Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 4 May 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 5

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

The result of the debate was DS 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark C. Davis

No Notability Adfsfdasdfdsfads 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues

Original research, fancruft masquerading as an academic essay. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - it starts out quasi-all-right, being quite heavily sourced, but then goes downhill and has plenty of OR-looking sections. I think it's a niche but weak-keepable article if non-sourced sections are removed. -- Mithent 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancrufty, WP:NOR violated. More like a non-academic essay masquerading as "research" if you ask me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. OR is OR is OR, however masqueraded, and I can't figure how an essay like this will be anything other than, well, an essay. RGTraynor 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Ardenn 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as clear violation of NOR. TheProject 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verified original research. JIP | Talk 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with Mithent: even if it were 100% verifiable it would still be fancruft and not encyclopaedic. Take it to Wikicities, where it will be fine. Just zis Guy you know? 09:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research, brought to you by Too Much Time On Someone's Hands Syndrome. Vizjim 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteMaybe rewrite it, then merge it. Jared W 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. DarthVader 11:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Bucketsofg✐ 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research and fancruft. WP:NOT Beno1000 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. PJM 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally OR. As Vizjim says, the creator had way too much time to kill & came up with this. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Zaxem 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no need to be so critical of the original contributor's motivations, he said on the talk page he wrote the article when he was new to Wikipedia and wasn't clear on how we work, and even added an OR tag himself. Is there any way to incorporate the sourced material back into the main article?--Cúchullain t/c 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Cuchullain is right, we all donate time here aside from work or school to write about things we're not forced to write about. Nor is it necessary to have a big line of delete votes. A consensus would have been established with a handful, given that no one has cast a contradictory vote. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - he should put it on a free web server. - Richardcavell 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research and analysis, non-encyclopedic. Perhaps individual little bits of verifiable material could go into the seperate articles, but mostly I don't think it belongs here. Matt 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: OR -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research. I think it is a good essay and I hope someone saves/republishes it in some form, but not here. BarkingDoc 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep per little/no consensus and nomination withdrawn. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranjit Lal Jetley

Delete. Prod was "awfully praiseful article about NN person, partially edited by subject.". Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers". Well, if that were our metric here, God save us... Lots of contents, little sense. Undersignificant individual. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Crazy Russian, could you edit your above comment Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers" as it's not true (newspapers unrelated to deprodding) and seems to have confused Andrew Lenahan, below. Cheers, JackyR 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Kappa's note here [1].
Apologies, I missed that. JackyR 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
In any event, by now it's pretty obvious that RLJ is not simply an officer in the Indian army, but is a very prominent one. Don't judge me too harshly, though, as some have begun to do, because the article as it was when prodded sounded like terrible vanity, was edited by Jetley himself (!) and did not explain how very distinguished he was. I still don't understand how, by the way, but I understand that he is, and that's enough. Nomination withdrawn. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (for the moment, I could change my mind either way) and tag for cleanup. This article is terribly difficult to read, but it seems to assert that its subject played a significant command role in the outcome of a military campaign between India and Pakistan. Pending some more informed comments from the subcontinent, that sounds notable to me. Metamagician3000 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the crazy russian. Eusebeus 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search for "Ranjit Lal Jetley" came up with five results all from Wikipedia and mirrors see [2]. A search of other verifiable sources came up with nothing as well. Seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tagged as uncited and needing cleanup for over a month, and not fixed. Article editors have had long enough to fix the problems, so this appears to be unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment according to the articles talkpage he was also known as Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon. No vote, but Lt. Gen. Dhillon, if he is the same person seems somewhat notable. Jcuk 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, Jetley was mentioned in Dhillon's obituary. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I guess I misunderstood "Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon != Ranjit Lal Jetley". Change from no vote to Keep Jcuk 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Exclamation mark is a negation symbol. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with cleanup, per Metamagic. It seems to me that a Major-General in any of the world's (say) ten largest armies is sufficiently notable for an article. This particular article needs a lot of work to make it readable and NPOV. Bucketsofg✐ 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per User:Bucketsofg. Unless the article below is kept, in which case Strong Keep just to remind us the Real World exists... :-) JackyR 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep, we need references! Otherwise the article will be nominated again. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep and tag for cleanup per Metamagician3000, and could be a possible instance of systemic bias. TheProject 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs to be wikified. Arbusto 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the facts stated in the article can be verified from secondary sources (which I suspect they cannot), then weak keep. Else delete. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, JzG. Very unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, San Saba 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. The Indian army is a notabale organization in the world. Moreover, the post of Major-General is a very high ranking in the army. Anyone holding this post is notable in international standards in my opinion. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references can be found to verify the mentioned claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been reading up on almost anything related to the Indian Army and have until now not come across this person. Even if he does exist, it doesn't warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not a repository of all the ex-servicemen unless they are notable. And since the said person isn't notable, it would be wise to delete this article to prevent nonsense. Idleguy 17:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If our only inclusion criteria has fallen to include anyone mentioned in a newspaper, we're in deep deep trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His work in the Indian Army seems to put him a long way from "nn" territory, at least in my book. The article needs a cleanup, particularly to remove the more fauning and POV language ("he contributed by making an assessment of the effect of Pakistani weapons against ours" is quite revealing), and references are obviously needed. Deletion would be a mistake though, it's still salvageable. I'm not sure how mounting a high velocity gun on a Sherman counts as an "innovation", though. The British did that with the Sherman Firefly during the war. Leithp 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
At that point of time India being a Non-aligned country but with good relations (later defence treaty) with the Soviets and dirt poor, socialist economy, innovation of putting the gun unaided by British scientists who had done it before was notable - reinventing the wheel, so to say.AshLin 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The fact that Jetley got someone to write about him or did so himself does not mean that he did not play the major role in Indian defense research and development that he had. The article is relevant but as agreed by all of us needs source verification, complete rewrite and removal of POV. I have taken it upon myself to do up this article as a matter of Indian military prestige and have done an initial but inadequate rewrite. In a sense, I am happy that Crazy Russian did an AfD, brought my attention away from Indian butterflies to the Indian military. I was earlier avoiding this domain because of my percieved lack of NPOV if I got involved. Let me have my chance, guys. AshLin 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crazy Russian, will make it keepable. AshLin 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and let AshLin make a rewrite. Tupsharru 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per AshLin UnDeadGoat 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Consensus to keep already exists (I count 16-to-6 against deletion), and as per precedent of several other similar AfDs recently. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

No assertion of notability outside the Gundam cartoon and toy franchise, extremely obsessive level of detail about a cartoon world. Brian G. Crawford 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep a lot of the other gundams get their own page; why shouldn't this one? And of course Gundams don't have significance outside of the Gundam world. Mostly because we're still in 2006. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? Because even if Wikipedia has unlimited hard drive space, this is a waste of space. Brian G. Crawford 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, it makes Wikipedia look like a playground for teenage couch potatoes. Brian G. Crawford 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, the old lets keep this because lord knows it'll be factual instead of fictional in the future argument. Gotta love it! Cornell Rockey 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability of Gundam stuff hasn't changed in the last 3 days, Brian. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Same old nominate with same old reason. Consider that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series all all fail, you should learn to give up (or at least find more convincing reason)L-Zwei 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Same reason as other articles earlier. - Plau 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep Gundam is notable (check Google), and there's enough of them that merging into one big article simply isn't reasonable. Considering the the same user recently attempted to delete several other Gundam articles without success, I'm not sure that I can consider this a nomination in good faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • More trivial Gundam-cruft, but consensus is pretty clear that this stuff should be kept. I'll cast a futile vote to delete as a reminder that not everyone agrees with the encyclopedic value of this stuff, but at this point, as a matter of courtesy and respect of process, it would be better to desist bringing further such items to AfD. Eusebeus 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur with Eusebeus that consensus established has been to keep but that encyclopedia-worthiness is dubious at best. TheProject 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I say strong keep as I use the info in this article with an online RPG. I so far have not found the data anywhere else. - Revan Vrake
  • Keep, notability is established. --Terence Ong 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Your attempt to get all the Gundam Articles deleted has failed, there's no point in trying to slip a new one in. See also the reasons in the older debates, as posted by L-Zwei. Golux Ex Machina 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Ironically, the Dreadnaught is actually a main character mecha from Seed Astray X - which, according to some of the users who even wanted to delete the previous articles admitted that main character mecha had to stay. Also the same reasons I've expressed earlier - as well as the reasons above, and the complete lack of position that Mr. Crawford has at this point. --NewtypeS3 07:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Revan Vrake: if the information is not available elsewhere, this is original research. If not OR, then of highly questionable notability. Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad faith nomination. Vizjim 09:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea who Brian is, I'm basing my comment on the number of similar occasions the same thing has been tried before. Vizjim 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Get real, its an imaginary weapon from some dumb cartoon or something!!! Jcuk 10:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as the last however many times. NoIdeaNick 10:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is just as notable as most other fictional articles. If you don't want fiction in wikipedia, campaign to have the policy changed, don't just try and delete individual articles. --Tango 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For this to be purposefull you'd need to get rid of all 00's of the Gundam articles without any policy support I can see. 13:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with above. Bucketsofg✐ 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per L-Zwei. -- ReyBrujo 16:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG KEEP Why are trying to destroy hard work, man? Fans worked on these articles and they deserve to keep them. Sure, Gundam may be fictional, but it's one of the most popular anime sagas out there; it's been around for 27 years; and if you are trying to delete the Gundam articles, you're gonna need a lot of support, which apparently you don't have... -- GrievousAlpha95 1:01 pm, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and User:JzG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus McLellan. This AFD is a paragon of Wikipedian systemic bias for inclusion rearing its ugly head. Kuzaar 19:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microcosm of a Teen World

Delete. Not notable, seems to be vanity page. -- Irixman (t) (m) 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is notable, see the reasoning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ABusa (talk • contribs).

  • Delete As non-notable as they come. It's a summary of someone's fantasy baseball league. Fan1967 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7. There's not even any assertion of notability. Just some kids who think this is blog space. Fan1967 02:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and is contrary to WP:POV. I didn't see much that would be worth merging into an article on fantasy baseball (and the title itself gives no indication that the article has anything to to with fantasy baseball). Fluit 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While Wikipedia is a web encyclopedia with theoretically near-infinite page space, it is still an encyclopedia, and entries must be encyclopedia articles, or at least something which can be reasonably turned into an encyclopedia article. This, on the other hand, is wholly and totally unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Fan1967 --Icarus 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Every organization has politics, sorry ABusa. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and re-tagged per A7. The fact that the speedy delete is contested does not mean that the template must be taken off, I believe. TheProject 04:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 --Joe Jklin 07:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. Individual leagues in fantasy sports are presumably non-notable unless clearly established otherwise, and this article makes no clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensual Sound

Delete - Non-notable musical group that fails to meet WP:BAND. Prod notice removed without comment. Gwernol 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I commented on the talk page when I took the prod down -- was I supposed to comment somewhere else?

"Thanks! I believe it is notable. It: 1) went to Austria during spring break and performed there, 2) has produced an album and will produce another at the end of the month, 3) has done well in a national competition, and 4) had a member (Ethan Heard) who is currently in a notable group, The Whiffenpoofs Lorboy 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"

Lorboy 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Lorboy: I believe Gwernol meant that in your edit summary, you didn't mention that you had a comment on the talk page.
  • Gwernol: Did you check the talk page? If you did, maybe Lorboy was too slow between removing prod and adding a comment.
    • I had checked the talk page, but missed the update for the prod removal. Bad timing I think, sorry about that. Gwernol 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't know. I found myself wondering about school a capella groups after I ran across one or two. I'm sure they're more notable than some of these forgettable punk bands that squeak past WP:MUSIC. Hey, at least they're probably not on Wikipedia to sell albums. Also, are they any less notable than Dingoes Ate My Baby? Brian G. Crawford 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The Whiffenpoofs are certainly notable, but this is a singing group at a private high school. Unless they've been in existence for many, many years, or are otherwise notable (e.g., mainstream media coverage; cd sales) they don't appear to be greatly more notable than a high school club. I don't think a yearly album meets the standards of WP:MUSIC, and a single "tour" (which sounds more like the trip my high school French class took) is not enough. Having a member who went on to be a Whiffenpoof doesn't sway me; the Whiffenpoofs are a very large group of people who are otherwise mostly non-notable. I could be convinced by media coverage, evidence of cultural notability (the 'poofs were on West Wing, for example), or by other references supporting a claim to WP:MUSIC or more generally to WP:N. bikeable (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Roughly on the same level as a high-school student club or team as far as notability goes. I'd hate to set a very dangerous precedent by keeping this due to the very thin Whiffenpoofs connection... if Madonna played in her school marching band, does that make that band notable too? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. Although The Whiffenpoofs are notable, citing the fact that a member of this group went on to join the Whiffenpoofs as a claim that this group is notable would be an overly literal mis-application of WP:MUSIC. The Whiffs must have had hundreds of members in their history and the Whiffs' notability does not carry over to their individual members, much less to other musical groups those members had previously been in. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ethan Heard having been in the Whiffenpoofs. WP:MUSIC says it should be notable due to that connection. Jcuk 10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are wrong here. The Whiffenpoofs is not a band with a settled line-up, it is a university choral society with a history going back nearly 100 years. It's a bit like saying that every single person who ever performed with the BBC Singers or the Huddersfield Choral Society is inherently notable, and by extension every single musical enterprise in which they subsequently participate is also notable. Another analogy: the Cambridge Footlights is notable for certain sure, and many of its former members are notable, but being a former member of the Footlights does not make for notability - look at the list of past members and you get an average of around one or two a year who become famous, which is an incredibly high hit rate for a university club but still way below 100%. How many genuinely famous former Whiffenpoofs are there? The article lists one: Cole Porter. Just zis Guy you know? 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a school club. While WP:MUSIC does say that connection with a notable band is a criterion for inclusion the full text reads: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." (emphasis added). Furthermore, the connection with a notable band criterion was intended for the former bands of famous musicians rather than high school clubs of people who join a group, which over the years has had hundreds on members. If Ethan Heard had been a member of The Beatles, then it might make sense to simply change this article into a redirect, but in the subject of this article is not even worthy enough for that. Ethan Heard is not even notable enough to have his own page, let alone a page for a club he belonged to in high school. NoIdeaNick 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, certainly debatable, but I just don't think they meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sidwell Friends School. Fails WP:MUSIC. Let the normal editors of that article decide if this group deserves to be named there or not. -- ReyBrujo 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not quite notable Computerjoe's talk 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sidwell Friends School is a good solution The article is overlong as written (Current Repertoire/Past Repertoire & Alumni are all way more than we need to know)-- heavily edited it would make a fine graf in a school article. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: How would merging and redirecting work? Could I delete Repertoire & Alumni and make it into a mini-article with a link to it in the school article, or would I delete the whole thing and have a small description of the group on the school article? -- Lorboy 02:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From what I see, this article must be ruled per WP:MUSIC guidelines, and the band does not meet any of the exceptions there. Thus, the article should be deleted. However, a section of the article (or a shortened version of this article) could be included in a notable article that is not going to be deleted. Thus, even if you delete the repertoire and the alumni, the fact that the band is not notable according to Wikipedia still exists, and the article would be deleted (always if people consider, as me, that it is failing WP:MUSIC. What some suggest is that you merge the information from this article in another. Basically, the lead paragraph, plus mention to the notable performances would become a section of the Sidwell Friends School, probably named Consensual Sound. There is no need to include past or present repertoire. As for past and current members, I wouldn't include the names or may appear vanity. Note that, while there are only a couple of editors that worked in the Consensual Sound article, there have been well over a dozen in Sidwell Friends School. This is my "friendly" solution where the AFD is related to a notable one, but does not hold notability by itself. By putting this information into the notable article, the people who edits that article can decide whether the band (in this case, Consensual Sound) is notable enough to be part of the school article. If the people who usually edit the school believes Consensual Sound isn't notable enough, the information will be deleted (thus disappearing completely from Wikipedia). However, there is a chance that they may consider this information to be important, thus letting at least part of the deleted article be kept in another article. Hope that makes everything clear. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable per Allmusic, Google, Amazon. -- Krash (Talk) 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile democracy

Original indeed. I had not gone thru the seemingly immense policies for Wiki entries seeing that I thought that this community would be far more open to original ideas and would want them to be public instead of unanimously slammed...looks like the beginning stages of an internet bureaucracy is at hand :) Thanx for your diligent efforts to supply the web with content that is not original :) no hard feelings...however I would suggest that you proposa edits at 1st and not dive into ERASE! ERASE! this does not fit into conformity! Please consider this reasonable request for policy change.

Is there a section in Wikipedia as to changes or considerations to policies? My email is reconfigure[at]gmail.com

This appears to be an original paper and is certainly not an encyclopedic entry in its current state Kyle J Moore 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is it an ad? A persuasive speech? A paper? Who cares? Brian G. Crawford 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - or is it a copyvio? -- Mithent 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like advocacy. WP:NOT -- Robocoder 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either copyvio or original research. TheProject 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advocacy, political comment, rhetoric, original research, a high school paper? The origins, motivations and point of this article are all unclear.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 08:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, advocacy, NPOV violation. JIP | Talk 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT.--Joe Jklin 10:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, not encyclopedic, original research, violates WP:NOT. Beno1000 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and soapboxery. Bucketsofg✐ 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates numerous Wiki-policies like WP:NOT, WP:OR & is also a copyvio. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopeadic article. Zaxem 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per my nomination and above comments. Kyle J Moore 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something Positive Dance Company

  • Delete: This is an advertisement for a dancing company. A google search reveals 1 hit [3]. The article cites no independant/reliable sources. Tried a prod but was removed without comment. --Hetar 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:VSCA. Brian G. Crawford 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I wonder if Randy Milholland knows? RGTraynor 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Inquiry as to whether or not we still transwiki stuff to Yellowikis? TheProject 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant anyways, I just realized. Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Slow delete - a7 applies to a group, but this is a company/business.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, ad. --Terence Ong 08:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zaxem 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie Almalbis

nn performer of nn band; prod tag removed by author Robocoder 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:MUSIC is a guideline. The number Google search results isn't one of the criteria. If it were, then the number of inbound links to her official web site would equally mean something. Following the Google News links, only two lead to the article -- the others are 404 or not found. Nomination != Award. Allmusic and Discog don't list her singles compilation or album, Parade, and Google doesn't turn up anything on the number of copies sold.[4] -- Robocoder 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oysusmariyosep! You must keep her as she is so very mahal. No seriously, she passes WP:MUSIC. Brian G. Crawford 01:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC: [5] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be fairly well-known in the Philippines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search gets 142,000 Google hits see [6] so notable artist in Phillippines. Article needs a cleanup. Been nominated for three Phillippine music awards [7] Capitalistroadster 04:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above external links. Appears to be notable in the Philippines, with a rising career too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous users, noting possible systemic bias, but wish above claims of notability were actually in the article. TheProject 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, important enough in the Philippines. ProhibitOnions 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, by MikeSantos, original author. Argh, a bit frustrating as I don't quite yet understand why Wikipedia is insisting on deleting this entry.
    • Comment I prod'd Barbie Almalbis because it didn't assert notability. It's not personal Mike, but I also prod'd your page on Kitchie Nadal for the same reason. While I don't side with the 'Keeps' on Almalbis, my searches did yield information that supported notability for Nadal, for which I've since withdrawn my prod. Compare: past & present. -- Robocoder 13:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at all costs. Notable. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. She's not only notable and popular (by some respects), but also the article falls in line with current guidelines. Just because she was the frontman of the now-defunct Barbie's Cradle doesn't mean that her article is not notable. That, in my opinion, is tantamount to also deleting similar articles. --Akira123323 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Besides being a very popular Filipino female artist, she's marrying Senator Gringo Honasan's son thus a newsworthy person that deserves notability. She has been popular since the late 1990s, during the heydays of Hungry Young Poets and Barbie's Cradle. Please give me one good reason why Barbie isn't notable. -Jojit fb 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Explicitly keep. For the reason that she was one of those who struggled to keep OPM alive during the times of foreign music domination. We must show how noteworthy our artists are. I also propose to make a project about Filipino artists. Also, Barbie Almalbis broke from her group, Barbie's Cradle, so she should have her won article, being that she already has her own carrer apart from the band. If so, it would be tantamount to deleting an article about Bamboo. Justox dizaola 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps all you 'Keeps' could contribute a bit to save Barbie's Cradle, Mojofly, and Hungry Young Poets before the axe falls. -- Robocoder
    • Comment. Is it a requirement to expand an AFD in order to save it? I think this is the first time I heard of this. Please educate me if this is a new policy. As far as I know, if the problem is the incompleteness of the article then you should have tagged it as a stub. That is already stated in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles with alternatives to deletion. --Jojit fb 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Regarding Barbie's Cradle and Hungry Young Poets, I think that these two articles should be merged instead. --Jojit fb 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Re:Comment. Merge them. They're basically the same, under "Barbie's Cradle." --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Merged. (Sorry to expand the scope of the AfD...just exploiting the attention of those interested in OPM artists/bands.) -- Robocoder 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as well, or I'd rather change the template to stub instead of AfD. Barbie (as a solo artist) is relatively new so it's understandable to have a few facts about her as an artist (unless we wanted a showbusiness-like profile here). Batewtew 09:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 09:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong redirect to Barbie's Cradle. What other important info can you add in the article other than what is in Barbie's Cradle? Her solo career can be added in a post breakup section for example. Eventhough our guts (mine too) tell us she is notable, technically speaking, I agree with User:Robocoder the article should still assert why she is notable. (example: No. 1 album in a list or chart, album going platinum, musical awards, and the like, NOT examples like her appearing in a Nescafe commercial, or publicity by association such as boyfriends, or being a subject of fantasy, and the like) If this is asserted in the article then keep. :) --Noypi380 14:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think if we are going to redirect (although I disagree to that proposal), it should be the other way around (i.e. redirect Barbie's Cradle to Barbie Almalbis). The person is more important than a disbanded group. Besides, when people think about Barbie's Cradle, they think of Barbie Almalbis. --Jojit fb 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Re:Comment. OK, since we already have the Barbie Almalbis and Barbie's Cradle articles separate, lets keep it that way. If we'll merge them in either direction, and Barbie's career grows, then we'll have to split it off again. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Mummy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of amun-ra

should probably be Merged into The Mummy or The Mummy Returns. Or at least, it needs to be Moved to Book of Amun-Ra. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Fictional book alongside works such as the Necronomicon and Encyclopedia Galactica, reference to from The Mummy and associated articles unless enough material is found to make it noteworthy. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to either Fictional book or The Mummy. Too little information to deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 09:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Mummy. Not prominent enough for Fictional Book. --Tango 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Mummy, which could have just been boldly done.--Isotope23 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to The Mummy. -- ReyBrujo 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above users. TheProject 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This information already appears at The Mummy, viz., Evelyn reads from the golden book of Amun-Ra which takes the mummy's immortality after which Rick kills his mortal body. Nothing else really to merge. Does not appear significant enough to merit inclusion at Fictional book, but I won't object if someone wants to include it there. ergot 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Jpgordon as (A7). -- JLaTondre 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Russell

Vanity Nv8200p talk 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Cosmetics

WP:NOT your personal ad space. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Haha the page says see link below, but the link there is for "Pages for Deletion". LOL!!! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this page should be deleted. It is highly informative and essential to the topic of interest. There is no other page on Wikipedia regarding Natural Cosmetics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honeyantz (talk • contribs).

True, but the problem is that Natural Cosmetics is not a topic of interest. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both spam, and not terribly subtle. Fan1967 02:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both and tagged per A7. TheProject 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both pages as unencyclopædic in scope, tone and content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Slow delete removed a7, as that only applies to people. This is a business.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Just wondering, but why doesn't A7 apply to companies? Would it not be similar to "club" and therefore qualify as "group of people" under A7? TheProject 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It should. If the Sherman Antitrust Act can have its primary effect on unions being passed off as companies, A7 should work for companies too --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete both as blatant spam. JIP | Talk 09:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete patent vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as spam. DarthVader 11:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both I might be persuaded that they should be merged into Cosmetics but definately not worth an article of its own. --Tango 12:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as advertising.--Isotope23 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. ProhibitOnions 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ads, promoting specific brands, all minor. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, Why Natural Cosmetics? qualifies for speedy as empty Jaranda wat's sup 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AP Psychology

Description of someone's high school class. Almost certainly a copyright violation out of a course guide; absolutely non-notable even if it's not. Keep in mind, this article isn't about the AP test itself, just someone's class. -Elmer Clark 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nom - nn course description. Eusebeus 02:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Current article not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate stub on a verifiable, notable topic. It doesn't sound like a description of one particular class; it sounds like a description of the standard AP Psychology curriculum. We have a lot of pages on AP courses (Advanced_Placement#Subjects). --Allen 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay; looking closer I see that most of them were created by the same user three days ago. Still, they seem like legitimate stubs to me. --Allen 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Isn't the AP Psychology course standardized internationally? It's not a course specific to any one school. TheProject 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's certainly safe to say that the course, although it covers pretty much the same material everywhere, is not taught always identically - certainly not with those same units always in "Semester B." Even if it were, what would be the point? An article on the AP Psychology test would make much more sense than this. -Elmer Clark 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely not standardized internationally. Not all countries have a college system, and most countries have no AP system. In fact, I was completely clueless as to what "AP Psychology exam" in the article might refer to until I saw JzG's contribution below. --LambiamTalk 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic article can be written on topic. Current state of content is irrelevant, {{sofixit}} . Loom91 08:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks too specific to one high school. JIP | Talk 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks context, apart from anything else, but what this article says is that the AP Psychology course prepares students for - wait for it - the AP Psychology exam! Who knew? Oh, and it does it without defining "AP". Or giving any hint as to why we should care. Can it be worked up into a valid article? Who knows. Do we need to keep its seat warm while we wait? Absolutely not. This is a non-article. And the concept is more than adequately covered at Advanced Placement anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • change to keep since it is now a completely different article about a different subject, namely the exam (standardised) instead of the course (not). Just zis Guy you know? 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per JzG. We can certainly wait while someone writes another proper article on the test itself. Kimchi.sg 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are articles for a lot of other AP subjects. It obviously needs cleaning up and making it more about the subject and exam. DarthVader 12:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per users above. --BDD 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per users above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Loom91's argument above. —Jnk 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I just took a quick stab at revising the article to make it more encyclopedic (removed random reference to "semester b", etc.,) and I stubified. Take a look, but it still needs work. —Jnk 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep now that article has been stubbified. Context has been injected, and there is at least a little hint of what "AP" means. Kimchi.sg 14:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-natable course. Beno1000 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - covered adequately in Advanced Placement. FreplySpang (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not adequately covered (indeed, hardly mentioned at all) at Advanced Placement. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 15:40 UTC
  • Keep on procedure, but suggest that a blanket discussion of the encylopedic merit of ALL of the AP articles be held and the decision should be applied across the board.Right now there is one (this one) on AfD, a prod or 2, and a bunch that just redirect back to Advanced Placement. That discussion should also include a naming convention discussion for all of these articles if they are deemed encyclopedic.--Isotope23 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep here and for all of them. It has been improved greatly since this nomination, with details that would make the Advanced Placement page huge and confusing. This isn't one of the more notable AP tests, but the notable ones are taken by huge numbers of high school students (much more than, say, the enrollment of any school considered notable). If the other ages are still stubs, then they can be similarly improved in the future. Rigadoun 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ridiculous to suggest deletion. If anything, should have been tagged to merge with Advanced Placement Program Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that the article discusses the TEST and not just some guy's class, I support Keeping it. -Elmer Clark 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. ProhibitOnions 21:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nominator needs to have some common sense when listing... YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO AFD STUFF THAT HASNT EVEN HAD A WEEK TO EXPAND ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS A NOTABLE SUBJECT! My god, subject is clearly a notable very widespread exam in north america. There are probably 50 different guides (published yearly) on how to pass it in any decent bookstore. A simple google pulls up 161,000 results for the phrase "AP Psychology". How about next time you put a valueable stub instead? It would have probably taken as much time as it did for you to go through the 3 step AFD process.  ALKIVAR™ 01:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment, wow... the claws really came out on that one. I agree with you in principle up until the statement on putting up a stub instead because you presume the nominator has a passing knowledge of/interest in the subject. Better suggestion would be to tag the article for whatever problems it has (context, cleanup, verification, etc) and then give it some time to improve before bringing it to AfD. WP:CHILL never hurt anyone.--Isotope23 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • When people afd stuff without bothering to read the entire section marked Before nominating an AfD or otherwise reading directions I get pissed. Whatever happened to the days of people reading before wading in to something they dont understand?  ALKIVAR™ 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It depends how you view it. The subject of the original article - a non-standardised course for a program which already had an article - was unencyclopaedic. The rewritten article, about the (standardised) exam, is encyclopaedic. But to recognise that the article was salvageable by refactoring it to a different, albeit related, subject, did require lateral thinking, and it seems harsh to castigate the nominator for failing to make that leap. Enough people voted delete before the rewrite to indicate that it is certainly not as unambiguous as you make out. Just zis Guy you know? 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would likewise encourage you to read the version of the article I submitted for deletion before lambasting me. The original article had absolutely nothing to do with the AP test itself. I assumed that any article about the actual test would be located at AP Psychology exam or something. Chill out. -Elmer Clark 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    I did, and could have written a 2 paragraph stub on the exam in the time it took you to list this for AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as stub. I'd personally like to suggest a category for AP tests. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The original article was about a course, not an exam ("This college-level course prepares students for the AP Psychology exam") but it has expanded into an article about an important standardized exam recognized by many universities. Fg2 06:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What in the world can be said about AP courses and examinations that's not already covered at Advanced Placement Program? -- Krash (Talk) 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautious keep It seems like it could be (majorly) cleaned up rather than destroyed. --Pilot|guy 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Catches a Pokémon

Well, it's happening. The expansion of Pokemon-related articles (familiar to many on AfD as a core citation for why we could keep just about anything) is moving to yet lower ground with synopses for various episodes. Delete as yet more Pokemon-cruft. (Prodded but contested). Eusebeus 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep One of the first episodes of a very notable show--certainly more notable than other series which currently have individual-episode articles. I get 3,830 Google hits for "Ash Catches a Pokemon" plus a few hundred more for "Ash Catches a Pokémon". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have individual episode articles for plenty of other shows, why not this one? BryanG 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. Not every contested prod needs an AfD! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. While whether we should have articles on every episode of the show is a matter of debate, I think it's obvious that the first episode of one of the most notable anime shows of all time is notable. Loom91 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment The article itself states that this is the 3rd episode. Shiroi Hane 09:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pokemon episodes, or somesuch. This also applies to Star Trek, Dr Who, Seinfeld, Family Guy, Simpsons, and any other TV show who's fervent fans really, really need to get out more. Individual episodes need to be really important outside their own story arc to deserve their own articles. (The one where Kirk snogs Uhura would qualify, or "The Germans" in Fawlty Towers.) -- GWO
Comment Good luck on that Crusade.. your going to have episdoe pages miles in length for a series like dr who, or even the star treks.. EnsRedShirt 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gareth. Raggaga 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or if you really must have it merge. Jcuk 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'm definitely not a Pokemon fan, but I think TV episodes, especially pilot episodes, should be kept in order to keep a complete view of certain aspects of popular culture. Jared W 11:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with television episodes, especially early ones. --badlydrawnjeff :(WP:MEMES?) 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I can't wait to see this used as precedent when someone wants to break out the episodes of Head Cases into their own articles...--Isotope23 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why shouldn’t they? If the information exists, they might as well. It’d only be 2 articles. Anyway, it’s not comparable, Pokémon is a more notable series overall. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it is comparable; Pokémon is more notable than Head Cases only as a matter of your opinion. Notability is a fairly arbitrary designation. I happen to be of the opinion that neither are really notable... but notability isn't really a criteria for inclusion or deletion here.--Isotope23 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, wtf are you talking about? Notability is the primary criterion( “criteria” is plural) for inclusion or deletion. And Pokémon being more notable is not merely a matter of opinion: We’re talking about a show with hundreds of episodes( as opposed to two for Head Cases), ratings good enough to keep it on the air for what, 8 seasons now? And which, as part of a successful multi-billion dollar franchise, started a huge fad. Most people in numerous countries all over the world have at least heard of Pokémon, and more know it’s a cartoon than realize it started out as a video game. How many people do you think have even heard of Head Cases? I know I hadn’t until this discussion. Whether it’s notable enough to deserve an episode guide or episode articles is debatable, but it would be foolish to continue to pretend it’s not more notable than Head Cases. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the show is notable, has over 100 (200? 300?) episodes. If Star Trek (to name just one) has a list, why not Pokémon? -- ReyBrujo 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Precident has been set by other series.. Though this episode and this series is not notable to me, doesn't mean its not notable. EnsRedShirt 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad article, bad topic. I really wish we had some rules against chronicling every piddling thing that gets broadcast on TV. Brian G. Crawford 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the precident for per-episode articles seem to have been set some time ago. --Rob 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, and I've found individual episode articles helpful when I've been getting into a series.--BigCow 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand more and correct some stuff. I may add some notes and stuff, but I remember reading in the What Wikipedia is Not that if you have the right amount of info it's ok, but there are Family Guy episodes yet to air that have almost no info at all. However, some things are wrong here. Matty-chan 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited some stuff. Matty-chan 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't get it. This doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. In order to be in Wikipedia, this material is supposed to have been based on published material, and the source is supposed to be cited. Is there a section in WP:V that says it doesn't apply to Pokémon articles? What am I missing here? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Published ≠ printed; there's absolutely no reason why the series itself (in video form) can't be cited as a source here, since it has been (quite widely) published. (The fact that the article doesn't cite it is regrettable, but presumably easily fixed.) Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that, for basic, non-controversial information about TV shows (cast, crew, basic plot, airdates, etc), the show itself can be considered to be a source. Even if not, as has already been mentioned there are any number of online episode guides, such as serebii.net. Even if print sources are insisted upon, there are plenty of those, too. Episode information can be found in the now-defunct Pokemon Official Magazine, as well as actual books like Pojo's Unofficial Total Pokemon (ISBN 1572436794), Pojo's Unofficial Big Book of Pokemon (ISBN 1572433612), and several others. There's also plenty of Pokemon anime coverage in the major anime magazines as well, such as Anime Insider, Animerica, and NewType. Say what you will about the article, but verifiability is not not not not not an issue here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
I agree with this one completely. -User:Jimbo Wales"[8]
~Kylu (u|t) 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a PCP focus and is drastically improved. It needs templates and links like other shows have. You can’t attack the practice of having episode articles by targetting them individually. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eh oh. I started a topic about this at the Pokémon anime discussion page just before I saw this. I stay neutral for now. See also the episode guides made by other websites at List of Pokémon episodes#External links. Oh, and maybe we can do something with this too? -- Face 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaine and Melanie Silver

Twins? yes. Notable? No. The article summarizes the highlights and entirety of their brief film career - Pebbles in the movie version (shudder) of The Flintstones and a brief stint on General Hospital. Delete Eusebeus 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I usually vote to delete when baby "actors" come up for AfD (they're basically props), but the Flintstones role was supposedly when they were 6 years old, and I guess they could reasonably said to be "acting". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Starblind, though I just vaguely remember the Flintstones. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can't see the value in this page, but may just be me. San Saba 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Literally everything in this brief article can also be found or inferred from their IMDb entries. --Metropolitan90 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable by my criteria. Loom91 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia = paper. Vizjim 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and expand Jcuk 10:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Flintstones (film) and delete. They aren't notable enough to have their own article, especially since they haven't worked in movies after The Flinstones. -- ReyBrujo 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Just because it's light on info doesn't mean it can't be expanded into something better. In the meantime it's a placeholder of modest value. Rigadoun 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per ReyBrujo. Kuzaar 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Arbusto 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Sue Anne 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If I read correctly Notability (people), the Silver twins don't pass the test... They aren't notable actresses (nothing till 1994, and only one role for two in both their appearences), and googling their name gave me no independent biography, no multiple fan websites... And I can't find any material to expand the article. In other words, the Silver twins aren't the Olsen twins... --Sam67fr 08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete They were not baby actors in the flinstone's movie and the role on general hospital was possibly non-trivial, but the roles together are still minor. JoshuaZ 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with the flinstones - They aren't notable.Beltz 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look What I Did

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Writeups of the band cited in the article, such as theprp.com and loudside.com are not "non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". No other claim to notability. Kimchi.sg 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, in the midst of a national tour. Nominator is incorrect, national tours mean notable per WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, found this Decibel magazine article, an actual paper magazine. It's just barely beyond blurb, though. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMG. This band qualifies as notability in MUSIC category per national touring, writeups in notable publications, and regular rotation on national radio. sausagefence 2:57, 9 May 2006.
  • Keep This band clearly meets WP:NMG notability by the three aforementioned criteria as well as containing a member of another notable band as well. Sounds like the person who flagged it is out of touch with notable underground bands. --user:fragmented8 22:18 9 May 2006.


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharp gx30

Delete Non-notable. Reads like a product review. Jnk 02:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete POV review of a mobile phone; no claims to notability of said phone. Unencyclopædic in tone, scope and content of article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with User:(aeropagitica), also note that the article is written in first-person voice. JIP | Talk 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Poorly-written article about unremarkable phone. Delete it. -- Krash (Talk) 14:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Good work, people. DS 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore L. Thomas

not wikified, doesnt assert importance, been tagged {{expand}} for a month, nn short story writer Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment FWIW, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction verifies that basically the article's accurate. It is a pretty dreadful excuse for an article, though, and I'm not sure the credits add up to notability. The only thing that might push him over is collaborating with Kate Wilhelm on a couple of novels. Fan1967 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd hate to set the bar of notability so low as to include everyone who's had a short story published (hell, I've had a few myself). However, a large number of stories in a multi-decade career suggests notability, and the novels (though written in collaboration) are icing on the cake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Loom91 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I've cleaned up the formatting, though it could still do with expansion. Vizjim 10:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google gets about 9380 hits. Is it notable?--Jusjih 10:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
For a pulp writer from well before the advent of the Internet? Sure. Vizjim 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Fan1967 and Starblind, although we need some more references as to how well his work sold. -- ReyBrujo 17:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Only the novels were ever sold as such, and overall sales figures were generally pretty low for SF in that era. All the short stories were printed in magazines. F&SF and Astounding (now called Analog), which published most of his work, were and are among the absolute top magazines in the genre. Fan1967 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep but needs sources. Arbusto 22:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep - noted sf author. Needs work though. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was nominated for a Nebula Award, which is a good sign of notability. [9] --Metropolitan90 02:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it's kept, is anyone here willing to rewrite and expand the article? Nobody else has so far. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten it and someone else has started adding content. Vizjim 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear! It's nice to see an AfD that ends up constructively rewriting! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declined

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Hoax. Zero google hits for "Shaun Tenni" +Declined or "Chris Weinlich" +Declined or "Alvaro Mascaro" +Declined or "Kosta Stefano" +Declined. Icarus 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and tagged per nom. TheProject 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Weinlich

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Vanity, hoax. Zero google hits for "Chris Weinlich" +Declined Icarus 02:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and tagged per nom. TheProject 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3030

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Non-notable. 0 google hits for "Dwight Henry" "Sean Terry" Icarus 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and tagged per nom. TheProject 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy A7/A8. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOCMAN

Delete non-notable, reads like an ad. Jnk 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, copyvio, vanity, non-notable, ad, tagged. TheProject 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and take a look at its parent company, PCTI. Fan1967 03:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio cut and pasted directly from their site's main page, http://www.pcti.co.uk/ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrary Warrior

Doesn't seem encyclopedia material to me. Second half of the article is a copyvio. Also, doesn't appear to be Wiktionary worthy (not a dicdef), but I'm leaving the dicdef template there anyways. Suggest either rewrite or delete. TheProject 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • In its current form delete, if it can be fixed up keep -- Tawker 04:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation in better form. Kimchi.sg 12:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as copyvio per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - i dont c nothing unencylopedic about it. Luka Jačov 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep- take out the copyvio, and you've still got a stub that can be expanded. Reyk YO! 22:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Arbusto 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio, allowing for later recreation. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- I have removed the copyvio. What's left, in my opinion, could still be expanded by someone with a bit of expertise in this area. Reyk YO! 08:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely no context (which happens to be a CSD, but I'm too lazy to tag it). --Rory096 08:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I've trimmed the copyvio part. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty In A Basket

Contested PROD that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous | Talk 03:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 12:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Phase

Delete non-notable web forum(s) with no claim to notability asserted. Prod was removed. Gwernol 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability to be found. Doesn't even specify what the forums are about or where they're located. Oddly, claims to be "long-running" yet was started less than two years ago and hasn't even operated continuously since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 04:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No claims to notability & no external links to the site.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Wolf

Non-notable musician per WP:BAND. Was originally tagged for speedy deletion, negligently deleted by the author, retagged by me--then I did a Google query and found that his music is sorta, kinda approaching the mainstream--thought it better to AfD. One of his albums, 'Miseries Company is listed on Amazon, though the item is not in stock and does not have a sales ranking. His other album is not to be found anywhere. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From Aaron Proot:

His album is on CD-Baby, which means it is on iTunes and the other download services. He was also on a UPN reality series earlier this year, whose name escapes me at the moment. While he is not a mainstream artist, he is popular enough to be included on Wikipedia. Think of what I started as a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronproot (talk • contribs) .

Please read over WP:BAND. Having an album available for download, even via iTunes, does not constitute notability on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of indie and no-name artists on Wikipedia. Your quick tagging of my article before I had a chance to finish it is deeply irritating and a waste of your time. I do plan on fleshing out this article, unless you manage to have it deleted first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronproot (talk • contribs) .

Please do add to the article right now before it is deleted. You may just convince us against its removal. Kimchi.sg 12:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment what label is he on? Two indie releases does not constitute notability. No allmusic.com entry. Couldn't find the UPN reference. If no major label release, then delete -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Based on above discussions, he is quite notable. Loom91 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, there is no indication he meets WP:MUSIC based on the information provided, or based what I managed to find on the web. That said, is it necessary to tag an article for deletion when it has only existed for 9 minutes without making even a cursory attempt to contact the originator of the article to explain the issue with the article first... or even as a courtesy after nominating it for deletion?--Isotope23 15:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed: it was bad form not to contact him first; however, it had been tagged for speedy deletion previously, and the original author removed the speedy tags. I took this as an indication that the deletion was contested, so I skipped the prod stage as, like you, I had sufficiently concluded for myself that the artist was not notable enough. Plus, this AfD provided a more public forum through which the author could adress my concerns (had he adressed them, I would have withdrawn the AfD). AmiDaniel (Talk) 17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think there will be reason to withdraw the nom based on WP:MUSIC because I don't think the subject meets the criteria... all I'm saying is that tagging an article for context (or verification, etc), posting a message on the talk page of the article or the originator asking them to show proof this meets the applicable guideline, and then waiting a few days before an AfD helps avoid claims of WP:BITE and is less discouraging to new(-ish) editors. If every pokemon character or Gundam suit under the sun has an article, having an article there that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC for a week or two probably won't hurt anything.--Isotope23 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: You know your pushing the limit when the first sentence in the article literally claims the subject is notable. This subject does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Hetar 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, I would request, as Isotop23 said, to give articles a bit more time to develop. It is not necessary to catch everything just after it was created. -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This artist received months of airplay as an undefeated freestyle battle rapper on San Francisco-based KYLD WILD 94.9 radio. [10] [11] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the graphic artist/photographer who designed his 2 album covers and created his website (which is down at the moment for some reason). While Wolf may not be a mainstream artist as of yet, he is notable for his popularity in the SF Bay Area, for the artists he has collaborated with, and the UPN show he was on earlier this year. I think Wikipedia sometimes misses out by keeping out up and coming artists and I hope you don't make the same mistake with A-Wolf. Also, as the copyright holder for the photograph and 2 album covers I uploaded yesterday, I approve their appearance on Wikipedia as they are promotional tools for Wolf-- AaronProot 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Any idea when this website will be back on-line? Some of it is captured by archive.org, but unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not mirror MP3s yet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the last two votes are just too compelling.  ALKIVAR™ 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per other Keep comments. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 00:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and the acting stint does not appear on either Google listings nor on imdb.com, no citation listed for said UPN appearance in your article either. As far as his future career is concerned, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see link, their wording not mine). Sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure A-Wolf is a talented singer but he doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. While he may be "popular" in SF Bay Area, his popularity isn't verifiable. Myspace and CDbaby pages aren't enough to establish his notability... --Sam67fr 09:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per WP:NMG, but only one of the four images can stay, as it's patently not fair use otherwise. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this musician is notable enough here Yuckfoo 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Brendan Ryan

I think this person does not fill Wikipedia's criteria for notability and thus should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies Awiseman 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Chairman of a major company. JoshuaZ 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Awiseman, your previous prod of this article was removed by Monicasdude with the argument "chairman of largest advertising agency in US should be so obviously notable as to require no discussion". Could you please address this objection? I wish you had actually done so in your nomination. It is not clear how the guideline you refer to is applicable in this case, as it seems to contain nothing specific on businesspeople. How is the "chairman of [the] largest advertising agency in [the] US" (assuming the article and Monicasdude are correct) less notable than, say, a player for a reasonably successful American college football team, or a novelist selling 5001 copies of a book? Tupsharru 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. TheProject 04:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems notable enough for mine and there are verifiable sources like this available [12]. Capitalistroadster 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per JoshuaZ and Capitalistroadster. JIP | Talk 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tupsharru. I don't much mind the inclusion of the examples mentioned by that user, but we can also find some room for someone who is actually important if the article's assertions about him are correct. Metamagician3000 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming the article is correct, this is a keep. -- The Anome 12:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the company is notable, I'm not sure that this individual is. Zaxem 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to mention that working in a notable company does not make the CEO notable. -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if I am allowed to vote, since I made the objection. I don't think he is notable per the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, as he passes none of those tests, such as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" which he does not do. He may be a CEO of a big advertising company, but he doesn't seem to be in the news, other than for being promoted. --Awiseman 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Technically speaking, a recommendation to delete is implied in a nomination. You shouldn't put another delete further down the discussion, as it may result in a position appearing to have more support than it does. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Somone might be looking for this information for business related reasons. Arbusto 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, I don't think Wikipedia is the right resource. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I am surprised, to say the least, that it is suggested that being a major businessman is not a sufficient criterion for notability in itself. Tyrenius 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please point us where in WP:BIO it is stated that being the CEO of a company makes you notable enough for Wikipedia. I haven't found that section anywhere, but since I kind of think he must have done something right in order to be the CEO of a company, I am abstaining myself from voting. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We more or less automatically, by longstanding consensus, accept inclusion of anyone working in a significant enough position in certain businesses, such as professional football (either kind), baseball or cricket (where it is enough to be hired to sit on a bench for most of a couple of seasons). Isn't it just systemic bias not to include a prominent, and very likely influential, businessman just because the business he is attached to doesn't have a fan club? Tupsharru 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this logic, as athletes are public figures who do their "work" in front of fans and thus are much more visible than businessmen, who generally work behind the scenes and rarely get in the news. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, many such businessmen are often in the news (that's why many papers have a daily business section in addition to a daily sports section). Anyways, that's en argument that would be relevant if this were Wikiabloid, however, it is Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO etc should be treated as inclusionary rules, not exclusionary rules. If someone holds an intrinsically important position they should get in anyway, even if they don't fall under some specific guideline. Someone like this person is asserted to be is much more important in the real world than an obscure author who has managed to get a book published with a print run of just over 5000, or even quite a lot more than that number, or any of the many other examples we could think of. Metamagician3000 11:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He climbed the greasy pole of corporate management to the top. And...? Nothing, really. No pioneering work cited, no Clio awards, nothing that distinguishes him from any other corporate seat-warmer. He's no Hal Riney. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. CEO of major corporation- in the real world, that's called major achievement. -- JJay 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn/nominator actually wants merge/etc. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandit (truck)

Bandit, along with the trucks listed below, is an NN monster truck. I want to clean up the monster truck section and the first step is getting rid of some of the articles on trucks that were never notable, these vehicles will eventually be compiled into a List of monster trucks page. The other trucks being nominated:

Arenacale 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep If you're planning on merging the articles, listing them for AfD is not the way to do that. Besides, Google shows at least some of these are notable and expandable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Starblind. And suggest that someone speedy close this nomination. Kimchi.sg 12:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all notable Monster Trucks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a procedural issue, no opinion on content. If you want a merge, Merge the content boldly and either redirect those articles to your new article or prod them.--Isotope23 15:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Iso. Arbusto 23:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing nomination Arenacale 01:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete g4. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Grand Lodge of England

None of it is verified, it's full of "weasel words", and finally it was voted to be deleted previously. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard. Delete and protect Ardenn 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drawball

Blazing exciting new trails in non-notability, prod tag removed without comment, article itself is also severely lacking. Objectivist-C 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Bad nomination, obviously notable. Loom91 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the notabilty? Anything WP:WEB-ish? Alexa rank 85,143 which is unexciting, article claims two million daily hits which seems to have happened on a few days but now dropped to tenth of that. Weregerbil 09:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean Up. This site should be mentioned, but needs to be fixed into something more than a promotion board for Drawball projects. --Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Strictly interpreted, WP:WEB would prevent Wikipedia from cataloguing anything that hasn't already seeped well into the popular culture. The advantage of wikipedia over a traditional encyclopedia is in the breadth of its content, and the fact that it can give information on subjects like drawball or Whatpulse before they get a New York Times article, not afterwards. Drawball's become a popular site and a connection between different online communities. The danger of the article is that it will become more about the communities than the site itself, but I believe the issues are ones of managing the content rather than deleting it.--BigCow 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it should be cleaned-up rather than deleted. It (the attack against Korea, which is probably the main reason it is on here, contrary to misleading promotion that shouldn't take up such a large porportion) was a major internet event that involved many major website participants who all have their own articles on Wikipedia. In addition to the well-known event, groups involved in massive creations on the site (such as ebaumsworld and worth1000) are big enough to have their own article. If not big enough in hits, it is at least a major culmination point of the Internet and significant to internet culture. If this article must be deleted, however, I strongly suggest that the major Korean flag incident remain; as a stub article or as part of another article involving internet issues and culture, etc. --Dch111 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Removing everything trivial would bring this down to a sentence or two, and what's left would still fail WP:WEB, as well as being unreferenced and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (used to be comment)I disagree with it failing WP:WEB, as per BigCow, but as for it being unverifiable, are you saying it cannot be proven to exist? (The events can be proved through screen shots and links) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dch111 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. Compared to the other articles nominated for deletion, this has much more valuable content, and is a great reference page for the site's history and information, which exists nowhere else on the web. I second BigCow's argument that Wikipedia provides a plethora of information not available yet through huge media sources. Drawball is becoming (if it hasn't already become) a significant point in internet culture. If it is deleted and soon after receives recognition through a notable source, what then? Is the article revived or rebuilt from scratch? We will have already lost the prior content on the drawball article. Don't delete. If anything, simply clean up and add more objective content. Chigz 10:50, 7 May 2006. (UTC)
  • Comment This is the user's first edit. -Objectivist-C 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Second edit actually, their first edit appeared to be on May 4th.--BigCow 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Did I do something wrong? Chigz 14:04, 8 May 2006
  • Comment Not at all, don't worry about it. In discussions like this one, which are more about "consensus" than taking a poll, people are occasionally accused of trying to stuff ballots or bring in outside help to vote on a topic. Sock puppetry is what people call it, and people sometimes list how many edits a user has to suggest a "weight" to their vote or if they just signed up to vote. You're more than welcome to participate, and you were an editor before this vote even took place, people are just wary of ballot-stuffing.--BigCow 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, thank you. See, I'm not so much an editor as a user. I use Wikipedia daily for its information; I have done no editing up to this point (as is most obvious by my lack of knowledge on editing properly). I just felt that I should interject where an article that I make use of is being questioned for deletion. Thanks again, though, for clearing that up. Chigz 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the drawball is a interesting and verifiable subject we should cover Yuckfoo 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per above KeithV 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete immediatre Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre! Kim Jong Il 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-???--Dch111 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep very notable site...  ALKIVAR™ 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, had 15 minutes of if-not-fame-then-something-like-it but failed to become a notable Internet meme in any respect. Fails WP:WEB: Alexa rank is above 150,000 and climbing. I've deleted the hits-per-day claim from the article, since it is not verifiable: Alexa does not keep hits-per-day statistics for sites outside the top 100,000. Most of what's in the article is trivial and either unverifiable or original research. Sorry guys, but this site just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep And by the way, is a third-party verification really necessary for hits per day? --Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sevenoaks S.C.

This article makes some assertion of notability of finishing sixth in the regional championships, but I checked its website to look at the times the swimmers were doing, and the record holder is about 20-25% slower than the world record in all events. Given that the qualifying limit for olympics and world championships is 5%, this cannot possibly come close to being sportingly notable. Britain won 2 bronze medals at the last Olympics in swimming, and isn't particularly strong, so I don't see why a community club competing in a county league at speeds 25% lower than international standard is notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Blnguyen. If there is an article for the community league, it might be worth merging with that but it doesn't seem to be worthy of an article of its own. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can find no Wikipedia policy that defines a level of achievment against world records that must be met before a sports club is 'allowed' an article. It is accepted now that all schools are 'notable', by the same logic, so are community sports clubs. Markb 07:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There is a policy WP:BIO which mentions
Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
    • This appears to imply that this group of people/organization is not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This policy WP:BIO , concerns an individual, it states clearly that an individual is worthy of a biography if they attended a club of sufficient stature. This policy is not relevant here. Markb 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP, Criteria for products and services. This is the closest guideline for this kind of places I could ever think of. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not all schools need their own article, and most sports clubs definitely do not. Additionally per above. Kuzaar 20:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beckenham Swimming Club

A suburban swim club. Despite the claims made in the article, I checked the "club records" section in the website and all of the club records are 10-15% slower than the world record, whereas the qualifying at the Olympics requires around a 5% margin for A-qualifying. There is no indication of them winning British Championships, or any athletes being selected for national teams, and incidentally, Britain managed only 2 bronze medals in the last Olympics and aren't exactly a swimming power.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per BLnguyen or possibly merge in article on league. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the same reasons as for Sevenoaks S.C. (above)Markb 07:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There is a policy WP:BIO which mentions
Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
    • This appears to imply that this group of people/organization is not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This policy WP:BIO , concerns an individual, it states clearly that an individual is worthy of a biography if they attended a club of sufficient stature. This policy is not relevant here. Markb 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [13]. Will tag and list on WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erith and District S.C.

I checked the homepage for this club and their club records are 15% slower than the world record. You need 5% to make to qualifying limit for the Olympics. Also, the fact that the club has 300 people is not paricularly enough for inclusion on grounds of size alone, and training 6 days a week isn't exactly notable either.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or possible merge if article on league. Capitalistroadster 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the same reasons as for Sevenoaks S.C. & Beckenham (above)Markb 07:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There is a policy WP:BIO which mentions
Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
    • This appears to imply that this group of people/organization is not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This policy WP:BIO , concerns an individual, it states clearly that an individual is worthy of a biography if they attended a club of sufficient stature. This policy is not relevant here. Markb 08:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP, Criteria for products and services. This is the closest guideline for this kind of places I could ever think of. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Arbusto 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron_Skull

Google finds only minor references to Iron Skull as a comic character, but they don't fit this synopsis. Looks like the OP is wikifying his own inventions. Eric TF Bat 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 1. Doesn't accurately describe the comic book character. 2. If is supposed to be about the comic book character it should just be in the Amazing Man article, as the character is not notable enough to merit his own article and the Amazing Man article is short anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jklin (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as per nom and above. -- The Anome 12:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jklin. -- ReyBrujo 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Murphy

Person does not meet notability requirements
↪Lakes (Talk) 06:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, another pro wrestler in a no-name league, not notable enough. Nicely done and well intentioned article though. Grandmasterka 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Arbusto 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (weak) Keep. i have seen alot more unwatrrented articles remain here and he does seem a notable indy wrestler compared to alot of them --- Paulley
  • Delete totally unnotable wrestler and not only that but never has Keith Murphy or KL Murphy been mentioned on wikipedia with the exception of postings by Keith Murphy himself, so there is truly no interest in this wrestler. If Nick Mondo's entry was deleted (and it was), this guy's should DEFINITELY be deleted.JB196 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.103.143.97 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Soultan

NN bio. Only 2 (non-related) Google hits for his name besides Wikipedia. Vanity? Optimale Gu 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible hoax. Kimchi.sg 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have asked a couple of Hungarian speakers to check out the source and comment. JackyR 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, there seems not to be enough information to include it in WP:BIO. I am willing to change my vote if resources other than the author' site are found. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Arbusto 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. No evidence to suggest a hoax: some evidence it isn't: 1997 blog comment on Szultan and Köves József's A griff-licenc. Think original spelling is Szultan. If bio is true, then mildly notable. More references, please! NB References do not have to be online: printed Hungarian sources are OK.JackyR 00:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely not a hoax. I myself haven't known about this 1997 blog comment on the work. I wish I could find the blogger and get to know his sources. He talks about homosexuality and it's effects on society, and brings up Köves and Soultan's work as an example that satirically brings a solution to repopulating the nation. He also mentions that he chose his user name honoring Soultan. I guess, he is a fan too. Yes, indeed, the original spelling is Szultán Alfréd. The griff-licence was printed under that name. As I read it in the press release a few years ago, the movie version will have the English sounding name on it already. I just received an original print of his Dawning Aurora "Derengő Hajnal" which is also in Hungarian. I requested the copy from a Hungarian theatre. I suggest all that voted for deletion check out the facts before destroying my work with the page. I have researched two living Hungarian writers so far. I am doing a third article. I am trying to include people that are overlooked and not appreciated enough. "NB References do not have to be online: printed Hungarian sources are OK". Tamas Keresztes 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Keresztes' other two en.wiki articles are: Jozsef Koves and István Fekete, the latter of whom has a well-established hu.wiki article. JackyR 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. And a third one about Vera Filo. Tamas Keresztes 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I've looked into Hungarian references to Szultán Alfréd. I am convinced that he is not a hoax; however, I am not at all convinced that he meets our criteria for notability. I will abstain on this one. --Ashenai 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. The nomination was clearly disruption of Wikipedia to make a point on the mailing list. The point is adequately made, and this article has no chance of actually being deleted. Let's end this absurdity. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep, per consensus. I count at this point 31 keep/strong keep/speedy keep vs either 1 or 2 to delete , or a 94-97%. Further debate would be thoroughly pointless, though I suppose techinically it could go to DRV if anyone really feels differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof that 0.999... equals 1

Completely unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts, which also means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary nuggets of mathematical fact. This is an obvious deletion candidate to even an inclusionist like me, at best it can be transwikied to WikiBooks if they want it. Loom91 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, very useful information, written encyclopedically. This article can be used as a resource when trying to explain the issue to people who still think 0.999... is less than 1. JIP | Talk 09:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is not an "arbitary nugget of mathematical fact", it directly addresses a common misconception held by many people. Wikipedia should strive to provide the public with accurate information and abolish such misconceptions - and this is what this article is for. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not hear to clear the misconceptions of the public. It is an encyclopedia, not doubt-clearing classes at the college. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This nomination completely ignores the WikiProject Mathematics history of supporting proofs both in articles and as articles. I suggest the nominator be better informed about both Wikipedia and mathematics before making further questionable claims. Mathematicians regularly use proofs for both education and communication. This particular article appears to be the best coverage of the topic — a perennial question — anywhere on the Web, hardly a candidate for deletion. --KSmrqT 10:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I could write an article on myself that will be the best in the web. That doesn't mean it should be in the WP. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There are at least ten other proof articles currently on Wikipedia; see Category:Proofs, List of mathematical proofs, and Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1#Title. Of these, only one has undergone AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π.
A couple of people wanted to transwiki or merge, and a couple thought that such a numerical comparison was undeserving of proof, but the clear consensus was to keep. Some went out of their way to point out that the article does not violate WP:NOT, among other policies.
And that is, in fact, the only AfD on record of its kind. Searching VfD instead, we find only Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 1 = 2, which was not a proof at all, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 0.999... equals 1, which never happened.
As for the merits of this particular article and its subject, I endorse the above keep votes. Melchoir 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is agreed that the existence of other similar articles is not a valid ground to oppose deletion. For example, the existence of non-notable articles is not a ground to oppose the deletion of non-notable articles. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course not; that's why I explicitly endorsed other voters. But your claim that Wikipedia does not contain proof articles was wrong, and I felt it required disproof. There is no point in nitpicking everyone's imprecise logic on this AfD if you're not going to address the underlying consensus that the topic is notable and the article is encyclopedic. That it is also popular and educational is icing on the cake. Melchoir 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Not an arbitrary fact, but an important feature of decimal expansions which is sometimes misunderstood. Article is definitely encyclopedic, well written and comprehensive. Gandalf61 10:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encylopedic. I'm thinking that it could be greatly shortened, and made into a section of the 1(number) article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveo2 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep While I find it wholly baffling that there are people who care about 0.999... being equal to 1 or not, it's clear that those people do exist. While I find it to be surpremely uninteresting, that doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is one of the most visited math articles on Wikipedia and definitely belongs in the encyclopedia. —Mets501talk 11:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Being visited does not make an article encyclopedic. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mets501. DarthVader 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and let's try to stop making silly AfDs. -lethe talk + 11:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The nomination is not silly at all and I will appreciate if you did not make personal attacks.
      • Maybe you should put a little more work into understanding policy and culture at wikipedia, then build a case and make a strong argument, rather than just making vague and unsupported assertions that an important article is unencyclopedia. -lethe talk + 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I find it bizarre that someone would want to remove such an article from an encyclopaedia. It comprehensively explains one of the important aspects of mathematics in simple language. Markb 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. I think concensus to keep has been established. --Salix alba (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Meni and Mets --Deville (Talk) 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Keep vote, as per all the many wonderful people above. This article also provides a useful insomnia cure for non-mathematicians. Vizjim 12:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not and should never be a cure for insomnia. Statutory warning: taking medication without prescription can be dangorous. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this is an important and surprisingly subtle mathematical topic, bringing together infinities, infinitesimals, limits, and the nature of the real number line. -- The Anome 12:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above. Moreover, the fact that 0,(9) is not approximately, but exactly equal to 1 is probably one of the few math facts interesting even to people who normaly don't care much about math. AdamSmithee 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • From when has "interesting" been the criteria for inclusion? Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • We call it "notability"; but it has always been a criterion - not the only one, of course. Keep Septentrionalis 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We have dozens of articles about mathematical proofs, this is the most understandable and most popularly referenced one I've seen of them.
  • Keep as part of "the sum of all human knowledge" we want to collect. - Liberatore(T) 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it is nearly universally agreed that we do NOT want to collect the sum of all human knowledge, only the subset that is encyclopedic and notable. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I rephrease: this is a part of "...", and is a part we want to collect. But I would be more specific on this: Wikipedia should cover all mathemtatics (and the other sciences, of course), and this is part of mathematics. - Liberatore(T) 13:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per KSmrq and others above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per KSmrq --Rayc 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is this unencyclopaedic?! Batmanand | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the above reasons. - DavidWBrooks 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Blatant POINT violation per WikiEN-l post; speedy keep - David Gerard 13:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is posible that User:Loom91 really does want this article deleted.Geni 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible that the sun might rise shortly after I have my supper this evening, but I won't be holding my breath: given that this AfD was raised shortly after you yourself mentioned that very article the connection is reasonably clear. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment It could be made more encyopedia by adding some reference to why the proof is significant and any particaly noteable arguments it has caused (Eg when was this first deabted on usernet or something).Geni 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete, then expand other articles. Our coverage of this issue is upside-down. The "Generalizations" section contains the truly important fact (used in Cantor's diagonal argument among other things). We should cover the fact that some real numbers have two decimal representations, and that all real numbers have exactly one infinite decimal representation that does not end in repeating 0 digits - and that this is true for all bases, not just base 10. (we already cover this to some degree in Decimal representation) I wouldn't be opposed to an article proving the more general statement. However, the specific example in this article, that in base 10, the number 1.000... can also be represented as 0.999..., is not encyclopedic. This is indeed a good article which should be kept on another Wikimedia project, but not here. We have an article on Long division, not on 192 divided by 4 equals 48. Same principle applies here. flowersofnight (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This topic is not just any specific example; it is infamous. I am confident that even after this AfD is archived as a keep, if 192/4=48 shows up on AfD it will not receive the same defense. Melchoir 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as there are several other proof articles on Wikipedia. Article could stand to be renamed though. Is also badly in need of rewrite; about halfway through the article I found myself wondering why I should care whether or not 0.999 = 1.--Isotope23 15:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)..
It is one of the standard arguments that turn up on a lot of forums along with things such as the Monty Hall problem.Geni 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Which would be fantastic to know in the article for context about this proof and why it has any relevance or importance (and I know I'm preaching to the choir based on your comments above).--Isotope23 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is finding a source. I can show you multipage threads[14] but they are not really a valid source.Geni 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironicaly thr closest I can get to solid source is an april fools joke[15].Geni 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking for reputable, published literature on common misconceptions over 0.999..., there is at least one author who's written on the subject. See Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1/Archive02#If I may speak to the article itself... and this journal article. Melchoir 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but the title isn't the best. A possible new title is "Multiple decimal representations". – b_jonas 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: blatant POINTmaking as per David Gerard with a side-order of BEANstuffing. —Phil | Talk 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm just slightly worried about including proofs that may get more trivial. TheProject 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not clear as to what exactly is being alleged to be unencyclopedic about this article. Is it because the subject matter is more abstract than most articles? --Trystan 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article is clear, is documented and referenced. -- ReyBrujo 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm very surprised that this was nominated for deletion. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep obviously notable, nominated in violation of WP:POINT ➥the Epopt 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the advertisement of this AfD on the Pump has backfired. I would, however, support creating a Wikibook dedicated to proofs of this type, but even if one existed, I think it's still a worthy article. --Golbez 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: was one of the first articles I saw on WP and it's what got me hooked, that cool articles that explain obscure things that some people are very interested in, can be written and accecible by and to anyone. This article is encyclopedic, and does not fall under indiscriminate collection of facts, but rather explains the concept of 0.999~~ going equaling 1, just as Godwin's law states the concept that the probability of hitler being mentioned in a debate over time equals one. Same deal. Chuck 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was revert. AndyZ 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenger_tank

More detailed articles for all three Challenger Tanks already exist Hrimfaxi 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • comment Merge? Markb 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Roll back to the 14th February to its original status as a disambiguation apge. GraemeLeggett 10:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to a disambiguation page. -- Kjkolb 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, make it a disambiguation page again. Merge useful information into the main articles. -- ReyBrujo 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and revert. — RJH 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to disambig as above or Redirect as useful search term. ProhibitOnions 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to a disambiguation page. Choalbaton 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Klingon language. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'Armond Speers

A stub on a recent PhD best known for attempting (and failing) to raise his child in Klingon. Falls somewhere in the nether-regions between "extreme non-notability" and "ludicrous non-notability". Raggaga 09:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom Raggaga 09:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and consider speedying, though I don't think it's a clear-cut case. I'm struggling to find an assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 10:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The follow is well-known for his attempts to raise his child in Klingon, which surely makes him notable. If he therefore warrants his own article? I don't know. In its current form, the article give little information and may as well be merged into Klingon language. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per IJzeren Jan. Vizjim 12:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If someone wants to add him as a footnote in the Klingon article that would be reasonable (and a search on his name would turn up that article) but I wouldn't make it a redirect. Fan1967 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This whackjob's attempt to screw his kid up is already documented in the Klingon language article, in a fair bit more detail than this article provides. (One wonders why teaching a kid Spanish, Mandarin, French or Arabic, a genuinely useful language, wasn't considered.) RGTraynor 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's an entirely different discussion! I don't think raising your kid in a language that nobody knows is ethical either, but that's beside the point here. We are not happy with the things Adolf Hitler did either, but that's no reason for not having an article about him. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. I would argue he can be speedied per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Klingon Language Institute. He's one of the major members, it seems, and they have published a translation of Hamlet (!). If there was more info, it might even stand on its own. Given that he is the only person (one hopes) to have raised their child in Klingon, that seems notable (it passes the Verifiability and Google tests, and as a published co-author, perhaps the writer test as well, though one wonders how well that book would sell). Rigadoun 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Seems to me the kid is the interesting subject here, as the first native speaker of this language. Poor thing. ProhibitOnions 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant comment. I recall a story in News of the Weird a while back about some parents who were investigated for child neglect, it was noted that they carried on family conversations in Klingon. They were allowed to keep their children. [16] Crypticfirefly 04:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per Rigadoun: weird enough to be notable :-). Sergio Ballestrero 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ace Styles

The only Ace Styles wrestler I can find on google[17] is on a page titled "Flipsyde's Fantasy Wrestler Pack". Seems to be a fictional wrestler or very non-notable. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom.--Joe Jklin 10:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overplay

PROD tag once removed, so bringing it here. Article on a website that gives no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Politepunk 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 11:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious advertising. Theonlyedge 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael C. Axelrod

Not notable enough, self-promotion, Delete abakharev 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced and does not satisfy WP:BIO, as it stands. PJM 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. NawlinWiki 14:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or write and redirect to new article Waterfront Commission. Waterfront Commission[18] looks somewhat notable. TheProject 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Arbusto 23:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources, nothing that indicates notability, no mention of any special cases or particularly significant controversies. --Hetar 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have expanded the outside links and added some proffessional accomplishments his gubernatorial appointment to head a Bi-State agency seems to meet the minimum criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biggfishny (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reiterate my Keep - added Waterfront Commission entry Biggfishny 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Insertformulahere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biggfishny (talk • contribs).
  • Keep expand --66.109.41.126 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Chick Bowen 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Walker (student)

Non Notable entry. Vanity. Possible case for speedy. Irishpunktom\talk 11:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a fantastic, unsourced story we have here. PJM 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete For crying out loud, what were User pages made for? Delete him and his picture. Definate vanity article for some nn person nobody has ever heard of. Beno1000 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable; clear vanity. Bucketsofg✐ 15:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - surely someone who can write such entertaining nonsense can find a better outlet than this? Ac@osr 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. 172.213.128.205 (talk • contribs) blanked the page. -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. TheProject 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio and redirect. Chick Bowen 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tejo Mahalaya

plus redirects

Tagged for deletion by Nkv (talk • contribs), completing nomination Dr Zak 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. The BBC page mentioned is not authored by the BBC, instead it's a bulletin board where people can write guidebook entries. Dr Zak 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the BBC page, Dr Zak says, is just part of a forum for the public (H2G2). This new article is just an attempt to bypass the monitoring of the Taj Mahal page. A page on Oak's book, with a link to the H2G2 page already exists (Taj Mahal: The True Story). Paul B 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Taj Mahal: The True Story. -- RHaworth 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a quick google search reveals a lot of URLs like this one, an exact copy of the article. This page is titled "Junk Funny EMails". -- ReyBrujo 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The origin seems to be this Amazon review. Tagged for speedy delete as copyvio. Deleting and recreating this as a redirect per RHaworth sounds good. Dr Zak 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Furthermore, the page provides no worthwhile inputs that could be used in merging with the 'True story' article. ImpuMozhi 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect per RHaworth and fixing this AfD template. TheProject 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Relations Institute of Cameroon

DELETE/VERIFY: It looks like a hoax, contains unserious formulation. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

withdrawn: because of the reply (see below), it looks the IRIC does exist.
The phone number was removed, and thus it does not look like a commercial advert anymore.
I am sorry for the effort it may have caused. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone may be unaware of its existence doesn't make it a scam. The internet is free, and can be used to verfify all informations. The author has produced and article based on public information. There is no statement of opionion in this piece of writing. Instead of pointing out what should be cleaned out, you simple mark it for deletion. Below are few links talking about the institution. the International Relations Institute of Cameroon (IRIC)exists.


http://hei.unige.ch/ped/EN/cooperation.htm

http://yaounde.usembassy.gov/april_6_2005.html


http://www.minesup.gov.cm/ang/Communiques/Concours/IRIC_2002.htm


http://www.africanfront.com/intlaffairs1.php

This isn't a good way of encouraging people to volunteer their time...

Esso 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote DELETE/VERIFY, not DELETE. It is not usual to include phone number. An institue should have a meaningful website. "They" wrote a lot of mail from nigeria including the word million. Western countries do not take this serious anymore. http://hei.unige.ch/ped/EN/cooperation.htm the phone number is listed there. "Other websites of interest" : It is called "External links", and only allowed for related websites (no advertising/web directory). 50 links=web directory... Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You could have offered some help instead. What is wrong with the phone number being listed on a related website? Just because western institutions have websites don't make those that don't have one unserious. Besides, you might want to check and see what the HEI is. If the HEI website bothers you, if can be taken off the list. where have you seen 50 links?

G p 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

50 links: it is a joke (i do not assume 50 links are required). All i asked for was verification (because many, many people using wikipedia for commercial advertising). This is now listed in the deletion log. I believe this page does not need to get deleted. If i can help out, no problem. I just can not remove the hoax tag without discussion Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You can strike out your nomination (by enclosing it between <s> and </s>) and add something like: "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". --LambiamTalk 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked (visited) the HEI website some hours ago. The phone number is there. This site is allright. Usually, wikipedia entries do not contain phone number, email, and so on. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: adding the phone number makes it look like advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoe golf

Hoax/goof/spam. Article seems to be the creation of a sports retailer (see Ext link). All of the writer's edits are to or related to this article. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I reply to this (have tried to read but can't find info! Apologies if it's wrong.

This is my first wiki, so I'm a little confused as to why you think that this being the only article I currently have linked to is a big surprise. I have removed the 2nd external link, though that was there as the point of entry for the shoe golf championship, as it seems that offended you. Please, if you can find any other info on shoe golf, other than the shoegolfassociation please link to it. I am literally just trying to publish a wiki on a game I love playing with my friends, and have linked to it from golf (as it's a variation) and also from street games...as it is one! If you watch my editing highlights over the next week or so you'll see that I'm a sensible person, and that my intention isn't to spam, nor to spoil a great resource...merely to add to it.

On a truthful note, yes I have done work for Ochosports, but as I said, they're one of the places I can find info about shoe golf, so the link IS relevant imho.

User:Chris_white_22 | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

  • Delete In the first two paragraphs we have the admissions "little known" and "relatively unknown". In Wikipedia terminology that means "Not notable". Fan1967 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT. Chris, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. In order to be included in the Wikipedia it has to be verifiable from reliable sources. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read up on the verifiability and there are admittedly very few sites detailing shoe golf; that said they do exist. If I were to find relevant links on shoe golf, and other sites with info, would this be a good way of trying to maintain this sports wikified status? User talk:Chris_white_22 15:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

A suggestion-- let the deletion go through. Then, later on (probably much later) after you have a substantial number of reliable sources discussing the sport, add the article again. Encyclopedias really aren't the place for things just getting started. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mwanner - I've tried to include some relevant links from decent sources that I can find, and I see your point about new stuff and encyclopedias, but shoe golf isn't "new" it's just that (in the UK at least) it's just getting big. Globally it's been around ages...perhaps not in Florida though! -- User:chris_white_22 | 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment Yes, for example the book that's mentioned in the Amazon link. If it more than just mentions Shoe Golf, meaning if there is good information in the article that came from that book, then you would need to cite it and that might be good enough. There is a way to cite books by their ISBN, I don't know how to do it myself though. Citing the book itself rather than a link to it through Amazon would definitely help as long as information from that book was used in the article. On the other hand, while the myspace link could definitely go in the external links section, myspace is far from a reliable source. Hope that helps. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT

Hang on, not much in terms of feelings in regard to shoegolf but I take exception at what some of you are trying to do. When did you personally decide on what an encyclopedia is or is not for! This is arrogance at a huge scale.

"Definition encyclopedia" a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which deal either with the whole of human knowledge or with a particular part of it: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language"

or

encyclopedia, compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields) or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field).

If someone is trying to use this resource to add credibility to a specific sport this is helping everyone and making this place a centre of knowledge not just a place where people with way too much arrogance define the word encyclopedia. Points regarding commeriality are obviously valid however it you were to look at almost any sport they start out with a couple of clever companies seeing that they can attach there name to something new, kind of like hoover attached its name to the vacuum cleaner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skelligs (talk • contribs) .

  • Actually, none of us here decided what an encyclopedia is for. However, a large number of our users/readers decided what Wikipedia is not for and in conjunction with that we have some notability guidelines that help us along the way. I am recommending delete based on a lack of reliable sources, notability, and WP:NFT. --Hetar 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is exactly not for use to add credibility to a specific sport. See WP:WWIN. You get notable first, then you get a Wikipedia article. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the sheer, unmitigated arrogance is kinda breathtaking, isn't it. That's us, though, to a tee. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, something must be notable in order to be included in Wikipedia, not be included in Wikipedia to become notable. Also, when accessing home page, I get an Access denied - You are not authorized to access this page Not a good external link if you can't go there to verify the contents. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it appears to be real, even if it's idiotic. - Richardcavell 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ReyBrujo Scranchuse 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just because it's real doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia page. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Richard - I prefer odd, rather than idotic! Normal golf is idiotic...all that time chasing after a little ball. Why not make it biger, courses could be smaller, and less time spent looking for the ball! In many ways I would argue that Shoe Golf is notable purely for it's lack of a great knowledge base, it's a lot like, many other games that have become popular without anything really being written down. Take a look at the wiki's on Extreme Croquet for example - that page lists (externally) 20 clubs in the world who alledgedly play, yet that has been deemed more notable than shoe golf? Parce que?

On the show golf mention in the book the wiki links to (well, the amazon details of it), in the front matter the author describes that he was an avid shoe golfer before he cared for teh real thing, and also describes the rules to shoe golf around page 60 (and those of frisbee golf too). I will grab the ISBN number, and see if I can find out how to cite a book properly! User:Chris_white_22 07:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tishting

Google result of FOUR Metros232 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Perhaps this is a neologism, perhaps it's a misspelling. --Bachrach44 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neolog, possible patent nonsense or hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be a neologism WP:NEO, also unverifiable WP:V.--blue520 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blue520. -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as verbatim copy of Software testing. (It's not a neologism, it just seems to be a very bad pronounciation. I would suggest a redirect, but I can't possibly envision the redirect being useful.) TheProject 19:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism etc. - Richardcavell 22:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable band. JDoorjam Talk 07:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Schlong

Was accused of being a NN-band, tag removed, so I'm taking it here. No vote. Bachrach44 14:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Bucketsofg✐ 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Only a bare handful of G-hits, only one hit on their alleged album, and their "official website" has no Alexa ranking. RGTraynor 15:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems not to pass WP:MUSIC criteria of notability.--blue520 15:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blue520 -Harmil 17:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. Sweetie Petie 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bucketsofg and Blue520. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I cleaned up whatever article they have... its pretty well made, but as i commented on their talk page, if we allow them to have a wiki entry, we might as well allow every moop and Faith + 1 to have a wiki entry. The Animal 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; oddly enough, the article itself only claims "minor notability" at best. TheProject 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn a7 Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, tours of Essex do not satisfy WP:MUSIC. --bainer (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn band fails WP:MUSIC.--Dakota ~ 05:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong, Swift Delete. Per WP:NOT--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Geogre. Stifle (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inventegration

Neologism, it has been deleted 5 times under the prod and speedy deletion processes. Needs to be discussed by a wider audience and put to bed if appropriate. Accurizer 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Searched for it on Google. Only usages of the word are on the websites that developed it, some non-notable blogs, and this article. Currently unverifiable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; has adcruft going for it too, I fancy. RGTraynor 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as previously deleted neologism. Bucketsofg✐ 14:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete un-verifiable and a non-notable neologism. Gwernol 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect: This has already been deleted 4 times. --Hetar 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect per nom and G4 tag. TheProject 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Best of Philippine entertaiment

Unencyclopedic, original research. This is more of an essay, hence violates NPOV policies. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. It's inherently POV. PJM 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting attempt at a justification at the start, but Delete for POV-ness anyway. Vizjim 15:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... per Vizjim.--Isotope23 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR. -- ReyBrujo 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. OR, POV, and misspelled title. Fan1967 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as clear original research and POV title. TheProject 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. --Noypi380 04:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Jojit fb 03:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Cano

non notable, perhaps vanity. less than 20 hits on google, many of which are this article. frymaster 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn (i get 18 hits on Google) and blatant vanity. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 15:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, NN. -- MarcoTolo 17:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, {{db-bio}} candidate. WP:VANITY refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn (fails WP:BIO), advertisment for his radio program. May be speedied per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Girl Who Turned to Stone

The "prod" tag was removed by an anon user [19]. Previously was listed as prod due to unsourced, likely hoax, violation of WP:NOT. Further, related editors to that page created The Girl Who Turned to Stone (video game), another dubious article that I tagged with prod just now. My reading of the WP:PROD policy revealed if "ANYONE" removes the prod tag the article must go to AfD, but perhaps if an anon removes the tag under dubious circumstances w/o noting anything at Talk this shouldn't count? Kaisershatner 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-verifiable WP:V. Very similar to now deleted "Born Without a Face (2007 film)" (the AfD) created by a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article.--blue520 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until something or someone notable is attached to this film, we will have to wait until its release to discover its notable status, if any.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most likely hoax. Article's creator has a history of inserting hoax information into articles with the use of sockpuppets. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TheKoG. --Oakster (Talk) 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete canceled film —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krabs514 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brother Art & Destiny

Not sure if this is AFD worthy or not, I'm not a Christian music fan, but artist doesn't seem all that notable, but I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide, no vote from me Metros232 16:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Weak Delete, although Brother Art & Destiny gets some hits in Google, and the CD exists, the creator Broart (talk • contribs) makes me think about vanity. I am not good at gospel, so I may change my opinion with some arguments. -- ReyBrujo 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego talk 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the xbox 360 is better than the PS3

Obvious POV issues and will always have POV, author claims it is based on Microsoft's research Metros232 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The title itself is POV. --Bachrach44 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and hopelessly POV. --Rindis 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • i clearly put at the top of my article baised on microsofts research and put hargon at the top.--ahmed1212
  • Delete this essay as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This might be the most easily-decided AfD debate ever. -- Kicking222 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the research is by Microsoft and "proven", it must be true..... Delete. -- MarcoTolo 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why so many people are complaning when this research is gatherd form OTHER gaming sites and microsotf. It is NOT based on my personal opinion.--ahmed1212
Comment We're not complaining. We're stating that this is not encyclopedic no matter who compiled this research. Metros232 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NPOV policy. -- Satori Son 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, per violation of WP:NOR, and that's a damn lot of orphaned images after this article is gone. TheProject 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've bookmarked all the images. I'll tag them as orphans once this AfD's closed. Fan1967 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research in the form of a personal essay. Wikipedia is not a gaming blog. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. -Aabha (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although a comparison could be made in a similar fashion as Comparison of handheld gaming consoles, the title is clearly POV. -- ReyBrujo 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As i have read most of your comments i will delete the page, change the title , keep the basic struture of the article, edit it to show the good and the bad points of the 2 consoles.i will make it as non-POV as possible and in a encyclopeic form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmed1212 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as above. NPOV comparison of present-generation video consoles would be fine. ProhibitOnions 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • if the specifications for the two are released then it is possible to do a comparinson between them.Ahmed1212
  • Delete: Goes against WP:NPOV; bad title anyway. Better left asked at Yahoo! Answers. --Slgrandson 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Subwayguy 22:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per... you know, everyone. What does "hargon" mean? · rodii · 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, duh, "hangon"... so he has now created Xbox 360 and PS3 comparinson bad and good points and placed a pre-emptive hangon template... ? · rodii ·
  • Delete- oh dear oh dear. *shakes head ruefully* Reyk YO! 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Kristian

Claims of notability appear to be somewhat suspect, and even if true, doesn't seem to be notable enough. Author of article has only edited this article, which suggests vanity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The entry needs serious help, but does seem to meet the notability criteria required in WP:MUSIC with a number of albums (some even available on Amazon) as well as numerous reviews in what appear to be legit publications. I'm cautious about the "vanity" bit - while all the content edits are by a single account (User:Stepwriter2000) with no other edits, all of them are within about twenty minutes on a single day (i.e. maybe just a drive-by editor). -- MarcoTolo 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per MarcoTolo, I knew the name immediately; he is well known in the field. I'll look this one over.Ac@osr 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MarcoTolo as well. -- ReyBrujo 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep very notable in his genre, widely included artist in compilations. His Discogs page has more data to support his notability. Passes WP:MUSIC.  ALKIVAR™ 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Club, S.Thomas College

NN club at a single college. Bachrach44 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete and tagged per A7 for no assertion of notability. TheProject 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMC International

Article was de-proded as more sketchy claims were added. "HMC International" hotel gets only 198 Google hits, few, if any, have something to do with hotel consulting. This reads like an advertisment. I think this should be deleted unless some decent claim of notability can be established... -- Scientizzle 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TheProject 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, probable advertisment/vanity, as the only contributor, User:Laurapalmer (talk • contribs), only participated in this entry (user description is HMC International). -- ReyBrujo 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7. Snoutwood (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff Cubs

Contested prod. Article is about an amateur softball team. A Google search turns up information on volleyball and pool (billiards) groups, but nothing related to softball. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have produced this article as a starting place for an online presence for the Cubs. I am one of the players. We have formed this club in the past two weeks. Existence of the CSA is backed up by evidence at this website address - http://www.trytime.org.uk/cardiffsoftball —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mocyoung (talk • contribs) .
  • Okay, but what about your softball team makes it notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia?. Wikipedia is not, among other things, a web hosting service. (see WP:NOT). -- MarcoTolo 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; NN per User:Mocyoung's "formed ... in the past two weeks" comment above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This team - and in fact the league - was produced entirely through the efforts of UK-based baseball fans who, with the nearest available softball teams established in Bristol, decided to set up their own self-funded self-promoted self-run softball league.
Instances of sport in Britain are mainly based around the core elite of popular sports - football (thats soccer to Americans), rugby, tennis, cricket, golf and snooker. Walk into any sports shop in the UK and you are hard pressed to avoid racks full of football shirts, golf clubs and cricket bats. Recognition for minority sports is scarce - even the nations broadcaster, the BBC, only features them sporadically in small segments on Sunday afternoons and during large sporting events.
Popularity of baseball and softball may be small but it is sizable as evidenced by the efforts of BaseballSoftballUK to reinstate baseball and softball into the 2012 London Olympics. Any online resource - such as Wikipedia which is well known and respected - should be able to encompass one minor article detailing the efforts made by a group - no matter how small - to publicise minority sports.
Softball is different to many sports in that it is mixed-gender. Due to the segregation imposed by many sporting bodies - including the one where male and female footballers/soccer players are segregated by age regardless of ability - it is hard to find any other sport where gender is presented as an irrelevancy.
Encylcopedias are not just collections of information, they are charters of history. Previous incarnations of the CSA have failed due to lack of publicity and interest. If this one succeeds then Wikipedia will have had an article detailing it from its inception.
I hope my argument is valid. I would not want to violate any rules intentionally. I believe this article should remain. At present it is a stub, to be expanded upon when more details, profiles, results and other miscellanea are readily available. I beg users' indulgence in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mocyoung (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy delete per A7 as a sports team article with no assertion of notability. TheProject 18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrix (IT)

Possible hoax, no verifiable sources presented. Initially proposed for deletion. BigE1977 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Googling the word "matrix" with other file system terms produces no results that would agree with the definition presented in the article. The word matrix, in the usage example referred to a HTML table that contained a list of files. Despite the disputed factual accuracy, the article is still an unexpandable dicdef. BigE1977 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
have you tried "software matrix"? Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, I am not familiar with the term, being a programmer myself. He is quoting this article at IBM. -- ReyBrujo 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The source ReyBrujo points to above does not support the definition, as per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. OK, it's not a hoax. It's a misunderstanding by the article creator, as to what "matrix" was used for in that context. There's still nothing worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could just as easily be a misunderstanding as a hoax. I have seen 'matrix' used in connection with tables that look like that on various sites. Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Ehheh 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
see hoax vs language usage (Constructed_language, see dictionary. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~
  • Delete. I'm a programmer and I've never seen the term used as described. The referenced article may have chosen "matrix" to refer to the data layout to avoid confusion, because table is a valid computing term. What the WP article describes is a "package" or "bundle". Jamoche 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You have never seen the term. That's not a scientific proof. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And I did a google search, but as my results were the same as already mentioned, I didn't mention it. I even googled "software matrix" but got either false positives or pages using the term to refer to webpage table layouts. Jamoche 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary/Matrix (Programming) at best. I don't know any programmers that refer to a package as a "matrix". ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is nothing personal, but how many programmers do you know? (you suggest that you know programmers). I know of a website using the term for software products. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point us to the page to see the context in which it is being used. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Mm, I'd probably say a half dozen outside various OSS projects. Typically my programming friends work on sourceforge-based OSS projects. I'm afraid I tend to shy away from "big company" (IBM, Microsoft) projects on there (Yes, MS has stuff on sf) so that could be a reason I don't run into the term. My personal programming experience and number of programmers I know is, in this case, somewhat irrelevant to the primary problem of this article, in that it appears (to me) to be more a dictdef than encyclopedic content, and should be deleted and transferred to Wiktionary so they can debate its merits. Hope that answers your question. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not the same usage as described in the Matrix (IT) article or the IBM page that it originally referred to. The article refers to a group of binaries which form a software application. The DLL tree of Windows Operating System, also the various versions of Windows itself, are a "software matrix". i.e. a Software package, the matrix you point out is a Matrix (graph) listing educational software and appropriate grade levels for said software. Your matrix is a human-read selector for determining which software to use, which by definition the article's matrix is computer-read. If you'd like to, please consider writing Matrix (graph) which has of yet has no article or link on the disambiguation page (q.v. "table" in math or graphics). If we made a seperate entry for each of the various types of Matrix (graph) possible, it would have to have its own wikipedia. 207.145.133.34 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I have rewritten the article. It needs attention of someone in business. I see this deletion a possible censorship of information but can not proof it myself, if it indeed figures an OR piece. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: A math matrix? The article isn't talking about a int matrix[64][64]; matrix, it is closer to the definition of a dependency tree instead. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Math matrix'es are not obvious to anyone, i believe software matrix resembles that module's of a software package play together "compareable to a (math) matrix". It looks a valid usage of language to me - not neccessarily a wikipedia article. Probably one from IBM/Microsoft could give a statement...
the sentence ReyBrujo referd to was "software matrix = similar to math matrix" Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Stubs and dicdefs are deleted all the time, would you mind explaining how this one would be construed as censorship please? I'm afraid I don't see it. Censorship is described as the removal of information that is harmful to the censoring body... this isn't harmful to Wikipedia, it's just at best in the wrong place. If it's contentious, then perhaps a redirect to a more commonly-named article (Software package perhaps?) 207.145.133.34 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleting content which is not understood, or just disliked: this is malicious censorship. If it is not encyclopedic, then it is not censorship. If it is OR, then it is not censorship. I never mentioned censorship for this Afd. It is possible to list these meanings in the disambiguation page (as single line). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This is, imho, constructive discrimination to remove a term which as far as I can tell:
  1. Is not a widely used industry term. It is minority at best.
  2. Is written as a dictionary definiton, not an encyclopedic article (thus should be transwiki'd).
  3. Is understood and not disliked. I doubt it'd be difficult to contact more programmer wikipedians and get expert opinions on the article if you'd like, though it's still dicdef.
  4. As far as your not mentioning censorship, I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point also. Please look up at the only Weak Keep vote (or only Keep vote at all for that matter) where you mention censorship in that line.
  5. The article does not cite any sources which refer to it in the manner that it was written. The original citation seemed to be a misunderstanding of the term as used, and the matrix that you note above is not anywhere near the same concept.
I'm rather curious as to why you're fighting so hard to keep a dictionary definition in the encyclopedia? Akidd, you're still the only one with a keep vote on the matter and these back-and-forth comments seem to be what's holding up the process. If possible, please reply on my talk page. I'm not sure it's really appropriate to continue debating the same points in this space. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's jargon. I've heard of it, but it's not really worth an article. See WP:MOS DEF. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The definition presented failes WP:V — an entirely different definition is supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under A7. Snoutwood (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rizzo

This article is for a local TV persona. He has his own sports show that only airs locally, and has his own radio show, which also only airs locally. His only other claim to faim is being a webmaster for http://www.rizzosports.com/ (Alexa rank 3,125,437). --Hetar 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Aside from being a vanity article (the original editor is User:Mrizzo31), the article is a bio that does not even attempt to assert notability, and thus is a speedy candidate under CSD A7. -- Kicking222 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Added comment Also note from Special:Contributions/Mrizzo31 that every edit he's ever made is vanity. His user talk page doesn't paint a much prettier picture, either. Just throwing that in there. -- Kicking222 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bordering on speedy. Looks like the bio does try to make an assertion of notability as a talk show host, though not a very strong one at that. TheProject 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind. Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnoburb

What do you think, people? Delete due to neologism, or move to Wiktionary? IceCreamAntisocial 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki as dicdef; possible neologism but not all that new as the first page of ghits includes a usage from 1999. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Angus McLellan. More work for me to do! :) TheProject 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Angus McLellan too. -- ReyBrujo 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ethnic enclave Ewlyahoocom 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Snoutwood as CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity. --Hetar 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st bletchley scout group

NN scout group in a single location. Author has removed prod (and other information) w/o explanation. Bachrach44 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn club as well as an empty article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kraus Scale

Either non-notable or a hoax; the article is very unclear to what it refers and I could only find mirrors on a Google search. There has been a suggestion to clarify on the Talk Page for nearly a year without a change. It was first written on April Fool's Day by an anonymous user. Rigadoun 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article, it seems like it's describing a whole-tone scale. I've never heard it referred to as a "Kraus scale". Google brought one result[20] that refers to Kraus scales, but doesn't explain what they are. However, it seems they exist. For the time being, however, until we can get more information, delete per nom. TheProject 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, we cannot use forums as references. Delete as hoax unless corrected. -- ReyBrujo 19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - even if it exists, it's not something that would catch on in musical theory. - Richardcavell 22:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 23:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coldspot

stub removed by author; fabricated/coined term without citation; Google shows overwhelming use associated with a model of refrigerator (trademarked), followed by paranormal activity (i.e., ghosts); at minimum, the article would need to be renamed to "Coldspot (wifi)" to match "Hotspot (wifi)", and cleaned up. Better yet, write an article for "dead spots" (commonly used in wireless voice/data communications). Robocoder 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I knew there was a reason why I managed to skip over this one in my transwikification quest. Delete per nom. TheProject 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, replace with disambiguation (ghosts, refridgerator brand owning company, hotspot(wifi) and/or deadspot per nom) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Chick Bowen 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohsin

Nonsense Happynoodleboy 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete and tagged per A3. TheProject 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Why was this even put in AfD? Had it just been tagged as {{db-nocontent}} in the first place, the article would've already been killed. There was never a deletion tag that was removed or contested, so the AfD vote is simply unnecessary. -- Kicking222 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business research

Business research is a generic and useless term. It's "four" components already have their own articles. This "Business research" label adds no new information. At best, it's a trivial category, but it doesn't rate an article. Rklawton 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Business research was created by Charlieosmond (talk • contribs), who in turn created FreshMinds. The problem is that it is self advertisment, as Charlie Osmond is one of the founders according to this. Should we nominate FreshMinds to deletion as well? -- ReyBrujo 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I am not against the company, mind you. I just don't like when the founder of the company creates an article about both his company, its tasks and the co-founder. -- ReyBrujo 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you do the honors of nominating FreshMinds - it's your find. I'll second it. Rklawton 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definitions are so common-sensical that this page isn't even needed. Its only purpose seems to be to promote those rather non-notable companies listed on the bottom. I also agree that FreshMinds does not belong on Wikipedia, and also Caroline Plumb is arguably non-notable/vanity, as well as Factiva. Fabricationary 03:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No value in this text, and didn't even create the internal links to the valuable articles on the various subjects. GRBerry 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowballing (sexual practice)

Dicdef plus original research. A mention on the disabiguation page Snowballing is good enough. Brian G. Crawford 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Enough notability thanks to the movie, plus external links and enough of a definition. Anthony Hit me up... 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's in common usage. - Richardcavell 22:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, common usage. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, yes, commonly used term. Badgerpatrol 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and end this silly crusade against sexual terms. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common enough term. I've heard it a number of times, unlike a lot of the sexual terms listed here. Fan1967 14:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Ditto Badlydrawnjeff. Just because an activity is strongly disliked by a number of people, that is no reason to erase it from records. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an article on genocide, etc.) --Myfanwy 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to bukkake or Oral sex (Semen swallowing redirects there) or anyplace. I'd love see this become a real article, but it's never going to happen. Ewlyahoocom 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with Badlydrawnjeff. I like that dude. NeilDespres 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's better to learn some 'disgusting' things from wikipedia, rather than from some porn site. --213.184.225.28 12:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy close, improper nomination of a redirect on AFD. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pooma lift

mispelling of Poma lift. Google gives zero hits of "pooma lift" (other than this article). EncMstr 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to Poma lift, though an outright deletion wouldn't bother me. I also edited the T-bar lift article to point to Poma lift instead of Pooma lift. --Elkman - (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Poma lift, and get that AfD note off there so that the redirect can function. --Sam Pointon United FC 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect per Elkman. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a redirect and belongs on WP:RFD. Closing. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veracity Magazine

This is a non-notable cruft magazine created by someone whose only edits are on this page and the Young Republicans page. Possibly speedy? Anthony Hit me up... 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notabnle, meets speedy criteria A7. GRBerry 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per GRBerry. -- MarcoTolo 20:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Saladino

No reason given for notability. Google is no help. External link is inaccessible. Crystallina 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn, fails WP:MUSIC. -- MarcoTolo 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, though she's got an interesting myspace page. :P ~Kylu (u|t) 22:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Optimale Gu 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Phoenix (singer)

Delete. Non-notable singer in the group the King's Singers. Does not deserve his own page. Reads like vanity as well... ConDemTalk 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I disagree with ConDem. Paul Phoenix is a notable singer in a well-known group (grammy-nominated) which performs over a 100 concerts a year in the world's most respected concert halls. KSfan 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep per him being a member of the Kings Singers. Jcuk 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's also important to note that Paul was a well-known treble as a child and recorded several solo albums as well as with the choir of St. Paul's Cathedral. He was awarded a gold disk for one of these. Just a quick "google" will show that he is more than deserving of his own page. KSfan 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (Please note that KSfan has only been active as of today, the 5th May, and has only made contributions to King's Singers related articles and images, although I see he or she has only made a comment not a "keep" vote.) I'm sorry, but I can't find any solo albums. The google search "Paul Phoenix" "solo album" -tekken" (there is a character or something in the game called Paul Phoenix) produced only 5 results: [21]. I do think that the King's Singers deserve a page, but to have each member have a page as well seems too far. Perhaps the Singers were awarded a gold disc, but that doesn't mean that each individual member suddenly earns an article. ConDemTalk 00:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I apologize for not knowing proper wikipedia etiquette. Yes, I became active today but that should not make my point invalid. This isn't a "who has been here longer" discussion. It is not my plan to go around checking wikipedia for inaccuracies, but I will discuss the things I know about and this is a subject that I do know. Paul had several solo albums and one of his own became gold not including records of the King's Singers. If you do a search for his name (-tekken, of course), you will find many, many pages on him including ones that discuss his fame as a child. Most sites would not phrase it "Paul Phoenix, solo album" so it would be worthless to search in such a manner. I appreciate your love of all things "notable" and would agree with you if the person in question was not a successful individual, but it seems silly to pick on such an accomplished human being. KSfan 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Here is a link from www.treble.info which took me about a minute to find. There are plenty of other sources for this same kind of information. "Paul Phoenix became a member of St Pauls Cathedral Choir when he was nine. He was chosen to sing the treble solo for the theme tune to the TV series 'Tinker, tailor, Soldier, Spy' which was released as a single and became a No 1 hit in 1980. This resulted in other singles such as 'My way', a full album called 'Rejoice' and a couple of EPs where he is the soloist with The St Pauls Cathedral Boys Choir. His songs are available on the CD re-release 'Jubilate! Golden Favourites From St. Paul's Cathedral' Guild GRCD 7024"
    • And here is more from a website about the progressive rock band, Janus. 'Orr started a new Janus, involving several young, very talented, musicians, including Dave Harrold an Irish bass guitarist, Doug Boyes on Cello, and Paul Phoenix a phenomenal classical vocalist, graduate of the Royal Northern College, and somebody who had had a worldwide number 1 at the age of 11, as the lead in the St. Pauls Cathedral Choir, with the theme to a BBC TV show, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy".'
      • I understand that the song was a hit, but the hit was with the choir - I was saying that he as an individual does not merit his own article, and still believe that. The fact that his albums are clearly not longer widely available must say something about his notability... ConDemTalk 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I am not saying that he is the biggest superstar to ever hit the world. There are many artists and authors within the pages of Wikipedia whom I have never heard, but I am sure that within their specific fields, they are well-known. Just because you don't know of Paul or the fame he had as a boy chorister and now as a member of The King's Singers, doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve his own page. To people in his field and to fans of this type of music, he is well-known. And by the way, the hit was his solo. He sang lead on several of those albums. He wasn't just a member of the choir. KSfan 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, mostly because I have a feeling we often keep members of rockgroups with less lasting fame than the King's Singers. Anyway, I checked the digital archive of The Times (-1985) for something on his boyhood "career" and found a couple of items: Phoenix was a guest, presented as the "boy soprano who sang the Nunc Dimitis over the closing titles of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", along with flautist James Galway and writer Laurie Lee on Parkinson on BBC1 on Nov. 24, 1979.[1] and on Parkinson at Christmas again in the same channel on Christmas Day later that year.[2] A later article in The Times, from 1985, and on a different boy singer, Aled Jones, who received a silver disc "for the surprise hit of the year" (on the BBC recording Voices from the Holy Land), mentions that "There has of course been boy treble in the pop charts before -- most recently Paul Miles-Kingston and six years ago Paul Phoenix, with Nunc Dimittis."[3] Apparently he charted, and was notable enough as a boy soloist to be invited on a popular show a couple of times, and still recalled by a journalist six years later. Along with his later career in a popular group, I suppose that may push him over the threshold. (Can we get his chart position confirmed from some other source? The Times is perhaps not the best source for what happened on the British pop charts in 1979.) --Tupsharru 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Broadcasting Guide", Television, edited by Peter Davalle, The Times, Saturday, Nov 24, 1979; pg. 11; Issue 60483; col C
  2. ^ "Christmas Day, Television", The Times, Monday, Dec 24, 1979; pg. 18; Issue 60508; col C
  3. ^ The Times, Wednesday, May 29, 1985; pg. 3; Issue 62150; col A.
  • Keep. There are clear inaccuracies in ConDem's entries above, and his reasoning smacks merely of some kind of personal vendetta (he probably came across Paul Phoenix whilst a pupil at Westminster Under School, a school where I know Paul Phoenix taught) which, in my view, is no reason to delete the entry for someone who is a popular figure within the vocal music world.
The inaccuracies I mentioned relate to Mr Phoenix's solo career - anyone who has heard or referred to the score of the "Tinker Tailor..." theme will know that it is for solo treble, with no choir parts anywhere to be seen. His career as a treble was solely based on his own talent and personality, which paved the way for the later fame of Aled Jones and Anthony Way as boy trebles.
Anyone who is seeking to know more about treble singing and early successful trebles, as well as the personalities within the King's Singers - the world's first "close harmony" group (they invented the term) and still the best, most highly sought-after and longest-surviving male voice ensemble ever to exist, will find entries both on the group in general AND on individuals within that group informative, interesting and revealing. Simply taking it upon yourself to attempt deletion of anyone who you deem "unworthy" despite clear evidence to the contrary is, I would say, a little disappointing. Apart from anything else, the educational benefit of these entries to the countless students in the UK and USA in particular who study King's Singers material (they publish most of their arrangements and sell tens of thousands of scores each year) and wish to find out more about the group, is extremely worthy.
Before it is mentioned, I also am a new editing member of Wikipedia, but the fact that I use it frequently and wanted informaton on the King's Singers and their members today, shows that this information is appreciated by those of us with slightly fewer chips on their shoulder. I haven't found the need to comment before, but in this instance it seems important. --82.68.78.198 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Montiolivetti
I'd just like to make it clear that there is no "personal vendetta" involved, and I have not come across Paul Phoenix outside of Wikipedia. ConDemTalk 13:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
In a minute I'm going to close this as keep. However, I just want to emphasise for newcomers to the process that any suggestion of bad faith is unjustified and out of line. This AfD process is an important aspect of quality control for Wikipedia, and the nominator acted properly bringing the issue here to get the wisdom of other users. Metamagician3000 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have to agree with the above Keep comments. How exactly do you consider award winning non-notable??? I'm also a bit confused on how you would consider his biography vain? If anything, the author was quite modest in listing his accomplishments. 64.53.16.97 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn with consensus of keep. TheProject 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Twining

  • Withdraw Afd nom as per discussion below.

Vanity from editor whose only activity has been linkspamming article after article (Sixteen on a quick count).

  • Keep, Confess to being a big fan of Twining's books (hence username!) but intention here was to get the entry going and to be balanced. Would ask for help in cleanup rather than deletion, given that Double Eagle was one of best selling books of 2005 in UK.kirkt 09:00, 6 May 2006
Now cleaned up as requested. Concensus seems to be adequately notable despite this being a vanity article from an editor whom we hope will contribute more widely to Wikipedia. Withdrawing AfD nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 08:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, hope to see this expanded. Deizio talk 09:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seemingly notable author of popular books [22], despite WP:VAIN concerns. Strong whiff of autobiography (main contributor has been Kirkt (talk • contribs), protagonist of books appears to be one "Tom Kirk") but not as bad as some. Needs cleanup instead, and possible listing on Notable Wikipedians. Deizio talk 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
He may be adequately notable - I'm not really sure, which is why I brought it to AfD. "The Double Eagle" gets about 300 Ghits and has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #151,831 in Books, Yesterday: #317,015 in Books. Not wildly impressive and the need to spam Wikipedia makes it less likely he is genuinely notable. Dlyons493 Talk
Link above shows a decent rank of #26,870 for amazon.co.uk, he's British after all. Deizio talk 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Published by Harper Collins? Good enough for me. Jcuk 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup per Diez. Not fond of autobios. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ari Shaffir

Delete. This seems to be another attempt to get Amazing Racist information in. Note that the Amazing Racist AfD discussion referred to this comedian as non-notable, which nobody contested at the time. This AfD result was endorsed by Deletion Review, so process has already determined this comedian is not notable.

Even if previous process is to be ignored, the subject does not live up to the requirements for living actors under WP:BIO, and fails many proposed tests (Google, professor, 100 years). The small IMDB entry and few Google hits for "Ari Shaffir" back up the previous determination of the subject's non-notability. Vslashg (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above. Stifle (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain I'm not an expert on the criteria. I just love Wikipedia and depend on it for good info and I came to Wikipedia to get info on this subject and I'm glad it was there. I guess some people are concerned about bloat in Wikipedia? Maybe someone could point me to something that would explain to me that Wikipedia is too large or something so I can understand why a smaller Wikipedia is better than a larger one? I'm not being sarcastic, I consult Wikipedia almost every day to look stuff up. I depend on it for info and the more "complete" it is the more useful it is to me. I suppose there is an alternate philosophy about Wikipedia somewhere? Anharmyenone 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable comedian who would like to be famous and controversial, but certainly hasn't achieved it. Fan1967 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain This comedian is notable, and his videos has been very widely circulated on the internet. Typing his name in a Google search produces over 2,000 results. Being a high school student, I have noticed that his videos are the subject of frequent discussion among many teens. Just because the origin of his popularity is the internet doesn't mean he should be excluded from Wikipedia. --69.232.233.76 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: First edit from this IP, and misrepresents Google results -- only 350 or so returned out of 145 unique. [23] Vslashg (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I follow troll sites and hate sites and the series the Amazing Racist is quite loved by the hate community. I've seen then use it to get more members simply through comedy. Also the hate community assumes it is real. New Jersey Racist and agitator Hal Turner even has talked about these videos as a way to annoy illegal: http://www.halturnershow.com/HowToHarassIllegalAliens.html. Resist.com, a well known racist site, even hosts these videos: http://www.resist.com/RacistVideos/index.htm . If this reasonabley objective information stays on Wikipedia we can go "Hey racists look it was all faked, you can't act like that in public." There is a value in having objective information about the Amazing Racist and the actor. This isn't just hatemongering. Keep - actor notable through popularity in the racist community (while being jewish (that's a feat)). --TrollHistorian 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - why even list the professor test? It is like you're just listing out policies which aren't applicable. Also I agree the article needs a POV cleanup. Its defense of the videos is totally POV. Google metrics are bogus are not worth even arguing over, but the original poster misrepresents the results of the google search. Also I don't think referring to the previous process is really fair or accurate. If you read that AfD it is just wikipedia policy quoting, there was no real discussion and it is possible people didn't even know that article existed. So the only people voting might be those who hover around the delete page. Essentially I've shown this person to be reasonably notable and shown many of the metrics used to claim his article should be deleted to be inaccurate, misreprsented or bogus. --TrollHistorian 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Morin

This article seems to not agree with WP:BIO. The article seems to be put together as well as is likely possible. I believe that the subject is simply not notable. JGGardiner 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think it meets WP:BIO either, since he doesn't old an political office, he only works for a politician. Unless his activism has garnered significant press coverage in Canada, I say delete. You may also want to review the author's other contribs - they seems to have created several other similarly NN articles on Canadian people. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 21:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • — nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google gets 54 hits only. I do not think the subject notable. Weak support for deletion.--Jusjih 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under A7. Snoutwood (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sail training foundation

for WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Also tagged as speedy, and deservedly so. Deizio talk 21:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (would be CSD A7 anyways). Tawker 09:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squareroot Records

"Young and jovial" non-notable record label with a small roster of non-notable bands. Google has 19 unique hits to mirrors and freespace. Deizio talk 21:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A3, only contents are a repeat of the title. Stifle (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother UK series 8

Non-commisionned show.-- 9cds(talk) 21:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- MarcoTolo 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - sheesh, they haven't even started series 7.....Ac@osr 21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per crystal ball comments. Let's get series seven out of the way first.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - speculation. - Richardcavell 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A3. TheProject 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 09:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raciolesbianism

Recognizing the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination and oppression is certainly important, but this is a new, not-yet-accepted term. FreplySpang (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Created last month. Brian G. Crawford 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Month-old neologism created in a web forum. According to Google, it's only been used on that forum and in this article. (3 hits total) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't accept that it is in common usage. It's probably at least original research. - Richardcavell 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. DarthVader 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenehan as patent neologism. TheProject 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claremont Braineaters

Delete. Non-notable sports team. Article was prod'ed but notice was removed with nothing of importance added. Only 31 Ghits. discospinster 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Stifle (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • At present form, delete per nom but I can't help but wonder: what sports team name does this college (or group of colleges) actually have, and might that be worthy of an article instead? TheProject 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Claremont McKenna, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd use the Stags for male athletic teams and the Athenas for female athletic teams. Pomona and Pitzer use the Sagehens. --Goobergunch|? 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete! Keep!. How can a team has played teams from southern California to Rhode Island and Canada not be notable? The Claremont Braineaters is a club team that might not be varsity in the sense of the word as it applies to Duke Blue Devils basketball, but the Claremont Braineaters has members from all colleges and succeeds more than any varsity program. The fact that the Claremont Braineaters is a Division III school and still placed 26th amongst so many Divison I schools is notable. To delete this article would be to say to all Wikipedians that because a few people may not understand or have even heard of ultimate Frisbee that an article cannot exist, that's wrong. What if someone from Australia or Eritrea had never heard of hockey, should that mean that the Montréal Canadiens' article should be deleted? Maybe the UPA does not have enough money to start a ridiculous professional league where people play for the money. Ultimate Frisbee is pure love of the game, and the Claremont Braineaters embody that. Dan37205 4:10 AM EST, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable club team, and the comparison to the Montreal Canadiens is just amusing, bordering on ludicrous. Fan1967 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Ok then, what about the Blue Devils (Duke University), are you going to get that article deleted? Dan37205 4:30 PM EST, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Thousands of people attend every single Blue Devils game. They are routinely broadcast on local radio and television, and even occasionally nationally. Your frisbee club compares with that, how? Fan1967 21:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. There are over 22,000 ultimate players who belong to the Ultimate Players Association, that only includes people who are registered and play in serious club or college tournaments in the United States, that does not include the other thousands of people around the country who do not play serious ultimate frisbee. College ultimate Frisbee is also televised, on CSTV and its website, http://www.cstv.com/sports/c-ultimate/cs-c-ultimate-body.html, where you can watch the semi-finals and finals of the womens and mens College National Tournament of years past. There is also extensive coverage of ultimate Frisbee with the http://www.UltiVillage.com crew who produce films about special club and college tournaments and posts daily clips from tournaments around the country. It's true, college basketball and Duke are especially popular, and a lot of people do watch it, but that is mostly because of basketball being around for over 100 years and it catching on. Ultimate Frisbee was not truly developed into leagues until the late 1970s and early 1980s, especially for college ultiamte Frisbee. Also, the Braineaters are notable to thousands of people. A film that was made called "I Bleed Orange" which can be seen at http://www.Ibleedorange.com was a mockumentary of the team with the most Nationals wins, the Santa Barbara Black Tide who made a film called "I Bleed Black" the trailer for which can be seen at http://www.Ibleedblack.com, and that "I Bleed Orange" has been seen by ultimate players in Israel to Hawaii to the States, Europe, you name it, which would suggest that Ultimate is also popular in other countries. Not surprisingly countries such as Australia, Finland (where the 2006 World Tournament was held), the UK, Germany (where a world-famous offensive formation was created), Japan, South Korea, Canada, Venezuela, Spain, Italy (home of Paganello, the largest beach ultimate tournament in the world with over 100 teams) to name a few all have large ultimate and Beach Ultimate progams and communities. Ultimate Frisbee is to me therefore notable, just not televised and consumed by the mainstream television watchers, and thank all that is good for that, who have ready access to such programming as the Duke Blue Devils, which according to their article also includes their tennis team, track and field, golf, women's rowing (no men's crew? tsk tsk, not like Claremont Stags, Athenas, or Sagehens have one either), not just their very popular basketball team. For that is the basketball team not guilty by association? The Claremont Braineaters are known by many and their players and alumni are known around the the States and the world, mostly in the past for their antics, but recently also for hard play all over the frisbee world, to me says that they are notable. Dan37205 7:45 PM PST, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn --Arny 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it does have 260 hits in google. I have seen a lot less notable articles. But this article is in need of a significant trim since about half the article is fluff. --MarsRover 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.95.61 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment Not unsurprisingly, the above IP resolves to Claremont Colleges. Fan1967 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There have been many edits to make the article more objective, please consider them.Dan37205 8:39 PST 6 May, 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you're still on the bubble. you should do some more deleting --MarsRover 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok I think I've done about as much deleting as possible while still preserving integrity. Dan37205 10:41 PST, 6 May 2006
  • Another Reason To Keep. The Brownian Motion (Ultimate) have an article and we beat them 15-6 this year. The Braineaters are notable. Dan37205
    • Unless we do a blanket delete on all frisbee teams, I think he has a point. --MarsRover 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Song

Impossibly large list that is already a category (Category:Songs). Also improperly pluralized and capitalized. MakeRocketGoNow 23:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as the nominator said. - Richardcavell 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Song List from 20s to 2006" Oh, geez. Delete, this is like having a "List of humans, 3000BC - 2006". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LC. It's 134KB, for crying out loud. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Yankee Doodle isn't on the list, O Canada isn't on the list, Star-Spangled Banner isn't on the list, God Bless America isn't on the list ... and that just goes to show how ridiculous this list really is. Points for effort, though. TheProject 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the above aren't included because it's supposed to be a list of songs since "the 20s" (presumably 1920). I agree that it's ridiculous, just not for that reason :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, the 1920s. I get it now. I was wondering what the heck that was supposed to mean. Still, delete, not per my rationale though. TheProject 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since the category alredy exists. Sue Anne 05:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of World Singer

Impossibly large list that is already handled better by categories. Also improperly pluralized and capitalized. MakeRocketGoNow 23:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as the nominator said. - Richardcavell 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as abortive and massive list, see WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheProject 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Sue Anne 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to [[Gnomeo and Juliet]]. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 12:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnomeo and Juliet (2006 film)

There is another article Gnomeo and Juliet which is better developed and more encyclopaedic Slp1 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - duplication of an existing article. - Richardcavell 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect, then. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Sue Anne 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - don't even redirect cause this says "2006 film" but Gnomeo and Juliet says "coming in 2008" Ewlyahoocom 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect.--Jusjih 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 54C

There's not much less notable than a city bus line. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? A clear violation of WP:NOT. -- Scientizzle 23:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per A7. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and speedy if it qualifies somehow. TheProject 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad title and unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Breed

  • What's the point of the page? There's nothign here, so it should either be expanded or deleted. Plasma Twa 2 00:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and speedy if at all possible. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TheProject 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional note: IMDb appears to have a page for a movie titled "The Breed" which was released in 2001. However, as I'm not very trained as to what constitutes a notable movie, I'll leave it for someone to decide whether an article on that movie should go there instead. TheProject 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't. I've seen it on cable. Not very good vampire flick with Adrian Paul. If I'd paid to see it I would have asked for my money back. Fan1967 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This substub article isn't about the film TheProject refers to, but there's at least an IMDb entry. The crystal ball criterion isn't exactly clear though; it says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (the IMDb verifies it) but also says "and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", which is perhaps debatable here. I say weak keep and expand per the IMDb entry. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The IMDB article says it's a 2006 film, but the entry hasn't been update since June, 2005. If production had taken place and a release was planned, wouldn't there be some update there? IMDB has a bad record on reporting projected movies that never happen. Fan1967 01:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if there is an IMDb article, the only thing given is five actors and a sentence of the plot. I don't think that would make much of an article. Plasma Twa 2 03:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or expand.--Jusjih 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ewan Smolthynor

Completing orphaned AfD, nominated by anon IP, unable to complete. Apparently Star Wars "Expanded Universe (fanfic?) character. Also nominated for Speedy G1. Fan1967 02:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/merge to Star Wars thingy -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC
  • Delete/merge as per above --Neigel von Teighen 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete DVD+ R/W 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless sources can be foung. Google and Wookieepedia searches reveal this as fake. -LtNOWIS 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_May_5_e978.html"