthy. As for the architect himself, he has received other honors aside from the presidential commission and other assignments worthy of note (e.g. Audubon). I am surprised this article is up for deletion consieration...must be some politics going on that i dont know about. Covalent 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment have a look at the original article and see how much it's changed - Johntex has put a lot of work into it. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, to put the original article on AfD - it was focussed on his work as a professor (which he's good at, but not especially notable for). Dlyons493 Talk

• The article was prodded shortly after creation and was nominated for deletion six minutes after objection from Johntex, an experienced user and the article creator.[15] No attempt at dialogue was made by this nom on the article talk page. That neither seems reasonable to me or very in keeping with WP:AGF. -- JJay 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the timings - certainly more time would have been appropriate (and a little more tact wouldn't have gone amiss) Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Teachers, no. Professors, yes. Also, passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:54
• Keep. I agree with Brian. According to the Pokemon test, he's notable. bogdan 19:05, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Hickman

Associate professor of art. Wrote a computer program. Yet another Average Professor, and fails WP:BIO, it appears. Calton | Talk 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't think the prof test is what gets Mr. Hickman in. Kid Pix is clearly notable software, so I think its author has claims to notability by analogy to "Published authors... who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more..." in WP:BIO. I'm sure Kid Pix in its heyday had significantly more than 5,000 users. Gwernol 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Gwernol. Johntex\^talk 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol, but stronger. Creator of notable software package. Books don't write themselves; cartoons don't animate themselves, and computers don't program themselves (not even the HAL 9000). Wikipedia, across the board, treats the creator of notable work as notable, and there's no exception for software, or for professors. Monicasdude 05:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, creator of Kid Pix. Basically, what Gwernol said. Royboycrashfan 05:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep San Antonio Express-News (TX): Graphics program for kids so easy it doesn't have a manual June 19, 2005 mentions him/Kid Pix. Kid Pix itself is pretty notable, couple of newspaper hits, couple of awards. kotepho 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Gwernol. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per first keep ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, creator of Kid Pix makes the person notable. Meets WP:BIO criteria and per Gwernol. --Terence Ong 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per first keep. Cedars 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol JeffBurdges 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude, although that pic's gotta go --Deville (Talk) 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as creator of notable software, though it doesn't look like there's much else to say about him. dbtfz^talk 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Teachers, no. Professors, yes. Also, passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:52

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Strempler

President of a Canadian internet pharmacy. That's pretty much it: an average mid-sized company's CEO. Seems to fail WP:BIO, though possibly his company might pass WP:CORP. Calton | Talk 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete close but not quite notable enough to merit an article, IMO. Johntex\^talk 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, significant figure in industry, often enough quoted in media coverage of controversies involving prescription drugs, back-importation of drugus to US, internet pharmacies, etc. Will Google poorly under this name; typo; his name is Andrew Strempler, and the page needs to be moved. [16] [17] [18] [19]. Monicasdude 05:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Being in some reporter's Rolodex doesn't equal actual notability. Hell, I was interviewed and quoted by a newspaper reporter once as knowledgable source about personal webpages (it was the mid-90s). Of course he misspelled my name and got my profession wrong... --Calton | Talk 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Royboycrashfan 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above, notable enough. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Just barely satisfies WP:BIO. dbtfz^talk 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per others. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable figure and meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity Bio.Tombride 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Fishhead64 19:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His company is notable, but he isn't. We can recreate the article if/when he does something notable in the future. Fagstein 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, CEO of redlink company. Stifle 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malachi Barrie

Reposting of deleted material; non-notable or hoax SigPig 05:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reposting of deleted material is a speediable offense under WP:CSD G4. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. So how do I do this? Do I withdraw the AfD then request a speedy, or do I leave the current ball rolling and wait for a consensus or a wandering admin to drop by and delete? I've never done this before (but vandalizing the Arlington Nat'l Cemetery page just put me over the top...) SigPig 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material, unless verfiable sources can be provided to argue for inclusion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This shouldn't be speedied, based on new information, but I can't find any solid information showing that Malachi Barrie is notable and not a hoax. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above; reposting of deleted material Not sure about this because of Zoe's new info, no vote --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

* Speedy delete repost must die In light of Zoe's information, Weak Keep.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, recreated previously deleted material. --Terence Ong 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not speedy. The only deleted revision I can see is completely different. For the benefit of those who can't see deleted pages it reads "Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World." [20] No vote on notability of current article, sources would be nice. the wub "?!" 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How does one look at the previous article? I'm not an admin. SigPig 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Only admins can view deleted revisions. However, the quote that User:the wub wrote in his vote is "exactly" what the previous version looked like. Pepsidrinka 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep- The very original was deleted because it was a hoax. This one looks legitamite.

Comment. This particular unsigned comment was inserted by User:69.24.189.229[21] most of whose edits seem to be mostly vandalism, even to user pages. Also there seems to be some connection between this anonymous user and Amaas120; see [22] SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google returns no (non-Wikipedia derived) hits for "Malachi Noble Barrie", "Malachi Barrie". There was a "Malachi Favors" who played with Ray Charles, but that's not the same person. I strongly suspect a hoax: its highly unlikely that anyone who played with Ray Charles returns zero GHits. Gwernol 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The previously-deleted version said, Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World.. This is not the same person. Please discuss based on the current content. Not a vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment true, but note that the replacement article appears to be a hoax as well - I was unable to locate any mention of a musician called Malachi Barrie through Google. Just because the hoax is different does not make it any less of one. Gwernol 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, transparent hoax. Rumors that his father died in "a freak reed-moistening accident"? Ray Charles (who didn't own a record label) gave him a recording contract? I don't think this "saxaphone" player ever saw the inside of a "rehabatation" facility, or that his father was "diognosed" with chewing tobacco-related cancer. Mostly because none of them ever existed. Monicasdude 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I refer everyone to [23], which also mentions the "reed-moistening incident", which is what (incorrectly) twigged me on to this as being a copy. SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 0 google hits for a "notable 70s musician" suggest a hoax. Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, no Alexa, no googles, fails WP:MUSIC. I can see the previously deleted article and this is not the same.--Dakota ~ ° 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nindrone Comix

Non-notable comic book company. Both Google (2 hits) and Yahoo (zero hits) failed to find anything substantial.

• Nominated and delete Bobak 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV advertisement. Royboycrashfan 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joe 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability can be established. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, nn. --Terence Ong 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gate to destiny

Non-notable game (format unspecified) created by non-notable "team". 30 google hits for the phrase, but none when combined with main character's name. I mistakenly re-added {{prod}} for what turned out to be the third (whoops) time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Joe 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game by non-notable company (couldn't find any relevant ghits). Royboycrashfan 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. --Blue520 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'll do a little more industry research, perhaps I've just missed this one, but as a game reviewer who's not heard of this? delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn game. --Terence Ong 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally added the prod tag. I could find no relevant google hits. If it even exists it probably fails the notability test. Rmhermen 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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 userfy and delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry harriet

nn (Google search yields 676); subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think thats right. Just because someone doesn't have a direct "claim to fame" doesn't mean that they don't do good work, and there is absolutely no reason why this page should be deleted. Larry Harriet is very popular among the Court TV message board. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia's database. Thankyou for taking the time!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larryharriet (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Mr. Intrepid Legal Journalist doesn't even have his own domain name for "CourtNet", and I'm not finding any other sign resembling notability. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy nn, vanity. Very popular on a message board does not mean notable. Fan1967 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think a user page can hold this ego. Gazpacho 05:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per Fan-1967 and Gazpacho, the most vain autobiography I've seen. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. Subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. dbtfz^talk 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Geogre's Law is confirmed yet again.  :-) dbtfz^talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or possibly userfy. Claim to notability is activity in a message board. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, or userfy --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy as vanity ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Per Royboy, this might be the most vain vanity bio ever. --Deville (Talk) 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE, USER HAS VALID PTS.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Whitewash Commission

POV fork of 9/11 Commission, whose thin excuse for existence is the use of a pejorative name. Another product of...g'wan, guess. Calton | Talk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not POV fork (yet), but definitely nn term. --User:Mmx105:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV? Since when is "pov" a criteria for deleteting? Maybe you mean you dont agree with the term? Try Great Satan and Little Satan, they are as much "pov" or "pov fork" as this, that is not at all. --Striver 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is POV because it concerns an ideosyncratic non-topic, acting effectively as a vehicle for promoting a particular point of view. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep No, the article is not notable by "world" standard, but the article is notable for the group using it. How notable is Khums, Sayyid or Mujtahid for you? Not a pov fork, this is about a term used in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Its just as much of a pov fork as Allah is a pov Fork to God and Jehova. When determining the notability of a term, do it in its context, you dont determine the nobatility of Foul ball in the world context, i have never heard of it before, but it is notbale in its own context.--Striver 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you making the point that Islam is comparable to a fringe conspiracy theory? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Striver, I see your point regarding its usage and POV, but I don't know that in this case who is using it justifies notability. Not every slang term by the 9/11 critics is notable because they're using it. I have to go with Delete, given what you've posted so far, though the article isn't bad. It's just not notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. dbtfz^talk 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism and fork.--Jersey Devil 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork and presumably covered already in the 911 Truth Movement article anyway. 23skidoo 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. It may not be, but I'd like to see some more mainstream or reliable sources. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Article admits it's both neologism and jargon. Funny name, though! Peter Grey 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

neologism? Hmm... didnt think about that one... I would have asked for opinions before creating, i hadn't forgoten about that. How new must a expresion be to be counted as a neolgism? Im pretty confident that i can find sourced for it dating to at 2002 or so... Anyone knows? --Striver 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above; as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and its already lengthy criticism section. I think a single sentence mentioning that some notable people have taken to calling it a "whitewash commission" is appropriate - there's no need for a separate article, here. --Hyperbole 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Which notable people would those be? --Calton | Talk 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Alex Jones is the one the article mentions. The term returns 169 unique Google hits; it obviously has some use as a pejorative neologism comparable to Islamofascism (which itself has survived two votes for deletion). It's just that this one is not significant enough to write an article about. A sentence in National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should do. --Hyperbole 08:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I know it mentions Alex Jones: I asked you to name some notable people it mentions. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Cute. --Hyperbole 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• You have a problem distinguishing between singular and plural uses? According to you, "some notable people" = one person, Alex Jones, who fails on all three words, unless you utter sentences such as "A notable people came to my door last night and sold me some Girl-Scout cookie." --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, POV fork, conspiracy cruft. Proto||type 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention the term in main article per Hyperbole. ProhibitOnions 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• stabbity POV fork in the face. If you didn't get it, that means delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the author knows we already have an article about the commission, and one about Jones. Gazpacho 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unambiguously, and the very definition of, a WP:POVFORK. Esquizombi 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork as per many others. --Deville (Talk) 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All you guys, could you explain to me how this is a pov fork, while Great Satan is not? No? You cant? I guessed so. Thanks for voting in accordance to Wikipedia policies, and not with feeling and opinions in the first hand. --Striver 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Perhaps Great Satan is one also. In any case, it is far more widespread in usage over both time and space. Please remember Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith even when it is difficult. Esquizombi 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Because "Great Satan" is an phrase used by the national leadership of a major state repeatedly over two decades, while "9/11 Whitewash Commission" had been used once by a single "investigative journalist" (read: conspiracy theorist). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Only once"?!--Striver 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes...so far as I can tell from the article, there has been exactly one meaningful instance (along with however many blog posts) in which the term was employed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article gives transcript to Jones using it on the CNN show, and gives an audio of a caller using it, and also Jones using it again after the caller used it firest. The term is used all over the place--Striver 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • To my way of thinking, this is absolutely not a POV fork; people are playing fast and loose with that term. A POV fork occurs when someone can't get their edits accepted on a page so they create another one for those edits - say, their belief that John Kerry is a Martian keep getting reverted on John Kerry, so they create the article Viewpoint that John Kerry is a Martian. That's a POV fork. This article doesn't exist to sneak information on the 9/11 commission through the back door that way; this article exists to point out the fact that some people are calling it a Whitewash Commission. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out, just not something that necessitates an entire article. --Hyperbole 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, wrong. It would be like creating articles at Tricky Dick, Slick Willy, or Chimpy McFlightsuit as a repository for whatever garbage some political axe-grinders would to put up -- which is, of course, exactly what's happening here. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If an article was created that said "Tricky Dick is a nickname for Richard Nixon," that would not constitute a POV fork. And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick would only constitute a POV fork if it was a new article with new content about Nixon - especially if it was content that consensus had deemed to be unworthy of inclusion in Richard Nixon. --Hyperbole 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Lovely bit of misdirection there: it was ORIGINALLY a page that informed you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon, but was quickly (and rightly) changed to List of United States Presidential nicknames -- as was Slick Willy, which WAS originallty a redirect to Bill Clinton: that's precisely the point. The article in question is precisely NOT doing anything resembling redirecting, and, per your analog with Nixon, is precisely a new article with new content about the 9/11 Commission, so by your own definition, a POV fork. And as for redirecting, Slick Willy doesn't redirect to Bill Clinton and Chimpy McFlightsuit doesn't redirect to George W. Bush: the reasons should be plainly obvious, but, frankly, I despair that it isn't for you. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The reason that the original Tricky Dick article was changed to a redirect to List of United States Presidential nicknames is exactly the same reason that I'm suggesting that this one line "article" on the "9/11 Whitewash Commission" be merged into National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - there's not enough content in pointing out that X is a nickname for Y to justify an entire article. POV doesn't even enter into the equation; there's no POV difference between informing you that X is a nickname for Y and redirecting you somewhere where you are informed that X is a nickname for Y. --Hyperbole 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've always wondered what would happen if one relied solely on Alex Jones for their news. Now I know. Rhobite 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we at least make the appearance of observing WP:NPA? --Hyperbole 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. God forbid we should libel someone with the charge that they get all their news from Alex Jones. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any point behind your sarcasm. Yes, Calton, we should avoid making the baseless charge that any user here gets his or her news from a single source. --Hyperbole 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The sarcasm is because I can't convincingly roll my eyes in cyberspace -- and given the general tenor of your comments, they'd be apt to roll all the way into the next city, anyways, So, a general accusation of single-source news consumption is a form of personal attack? Somehow, I don't think that was the thought that prompted your original comment. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, making an unfounded accusation that someone's personal beliefs are the result of a limited exposure to news is a form of personal attack - and totally unnecessary on an afd page. That's obvious. --Hyperbole 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Self explanatory - Hahnchen 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as protologism. POV is not the issue and this isn't a POV fork per se in my opinion. There is no evidence of general usage of this term however.--Isotope23 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, neologism, non neutral point of view, take your pick. Cool3 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cool3, I pick non-notable and neologism. This does not deserve its own article. Gwernol 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is essentially useless. Allemannster 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A couple of Alex Jones references does not make a new word. -- Samir (the scope) 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is nothing but an entry for a dictionary of political slang. Non-notable. Warrants a single line in the 9/11 Truth Movement article, at best. Ande B. 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above abakharev 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this misuse of Wikipedia resources to POV push.--MONGO 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We already have 9/11 Truth Movement, 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Commission. I understand hyperbole's point but this particular term (unlike Tricky Dick) is not notable enough to keep even as a blank redirect. Thatcher131 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per Hyperbole --The Walrus 03:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Abbott (The Abbotts)

I'm finding a lot of "Tony Abbott"s through Google, but almost none of them this guy, nor as the author of actual books of these titles. This is a vanity/advert for an Aussie psychic. Calton | Talk 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. Royboycrashfan 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax.--cj | talk 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable biography. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, vanity, and advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Soumyasch 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like nonsense to me. Ambi 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete has website http://www.spiritwatch.com/, but nn-bio and looks like advert Gu 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity and self promotion. --Terence Ong 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a notable Australian called Tony Abbott but this guy isn't notable. Capitalistroadster 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Ugur Basak 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'd also like to delete Tony Abbott. Not the article - Tony Abbott himself :P -- Chuq 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Ian ≡ talk 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Thank God he is at least a respected psychic. --Roisterer 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore rocks

• Delete - a search for "bangalore rocks entertainment" turns up nothing. Probably spam. Wickethewok 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Note also, that a new user interspersed comments within Wicketwok's comment, I have removed those. JoshuaZ 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dont Delete Note That Bangalore Entertainment Company is a franchise of Systao Solutions Bangalore. which can be verified by sending a mail to contactus@systao.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.123.180.226 (talk • contribs).

• User's first contribution. Royboycrashfan 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Systao doesn't seem particular notable either. JoshuaZ 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment What would seem particularly notable then??, many small companies are not that easy to find in google, doesnt mean they are not notable. i have been associated with http://www.bangalorerocks.com for a long time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.123.180.226 (talk • contribs).

• • • Comment A cooperation in order to be notable must meet WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable company --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; poorly written, not possible to establish notability. Anyone from India able to comment on this? ProhibitOnions 10:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, though on a side note, it is too bad that the Bangalore article has no mention of its position as the hub of India's up-and-coming Rock scene.--Isotope23 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:corp. See [[WP:CORP} if you are still confused as to why it does not belong here. Nigelthefish 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:25, 31 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 Mark Hoppus. JIP | Talk 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, My Name Is Mark

Delete non-notable podcast – besides it is already covered in Blink-182. --Bruce1ee 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to blink-182. Royboycrashfan 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Royboy --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. ProhibitOnions 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Notable subject, but better fed into the article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect - I have now redirected to and merged with the article Mark Hoppus (seems more suited than blink-182). Cedars 12:25, 29 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Grossi

Looks like a hoax/nonsense or both. Peter Grey 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A1/G1. Royboycrashfan 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speey deleted. Take your pick which criterion fits. A1, A3, A6, A7, G1, G2 or G3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian governments and Indigenous Australians

I'm not sure what this article is trying to achieve, but as it stands it is unacceptable for Wikipedia. cj | talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though I can't help but think someone will come along and say otherwise. Royboycrashfan 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing but a shit-slinging article with no real purpose. This topic is better covered in other articles relating to Indigenous Australians. michael ^talk 06:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge anything important (if any) into the Torres Strait Islanders article --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Indigenous Australians or Torres Strait Islanders. Australian history seems very deplorable to me (like a lot of history, actually,) but this is unsourced POV soapboxery, and I'm not sure what it's really trying to acheive, either. Grandmasterka 07:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing useful to merge, so save the closer the trouble. Ambi 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, uncyclopedic content. --Terence Ong 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This topic is covered much better elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons, agree with Michael, Ambi and Roadster that there is nothing salvageable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete verging on being an attack page which give grounds for speedy deletion. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have read almost this exact entry as part of a larger Wikipedia article (although I can't remember whoch one). --Roisterer 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Gray

An unsuccessful minor party candidate in a State election who achieved an unremarkable result. Not notable. cj | talk 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 07:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Royboycrashfan 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor election-losers are not notable. Grandmasterka 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delte per above; non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, also first link in References is already dead Gu 10:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the article "has not announced any intention" to refer to a notable person. Deizio 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsuccessful candidate who did not achieve much coverage. Nor does he appear to have any other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that he is entirely deserving and you band of insignificance should learn a bit about accomplishment and committment; you dismissive nothings offend decency. talentlesshack 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Slightly less non-notable than the raft of Australian Progressive Alliance candidate entries deleted some time back but not by much. --Roisterer 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jumping on the wagon (I created the article) michael ^talk 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Newquay Scout Group

non-notable as local Scout group; vanity jergen 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there are hundreds of scout groups out there, and this one is no more significant than any of them --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable scout group. JIP | Talk 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Its a Scout Troop. This scout troop has done nothing above and beyond the activities of your average, run-of-the-mill Scout Troop. Delete. -- Saberwyn 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Scout Troop.  (aeropagitica)  09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. ProhibitOnions 10:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Scout Groups are not notable, but a mention can go in Scout County articles. I have just created Scouting in Cornwall and added a very small section on this Group. --Bduke 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. incog 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorand Minyo

Google results disprove notability.[24]

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 07:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Hooperbloob 08:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This non-notable biography reads as a corporate resumé, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like vanity. No search results to corroborate notability claims. ProhibitOnions 10:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Gu 10:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adult_Locals

Advertisment for one of many dating web sites. Gu 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish any notability. There are dozens of dating web sites. JIP | Talk 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert for a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; NN ad as above. ProhibitOnions 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Die advertising die! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. MaNeMeBasat 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 merge to Bitmap Brothers - Liberatore(T) 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Coleman (computer graphics)

This person does not appear to be notable according to this Google search. CrypticBacon 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Bitmap Brothers, as he works for them --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the Bitmap Brothers. Coleman's famous graphical style is certainly worth mentioning. JIP | Talk 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge w ith bitmap bros ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bitmap Brothers. --Terence Ong 14:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless as a redirect. Fagstein 04:37, 30 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. JIP | Talk 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiGadugi

Article devoted to a non-notable website - a wikipedia fork of all things! -- Aim Here 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, non-notable wikicity, 8 unique Google results [25] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fork. The entry WikiGadugi Website was deleted a few days ago as "plainly vanispamcruftisement". That characterization applies more strongly to this version. — MediaMangler 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This site is a download of Wikipedia information some done by Merkey but edited in large part by Wikipedia members. Jeff did not like the edits so he started his own site that he could edit like HE wanted to. He is violating Wikipedia's copying policy. --Kebron 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Which part is he violating exactly? You are allowed to fork. kotepho 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The part to credit the original source of Wikipedia not as himself. --Kebron 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a mere renaming of the already deleted WikiGadugi Website article. The Google hits are either Wikipedia references, Merkey watchers discussing the site and it's admin (SCOX board), or postings or other websites of the admin of the site (LKML archives en merkeylaw.com). --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have done a slight disservice to PeyoteMan (talk • contribs) by implying that he merely renamed the previous article. This version is better formatted and shares almost no content with the previous version. He may not have even seen the previous article. Of course, this version should still be deleted. — MediaMangler 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the other article, I just based it on the materials on the website. I found the site on Inktomi's subscription service. PeyoteMan 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the subject; an article with a different name, but same subject, has already been deleted. For the same reasons this one should be deleted as well. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete I see no notability. kotepho 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely non-notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 383 hits in Yahoo, 8 on Google, 27 on MSN, 3500+ on Inktomi. Looks like it is getting some traffic. I guess Google is slow crawling the web or avoids Wikipedia mirrors. PeyoteMan 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  383?? I get 19; all of them in the same categories mentiond on the Google hits. MSN gives me 4 results. And Inktomi is no longer an independent search engine, it was acquired by Yahoo in 2002, so how you got 3500+ hits with their engine is anybody's guess. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unequivocably as WP:VSCA among other things. This part of an astroturfing campaign by the site maintainers, who have a stated purpose here. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. --BWD ^(talk) 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applesac

Non-notable company; article created by company's founder. 59 google hits, not all relevant. Prod contested by anon without comment. Henning Makholm 09:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable company, fails WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like advert of nn company Gu 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Hestemand 21:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massy_Tadjedin

nn

• Weak keep, was screenwriter for two professional movies, as seen on his IMDb profile [26] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above and over 18000 Google hits Gu 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Monicasdude 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, >18000 Google hits is notable and an IMDB profile. --Terence Ong 15:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Ugur Basak 23:38, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Holowacz

Vanity article created by User:Holowacz and copied from his (PDF) biography. 451 hits for Eric Vaughn Holowacz and 662 for Eric Holowacz. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and vanity, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete die vanity die! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio Gu 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria for inclusion.--Isotope23 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jester --Deville (Talk) 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn. Bucketsofg 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Advance 5: Yoshi's Story

Most of the article's content is speculative. It appeared as a tech demo, showing off the GBA's capabilities at E3. It was never spoken of again. It makes no more sense than an article on the Zelda SW tech demo, or the Mario 128 tech demo, or the FFVII tech demo. Additionally, the same itself is speculative, and most of the article's content is a quote of a provided link. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it should be noted that we do have an article on the Super Mario 128 tech demo. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep A tech demo at E3? You mean, like, the single most important gaming convention other than GDC? keeeep, with speculation template on article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, however, the IGN reference does not mention that Yoshi's Story was going to be Super Mario Advance 5, only that it was used "simply to show the GBA's 2D capabilities ". Perhaps merge the article into Yoshi's Story? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...Yes, a tech demo. Not a game, a tech demo. It'd be like if the PSX had a tech demo of a vase that you could examine. Are you saying that every single tech demo deserves an article? And as for Super Mario 128, that is not just a tech demo. It was the name given to his next game. I was referring TO the tech demo, which became Pikmin, not a Mario game. This is not a game, this is a single video of a demo that was not intended to become a game. It was not announced, named or cancelled. It was a tech demo featuring a single level that was not intended to be anything more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable tech demo for GBA with no evidence it will ever be anything more than that. Merge to GBA article if anyone really cares to (minus the "Super Mario Advance 5" speculation that is totally unsourced).--Isotope23 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mario 128 is just a tech-demo right now. The game will most definitely not feature 128 Marios running around as in the tech demo. In the same way, this tech demo does not necessarily have to show in-game footage in order for it to be considered a tech demo. - Darkhawk (29 March, 2006 @ 17:30 EST)
  • I am dumbfounded as to why people think that tech demos warrant articles JUST because they're of franchises. It's a video featuring Yoshi that will never have anymore content than what is there now. And Super Mario 128 is NOT an article on the tech demo! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. I don't really think any of this is worth merging, though. BryanG 01:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we can't even verify the title is correct, the article isn't worth keeping for now. We can always recreate it later. Fagstein 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a commercially available program, just a demo. Proto||type 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe change the title to a more proper "Yoshi's Island Tech Demo," but this is still a notable incarnation as posters above have noted. Liu Bei 05:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If this tech demo is notable, every tech demo ever made is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wiki_is_not_paper. Just because we don't have pages for older tech demos due to lack of interest/information doesn't mean they shouldn't be included.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afore notation

Tagged {db-band} but contested. Subject looks profoundly uinimportant, but let AfD have its say. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. No relevant results on allmusic and only 41 unique Google results [27]. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be very young local band besides own sites on myspace.com and purevolume.com Gu 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims to notability in article, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart places, tours, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This is nowhere near WP:BAND. --Hetar 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. I originally tagged this article for speedy, but its creator, Captain Internet twice removed the tag, appending the last time a comment to the effect that he would improve the article so as to demonstrate the subject's notability. I construed this as a "hangon" request and consequently tagged the article for "hangon" (I moved his message to the talk page, where also I explain my reasoning for applying the "hangon" tag on an article that I tagged for speedy); nevertheless, as the searches above demonstrate clearly, there is no notability to be demonstrated, whatever Captain Internet might add to the contrary. Thus, I think that JzG was altogether correct to bring this to AfD and that, even as typically it might be indecorous of us to support deletion of a page that has been tagged "hangon" (or has been edited in such a way as to reflect "hangon" sentiments, notwithstanding the failure properly to tag the article), here the subject is empirically shown to be non-notable and we needn't to wait for edits to the article. Joe 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike Manager

As much as I love all things game-related in WP, nonnotable, gameguide ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete:Hmm didn't work last time, but non-notable gameguide/program. See 3rd paragraph "the aim of this article is not just to give a description of what the game involves, but more to give an idea of the basics of how to play the game" ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn gameguide. --Terence Ong 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Current version is just a description of the game rather than a gameguide, but it still would seem to be a pretty non-notable game. On a side note; when you are playing a multiplayer game dedicated to building/managing a gaming clan playing a mod of a videogame you've pretty much hit the rock bottom of geekdom... and I've been to Gen Con.--Isotope23 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Wolman

Try as I might I can't see where the claims are that this character meets WP:BIO. Unencyclopaedic in tone, and cone that is fixed there is virtually no verifiable data, and of that none seems to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, as he seems to be the first photographer of Rolling Stone [28], a notable magazine --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup style. Nearly 70000 Google hits, several books at amazon.com and [29] claims "Wolman’s photographs have appeared in virtually every U.S. magazine from Time to Playboy to Vogue and beyond." Gu 12:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Important and well-known popular culture figure; he was Annie Leibowitz before Annie Leibowitz was Annie Leibowitz. Monicasdude 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. He looks notable as he was working for Rolling Stone. --Terence Ong 15:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and LOL... This concern is why I tagged it to begin with and even took the time to write something on the Discussion page. There's an article in there, it just needs the PRish crap taken out. Bobak 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: There were some CP concerns, I have taken time to rewrite those portions (roughly) and remove them. Bobak 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: OK, this now has an assertion of notability, and the copyright violations are gone. Which is an improvement :-)

Comment: I'm the one who made the entry. There were confusing problems that led to a duplicate entries so I'd feel fine about everything being deleted and starting all over again, as long as someone doesn't come along and, without doing any research, figures since he hasn't heard of Baron Wolman he doesn't belong in Wikipedia! Feel free to remove all the duplication or whatever. It looks like you've determined that Baron Wolman is a worthy inclusion. You removed the photo which his assistant took. I was confused by all the rights choices, so please advise what to put for the image if the photographer is the copyright holder, period. Thanks! User:Scribblerman 17:32 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The photo must be released under a free license. I would suggest either GFDL-self or public domain if you, the uploader, own the copyright. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. In response to your query to Just zis Guy: AFD debates last for no more than 7 days. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 20:51, 30 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 merged; now redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prime numbers in nature

An AFD tag was added to this article, but the article was not listed here. I'm listing it now. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. I think the section on prime numbers in evolution is worth merging into prime number. The rest seems to be nonsense and can be eliminated. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 11:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge evolution tidbit if citable; delete the rest as trivia. Bilateral symmetry? What does that have to do with the primeness of 2? --Mmx1 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. There is also a case to be made for Fibonacci numbers appearing in nature. There is a section in that article, Fibonacci numbers in nature. This article should be merged with prime numbers in a similar way. Slowmover 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge salvagable content into prime number, and redirect there. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. The entire article is nonsense, even the part about the cicadas.--Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge either into prime number or cicada. The cicada theory is due to Mario Markus and seems a viable theory. The rest of the article is an exercise in numerology. Either redirect as suggested or delete this title. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. Cicada stuff interesting, the rest ridiculous. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge cicada section into cicada and/or prime number; the rest is numerology, rather than mathematics or science, and has no part in Category:Science or Category:Mathematics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess none of us had clicked on the external links. The introductory sentences were lifted straight out of the second link, as were most of the examples (including the absurd "number of ribs in mongoloid children" that I had removed earlier). Also note that the information merge should probably go to magicicada, not cicada, if it gets merged at all. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge evolution tidbit if citable; delete the rest as trivia. (
• Delete everything except that which is citable (maybe magicicada stuff) JianLi 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the text on prime numbers as an evolutionary strategy with prime number. I agree that the rest is trivia, unless a probable link can be shown between the fact that these numbers occur in nature, and that it is a prime number. It was started as a stub, but was not developed further since. As it stands it probably is not viable article. Zingi 07:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JianLi. --MaNeMeBasat 07:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The bit about the magicicada is already in the Prime number article. Looking at the other examples, the only reason explaining why prime numbers in nature are relatively common (as indicated in the lead) seems to be because "prime numbers are relatively common among small integers"; nothing here suggests that primality is an important factor. Schutz 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect. Seeing that the information about the magicicada in the Prime number was copied almost verbatim from this article, we should probably keep the history of the article around for authorship purposes (as suggested on Talk:Prime number). Schutz 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hassan Ugail

Non notable academic. the wub "?!" 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough. Not a professor, no notable publications mentioned. Bhoeble 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, decent enough Google Scholar profile. There seem to be cultural differences between Euro-American users and others about how to assert professorial notability, but that's not a good reason to keep deleting articles on subjects who have (at least) reasonable claims to notability, often on very notable subjects. Monicasdude 14:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced that he is notable as an academic: a senior lecturer is roughly the equivalent of associate professor. Unless it can be established that he is a world-leader in his field (in which case, why isn't he a full professor?), I think we have to assume insufficient notability. Bucketsofg 21:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No apparent assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Two credible published references at Google Books [30]. Dr Ugail may not be a world leader in his field, but since the Republic of Maldives has only 300,000-odd citizens, I think he counts as a notable national figure. Humansdorpie 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dr Ugail has a credible list of publications recorded in his university staff page [31]. He has contributed articles to major international research journals and international conferences in his field. Despite being relatively young (34 years old to date) he has major research grants (e.g. see for example [32]). Though one may not consider him to be a world leading figure (eg. not a professor) one should also note his rate of progress in his career. For example, within a short space of 2.5 years he has been promoted to Senior lecturer which the usual academics take on average 10+ years. He is certainly a notable and respected figure in the Republic of Maldives. More importantly he is a source of motivation to many young Maldivians.

Dr Ugail's recent research in the area of 3D modelling and animation has been reported in the media. Examples inlcude, Yorkshire Post [33], Innovations Report [34], Yorkshire Forward [35], IOFILM news [36]. Though not a full professor he is an established resarcher and acedemic in his field. Simply not being a full professor is not a good enough excuse for deleting this page. --82.47.145.96

• Keep Dr Ugail appears at the top of the google search for "ugail" or "hassan ugail". Kurumba

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They're taking the hobbits to isengard

No indication of this flash movie's significance. Proposed for deletion by User:Weregerbil, but User:AliceV reverted without comment.

• Delete. Gazpacho 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although the title has over 100000 Google hits, it seems to be just one of many short clips floating on the net. Gu 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft with pointy ears. Sandstein 21:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Rory096 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Bryan

Non-notable horserider (well, not yet, just as soon as he's finished his accountancy exams) claiming notability but Googling for "Tom Bryan" dressage produces one possibly unrelated MySpace account. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also tried googling ""tom bryan" dressage" a week or so ago when an acquaintance of mine told me of his website, http://www.tombryan.co.uk . Although the website was live last week, it appears to have gone down over the weekend, although when I contacted his website's administrator he claimed this was temporary. User:markpearce1979

• I am the author of this entry. Agreed, googling his name does not come up with any hits due to problems in linking his homepage as described above with google. I have been advised that this is temporary (as unfortunately are the problems with his webpage). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tombryanfan (talk • contribs).

• Delete, even if Google would find his homepage, there is still NO other link with any relevant information found. nn-bio Gu 12:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per above arguments. Wickethewok 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, horsecruft --Deville (Talk) 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Monster (Lost)

Deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (Lost), this is sufficiently different that I am not comfortable deleting as a repost, but the core problem remains: the name is made up by fans and lacks a reliable source, and the balance of the content is also largely speculative. There is nothing here which can't be encyclopaedically covered without the speculation in the article for Lost. Similar concerns raised in Talk:The Monster (Lost). Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It scrapes WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT. PJM 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG's well explained nomination. --Terence Ong 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; I'm a huge fan of Lost... but this is just wholly unnecessary. Merge any applicable content to main Lost article. No good reason for a separate article.--Isotope23 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - has already been deleted once before. Crufty and trivial. Danflave 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above and in the previous afd. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Big Lost fan but this need to disappear back down the hole from which it came. Nigelthefish 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Again. This shouldn't keep reappearing as an issue, taking all our time, when it's already been clearly resolved. -- PKtm 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Keep. There's already an apparent consensus that Lost characters are notable enough for Wikipedia - and this is a recurring character in Lost. There are very obvious problems with this article, not least of which is that The Monster is not the official name of the character, but I see these as problems to be worked out rather than reasons for deletion. If we've already decided that Lost fancruft is notable enough for Wikipedia - and I think we have - then this should stay. --Hyperbole 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Characters of Lost. Upon review, it looks like minor characters are relegated to that article. --Hyperbole 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as most of the article is original research. Any content not already found on a Lost page can be merged onto one. --Kahlfin 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I had as when this was last created (and deleted): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monster_(Lost): It's still pure speculation.—Leflyman^Talk 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 nn-bio.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murray storm

Tagged as db-bio but makes some assertion of notability. Geogre's Law failure, notability is questionab le per the redlinked status of the businesses and projects mentioned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 29 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of news aggregators

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A collection of external links per WP:NOT. --Blue520 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Normally I vote against the lists I find on AfD. But this list has some value because an attempt has been made to classify the news aggregators into various categories. So it isn't just an indiscriminate list. It's a useful supplement to the news aggregators article. If some of the links could be wikified to reduce the linkspamming, then I would vote for a stronger keep. I see the links as a problem, but not the list itself. Slowmover 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if the list has been sorted or not, it remains a violation of Wikipedia policy to have an article that is a mere collection of external links. If the article was a list of internal articles about agregators, such as List of news web sites, that would be fine. As it is, there is no way to guess at which sites are worthy of inclusion and which were added as spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with what you say. But I don't think this is a "mere collection of external links". This is an annotated list, with additional information like capabilities and compatibility of the aggregators. While most of the aggregators have external links, I counted 13 wikilinks without external links, which convinces me the author has tried to find internal links where possible and is not intentionally spamlinking. Someone put a lot of work into this list.Slowmover 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• One more point. The example you gave of a "good" list, List of news web sites, is not useful at all. This list can be replaced by a category because all the links are just pointers to wiki articles, and there is no additional content that expands on the meaning of the list. If it was deleted, no information would be lost. So its a good candidate for deletion/replacement with a category. That cannot be said of the article which is the subject of this debate. Slowmover 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This list serves as a honeypot for linkspammers who would otherwise swarm all over Aggregator. I say them them have free reign over this worthless article so that other articles can live freely.—thames 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, clear violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Partial merge/delete - merge only the most prominent aggregators to a new section that lists some examples in Aggregator. Delete rest. --P199 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Users who come to this page probably are looking for an aggregator to use, as opposed to literally wanting a list of all news aggregators, so merging prominent aggregators gives users what they want while removing cruft from WP. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Partial merge/delete - same as above. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - If there is a Web site out there with pretty much the same info (or better), I vote to put a link to it on the News Aggregators article and delete this one. If there were only a few, I wouldn't mind keeping it. But a big list which is incomplete is sort of silly. Beetle B. 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: "No encyclopedic content whatsoever" is a lie, just read the entries and they give a small description of the programs (which is good for comparing the options to others. The article could and should be strengthened with more detailed feature information. But if you have to lie in order to support an argument, then a keep is absolutely necessary. --MateoP 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. At worst it should be a collection of internal links, but then that's what a category is for, isn't it? Fagstein 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I think the list is useful and does provide enough information. If you think it doesn't have enough information why don't you try adding it a few more lines to make it richer? Cankoklu 12:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable speedy as only content is external links. Stifle 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seconded: A collection of external links per WP:NOT. Same must be said about List of Podcatchers btw. --Gego 18:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)--
• Delete - nothing but a collection of external link spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as I deliberately searched for it, so it might be definitely useful --Angelo 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gut feeling

article belongs to Wiktionary and there already is such an entry there Mumpitz 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef. Note the author created a number of dicdef pages with his first edits in 2004. This one must have escaped deletion with the others. Slowmover 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigelthefish 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Intuition. --Hyperbole 21:17, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News sources in India

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Mere collections of external links are explicitly covered in WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web dictionary. --Terence Ong 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; Wikipedia is not a web directory --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 kill it with fire. DS 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea squirrel

Sea Squirrel is a mythical creature. Without references we can only assume that this myth was created by the author of this article. (Prod tag was removed by anon.) -- RHaworth 12:30, 29 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. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doupine

Appears to be spam, no sign of meeting WP:CORP, created by oilpainting (talk • contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. does not meet notability criteria guideline WP:CORP. --Blue520 13:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: no evidence of notability Bucketsofg 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spice records

Not notable Sludge 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteCompletely agree. This page should be deleted because a) the information included already exists on the songs own pages b) its completely irrelevant c) its a very poor excuse for a page. Rimmers 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary page, what should 'best' mean? Most sold? Gu 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or merge into Spice Girls if anybody thinks the content is worth saving. - Longhair 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Information is already available on other pages - namely each song's page Rimmers 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emil Moldovan

This guy seems to be as famous as me. Poppypetty 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn-bio Gu 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ---- No Guru 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Create Poppypetty article... err... delete. Fagstein 05:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Darn, I wanted to say that. Delete as per Fagstein. GRuban 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipaedophile

Possible hoax. NN website at the very least. Computerjoe's talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN -Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/call the local authorities. youngamerican (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gu 16:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Sentence the author to a life of voting on AfD. Slowmover 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, please! Ramdrake 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete meta:What Wikipedia is got a hit that made me giggle a little. kotepho 18:32, 29 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 - rewrite acknowledged, but it doesn't appear to address the concerns of the 'delete's. Flowerparty■ 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Harding

I can't make up my mind whether to speedy this one as an attack or whether to flag it for extreme cleanup to remove the POV. The answer, I guess, hinges on whether the guy is thought notable. If he is, then the crap about child support needs to go (I've left it so you can see what I mean). Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears notable. The child support thing is covered in the article Glenn, and could be mentioned briefly here but the level of detail is excessive. The rest of the article badly needs sources and cleanup. Powers 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing it. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Re-direct to Glenn. ---- No Guru 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I can't imagine anyone searching for the boomerang designer would be interested in a son who disclaims all relationship to him and has nothing to do with boomerangs. Powers 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I got mixed up, I thought both articles were about the same person. I'm going to have to abstain. I guess he might be notable within the boomerang community but I'm not sure that warrants an article. No Guru 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, I just don't get how this guy's notable. Fagstein 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • LtPowers edits noted. I'll change my vote when someone introduces evidence of notability. Fagstein 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attack page. Let the boomerangers celebrate him in their own space. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've cleaned up the article and removed "attack" portions of it, so that we can see what's left. It's still a stub, and it badly needs sources, but it's no longer an "attack page". Powers 13:20, 30 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Dolan

There are millions of people on this planet that have a much stronger record of community involvement than A. Dolan does, and are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now that Dolan has resigned as Chair of the Green Party of BC, there's no reason why he should be listed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prescottbush (talk • contribs).

• By the same token you could say now that Queen Victoria is no longer queen there's no reason why she should be listed here. KeepJcuk 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Green Party of Canada. — RJH 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard of Queen Victoria, but never for this Chair of the GP of BC that resined. So, nn now, but in the future, who knows, than we can recreate the article. I'm sorry for Dolan. MaNeMeBasat 14:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can always be recreated. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Green Party of British Columbia. He can be notable when he does something more important than that. Fagstein 05:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —GrantNeufeld 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 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 (9k, 9d). Hermione1980 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages

There is no need for this. There was a very old deletion debate Talk:List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages/Delete, but the consensus is rather sloppy and now this is just a title list in other languages. There is no discussion of anything about the translations, just a bare list. We have a sidebar with links to wikipedias in other languages, and for this particular topic, we have Harry Potter in translation which actually has some interesting content, including a list of languages the books have been translated into. All six Harry Potter books have articles in many languages, where this information could easily be accessed. I don't think the whole Harry Pottern in translation series is bad, but Wikipedia is not babelfish.com. Delete. Mangojuice 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This keeps the chaff from the main book articles. The "Translations" sections in the other book articles, such as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets link to here instead of having the alternate book titles clutter up the main articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Striking out my vote. Just realised that they link to Harry Potter in translation instead. I'll look into this and vote later. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I clicked on this with the full expetation of asking for a keep, but the nominator is convincing, and having looked at the two pages in question, I agree that List is unnecessary. It will be a poor redirect, so delete. —Encephalon 17:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Who is to say there's no need for this information? Personally, I find the list kind of interesting. While the books have articles in the other languages, they dont neccessarily have articles in every language that the books have been translated into. Further, it's easier to read through a list than to manually click onto a foreign language wiki, where its less likely to be understandable, because well, it's in a foreign language. Also a nice thing about this article is that there are occasional translations back into English, showing how the translator chose to represent the book titles> For example, the article notes that in German, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is Harry Potter und die Kammer des Schreckens (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fear), or that the French version of the first book is Harry Potter at the School of Wizards. You're not neccessarily going to get that from a foreign language wiki. At the most, this information could be merged into Harry Potter in translation, but I think there's enough information there to merit keeping it in it's own article. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to Harry Potter in translation where useful. Dalf | Talk 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Evilphoenix. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with interwiki links. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>