Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< June 9 June 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] June 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. `'mikka (t) 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

This page is completely original research and self-reference. To meet Wikipedia's policies, this article should not be included unless notable media sources have covered it and those articles can be cited. So assuming that doesn't happen, this article should either be deleted or moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Most of the articles in the "Wikipedias by language" category should also be evaluated to see if they should be deleted or moved to the Wikipedia namespace as well, since most of them have no non-Wikipedia/Wikimedia citations and include a lot of orginal research stuff that only a Wikipedian/Wikimedian would know. ENpeeOHvee 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Links to wikipedia in other languages are on the main page, I don't think there's anything to salvage that isn't already covered on the relevant namespaces. Equendil Talk 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I got off of Wikibreak for this Keep This article is relevant for Wikipedia to explain the different contexts of it. I'm going to WP:IAR, to not allow the rules of Wikipedia to cut it's own heel. It's relevant enough. Yanksox 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's relevant to Wikipedia then it can be discussed in a Wikipedia namespace - that's not a good argument for it being encyclopedic. ENpeeOHvee 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It's (brace yourself) #666 on Alexa ranking, which is good. Also, it meets WP:WEB. Yanksox 04:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The alexa rank of metawiki is not 600. Alexa considers *.wikimedia.org to be the same site, so for example all traffic to *commons* is included in that number. Also, upload.wikimedia.org is included, so it's an excersise for the reader to determine why wikimedia.org doesn't have a rank as high as wikipedia itself. Metawiki is actually very low traffic. I'd highly doubt that it would cross the 100,000th point on Alexa by itself. The varrious funraisers logos and such which are pulled from wikimedia.org sites by the wikipedias are what causes a lot of this number. A quick google search shows that meta is almost entirely unlinked outside of Wikimedia sites. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep With cleanup, why should this be on Wikipedia namespace? It is an extant and notable entity--the article should be edited to fit the constraints of the encyclopedia, rather than scrapping the entire idea. Adambiswanger1 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If the entity is notable then it shouldn't be difficult to find notable (not some random Wikipedian/Wikimedian's blog) non-Wikipedia sources to verify everything that's discussed in the article. But I really don't think that Meta-Wiki is an encyclopedically notable site. It's notable to Wikipedia, but not so much to the general public (which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for). And since as far as we know it hasn't been reported on in any notable source, anything that anyone writes there is gonna be ORIGINAL RESEARCH from their experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. On the other hand, if a newspaper was to interview a Wikipedian and report on it, then we could turn around and write about it and cite them. That's at least supposedly the standard for the main Wikipedia article, but for some reason those rules are being ignored for all the peripheral Wikimedia-related articles. And it violates NPOV for Wikipedia to hold its own projects to a different standard than those of others. So for all those reasons, it's pretty clear it should be deleted from Wikipedia (and moved to a Wikipedia namespace project page if need be). ENpeeOHvee 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I ask my fellow editors to remember that we are writing an encylopedia, not merely going around and enforcing guidelines? Yanksox has invoked WP:IAR, and it is with this spirit that all of us should contribute. We are here for the improvement of Wikipedia, not the supremacy of its guidelines. Also, the content of the article is entirely irrelevant, since that can change completely with a few minutes of editing. Big picture, people. Adambiswanger1 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transpose to Meta itself or, alternatively, to Wikipedia namespace; this is not encyclopedic content. Sandstein 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced from reputable, secondary sources. Kotepho 08:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per relatively high Alexa ranking and Template:Wikimedia Foundation: if we have articles about Wikisource and even Wikispecies, we could have one about Meta too. --Zoz (t) 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Adambiswanger1. This nomination is extremely not funny. MaxSem 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the entity is worthy of an article in itself. (if only for alexa result alone) Yes it could be said to be self referential but then so could the article on wikipedia itself. Ydam 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment RE: Alexa and IAR: Its supposed Alexa ranking was cited, but that raking was misleading, as Alexa gives the same exact rank to a subdomain as it gives to the main domain. So meta.wikimedia.org [1] gets the same exact rank as wikimedia.org [2]. Also, User:Zoz cited some other Wiki-Media project website articles, but if some of those are just original research and self-reference, then I think they should be deleted too. I think there's a very strong case for keeping the main Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is a major website which has recieved extensive media coverage and can thus be written citing those sources. The same goes for any other Wikimedia website where notable sources have written about it which can be cited. Someone said that it should be kept on the basis of "Ignore All Rules," but I don't see how violating self-reference, original research, and NPOV - to include an article about a site which hasn't been shown to be encyclopedic - benefits Wikipedia. ENpeeOHvee 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to pack my bags for this site, and let me leave you with some words of wisdom till I come back: This article benefits the site because it is part of the site, it's part of a beautiful project that "makes the internet not suck." I will not stand by idley while it's being cut down but it's own rules. It's extremly important because it is the project, and the project, last time I checked: is relevant. I am keeping the overal aestics of the site up by ignoring the rules, since the rules would kill Wikipedia, and creating one massive downfall. Absoutely not. Yanksox 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To the contrary, Wikimedia.org is only a page that points to the Wikimedia projects and meta. Since meta is really the only thing hosted on wm.org that a lot of people visit, the Alexa ranking is valid. --Rory096 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:NOR are not policies you can ignore, doing so turns Wikipedia into Everything 2. If we want to have something about meta. that does not fit content guidelines we have many places to put it other than article space. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia, it is about building an encyclopedia that is free for everyone and can spread beyond Wikipedia. Kotepho 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is relisted per WP:DRV Computerjoe's talk 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep per above digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's a notable web site. It deserves an article in the main namespace. —Mets501talk 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per above. -- from The King of Kings 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote: REDIRECT to Wikipedia:Meta. While Wikimedia Meta-Wiki does meet the requirements per WP:WEB, it's a Wikimedia Project which already has an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Plus, the link Meta-Wiki redirects to Wikipedia:Meta, so why not just redirect. -- from The King of Kings 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 666 Alexa is really good, and do not redirect to Wikipedia:Meta. Cross-namespace redirects are bad. --Rory096 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not its Alexa rank - that's the rank for wikimedia.org - Alexa doesn't rank subdomains separately. (see my comment above) ENpeeOHvee 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above, the rank is valid. --Rory096 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It may well be that most of the links on Wikimedia.org go to that subdomain, I don't know, but I did find that wikimedia.org didn't even consider Meta notable enough to link to from their main page. At any rate though, a fairly high Alexa ranking is not by itself enough of a reason to keep it as its own article. Nobody here has yet shown how the site meets any of the three criteria of WP:WEB. If we just went by Alexa rank, we'd have an article for Pichunter.com - ranked 636 [3] - and I'm sure a lot of other sites that have an inflated rank due to Google bombing - intentional or otherwise. ENpeeOHvee 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Correction - Gmaxwell pointed out above that there are indeed other high-traffic projects on that same domain name - including the Wikimedia Commons. ENpeeOHvee 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
wm.org probably doesn't link to meta because it's solely for project coordination, not education, and so most people won't need it, and the ones who might want to go there know how. As for the Alexa ranking, sure it is, it means it's a high-traffic site, and as long as it's verifiable, there's no reason not to have the article. Googlebombing does not increase a site's Alexa ranking, as Alexa rankings are based on the amount of visitors to that site (which they measure using their toolbar). And, to be honest, I'm surprised we don't have an article for Pichunter. --Rory096 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't shown how Meta-Wiki meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"??? (If so, then show me where) Has "the website or content won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"?... (if yes, which ones?) And is Meta-Wiki "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" (Wikipedia is well known, but certainly not Independent of Wikimedia). And finally, WP:WEB notes that "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." This is especially applicable here, because while Wikimedia and Wikipedia are certainly notable, that doesn't mean that everything associated with it automatically is. ENpeeOHvee 20:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why WP:WEB is a guideline. Sites may be notable without meeting WP:WEB. With an Alexa ranking of 666, I'd say meta qualifies. --Rory096 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The rank sums up WM perfectly though :D Will (E@) T 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is a very notable website and meets WP:WEB comprehensively. It is in bad taste to leave this article in AfD. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
So meta's content has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? I'm not seeing that, and that's what meeting WP:WEB means. --W.marsh 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that a cross-namespace redirect wouldn't be a good idea here, so Merge to WikiMedia Foundation. This is an unsourced stub (possibly a perma-stub), quasi-noteworthy aside from its relationship to this very site (which is a systemic bias we should avoid, not foster), and doesn't really meet the WP:WEB requirements. Would be more useful to readers as a subsection of a broader article than as an isolated stub, I'd think. -Silence 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Naconkantari 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to WikiMedia Foundation. This is obviously of great interest to Wikipedians, but I've yet to see evidence that this actually meets WP:WEB... there doesn't seem to be much or any external interest in Meta. A few passing mentions here and there, but nothing really meaningful. Could only dig up one mention at all in the past few months [4], and it was just a passing mention. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above Will (E@) T 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but good God make it a better article. Granted, it's hard to make an article about Meta when Meta is so incredibly disorganized in the first place... Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Comment: Notability isn't inherited as User:Messedrocker said in WP:DRV. But that's assuming Meta is under Wikipedia in the hierarchy. However as the name suggests, Meta is contains meta-content so it's rather the parent of Wikipedia than it's child. Parents or meta-things of notable topics inherit the notability imo. (If a subdomain is notable then the whole domain is; if the theory of relativity is notable then it's inventor is etc.) --Zoz (t) 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The analogy fails. If Wikipedia is the building, Meta-Wiki is at best the scaffolding, not the architect. Theory of relativity is to Albert Einstein as Wikipedia is to Jimbo Wales, not to Meta-Wiki. "Meta-things" do not automatically inherit the notability of the things themselves; there is no stipulation on Wikipedia's notability or verifiability guidelines saying such, and common sense suggests that "notability isn't inherited" is indeed a correct and necessary thing to keep in mind in this situation, just as much as it is for any other ("a certain lavatory of the White House" does not inherit the notability of "the White House"). To meet the requirements of WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:NOR, citations are needed (and, obviously, ones outside of the site itself!) to confirm its notability. Why should we hold our sister-sites (more like estranged-crazy-aunt-sites?) to a lower standard than we hold other websites? If anything, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, to circumvent self-referential bias. -Silence 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I used analogy only to prove that "meta-things" of notable topics inherit notability. I didn't mean to relate Jimbo to Albert or anything :D. The point is that Meta stands higher in the hierarchy than WP, even if WP is far more notable in itself than Meta. --Zoz (t) 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But it doesn't stand higher in the hierarchy, in any meaningful way (i.e., in any way that relates to notability at all). And I specifically demonstrated why your analogy fails to show why notable topics don't inherit notability, not to relate Jimbo to Albert either. The notability of an article must be established in its own right: simply saying "Meta-Wiki must be noteworthy because Wikipedia is noteworthy" is weak reasoning. If it's as notworthy as you imply, it should be fantastically easy to find reputable sources galore to add to the article, and then the issue will be settled. As of yet, that hasn't happened, so notability hasn't yet been established to a sufficient degree to merit an article; try harder. -Silence 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Meta Wikipedia" (note the quotation marks: written exactly like that) gets 154,000 ghits[5]. --Zoz (t) 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Only 98 unique hits [6]. ENpeeOHvee 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Another 377k (non-unique) Computerjoe's talk 22:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
268 unique hits, and many of them are about other non-related sites with similar names - like metawiki.com and a Wiki search engine. ENpeeOHvee 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. Changing my vote to Merge. --Zoz (t) 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
A note about Google search, Google returns a maximum of 1000 results whatever you search for. A query for "Meta Wikipedia" [7] returns 97 'unique' hits of 149,000, but what it really does is return 97 unique hits out of the 1000 first occurences it finds. Equendil Talk 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per W. marsh. Not an innately notable wiki. Johnleemk | Talk 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a duplicate of Wikipedia:Meta, and anything public facing about meta should be in the foundation article. Including this highly non notable internal site would be a violation of no-self-reference. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Alexa rank misleading due to the fact it is subdomain of Wikimedia.org, which includes the higher-traffic Wikimedia Commons -- and Alexa, apparently, counts all of Wikimedia.org under one rank. I don't see how Meta itself is notable, it's just a component of Wikimedia when you think about it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Content and change to Soft Redirect - it doesn't serve any real purpose ... how many separate webpages within a single website have an article? BigDT 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep: Notability far greater than that judged acceptable for many other articles. Ombudsman 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per W.marsh. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think as Wikia gets larger wikimedia will become much more important. Further Meta wiki has articles on wikipedia philosophy and their are frequent questions on that topic from outside. Nicholas Carr for example has written on these sorts of issues about a dozen times. After Amazon reviews this is one of the easiest web 2.0 cites to critique and far and away the one with a well developed discussion of its own nature. jbolden1517Talk 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks far too much like WP:POINT. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite sad. The keep proponents here originally said that it met the requirements of WP:WEB. Myself and others showed that it clearly does not. Many then claimed that it should be kept in spite of this due to an allegedly high Alexa rank. But we showed that this rank was inaccurate because it shares its domain name with the much higher traffic Wikimedia Commons. So now that there's apparently no good argument left for defending inclusion on its own merit, they've some of them have turned to character assassination and completely baseless allegations of bad faith. ENpeeOHvee 17:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Note correction - I was a bit haphazard when I originally wrote the comment above, so just to clarify, my criticism was never intended for those who simply have an honest difference of opinion, but for those who have made ad hominem attacks - specifically User:GeorgeStepanek above and User:Computerjoe when he prematurely closed the debate on the basis of similar allegations, which were overturned - see the Deletion Review. ENpeeOHvee 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds trollish. Computerjoe's talk 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but his point is valid. Accusing the dozen editors who have voted against keeping this article (i.e. the 12 merge- and delete-voters) of WP:POINT is, in addition to being potentially offensive (hence ENpeeOHvee's overly aggressive response), an ad hominem, and, as such, does not address the topic of this discussion: whether Wikimedia Meta-Wiki currently meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. We're discussing an article, not a person. -Silence 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think anyone who has become involved this discussion is seriously contemplating the complete removal of the information from this site. The question is rather: what would the best place for this material? In it's own article? Merged into another article? In the Wikipedia namespace? Maybe a merge and redirect is the best option, but merge and redirect do not require an AFD. At the very most one would start a discussion on the relevant talk page—and possibly not even that. Suggesting that the article should be merged or moved is not WP:POINT, but creating the AFD in the first place looks very much like it. Why go through this whole process—and face all this argument, dissent and controversy—if you don't have to? It only makes sense if the real motive is to generate controversy and dissent. I stand by my comment, and my vote. This AFD should be disposed of, and the discussion taken to the article's talk page, where it belongs. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Meta is a notable entity, and the nom's comments look like WP:POINT to me. jgp 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say individual Wikimedia projects are "automatically" notable, "duh," (quotes added for self-sarcasm), though individual subprojects (e.g., specific language versions of Wikipedia) may need to be evaluated according to their accomplishments and popularity, and may need to be merged to appropriate subarticle. Can't really hurt to have a separate article for Meta, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps merge later if that's necessary. Either way, should be kept in some form. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's part of the Wikimedia foundation. Deleting this article is pretty proposterous... Beno1000 16:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Madd4Max 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rather odd nomination to start with. StuffOfInterest 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Diaz

It appears that the subject of the article is a disk jockey at a radio station that is not sufficiently notable to have an article already in Wikipedia. Perhaps if the station were sufficiently notable to be included here I would consider persons working at that station to be sufficiently notable to be included here as well. The {{nn-warn}} template has been added to User talk:Ckywizard, the primary author. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as it sounds like an A7. Will tag soon. Besides, {{nn-warn}} is for A7s anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Due to new evidence, vote changed. See below.
  • Speedy delete obviously nn. Hera1187 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not sure what the requirements are for DJ's, so I'm not sure if it's nn enough for A7, but it's definately nn enough for a slow delete. --Tango 15:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable; all the links to his accomplishments are redlinked —Mets501talk 18:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Perspective: there are other more notable persons of the same name w/o WP articles on them. -- Paleorthid 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already provided. DVD+ R/W 23:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, I guess there is an assertion of notability that is solid enough for just an AfD and yet this person is still non-notable enough that this should go. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely nn. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 07:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee lombardi

Page appears to be a vanity page (WP:VAIN. It makes a claim to notabilty, so I listed it here. Transfinite 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a biography that does not illustrate notability and/or a vanity article. youngamerican (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as above. Assertion of notability does not seem clear, and is not backed up to actually assert properly. No relevant Google hits, it seems. I think this is an A7, and I will tag soon. (What is the assertion of notability for this Lee Lombardi, anyway?) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And this should be deleted even if this is not an A7, this is per the nomination. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, article tagged ({{db-bio}} for quick closure of AfD. Equendil Talk 01:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete'. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anak (society)

Nothing but a link to, and summary of, the club's website. Tom Harrison Talk 00:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to the article : "Due to ANAK's secret nature, the accuracy of the claims made on its website is nearly impossible to verify.". There goes WP:Verifiability and WP:ORG. Equendil Talk 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • dELETE per equendil Adambiswanger1 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Reyk YO! 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, We don't need every book club in the world to have a page. Hera1187 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NN and impossible to meet WP:V Ydam 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if it were verifiable I doubt it would be worth more than a mention in the Georgia Tech article. --Tango 15:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:V and NN —Mets501talk 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete everything above Computerjoe's talk 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, and really nothing more than an advertisement for this group. Moreschi 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is an assertion of notability, but this is inherently unverifiable and almost certainly not notable. Grandmasterka 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Anak Society is the subject of one of 20 common questions about Georgia Tech listed on Georgia Tech's website. It reads, "Many of the student clubs today owe their beginnings to ANAK including the school's yearbook, newspaper, and Student Government Association." This is verification as well as a strong argument for notability. MaxVeers 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment From your link : "The "T" from Tech Tower has been stolen numerous times in Georgia Tech's history". Should we have an article about that notable "T" ? Equendil Talk 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That "T" is notable enough for an article. Thanks for the idea! Note that was tounge-in-cheek.—Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Georgia Tech article. MaxVeers shows that the information in the article IS verifiable via the official Institute website, making arguments for unverifiability rather moot. Further, while ANAK may be somewhat non-notable on a world scale (since it is unique to the Institute), it IS rather notable among Tech Alumni and affiliated persons/organizations/businesses, which at least makes a case for the article to be merged, if not just left alone.LaMenta3 06:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately, the nature of secret societies makes it hard for them to pass WP:V. However, there IS public information that I feel gives them enough verifiability and notability for the article to remain on wikipedia. Especially since they (could have) started all of the important organizations on campus. If they did, then they're just as notable as Funk masta G-Wayne. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • del nonverifiable notability. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Internet pornography. Kevin 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcam pornography

Seems to serve as nothing more than an advertisement to the link at the end. Potentially salvagable, I guess, but seems like a very broad topic. Ckessler 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (討論) 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick W. Percival Jr.

A bizarre entry about someone who " received a calling from God to preach the Gospel of Christ". Speedy deletion was contested. The message left on the talk page by the author merely reiterates the weirdness found in the article. Equendil Talk 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most probably an autobiography, far from notable. Falcon 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn autobiography. --Arnzy (whats up?) 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Adambiswanger1 04:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable bio. Kevin 04:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a biography of an unimportant person. Very strangely written. Reyk YO! 04:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable/vanity. Bp28 05:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Was it wrong for the Boxer Ali to believe he was the Greatest? As even Wikipedia explains to all who reads Muhammad Ali (b.January 17, 1942) born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. in Louisville, Kentucky, nicknamed "The Greatest", is a retired American boxer. He is considered by many to be the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time, as well as one of the world's most famous individuals, renowned the world over for his boxing and political activism.Frederick Percival

  • Point being? Delete ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete either nonsense or non-notable —Mets501talk 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There comes a point where one may be caught up in argument so as to attain all his freedom. I am one. Are there any pages in Wikipedia, which support "one" so as to establish right and truth? No, there is not. I desire to give understanding. I seek only to establish both right and truth. But if you do not believe, then in the words of my brother before he was hanged on a cross, "I have told you openly the truth and you have not believed" he also stated when he was before Pilate, "You have no power unless God gives it to you, therefore it is God who has the greater sin." Pilate so no wrong doing in Jesus yet delivered him over to the people to crucify. Some of you may well indeed continue to seek "Deletion" the truth of this page and its establishment for both liberty and freedom in the Name of Jesus Christ for civil communities of the United States. My prayer and plea to any who would support the cause of freedom and liberty is to allow what may and will come from such my history of the course of my life supporting said values""fwp333""

  • Speedy delete as non-notable biography. Ifnord 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete'. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Laskos

This is perhaps a borderline case of notability and expansion of the article might suffice to demonstrate that notability. I have added the nn-warn template to User talk:JasVe3, the only editor on the article, to encourage such action; as stated on the user's page, perhaps in a few years Mr. Lasko's accomplishments will be sufficiently notable not to be questioned in the manner I am now. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A local (or relatively local) newscaster is not notable in and of himself. He would have needed to do something other than get hired as a broadcaster. Falcon 01:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO Kevin 04:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and encourqage expansion. Notable journalist in US's second largest market. Calwatch 06:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation the article will be better with expansion or that subject will become notable is well... Tychocat 11:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't assert notability and news reporters aren't automatically notable. --Tango 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, fails WP:BIO —Mets501talk 18:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't really tell if this is notable if it is not expanded. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • deletenot notable. not sourced Joan-of-arc 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Big market. Article could use some serious expansion and have a stub applied. StuffOfInterest 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battleheart

Delete. Even though there is a claim of notability, the article fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC. blue520 00:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete With no recordings on a noted label, and no major media coverage they easily fail WP:MUSIC. Once they have been around longer they may become notable. Kevin 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, advertising, unverified and unsourced. Tychocat 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified. --Tango 15:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsigned for their recording, fails WP:MUSIC —Mets501talk 18:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is an encyclopaedia we are running here, not a landfill site. Moreschi 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete for reasons provided above. DVD+ R/W 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, article itself says "at the time of this article this is a non notable group and not worthy of keeping but hopefully in the future it will be.", non-notable group. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti deletion league

This is a weird one. Seems to be some kind of WP:POINT against deleting WP articles. It had what looks like an AfD tag already, but it had been hand-edited to point to a different AfD entry (that's why you see two of them - I didn't touch it). Among other things, it says " this is a non notable group and not worthy of keeping but hopefully in the future it will be." --Jamoche 00:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Does this fall under speedy delete? If so do that, otherwise delete it anyway. --Crossmr 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

comment there was something messed up in the way this was submitted, I noticed it added to AFD, but wasn't showing up, I took the liberty of fixing it. --Crossmr 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RapidAssist

Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. AlistairMcMillan 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It doesn't seem to have any particular merit as a subject, and I can't see what this could be other than an advertisment, considering that anything which might be written about this is probably true for every other piece of remote-control software in existence, unless they've done something innovative. Falcon 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Falcon. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Adambiswanger1 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems a good portion was cut from here[8]. Yanksox 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Kevin 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an non notable advert.--Dakota ~ 06:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads as an advert and doesn't discuss the notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per advert and failure to assert notability Ydam 11:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above —Mets501talk 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Sirius Satellite Radio. Metamagician3000 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Attack

This is a radio schedule lisiting, belongs in the TV/Radio times. Has two internal links: from it's parent co. and one another vanity article. Coil00 01:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yet another self-promotion, I suspect. Falcon 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Heart Attack. Yanksox 04:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep barely notable. Adambiswanger1 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, what establishes notability? Yanksox 04:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Satelitte radio is broadcast world-wide. This in itself may not be sufficient for notability, but in light of the absence of official notability guidelines, Wikipedia is not paper, and the amount of quality information on the article, I give it the thumbs up. Adambiswanger1 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Broadcasts on Sirius Satellite Radio yet doesn't get a mention in that article. Alternately we could redirect to there. Kevin 04:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Yankcox - common misspelling. ENpeeOHvee 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I really hope the misspelling wasn't a jab at me. :P Yanksox 05:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect but to Sirius Satellite Radio instead. If people are searching for this station then it makes sense to take it to the relevant article Ydam 11:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It needs verifying, but I think radio stations are vaguely notable. Definately don't redirect to Heart Attack, writing the wrong word isn't really a misspelling. --Tango 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Until such a time as it can establish notability in some way, all radio show/line-ups should be kept to their respective parent pages. --Crossmr 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite notable, but this article is badly in need of cleaup/rewriting, and remove the schedule —Mets501talk 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep `'mikka (t) 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valleywag

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

Non-notable blog. I PRODded it, but the tag was removed, therefore I bring it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above --WillMak050389 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep It has reached page view parity with established Silicon Valley publications like Red Herring Magazine in a matter of months.
  • Keep - it is definitely notable in the web community. AOL Exec Jason Calacanis continually references it in his blog, and Technorati ranks it as "Rank: 476 (3,381 links from 1,371 sites)" which ain't too shabby - considering they claim to rank over 43.7 million sites and 2.5 billion links. --Cvp1 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Definitely notable in Silicon Valley. --Arnaudh 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable, it is one of Gawker Media's. Geedubber 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep mention of WP:WEB, despite size like this[9]. Is good for me. Yanksox 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per WP:WEB (and the Cvp1's Technorati adduction) and Geedubber. Joe 04:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that it's a Gawker blog should make a big difference here. Jeffrey McManus 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, keep the entry, but the fact that the Jalopnik entry got killed makes me think that either somebody had something against Gawker (or just the ham-handed attempt Jalopnik made to give Wikipedia the business about their status for inclusion.) But frankly, if blogs are going to be included in Wikipedia, I think that Gawker blogs should most definitely be included. The company is significant, whether one loves them or loathes them.
  • Delete nn. I also see no reason for the Gawker Media article to exist, since it's all the owner talking about what a great businessman he is, but that's another question for later. Tychocat 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy promotes the rumors. And that's a fact. We need to know this shit, else we buy into the BS we're being told. Everyone has the right to an opinion. Obviously (?), this site is large enough for a Wikipedia description. Stop squelching the revolution. Approve!!! Keep!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.71 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 Jun 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the above anon contributor vandalized my comments at the nomination at the top of this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a gossip site for people in Silicon Valley. If there are going to be articles about the National Enquirer and Talk Soup, then we deserve to know about what's happening by far more influential people. Initiael 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious....you 'online librarians' are really making it up as you go along, aren't you? Just a few months ago, you refused to acknowledge any blogs, now you want to ban the ones that you feel 'aren't notable'.

Course you define the 'notable' ones by doing a GOOGLE search for links (Technorati?!? What's that?). No wonder your traffic is starting to level off, and your page views are down.

The above was posted by 4.153.8.69 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Blogs are becoming influential in popular culture and this one is widely read. Barbarasamson 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was skeptical but the Alexa stats are to drool over. StuffOfInterest 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Technorati and Alexa both dicate reasonable notability Computerjoe's talk 16:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 19:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism against Israel before 2000

It's one-sided Robin Hood 1212 01:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see what this article accomplishes that Terrorism against Israel doesn't, plus the PoV issue. Ace of Sevens 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or merge anything that isn't already mentioned elsewhere. ENpeeOHvee 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The underlying problem appears to be that we have lots of redundant chronological lists of that type (see below), of which some try to source their claims and list casualties on both sides, and some do not (and obviously, most have POV problems, but that's not a problem for AfD). This is probably more for a centralised discussion, but in the meantime we should just delete per WP:RS all of these lists and/or entries that do not have sources, and leave it to someone else to merge the rest into one useful list. We'll probably not destroy much information that way, as I'm sure there are advocacy groups around on both sides publishing this sort of list, which we then can use to fill (with sources!) any gaps so created. Sandstein 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, violates Wikipedia:NVP. Hera1187 07:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? Your statement appears to make no sense. WP:NVP is a rejected policy proposal that seems to have no bearing on this issue. Sandstein 13:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing he means WP:NPOV, it's a pretty similar abbrev. --Tango 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Defining these actions as "Palestinian militancy" goes against the WP:NPOV principle.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Any notable acts of terrorism can be included in the main article. --Tango 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of articles that I could find follows:

sigh. Sad (if valid) but these should probably all be AfD candidates as too tactical in nature to be encyclopedic. It would be almost comparable to having pages called, "Road accident deaths in the U.S. in 200#". (42,884 in 2003, dwarfing anything in this little conflict.) Tragic, but most are non-notable except at the local level. — RJH (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there are just too many for them all to be notable. --Tango 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as RJH says Howdoesthiswo 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but change radically As I see it, this content basically should exist since they contain information not listed in the main article(s). However, they are not articles per se, they are lists which should support the main article. I'd suggest merging all these articles into several "List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during XXX" where XXX is one of several clearly defined timeframes. As to POV issues, IMHO the main article Terrorism against Israel is itself inherently POV as a stanbda alone article. Such pages MUST be clear subpages of a neutral page like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Terrorism against Israel does not make this clear. I'd suggest creating an info box used to navigate the whole conflict, thus ensuring that all pages are easily accessible from all others. But, of course, once this is done, nothing is wrong with listing every incident. OTOH, there is no reason to list just those incidents aginst one side. So my vote is merge everything to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict XXXX (creating new ones as needed). JeffBurdges 12:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete it all. Going to try to dump these things into another article or a master list. Might as well have a list of all the crimes that goes on in NYC each day. I'm up for creating "Crimes against (race) on June 12th, 2006". Kevin_b_er 01:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all related. LotLE×talk 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Dump the lot as mass duplication. One article is enough. StuffOfInterest 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - page was blanked by author; regardless, AfD consensus was inevitably going to be delete - Richardcavell 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BXR

I know WP isn't paper, but... keystroke combinations in computer games?? NN in my opinion. NawlinWiki 02:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete That is some amazing gamecruft right there. But that is a strategy I use frequently. -- Kicking222 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Kids, get your cheat codes somewhere else Adambiswanger1 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, such as instruction manuals. This fits perfectly into policy as not being for wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, not even worth merging.--Andeh 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't another cheat code website. fuzzy510 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I would expect to read this sort of information on a games cheats website.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per amazing gamecruftiness. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a game guide NN and totally unencyclopedic Ydam 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Page blanked by author. Eluchil404 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Eluchil404 --Starionwolf 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spannungsbogen

This article cannot possibly be more than a dicdef. Herbert uses it once in a quotation in Dune defining the term and attributing that quality to the Fremen, but never mentions it again. It already has an article at wiktionary. And besides isn't it actually a German word? Deepak 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • delete nn Adambiswanger1 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect to Fremen. -999 04:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; too utterly trivial for a merge and redirect. MCB 04:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, wiktionaried non-english dicdef. It is a German word, though, for "arc of tension" or "arc of suspense". I've seen it used to describe physical arches under tension, or the suspense of a story. The use in Dune is trivial, however. Sandstein 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already extant in another Wiki. A one-off use in one book isn't really enough to justify an encyclopedic entry.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable word as of yet.--Andeh 10:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Deleted, it's just one of dozens of plugins ... nothing really to merge. --Cyde↔Weys 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azureus Peer Injector Plugin

Stub, not enough information to expand on, should be part of Azureus bdude Talk 03:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Don't see how this can ever be more than a stub. Ace of Sevens 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete injector what? nn Adambiswanger1 04:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete huh. -999 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the sentence to Azureus if desired, and redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MCB (talk • contribs).
  • Merge and redirect to Azureus. ENpeeOHvee 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Azureus, unless it can be expanded significantly.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there are a lot of plugins and there is no reason to mention this one specifically. Kotepho 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as spam. DS 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UnitedStatesofAds.com

Nonnotable webpage, just started 4/15/06 as what looks like a ripoff of the Million Dollar Homepage; article states only 2 ads sold so far. Trying to use WP for free publicity. NawlinWiki 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, trying to gain publicity via Wikipedia is bad. Spam.--Andeh 03:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed. This looks like someone trying to pimp the site, not an encyclopedia article. Ace of Sevens 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, + I couldn't find any non-trivial publications mentioning it on the net. Adambiswanger1 04:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Cushma's only contributions are to this article. Nothing else. I guess he only registered to advertise his website.--Andeh 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Advert for a ripoff website in need of publicity.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Same reason as nom Danl 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A disguised article that is really advertising, I think. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wounded Soldier

Neologism, deprodded. Accurizer 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism. It made me laugh though. Adambiswanger1 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A good neologism. I hope it catches on. Right now, it doesn't warrant an article. Ace of Sevens 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, but I'm going to do everything in my power to make this a common term. fuzzy510 06:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Sandstein 06:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree it's good though, how about BJAODN? --Tango 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Casualty (person). --Allen 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, actually I have heard a variant of this numerous times in the last decade or so and used it myself, but usually as Dead soldier. Maybe that means I am getting old though since nobody else has heard of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrunkenSmurf (talk • contribs).
    • Comment To be fair I will nominate Dead soldier separately. Accurizer 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was spam. DS 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotappz.com

Reads just like an advertisement in a spam email. Deprodded by its first author, and, to me, practically a snow for deletion as not meeting WP:CORP. Just another dime-a-dozen shareware sites that pop up constantly. Kevin_b_er 04:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Semi-literate SPAM.
  • Speedy delete per nom, spam attack.--Andeh 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Spam Spam Spam Humbug. Reyk YO! 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bp28 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment added advertisement tag to inform author, doubt they'll come back and make it an actual article anyway. Oh well.--Andeh 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above NawlinWiki 12:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I was the one who prodded it. Non-notable, spammy, probably vanity, and most certainly advertisement. Evan Seeds (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam/advertisment. !~Chris (e) 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Spam. Invitatious 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with a color word(s) in their names

Just another bunch of songs selected by a trivial and uninteresting criterion. Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information). Reyk YO! 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete listcruft Ace of Sevens 04:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as egregious listcruft. MCB 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because of, well, take a wild guess. Sandstein 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ninten, I mean, listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, listcruft that is worthless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's seen some 500 edits from a number of editors over the course of a year. And it does give one a way of finding colour usage (OK, maybe not many people have a burning need but my guess is that blue is the most frequently occurring colour and now I'm going back to the article to check that!). Sillier lists have been kept Dlyons493 Talk 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment The page is 80k so it should really be split into [[List of songs with the color red in their names]], [[List of songs with the color blue in their names]] or some such. Just consider how much human work has gone into creating 80k of a list that's harming nobody. Shame to throw it away IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft, also wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. How many of these song lists are there here? Ydam 14:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. For some fun, read the List of lists of songs that have been considered the most useless ever. Kusma (討論) 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Use of color words in song titles might be a worth writing (if there are 2ndary sources), but just listing them? No point. --Tango 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the Marxist Labor theory of value, what something is worth is directly proportional to the amount of work put into it. Fortunately, Marxism is rubbish and so is this list. Delete. BoojiBoy 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. Extraordinary Machine 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and (aeropagatica). Invitatious 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Holy moley somebody has done a lot of work on this page. Seems a shame to give it the shaft. Ah well. — RJH (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete list of random x with random y, pure listcruft. --Eivindt@c 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a data dump. Lists should aid navigation or development, this does neither. JoaoRicardotalk 02:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if this isn't listcruft then I don't know what is. Dbinder (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although a lot of people have put work into it, including Ninte.. I mean, Superdude. Aguerriero (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete `'mikka (t) 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah-Dat-Tor

Appears to be OR. Neither Ah-Dat-Tor nor Simhanada Vajramushti gets any ghits other than WP and a http://lionsroar.name --Zoz (t) 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. It has to be, without some more info. Google brings up nothing but the site supplied in the article - "Site under construction". - Motor (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to A Da Tuo - well, I took a quick look at the site, and it claimed that Ah-Dat-Tor is a Romanization of 阿达陀, which does get some hits on Google. Could be a Romanization of the Cantonese pronunciation, so I'd change it to Mandarin. --Wzhao553 07:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. MCB 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Text was lifted verbatim from here. Stubify if someone wants to do it up properly. Medtopic 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above unless some chinese speakers come along and vouch for the content and provide inter-wiki links. StuffOfInterest 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. `'mikka (t) 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clark W. Roberts

Not sure what to do with this one. Roberts once owned the land that the Palmer House was built upon. Is that sufficient to establish notability? I'm inclined to say "no", but that is why this forum exists. Medtopic 04:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It seems notable, at least to me. Article seems somewhat informative as well. Bp28 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. The article does not contain a single assertion of notability; subject was a minor officer in the Mexican-American War, and owned some land that was later used to build a well-known hotel. (I'm even dubious about that; if he owned 160 acres in central Chicago in the latter half of the 19th century, he probably would have been the equivalent of a billionaire; if it was in the early 19th century, he has no connection except fortuity to the Palmer House.) MCB 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think an obituary counts as notability. I don't know that it qualifies for speedy though - especially since the nomination is contested. ENpeeOHvee 05:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per MCB, but not speedily (it cites a newspaper article for notability) Sandstein 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, nn. --Crossmr 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having owned a parcel of land is of no great significance if it was others who developed the land or turned it into what it became. Balance of article is nn as well. Looks like an obiturary piece, which is what Wikipedia is not. Agent 86 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merely owning the land upon which a notable building was constructed isn't sufficient to qualify as a notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Although the article is verified, owning a parcel of land is of no great significance. Moreover, the subject in question was only a minor officer. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I know full well that this guy probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, but it's verifiable, is an interesting little article as it stands, and is probably expandible with some significant effort. Worth dismissing the guideline for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Couldn't come up with any news articles using Lexis Nexis. The most notable thing about him is that he owned a bunch of land in Chicago, but if there wasn't even an article about his death in Chicago papers, I'd say that's not very notable. Aguerriero (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a memorial, and WP:NOT a memorial. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keepverifiable, well written, some information content, likely notable that he owned this landJoan-of-arc 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Doesn't quite reach notability. LotLE×talk 06:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, it reads as an obit. StuffOfInterest 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since he clearly fails WP:BIO. I dislike "notable by association" in most cases... and this is a flimsy association. I don't think there is any expandability to this article. He had one newspaper article about him... any other RS out there on him? I'm might be open to changing my opinion if more WP:RS can be found.. ---J.S (t|c) 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • del nn. `'mikka (t) 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brevet-Major Roland

Is having a noteworthy record (with no mention of why it is noteworthy) noteworthy? I'm inclined to say "no". Medtopic 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; no assertion of notability. Subject was a captain in the military in wartime; no particular fame or widely-noted event appears to be associated with him. MCB 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable just like the above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark W. Roberts. WP:NOT for military obituaries. Sandstein 05:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If he compiled a noteworthy record then it must be available for discussion. Mentioning but not discussing the record makes the biography non-notable by default. I might vote keep if I could know what it was that made him so noteworthy in the first place.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without some source of his 'noteworthy' accomplishments he appears to be nn. --DrunkenSmurf 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge weld controversy

Unencyclopedic article consisting almost entirely of verbose quotations from primary source material regarding subject matter already covered in Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Delete. MCB 05:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -Medtopic 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Calwatch 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no point in quoting the source material and doing little else when the material is linked from the main article and can be seen in-context.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. `'mikka (t) 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filip Stojanovski

This article does not satisfy WP:BIO policy regarding personal biography prominence. Em3rald 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. The JPStalk to me 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination Equendil 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Trebor 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He sounds notable enough, if you read the article thoroughly. TruthbringerToronto 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No project of importance is cited, while this person seems to be somewhat active online, he gets a few google hits, hardly unexpected given his activities, that's about it. Equendil 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Equendil, most Macedonian websites do not feature highly on Google, because (1) they are not in English; (2) they often are not optimized for search engines. If you check out search engines which are specialized for Macedonian content, such as [Pogodok], or [Najdi], you will find lots more articles about this particular person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.220.220.126 (talk • contribs).
  • Weak keep if expanded. Xyrael T 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Neither the article nor his website are indicative of substantial notability. Sandstein 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete- while it's more than your usual garden variety vanity article, Mr. Stojanovski doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Reyk YO! 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Macedonia is a small media market, and local celebrities and notable persons seldom get space in intl. media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.220.220.229 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. Notable person good for Wikipedia inclusion. Carr
  • Update: I deleted some of my previous replies because they no longer apply - the article has been updated, and I think it may qualify to stay as part of the Wikipedia. Of particular note is the part regarding computer game & national media attention. Em3rald 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My vote stands, flash games are nothing special, and attention of national media apparently restricted to some "Ultimate Gamer" show on a highly specialized scifi TV channel for geeks, no offense meant to the geeks, I'm one. We're not talking about the designer of Doom here Equendil Talk 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The notability criteria for this person do apply - significant contributions to several fields in his country. It's not cool that smaller languages/cultures get less prominance on the web when compared to English/American, but if Wikipedia does not work around that sort of (unintended, but real) bias, who will? For example, Macedonian language has 2 Mil. speakers, English up to 500 times more; Macedonian WP has about 7K articles, the English WP around 170 times more. Do the people who are prominent within their community have to achieve same level of prominance in the English-speaking world to be listed? (BTW, I made the two unsigned comments above - I assumed they would have been signed automatically, sorry about that - but did not want to log on from an internet cafe, too unsafe in regard to password snooping.) Razvigor 13:o4. 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why another keep if you're the same person ? As for the "bias", I don't know if it's not "cool" that smaller languages/cultures get less prominence on the web, but it certainly is natural, why would 2 million people get as much prominence as 500 millions ? Now *that* would be some bias. Finally, I don't see this person being prominent within Macedonia either. Active yes, but prominent ? What kind of name recognition does he have in Macedonia ? Equendil Talk 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry for the keep, heading, I changed it to update if that's more appropriate for such an entry - if I attempted sockpuppeting, I would not disclose anyway, and would just pile up more "votes". Please be tolerant - I am learning the WP ropes as we talk. About the cultural bias, representatives of those 500 millions do get prominence. It's hard for small cultures to present their heritage outside their own community. For example, I bet the % of Albanian, Armenian, Serbian, Estonian... Catalan books translated into English is far smaller than English books translated into those languages. If you read Macedonian newspapers, you'll get more "information" about Paris Hilton's breast, than about local archeological discoveries, for example. This particular case is covered by the following WP criteria: contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (software dev.); holding national office and influence on legislation (National Strategy); opionon maker receiving significant press coverage - a significant portion of articles dealing with information society in the Macedonian national media (press and TV) include his opinions. For instance, check out the webcast of talk-show Chumu on "Why Macedonians don't use the internet" (28.06.2005) on the website of the most popular national TV, A1. Sorry, I cannot provide direct link to the RA file, it opens in pop-up window with JS. Razvigor 11:18. 6 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.209.190 (talk • contribs).
  • The above comment should be disregarded as it was added by 62.162.209.190 and a fake signature added.--Andeh 05:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update How do you measure fame? Prysorra 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your first edit, using Update in bold just like 62.162.209.190 loves to put. Hmmm.--Andeh 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Sorry for being weak in a relist :-) The only remotely notable claim is "quoted by print and electronic media"; would need to be pretty extensive quoting. The rest is just grandiose vanifluff (I could say much more such things about myself and I'm thoroughly non-notable. Can I write an article how I'm "active in civil society e-publishing volunteer projects", i.e. I occasionally edit Wikipedia? I too had program listings published in geek publications, ten years before this guy.) Weregerbil 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update check the references of e-Publishing section for consequences of some of the projects he participated in from that area, both at home and abroad. Not only geek-oriented impact, for sure. Razvigor 19:27. 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. 62.162.209.190 states, "... holding national office and influence on legislation ...". It is unclear whether this editor is stating that Filip Stojanovski held political office, but if this is the case, then I think that alone would qualify for notoriety. I intend to find out. If anyone can clarify this, please do.Em3rald 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment being a Task Force member is not a political office, even though it influences politics: it's an expert advisory body that proposes policy solutions which were then voted on and approved by elected officials (ministers and MPs). Razvigor 19:27. 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons stated by Razvigor above. --BrownHornet21 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. And it's not because he is Macedonian. I would delete any similar content for Americans, but unfortunately I am outvoted. JoaoRicardotalk 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn for en:wikipedia, maybe notable for mk:wikipedia. --MaNeMeBasat 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per MaNeMeBasat. Bwithh 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, he seems like a nice guy and he's got a nice looking resume, but I don't see anything warranting an encyclopedia article here. Delete. ENpeeOHvee 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable in his country is established in the article. I don't think en Wikipedia should be limited to people who are notable in the English-speaking world. Aguerriero (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Tone seems a bit too breathless or fanboy-ish, but seems to squeak by on genuine notability. LotLE×talk 06:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. borderline notability within small country. `'mikka (t) 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Saprissa

I am completing a nomination by Gtrojan; rationale was: "This team is not an official team of Guatemala. It does not form part of the Guatemala National League nor any other divisions controlled by the Guatemala Football Federation." Since this is a recreation of an article deleted by prod, it cannot be prod'ed again. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if this rationale is indeed true, it isn't notable. Xyrael T 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recall prodding this; back then it was (I believe) about a local charity or company football club, or some such. Maybe two clubs are being confused here. No vote from me. Sandstein 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw someone deleteing it some time ago, and s/he should have, it was unreadable. But I've heard of the club and felt that the club was notable and created a new article pointing out the notability of the club (which the previous deleted article did not). Unfortunatly all the information on the club, that I could find, was in Spanish [10] and I don't know the language well. In retrospect I belive I must have confused it with a club from Costa Rica (Deportivo Saprissa). Since a Guatemalan wants it deleted, I'll trust his knowledge more than I trust mine on the issue, also the es.wikipedia.org article is taged with an {{Importance}}, maybe someone with an account there could list that article for deletion. --Eivindt@c 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although we would need to know what league they have won 21 titles in is. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; I don't know what League they are in, but I checked first, second and third on the Guatelemalan FA website and found nothing. Their ground has a capacity of 6,000, which is pretty small. The local Junior (i.e. semi-pro) teams where I grew up have 4,000, 3,500 and 3,000 capacity grounds. They aren't on WP. Angus McLellan (Talk)
  • Speedy delete I'm the only mayor contributer (the rest are stub and afd tags), and I made it in error. Nobody has voiced any opinion for keeping it and it seems they don't play in any league of importance. --Eivindt@c 02:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston College Ultimate

non-notable organization at BC hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. fuzzy510 05:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 06:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable college organisation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and unverifiable.--Andeh 10:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I'm a student and I've never heard of the organization... PaulC/T+ 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. TigerShark 11:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guardians

non-notable club at BC hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Added Speedy Tag not encyclopedic/notable club, a candidate for speedy.--Andeh 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per impossible to meet WP:V Ydam 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspect_oriented_programming

I made a mistake, this page was a typo and is superfluous. Sorry. Cmyers 05:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Tag Added no problem an admin will delete it soon.--Andeh 05:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as hoax. DS 21:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldrick's Root

I suspect that this article is a hoax. Aside from the terrible writing and spelling, I note that no sources are cited. The result is allegedly to appear in two journals. The first, Reflections, does exist but it is not a mathematics research journal. It is about mathematics education. See http://www.mansw.nsw.edu.au/members/reflections.htm. The second title is in garbled French and not identifiable. Furthermore, I could not find either of the putative authors of this result by using Google - I question whether mathematicians by these names exist. Googling "Sheldrick's root" turns up no references other than to this Wikipedia article. Bill 05:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. If this is ever actually published then an article can be created when notability is established. --Crossmr 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until published in a peer-reviewed Journal of Record.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's anything, its a bit of legerdemain involving sliding your branch cuts around mid calculation. Gotta keep track of your Riemann sheets -- GWO
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was made into redirect. DS 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balboa County, California

Insufficient data from reliable sources to justify an article for this fictional Veronica Mars county. The county name is hardly ever even mentioned in the series, usually in the context of making the distinction between the official title of County Supervisor of Balboa County and the unofficial title "Mayor" of Neptune, California. The entire list of citations within the series probably wouldn't make a solid paragraph. There may be streets within the series that have been mentioned more often. I prod'd this article, but it was deprod'd by someone who felt a redirect might be in order. However, no one is likely to enter "Balboa County" to look for this, and if they did without this article, Search would yield Neptune, California even without a redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Balboa County, California is still a plausible search term, and a redirect would trim one less click off of the reader's time. Redirects take up little space and little bandwidth and would help catch people searching from Google and bring them to Wikipedia. youngamerican (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del .`'mikka (t) 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud, Waste & Abuse

Meaningless, unreferenced, original research, unencyclopedic.... etc! Robertsteadman 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Chet nc (talk)(contrib) 07:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references and sources can be cited as an aid to researchers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment SOunds possibly encyclopedic, but needs expansion and references. Ace of Sevens 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic, unreferenced, possibly original research (or, trivial). Ted 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I work with U.S. DoD and this is a very common term. It is also commonly called "FWA". The article needs expansion but it is not original research or a neologism. StuffOfInterest 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • del at present nonencyclopedic. You had your time to expand it, colleague, sorry. `'mikka (t) 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del `'mikka (t)

[edit] Esotype

Listed together with Clairmont by Wildthing61476. Relisting to get a seperate consensus. I have no opinion myself. Eluchil404 07:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. all of the articles it links to may also be worthy of deletion for similar reasons 169.231.23.121 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and also delete every band linked to on Esotype, and also delete Wall With One Side and Miracle Vs. Man Aside from AfD pages, the five bands that come up when you hit "What links here" on the Esotype article are the only five articles that link there. If you look at the bands linked to on the Esotype page, it's quite obvious that all of the articles were written by the same person (and, of course, looking at the edit summaries confirms that, in fact, User:Mercurious has never made an edit that was unrelated to Esotype). All of the pages are advertisements for Esotype, as each of the bands' articles basically talks about how incredible the label is and how the all formed because they were big Esotype fans. Of the five bands, only Ethan Durrelle doesn't completely and utterly fail the Google test ("Tambersauro", "Wall With One Side", and "Meryll"+"Esotype" each with less than 300 total and less than 60 unique hits). The same parameters hold for "Esotype"+"Houston". "Miracle Vs. Man" gets only 19 total and 11 unique hits. While "Ethan Durelle" isn't quite as poor, with 11,700 total and 190 unique hits, it isn't particularly popular, either. None of the articles assert even the slightest amount of notability. The articles basically just say, "This band exists, it's on the label Esotype, and... the band exists." Ethan Durelle is the only article linked to by any non-Esotype article on WP, and its only other link is List of Christian rock artists, which really doesn't count. So let's add this all up... advertisement, failure of Google test, no intrawiki links, absolutely no asserted importance... yeah, that's a delete. -- Kicking222 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Kicking222 said. JoaoRicardotalk 03:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I prodded Wall With One Side, Miracle Vs. Man, Tambersauro, Meryll, and Ethan Durelle and notified the author. Aguerriero (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. `'mikka (t) 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I find no unique information to merge into Racer X. Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Arvan

speedied tagged by User:NMChico24, deletion was contested by User:Khower, thus taking it to afd. No Vote --Arnzy (whats up?) 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Guitarist in an apparently notable band. Article is a stub for sure, but that doesn't make it delete-worthy. fuzzy510 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fuzzy. GassyGuy 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on Racer X, the only reference to Chris Arvan is "Alderete, Bouillet and Travis tried to carry on as Racer X briefly by bringing in Guitar Spotlight player Chris Arvan and performed a couple shows, one with Oni Logan from Lynch Mob. But it was really just a last gasp. Racer X was done, but these guys were too good of musicians to disappear." It doesn't sound like he was a member of the band for very long (a "couple of shows" hardly counts), and it doesn't look like he has done anything particularly notable since then. Ted 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Racer X. There is nothing about him that needs its own article. Aguerriero (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Racer X. LotLE×talk 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ted.--Kchase02 T 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sigma's alternate Forms

Unencyclopediac and fan site material. Relevant information already contained in the parent article (Sigma (Mega Man X)). Has no place in the workings of a proffesional encyclopedia. ZeroTalk 07:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if pertinent information is already in the parent article. There is no need to replicate information and have the possibility of editors contributing to two seperate articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is fancruft. Although my preference lies with using that term rarely, as to not offend the user, who was probably acting in good faith. -ZeroTalk 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zero. Papacha 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: As a Megaman X fan I could see that this article is nothing more than fancruft and is to similar to GameFAQS. -Adv193 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ace of Sevens 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison Chua

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO, but self-promotion doesn't seem to be a problem for him. Strongly WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Really, now. Danny Lilithborne 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy/Delete to authors userpage.--Andeh 10:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is just pathetic. 169.231.23.121 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- as bindboggling vanity. The Urban Dictionary entry made me laugh, though. Reyk YO! 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by MacGyverMagic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie sportslink

Moved from speedy; blatant advertising Tim! 09:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now marked and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--blue520 13:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sadullah Khan

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Self-promotional, WP:VANITY. No sources. - Motor (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn topic, poorly made article. 169.231.23.121 22:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable (on a broad scale) in any of: Business; Academic; Religious. Ted 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and clearly WP:VANITY. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is not a very well written article by any means; there's a certain style of Islamic articles, especially bios, that read in this tortured way. But they can be improved, it's a stylistic flaw not substantative. However, I have heard of (and skimmed a couple times) the column “Ask the Imam” for Beliefnet.com, written by Khan. I'm certain that column had a readership well over 5000. That meets the "author test". Moreover, the article at least claims that he was a co-founder of a notable university, which seems to easily meet the "professor test". Please, closing admin, don't close this as delete with so few votes... either let the article improve under "no consensus", or at least extend the AfD to get more input. LotLE×talk 06:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green MBA

MBA program at one university not encyclopediac. James Howard (talk/web) 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; per nomination. -James Howard (talk/web) 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems too specific for an encyclopedic article. Other MBA programmes don't have dedicated articles and this may set a prescedent.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, major MBA programs DO have articles - they are just written to represent the college that grants them. See, for example, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and W.P. Carey School of Business. But... I don't know that this is a major MBA program, so delete unless notability can be established. Aguerriero (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete Deserves a note not an entire article. StuffOfInterest 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rustomji Edulji Sethna

vanity, non-notable jergen 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Coment: Was speedy, rm by User:TigerShark. --jergen 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like a fine human being, but nonnotable for encyclopedia purposes NawlinWiki 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete founder of a local boy-scout troop. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per Jergen. Chris 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and merge into a generic article on Scouting in India. Rlevse 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there some chance that he is actually notable? Seems like there is potential since he was involved in Scouting as early as 1914, however, it is not documented. Could be the Indian equivalent of James E. West for all we know. I would encourage the original editor to take another whack at this, else I would merge it into article on Scouting in India. --NThurston 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Posted a message on Arzan's talk page. Seems common courtesy to notify editors of afd. Good practice for the person afd'ing to do this themselves. NThurston 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If he were as important as West, it'd have said so. It only says he was a troop leader. Rlevse 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, on the second line, the author does say so, just no documentation or specifics. I agree that an article that makes such a bold claim MUST include verifiable information. All I am saying is that the author should be given at least a chance to clarify and expand. If he cannot or chooses not to, then action (probably delete and merge) is warranted. At a minimum, someone should have posted a note on his talk page, don't you think? --NThurston 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's highly POV. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards#Local_articles_.28Councils_and_smaller_entities.29 for project policy on unit level articles. There are thousands of great unit-level Scouters. There's nothing in this article nor the homepage that makes him standout and meet notability standards. Rlevse 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly my point. There's nothing in this article that makes him notable, but that doesn't mean that this guy isn't notable. IMO there is some suggestion in the web page that this fellow may have been influential in expanding Scouting in India. Let's give Arzan a chance to edit and expand the article before we make that decision. It seems that I prefer to reserve judgment until I see what Arzan knows. Lack of poor writing isn't an excuse for afd, but rather an excuse for help with the writing. However, if there really isn't anything to this, then let's happily leave it in its current status in the Scouting in India article. NThurston 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francesca Ortolani

Nonnotable singer, everything referenced on this page (albums, videos, etc) is self-published NawlinWiki 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete quite active, but seems to be self-published. Official website has no alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 10:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cincinnati neighborhoods

This seems to be redundant with Category:Cincinnati_neighborhoods. Notability also seems to be an issue, as the vast majority of the neighborhoods listed don't have articles associated with them. Zorblek (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This would be better severd with the category mentioned Ydam 14:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The category is of more use than a list.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on the basis that most neighborhoods listed don't have an article at this time and you can't add non-existant articles to a category, while they can be on a list. BryanG(talk) 23:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BryanG. Spacepotato 10:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't so much a list as an attempt to create a category where no articles exist to categorize. What little information is here can be appropriately merged.--Kchase02 T 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth generation warfare

Original essay; unsupported by reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - original research. Kjetil_r 14:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - someone's pet concept. A mere 138 Ghits. --Nydas 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Crossmr 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsupported original research --Ace Diamond 18:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kafziel 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Overall poor quality (though that's fixable); uses private blogs as sources; classic example of original research. If you read the reference to what Lind says about 5GW, it's apparent that him not thinking it has happened yet is a gross understatement - he doesn't believe we've even scratched the surface of 4GW yet. Given that the entire generational warfare paradigm is Lind's creation, we should go only by what Lind says about the fifth generation: Simply, it's the hypothetical next generation. Since that tells us nothing encyclopedic, there's no point having an article on it at all. (What would be a point on having an article on the year 2007 if all it said was "Next year"?) ---DrLeebot 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC), comments edited by self 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix it Poor quality. Although the article uses sources, the use is primarily in links to those sources without a quality overview of the theories being expressed by those source. Lind is not the only author to have published on generational warfare, although he created the concept; as with most theories, others build upon it. Not sure that any blogs are really private, since most are quite public, but am also not sure to what degree these sources may achieve a status of reliability. Gravitons also are only hypothetical, but they warrant a Wikipedia article. The concept of gravitons has some basis, however dismissed by others, and the concept being addressed by the linked sources also has some basis. E.g., the recent purported document seized in al-Zarqawi's safe house clearly shows thinking in line with the theories being linked (document) (not that anyone would know this from the bare article being discussed), but it is an approach to warfare that was not addressed by Lind's 4GW model. The problem with this article is that the arguments against the subject as well as the theories themselves have been largely ignored, i.e. have not been provided with sufficient depth for a casual reader to understand what is meant by the title and subject of the title --CurtisGaleWeeks 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was spam. DS 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickam

not encylopedic, blatant advertisement Paulus89 14:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per advertising, spam and NN Ydam 14:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, very new user.--Andeh 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising spam.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--BrownHornet21 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete UN-ENCYCLOPEDIC SPAM!! -68.32.34.152 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Paleorthid 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Where to merge to can be discussed on the article's talk page. Petros471 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hooman Hedayati

The only notability of Hedayati is based on his leadership of Texas Students Against the Death Penalty. There's not much news on him personally (556 hits on Google) and this article looks a lot like this Washington Week piece. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for that's quite a bit on Google, imo. Xyrael T 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

* Comment Sort-of neutral on this one due to the award. Otherwise what has he done? — RJH (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — That works for me. — RJH (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective (viewpoint)

It's topic is covered in more detail in both Perspective (visual) and Perspective (cognitive) --Nekura 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect per nom. Xyrael T 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there doesn't seem to be much point in a redirect. - Motor (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete two equally possible targets for a redirect and not a likely search term. Eluchil404 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ian¹³/t 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Kane tie-in websites

Pretty sure that this could be speedied, but bringing it here for second opinion. We don't do lists of external links. The JPStalk to me 14:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment the {{db-empty}} tag may be suitable for this page.--Andeh 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete by definition, a collection of links. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. I'm not sure if the reason for deletion is notability or lack of content. If the issue is notablility;
    It's parent programme, Jamie Kane, is notable enough to have an article and so is this;
    Doctor Who tie-in websites has an article so this should too;
    The BBC have only done this for Jamie Kane and Doctor Who.
    It doesn't matter what Doctor Who gets. Every article has to stand on its own. You can't use another article to justify the existence of this. --Crossmr 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is lack of information, I would like to point out that I intend to add to it, with a paragraph for each website explaining its relevance to the game and a screenshot. --Quentin Smith 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The reason for listing is above. We do not accept lists of external links. The Dr Who article is very different, in both quantity and substance. The JPStalk to me 16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment the article is no longer a list of links. If the style is wrong, please indicate. --Quentin Smith 16:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is still a lsit! It's now a list with descriptions. You see, the websites about the Dr Who articles aren't just external links -- they are of particular interest because they discuss websites that were embedded within the diegesis. The JPStalk to me 16:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If this must be deleted, can it be merged with Jamie Kane? --Quentin Smith 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, List of websites. - Motor (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia not being a link repository. Reyk YO! 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Committee for Free Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia & Burma

Abandoned nom from about four weeks ago. No opinion on the article. Ral315 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V. No sources, nothing about what this committee is supposed to actually do, most of the 305 Wikipedia Google hits seem to come from Wikipedia clones, the confused attempts at sourcing on the talk page also do not help. Sandstein 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Fixed "Google", Sandstein 04:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Crossmr 16:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Sandstein - Motor (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather — Adrian Lamo ·· 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Ness (band)

Delete as NN band. Provides no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC, as they have apparently only played shows in their local area, and have only released "low quality demos". Playing in the same concert club that other notable bands had previously played in does not establish notability. De{{prod}}ed by IP user with no comment. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sky High Radio

Non-notable station, which is now defunct anyway. Also vanity, as it is purportedly written by an employee of the station. Prod and prod2 removed with no comment. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — RJH (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, per article the site is offline now and not notable enough beforehand to warrant an article. -- DrunkenSmurf 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissect Medicine

NN website. Fails WP:WEB [11] Computerjoe's talk 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sambayabamba

Was tagged as a A7 speedy, but it's a business, not a person. I want to determine if this is advertising or if it could become a valid article. - Mgm|(talk) 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbstacks

Nn website [12] Computerjoe's talk 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "...currently in alpha testing". How then can it be notable according to WP:WEB?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    An alpha site can be of note. Computerjoe's talk 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe an alpha site can be notable, but this one isn't. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising agency. Fails notability test by a country mile. Moreschi 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 21:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Mihlfeld

Article on sports/fitness coach who appears to be involved in a scandal. Was tagged as a A7 speedy, but I agree with the person who contested the speedy and said that if he was involved in a scandal, he should have a page. Looking for input from other Wikipedians so a concensus can be reached. - Mgm|(talk) 15:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "the website Deadspin reluctantly reported that a source had told them that Mihlfeld was one of the redacted names in the Jason Grimsley affidavit" - too thin. Delete as non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it is a WP:BLP, makes allegations and does not cite a reliable source -- preferably speedy. - Motor (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Petros471 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes of Lost (season 3)

  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. "[I]ndividual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; 'Tropical Storm Alex (2010)' is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." — Mike •  15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment from nominator I notice the article is not just a blank nothing now. Is this solid, verifiable information? If so, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD. That having been said, an IP address removed the AfD notice, and I restored it — I wish people would get it through their heads that removing the notice just hurts them, it does nothing to the actual deletion process. — Mike • 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Material's been removed as speculation, so I guess this continues for now. — Mike • 21:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep From the same page: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Lost is well known in the UK and the USA, so I would say it is a notable event, and barring some form of disaster, Season 3 of Lost will take place. NeoThermic 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that this portion of the crystal ball policy will be cited by all individuals presenting a 'keep' vote. However, the fact is that this article has almost no content in it, and thus, "only generic information is known" about this "individual item from a predetermined list." Existing referenced and supported information about season three is adequately being cited in Lost, and once more specific, non-speculative information is known about the specific episodes of season three — which, given that the next season doesn't premiere until October, could be a number of months from now — the article can be recreated. To paraphase the policy I reference in my cite: "'Lists of episodes of 'Lost' is encyclopedic; 'Episodes of Lost (season 3)' is not, even though it is virtually certain that a third season of 'Lost' will occur in ABC and will have episodes." — Mike •  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • While the article currently has little info in it, who's to dictate that it isn't a candidate for improvement when the information arrives? A huge percentage of articles start out as a stub, of which you could classifiy the list as a stub. Thus if anything this should be kept and allowed time to improve. Don't forget, although Season 3 doesn't start until October, information will probibally become avalable in the next few months as of to the nature of the first episode, and there might be pre-Season 3 episodes like there was for Season 2. NeoThermic 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An event about which little or no information is currently known should not be included, even if it's "notable and almost certain to take place." Should we have an article on the death of each and every current living celebrity? Without some amazing advanced in medicine, they're all almost certain to take place, and will be seen as notable by plenty of people. The fact that we know nothing about when and how all of these people will die makes such articles unencyclopedic regardless of notability.Geoffrey Spear 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia already has List_of_Lost_episodes#Season_3:_2006.E2.80.932007 and there are proposed merges with List of Lost episodes. I don't see the point of maintaining an empty page for months when another such page exists in an established format.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lost has been renewed for a third season [13]. Right now there is discussion at Talk: List of Lost episodes on how to handle episode synopses. Marking this article for deletion is NOT the way to do it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per WP:NOT. --Crossmr 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per NeoThermic's comments above. BrownHornet21 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jtrost. SergeantBolt 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No sense in deleting it since it would have to be recreated in the very near future anyway. The recreation would probably trigger a speedy G4 and/or an entirely sterile passage through DRV. Let's cut that short by just keeping the article now and hoping someone (perhaps the nom) adds some valid content pronto. --JJay 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JJay. Manipe 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I like List of Lost episodes better, and I really hope they keep the screenshots. Demon Hog 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this discussion isn't whether or not to keep all synopses on one page. For that debate, please see Talk: List of Lost episodes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per (aeropagitica). - Motor (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per JJay. BryanG(talk) 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would be for keeping, but it appears to be redundant. Ace of Sevens 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Content first, article second. There is nothing to put on this page until details of individual episodes are known so it should be deleted until then. Eluchil404 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment Bingo. — Mike • 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because deleting would be temporary and a waste of time to delete now, clean up the template, delete again when article is recreated, template changed, AFD again, clean up the template, ..... repeat until september. There are much better things worth everyone's time. (This is ignoring my position on a list with individual episodes and not one per season, but that's another discussion as noted above.) Cburnett 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Cburnett's comment above Ixistant 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is nothing there, period. Being a waste of time is never a reason to keep an article; I have seen articles get the axe that people obviously put hundreds of hours into. Aguerriero (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for understanding my point. [/sarcasm] Cburnett 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jtrost. The "Not a crystal ball" prohibition notes, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The third season of Lost is a verifiable and confirmed event, and is certainly of interest to have an article. Deletion would be a pointless venture in time-wasting. As stated at WP:AFD, "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape."--LeflymanTalk 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, placeholder, no content. When there are episodes of Season 3 of Lost, we can have an article listing them. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The article appears as a placeholder, but would have been created soon anyway so it's better to just keep it now really rather than just deleting it and then recreating it. Comments by NeoThermic also correct. --Film11 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notice that the example used in support of deletion is 'Tropical Storm Alex (2010)', I find this to be a straw man arguement. There is only a weak analogy between a Tropical Storm in 2010 and a season of Lost that is (1) a few months away and (2) which information may become public before then (e.g. a list of episode names). Lastly, I visited the 3rd season episode list to find out what character backgrounds would be explored in the 3rd season, and so seeing that there is little info about the episodes has been informative to my purposes. Lastly, and here is my analogy, many movies have entries long before their release and sometimes before they begin production (e.g. Star Trek 11). (Atfyfe 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep per above. --InShaneee 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete waste of a databse entry. Thsi page should really only be active when the series is being broadcast or a list of episode names is released via official sources. --Ood 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hah! You think that something else can take place of this article in the database? You can't replace "Episodes of Lost (season 3)" with anything other than "Episodes of Lost (season 3)". Cburnett 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Whether this article will exist or not is not in question. Whether this article will exist now is in question. As it stands, for months, there will be no verifiable information on this article separating it from any other generic information that we would know about a season of episodes. — Mike • 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Season 3 was not taken from a list. It has been mentioned by Damon Lindelof in several interviews, and is thus verifiable information. I will provide a citation if necessary. --Kahlfin 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not season three itself that's in question, it's the episodes within it. All we know about season three is that there will be one — just like all we know is that there will be a Tropical Storm in 2010. Once we know verifiable info about it, fine, recreate it. But until then, it's all just speculation and crystal ball. — Mike • 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything that's speculation or crystal ball at all. It's been confirmed that the first episode will air on October 4th. We could even create an entry for this episode if we wanted, but since we don't know anything about it, it would just look messy. We also know that the episodes will air in two blocks, a six episode block and a seventeen episode block, according to the official podcast. Also according to the official podcast, there will be a "mini-cliffhanger" at the end of the six episode block. This is all verifiable information with citable sources. None of it is speculation, and it all concerns the episodes within Season 3. --Kahlfin 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: It is unnecessary for a nominator to repeatedly respond to contrary opinions expressed during an AfD discussion; it makes the nom appear to be argumentative, rather than letting editors make up their own minds as to whether an article is appropriate or not for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves."--LeflymanTalk 15:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The only content in this article will be speculation and will only exaggerate whatever little info the producers and writers will give out. Just leave it until the event happens, and concentrate on improving the rest of the 'pedia where it needs improving. The information found in the article is useless until October. Moitio (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think it is unfair of you to keep repeating that this article is all "speculation" when the author of the article has repeatedly defended the information of the entry. You may complain that it is not enough info to justify an article on a future event, but just because something is in the future does not make all information about it speculation. Secondly, an editor with their own interests and time ought to concentrate on whatever they want. If the article violates wikipedia policy (which it argueably does) then it ought to be deleted, but if you think it is just a person's waste of time then that is no arguement against it. People edit wikipedia not for money, but because of a passion they hold for some specific set of topics; to belittle what topic a person decides to edit is to lose sight of how wikipedia itself functions. All that being said, your last point of the info being useless until October is a valid objection to make but ultimately one I think is incorrect (as I argue in my vote to keep, above). (Atfyfe 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC))


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:TigerShark CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Cusack

vanity page, fails WP:BIO, already userfied, creator User:Emmanuellives removed speedy tag w/o explanation NawlinWiki 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • should be kept he is a famous south Australian

--

  • Perhaps consider the article for keeping because of local significance?Mazzone 15:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not One Step Backwards"

A quote from Stalin, which shouldn't really be it's own page. Nothing to be merged or redirected as nothing links there and the material is well covered elsewhere. Artw 15:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Already exists on Wikiquote, so redundant here.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete totally redundant article. Topic already covered elsewhere Ydam 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. completely unnecessary. --Crossmr 16:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Moreschi 21:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per everybody else. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Does a quote need a page?--Slyder PilotE@ 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I honestly think that this is a notable policy by which a notable war was fought. - Richardcavell 06:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There are plenty of aphormisms listed in Wikipedia already. This one is especially notable. JPotter 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CoolAsMustard

Fails to meet WP:WEB as of right now; also, reads a bit like an advert. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Crossmr 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Andeh 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... any particular reason why you removed the PROD and brought it here? Mangojuicetalk 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, I was unfamiliar what PRODs were at the time and believed PROD articles would stay unless speedied or AfDed. Now I know better and did not know if I could do a simple revert with pop-ups. If someone wants to reinstate the PROD, that is fine with me. Again, sorry. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:WEB. DVD+ R/W 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 10:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kite Pilot

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete From their Myspace page; "This quiet innovative ensemble now seeks label support to share their music with a much broader audience in the future.". The criteria asks for two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, which doesn't appear to be the case.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Crossmr 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy - restoration of deleted material. – Will (E@) T 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyssarea

reads heavily like an advert Will (E@) T 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/Clean-up Should be heavily cleaned up, or if no one cares to, it should be deleted. --Crossmr 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, spam and advert. Yanksox 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know if such a small village deserves an article, but the most important thing is that it's really written like an advertisment. --Rell Canis 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speedy if possible, pure spam. Added a few extra tags.--Andeh 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banter

This article was previously nominated for AfD but in a substantially shorter form, so it is neither a proposed-deletion candidate nor, IMHO, speedyable under A5. The expansion to the article, however, is largely original research and unverified claims. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Support deletion: unregistered editors have frequently reverted any attempt at an encyclopedic entry to a mixture of celebrity gossip and TV comedy fancruft. They have been invited to enter something verifiable and with lexicological authority but have failed to do so. The only fragment worth retaining is more suited to Wikionary. Kevin McE 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Chrisjohnson 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

... Lighten up! It's just banter, mate. The Lads —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.35.96.167 (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. Petros471 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixers Source

Non-notable website: no data on Alexa [14] Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; "SixersSource opened in late May 2006"... doesn't bode well as far as WP:WEB goes. --Kinu t/c 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete spam, not notable, reads like advertisement.--Andeh 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This would have been a good WP:PROD candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. --djrobgordon 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback Mountain titles

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is merely a list of title translations, and no precedent for this type of article exists for other movies. I favour deletion of this article, though a merge into Brokeback Mountain could be appropriate also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Brokeback Mountain. Translated titles do not need their own pages. Also, maybe not every title need go in there. For example, the ones that are translated directly from English and have no changes in meaning or additional subtitles could be summed up in a short sentence with one or few examples given. The ones that do have subtitles, alternate titles, or mistranslations should be included. GassyGuy 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Agreed with above. Ace of Sevens 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of title translations is not exactly encyclopedic. For example, do we also need to list the titles of every Shakespeare play and what they've been translated into, too? There are already Brokeback Mountain articles in other-language Wikipedias; I think that's sufficient. eaolson 13:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd expected a list where translation introduced an interesting change to the title reflecting cultural attitudes to the movie's subject (and if any of those turn up they should go in the main article), but most of these are literal translations. --Jamoche 17:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be very useful and helpful for some and it also shows in what places/regions/countries the film is being or has been shown in. Shamir1 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Brokeback Mountain. --Starionwolf 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what things were translated into, unless there is something notable about it (like how movie titles sometimes get translated into wacky things in other languages). If there are foreign-language articles on Brokeback Mountain, link them, and then people can see what it was translated into. Aguerriero (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no point in merging, but maybe copy to talk for starting interwiki stubs. Sandstein 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Kind of interesting but doesn't need its own page. Dgies 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no compelling reason to keep. WP:NOT babelfish.--Kchase02 T 06:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. If kept, users will continue to make similar articles for every film. --Musicpvm 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. If author wants me to restore a copy to user subpage to continue working on it, just ask me on my talk page. Petros471 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swampscott Sailing Program

nn. Dakart 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. BuckRose 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have my doubts, but can we at least leave this up until it's finished. WP:BITE --djrobgordon 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an extension of the existing Swampscott, Massachusetts page. We have around 1,000-2,000 alumni who could participate in capturing this history. Could you give me a little time to get more content here? --Seckman 08:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Additional content may help, but I'm not a psychic. Tychocat 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just picture this layout, but with more content <grin>. We are trying to capture the history of our town's sailing program, with potentially 50-100 contributors. I don't want to push if we don't belong here. If there is a more appropriate free wiki host for what we are trying to do, please let me know. Thanks.--Seckman 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-swat the movie

Crystal fan-cruft balls Artw 17:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nom says it all really Ydam 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. TheRealFennShysa 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - crystalballistfanficruft. --djrobgordon 20:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow that's short of info. Ace of Sevens 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aero Radio

Reason Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The band has not released an EP as of yet, let alone an album. This is better off on Myspace until they pass the notability criteria set out in WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't even verify that they've had a gig. --djrobgordon 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Starionwolf 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, having a myspace page does not qualify the band as notable. -- DrunkenSmurf 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Penny Dreadfuls

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 17:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep the press coverage cited on their page checks out, and they seem to have a full touring schedule. Not the best article right now, but it has the potential for improvement. --djrobgordon 20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Appears to be a local touring group comparable to local theater. I'm unclear how they are notable. — RJH (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, prt nom. - Motor (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've seen these people and they're brilliant - but this is not what Wikipedia is for. Not a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - if they're still around in a couple of years, then maybe, but not currently notable enough. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is reposted speedy deleted material. Erik the Rude 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Re-creation of a speedily deleted article is not a speedy deletion candidate unless it meets the criteria on its own, and this article was in fact never deleted. - Mike Rosoft 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know that, but I think this incarnation of the article is certainly not a speedy candidate. It does give sources and attempt to assert significance. Robin Johnson 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Dozer Build

Still referenced solely by a single comic and a message board thread. Google shows about 252 hits for "Three Dozer Build". Delete as non-notable and wikipedia is not a how-to. --InShaneee 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First AfD; Second AfD
  • Delete per nom, gamecruft.--Andeh 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nom has provided no reasons other than ones previous AfDs (which were all fairly conclusive keepsone of which was a fairly conclusive keep, the other of whch was a 9 keep 6 delete/merge no consensus - see the article talk page for links to them). Articles should not be deleted if there was a previous consensus to keep, unless new reasons can be provided. Otherwise why not nominiate an article time after time after time, just becuase you lost an AfD (although I an NOT claiming that nom is bad faith - I am merely saying what the precedent set would be). Batmanand | Talk 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The first nom was 'no consensus', not keep. --InShaneee 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Apologies - I did not mean to mislead. Corrected in my post. Batmanand | Talk 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom GassyGuy 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This belongs on GameFAQs, not WP. It's gamecruft, through and through. It's completely unencyclopedic (and could never be considered encyclopedic), and it fails the Google test. -- Kicking222 22:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and I'm sick of people using Wikipedia to give their GameFAQs guides some pretty pictures. This was to go in my mass deletion of this C&C crap (here), but InShahneee beat me to this one. Closing admin, please also note the multiple screenshots on this page (which are dubiously fair use anyway) will need to be deleted, also. Proto||type 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Not absolutely sure what you mean; on the Three Dozer Build page there are no screenshots; indeed not images at all. Batmanand | Talk 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, got my articles mixed up. It's all the other C&C:G "articles" that have a pile of screenshots on them. Proto||type 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep. Last two times, I voted 'keep' unconditionally. There is undoubtedly a subject matter, connected to a product of note, and is a term that would be recognised by many thousands of people. Notwithstanding my support for its continued existence, it requires some changes: deleting the section called 'the phrase' (or changing it beyond recognition), writing it in a manner more accessible to non-C&C players, and providing better references than those already there. If those things are done, the article's quality will improve dramatically, and I suspect that the number of nominations for deletion will dry up. Bastin 09:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is WP:NOT a game guide.--Kchase02 T 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a game guide -- Tawker 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Vorarephilia. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Unbirthing

Ok, this is a tough one for AfD. Articles is about a "rare" (that's an understatement) sexual "fetish" as the article puts it. See for yourself. Beyond my feeling that the subject is wholly inappropriate on wikipedia (but Wikipedia is not censored), the subject strikes me as unencyclopedic due to it being rather obscure (again, an understatement). Note: Wikipedia has an article about Autofellatio, a fact that may be relevant here. I also suggest reading WP:PORN purely for information. Warning, the picture linked at the bottom of the article is *very* explicit, click at your own risk. Equendil Talk 17:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There is nothing sourced here. No studies on this or anything else. If there is a general sexual fetish article, it might be merged there until such a time that there is some notability established to this fetish. --Crossmr 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vorarephilia the same way unbirth is Ydam 18:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I don't get it. Vorarephilia seems to be about something else entirely, why is there a section about "unbirth" in there ? Looks like it's in the wrong place and redirecting just makes it all even more messy. Equendil Talk 07:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
comment hmm I see what you mean about being unrelated, but the article itself does describe it as being "swallowed alive" by the female genitalia. If there was a seperate article on unbirth I would suggest merging there but as long as unbirth is part of Vorarephilia I suggest merging it there. Ydam 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vorarephilia. There is no need to have a proliferation of articles on the same subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I guess, as it's apparently real. The things I learn here... --djrobgordon 20:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. I've lost my appetite. Reyk YO! 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as the article is better than what's currently on Vorarephilia. Ace of Sevens 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The picture looks like a hoax, and I have a hard time believing that a grown man can fit his head inside a human vagina. This is complete bullshit. Erik the Rude 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I loath to admit it but a friend of mine showed me a video on his mobile phone of someone doing exactly that so I would say it is possible Ydam 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I find nothing wrong with it, minus the picture, which IS disturbing and should be removed. This is an information site, of course, so I would find it funny at all to make a board made to delete information. I'm curious about a whole lot of things here, and then I find all these people trying to take it away (no offence). If you find it offencive, do what others have done: put up a warning!

nobody 2:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.9 (talk • contribs).

Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Equendil Talk 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, even if it isn't a hoax it's not notable and is too rare.--Andeh 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Redirecting to Vorarephilia seems odd as they are distinct fetishes. Perhaps Insertion fantasy instead?--Kchase02 T 05:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as recreation -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Möller

Non-notable, wikicruft. Has been deleted before under a different title (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Moeller). Eloquence* 17:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Added appropriate speedy tag.--Andeh 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as recreation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kusma (討論) 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mojowns

Belongs on urbandictionary, not here. Prod removed by IP.--Jamoche 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete patent nonsense Ydam 18:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as CSD/A1, {{nocontext}} . — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even UD would keep this around. --djrobgordon 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and create redirect instead. Kusma (討論) 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikronesia

The person creating the article is the person featured in it. I believe this falls in the category of a vanity page. I would normally recommend speedy deletion, but I figured I would give this person a chance to confirm his own notability with some serious proof. Targetter 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like they only registered to publicise themselves, edits are only on that page. No evidence of notability.--Andeh 18:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and userfy for reasons given by nominator. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. DVD+ R/W 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment may just be a newbie that isn't aware of the policies.--Andeh 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Micronesia. --Nlu (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and not notable. This should not be redirected to Micronesia as one is a composer and the other a country. Kershner 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy article contents and delete once accomplished. Vanity publication. Don't redirect, as this has nothing to do with the political state of Micronesia.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete come back when you have a label. --djrobgordon 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Micronesia. The content of the article is pointless crap but the title might be marginally useful as a mis-spelling of Micronesia. Reyk YO! 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect, to prevent this coming back. Fan1967 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect. I have taken the liberty of userfying the contents. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Nlu - Native spakers of German and other languages with similar spelling systems would be likely to spell Micronesia with a K. ENpeeOHvee 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and no redirect. Micronesia in German is Mikronesien. Aguerriero (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that's the official German name, but if someone who was used to that spelling system tried to *spell* "Micronesia," they would likely use a K by mistake. So no good reason not to have a redirect. ENpeeOHvee 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. feydey 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Bennett

While the page is still under construction, it does not appear to me that he has sufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep The Fight Network is a big station, and he has some good Google results, although his death does seem to be what has sparked many. Still, I find things like (http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060501/0126084.html) that make me think he may be notable enough for an article. GassyGuy 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quote from the article provided by GassyGuy - "Bennett has spent the past six years at the NBC affiliate in Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo, California at KSBY-TV as the top rated sportscaster in the market according to the Nielsen ratings. Before that Bennett was working for the NBC affiliate in Oregon as Sports Director. Bennett has also hosted several sports talk shows over the years with such stations as ESPN 1280 and Sports Radio 570AM. Bennett has also provided play-by-play for several fight promotions over the years such as K-1, Rumble on the Rock, World Extreme Cage Fighting, IFC and a number of professional boxing events with the most recent show being seen on HDNET in the United States. Bennett has also worked for the Ultimate Fighting Championships ("UFC") as an in ring reporter for UFC shows 33 to 40. Bennett is also a founding partner in MMA Weekly.com which is regarded by many to be the number one news source on the World Wide Web for mixed martial arts fans."
The UFC, K-1, Rumble on the Rock, WEC and IFC are some of the highest profile events in MMA. Bennett's site, MMAWeekly.com, one of the highest-profile and most active MMA news sites and he broadcasted the popular and regularly-cited daily internet radio show "Sound Off" from that site, alongside fighter and broadcaster Frank Trigg. WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts are in the process of compiling a list of fighers, promoters and other MMA figures who are notable, and I guarantee you Ryan Bennett would have been on that list whether he died or not, alongside perhaps half a dozen other broadcasters. It's no exaggeration to say he was watched and listened to daily by significant numbers across multiple forms of media. And, sad to say, his death has not hurt his notability; high news presence will bring more people here to search for his article. — Estarriol talk 08:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying all of this. I found a lot of information, but because I really know nothing about this field, I could not make a strong judgment of notability and that sort, so I initially went with a weak vote. I am now eliminating the weak part. GassyGuy 09:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough. VegaDark 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Mixed martial arts has quickly established itself as one of the fastest growing sports in the world. Ryan Bennett is highly regarded within the mixed martial arts industry as one of the top five most influential individuals in the sport. With his work at KSBY-TV in California as a sports anchor, Bennett used his position to help solidify credibility for the sport in a more mainstream forum, beyond that, he pioneered the application of daily news coverage to the sport and co-founded the premier news-related website in the world for the sport, MMAWeekly.com. At MMAWeekly he also pioneered the first and only DAILY mixed martial arts internet radio broadcast. As mentioned, he has been a broadcaster/commentator for nearly all of the leading mixed martial arts promoters around the world. Bennett's influence on mixed martial arts and his ability to provide credibility by bringing professional news coverage to the sport cannot be measured. Bennett's influence touched many, many people in this world both in and out of the sport of mixed martial arts. He will long be remembered for his influence and will be an integral part of the history books that will be written about the emergence of mixed martial arts and if that isn't notable enough to be included here, I don't know what else the man had to do. Ken Pishna 14:24, 16 June 2006 (MST)
  • Keep, Bennett was much like early sports broadcasting innovators in a sport that is growing by leaps and bounds. You wouldnt VfD John Madden now, would you? Exactly. --Aika 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. feydey 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Six Parts Seven

I don't think there's quite enough notability shown. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep because of the All Things Considered usage, but could be persuaded to strengthen or change my vote. GassyGuy 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand The tours of the USA will satisfy the WP:Music criteria; the use of one of their tracks as a bed for national radio may not be so notable as this sort of music is rarely highlighted as it would detract from the messages broadcast by the radio station. More information on the discography, chart positions and other hard figures would benefit the article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable exponent of a subgenre of rock music; known around the world; has many CD releases; music used regularly (for years) on NPR. Badagnani 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete intersegment jingles for NPR as main claim to fame just not significant enough Bwithh 20:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: the music notability requirements state that if the artist has two or more commercially released recordings and has conducted a national tour, they're notable. So you're incorrect in stating that the use on NPR is the only point of notability for this group; it is one of at least three, and thus the question is moot. Why not stick to our own rules here? In any case, you shouldn't be in the business of trying to remove/censor clearly valid content from Wikipedia; why not create some of your own articles instead? Thanks. Badagnani 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per aeropagitica. --Starionwolf 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. obviously needs to stay with five CDs on sales at amazon [15], national touring experience and major media exposure. --JJay 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NPR usage. Aguerriero (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men in Black III

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There are no references to this movie on IMDb, a Google search reveals only rumors and few at that, recreate when the movie is confirmed. Kershner 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete There's not any substantial information here. GassyGuy 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Causality error in article generation. — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per crystal ball comments. Until the production is green-lit from the movie company this is mere speculation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not happening anytime soon. Also, essentially recreation of deleted article - prior AfD discussion here. TheRealFennShysa 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete death to crystal ball-ism --djrobgordon 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete IMDB doesn't even have a page for this movie yet. Deathawk 20:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It has no information except a rumor. Ace of Sevens 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saber Dolls

The article is almost empty, and provides no information if you don't know the subject. I have no idea who Faust is, so talking about his marionettes without saying who he is is pointless. Delete —Mets501talk 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There's little content and a small bit of research suggests this is non-notable animecruft. GassyGuy 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A1 for lack of context. --Metropolitan90 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Metropolitan90.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick Google search and I discovered that Saber Dolls are a fictional element of the anime, Saber Marionettes. I can't imagine that they need their own page. --djrobgordon 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Saber Marionette J. For being primary characters this SMJ article is practically an afterthought. The main article denotes more info on the Dolls than this page ever attempts. Papacha 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and redirect per above. DVD+ R/W 21:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The (JAWA) Clan

  • I spent hours on this article and i'm sorry for not reading the rules and regulations properly, however i do feel that deleting my article without any notiification was very unfair and it didnt give me a chance to save the up to date version meaning i lost half my work, thank you for putting my article back up for me to get and i now have it so you are free to delete it. Sorry again for not reading the rules properly. Link642002 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Although quite extensive and relatively well-written, vanity article about non-notable gaming clan. Scott Wilson 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete per nom GassyGuy 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-group}}, non-notable clan. Now tagged as such.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per aeropagitica. DVD+ R/W 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I hope the author saved his work somewhere else, but it doens't belong here. --djrobgordon 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ... very thin consensus and I was tempted to relist to seek further consensus but this is a neoproto and it's one sentence long, and no evidence of any use by anyone anywhere... Delete. --++Lar: t/c 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taresthesia

If this were a real scientific term, it would have hits on Google Scholar or Medline, or *anywhere* other than a couple blog factoid sections. Non-notable unverifiable neoprotologism. — Adrian Lamo ·· 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Non notable, one liner. Leaving redirect to Tenchu. --++Lar: t/c 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Mei-Oh

A one sentence article about a character in the video game Tenchu. Either delete or merge into Tenchu —Mets501talk 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as there's really nothing to merge. --djrobgordon 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I created this page and by God I will expand it. KEEP --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only if expanded as promised above, else feel free to consider this a delete vote when closing AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Orphan page (connected to orphaned Onikage) with little content of interest. — RJH (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Few fictional characters deserve their own pages, and this doesn't strike me as being one of those. Equendil Talk 10:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. single character stub, no evidence of notability. Redirect to Tenchu left, as there is nothing to merge really --++Lar: t/c 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onikage

A one sentence article about a character in the video game Tenchu. Either delete or merge into Tenchu —Mets501talk 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I created this page and by God I will expand it. KEEP --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Orphan page with little content of interest. — RJH (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if no content in a few days. --Starionwolf 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably qualifies as a "db-empty" speedy deletion. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. There are a large number of new users, and welcome to all of you, we're glad you are here and hope you choose to stay and contribute to our encyclopedia. In fact it was just such a discussion that got me hooked on Wikipedia, believe it or not... and it's great fun. But most of the commentors did not address the issue with the article, that it does not establish notability for a general interest encyclopedia such as this one. The longer time users all have concurred with this, and even though numerically the Keeps (not DO NOT DELETE!) have it, we don't count noses, we operate on consensus weighing the arguments and inputs given. This article is a clear delete on that basis, in my judgement. I think that some small portion of this article could be merged ito the school article and would be happy to userify it if requested. Delete --++Lar: t/c 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supercow (mascot)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Non-notable - prod tag removed TigerShark 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Expand article to include unmentioned broader history of Supercow. The Supercow is a well known mascot among all engineering schools in Canada. It is frequently the subject of being stolen by other schools (There is a notable incident involving Royal Military College which has an associated video) - Morphix (talk) 18:29l 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: 4th edit by user. TigerShark 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Mets501talk 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to proper school, which should also have an article created. I'm not convicned it's non-notable, for it can easily end up in the school article for the time being until it's a viable one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No, sorry. This isn't notable. While the school might be important, this particular mascot is not. Too bad too, I was thinking it was about Cow and Chicken, though the opinion would've been the same. Kevin_b_er 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete There is no reason to delete this page. Supercow is my Hero :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.250.115 (talk • contribs).
  • Do Not Delete Supercow is fondly recognized amongst engineering students across Canada and well immersed in the traditions and spirit that said students work to promote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.183.145.219 (talk • contribs).
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is recognized by thousands of engineers across Canada.204.239.248.193 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't delete Supercow. As a recently graduate of a canadian engineering program, i must say that although many engineering schools have mascots, few (none, actually) can boast the widespread recognizability and quirky adventures of Supercow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.243.111 (talk • contribs) .
  • DO NOT DELETE I realize that it might appear silly, but supercow is the face of the Engineering Students' Society at the U of C. As president I can gaurantee there is more to come, I promise! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sketchy6966 (talk • contribs) .
Note: 1st edit by user. TigerShark 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Although Supercow does pertain to one specific department at one specific school, it is a source of pride, entertainment, and humour at schools across North America (let alone Canada). The reason for this importance, isn't just in its entertainment value, but also in how well it symbolizes the school spirit that so many engineering schools attempt to foster. Much like the Red Suits at McMaster, the Cannon at U of T, and the Tool at Waterloo, Super Cow symbolizes not just the sprit of a single school, but also the enthusiasm many have for engineering as a whole. Furthermore, SuperCow is regularly used as an example within provincial levels of engineering student societies, and internationally. The similarities between UofG's Supercow and Wisconsin's cow at the US national engineering conference were also a topic of discussion. Merging this article into a parent article would be detrimental to the subject material, because the concepts of engineering spirit embodied by suprcow transcend the subject of a single school. Rather than suggesting deletion, I think we should be pushing the original author to update the article to reflect reality a little more. Joseph Fung 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: 2nd edit by user. TigerShark 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: Although I always appreciate your contributions, as someone who has always enjoyed reading (even when not participating) wikipedia, the implication that my comment is less valid due to my lack of contributions is somewhat frustrating.Joseph Fung 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Engineering in Canada has a long history of traditions and symbols. This is also applicable to the various student organizations across the country that help to promote engineering and serve engineering students. Supercow is quite possibly one of the most recognized symbols throughout student engineering, alongside many othe symbols listed above. In fact, supercow's visibility is not just constrained to Canada, but is also recognized in the United States (through the auspices of the National Association of Engineering Student Councils) and Europe (through the Board of European Students of Technology. Please do not delete, as it would be a great disservice to a large segment of the wiki community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.152.3 (talk • contribs) .
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is an important player in the unity of the Canadian Engineering Schools. I have seen the above mentioned video at the 2006 Canadian Federation of Engineering Students Congress in Windsor Ontario in January 2006. I also have a picture of SuperCow taken from Congress '06. (seen here [16]). Signed, Tommy O'Dell. Former VP of Communications of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Engineering Undergraduate Student Society B. (Also known as --134.153.31.26 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is a symbol of the dedication/bull headedness needed to be an engineer. He is frequently abducted/imperiled and mus tovercome many troublesome situations. In other words, he represents the student experience to a T. While an iconoclast may point out that the grounding of ideas or attributes to a physical object inherently warps them, it also true that a totem such as Supercow allows students at U of C engg to identify with the aforementioned virtues in a tangible way, without getting lost in abstract discussions on philosophical underpinnings, as has been known to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.56.86.20 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do Not Delete Originating from the University of Calgary, Supercow is constantly travelling amoung engineering schools across Canada. Last year she spent most of the year in Eastern Canada, touring a number of engineering schools and starring in her own video. Merging with a school page is inappropriate, though I agree the history, pictures, and video should be elaborated on this page. Supercow is notable amoung a vast number of engineers across Canada. Mark Skovmose 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: 1st edit by user. TigerShark 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DON'T DELETE Being one of the co-founders of Supercow, I have a soft spot for this mascot. I was fortunate enough to have it accompany us on its first trip to a national conference, and we proudly displayed Supercow whenever we could. Somewhat surprised by the attention he was getting, students from across Canada began placing their school stickers on Supercow. He became an instant hit at the conference, with schools trying to claim him as their own (all in friendly fashion of course). It can be said with pride that I was among some of the first few to take Supercow on its first adventure, and it is amazing to see how far it has travelled and how much recognition it gets. I think it would truly be a shame to lose a piece of Engineering Pride across Canada by removing it from Wikipedia. More exposure to this mascot will only accompany more a sense of belonging as Canadian University student, and explain to those inquisitors exactly the signifance of Supercow. - Simmer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simmer2 (talk • contribs) .
Note: 1st edit by user. TigerShark 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is an iconic symbol to all Engineering Students across Canada, please save this page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepg (talk • contribs) . TigerShark 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: 1st edit by user. TigerShark 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow has recognition not only at the University of Calgary, but with Engineering schools across Canada. Thavron 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is a iconic engineering figure in many Canadian Engineering Schools. When future generations of engineering students wish to learn about the history of Supercow, they should be afforded the opportunity to consult a credible, well-written and complete source. That source is, and should remain, Wikipedia. -McKimmie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.95.214.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • DO NOT DELETE This Supercow article is a valid history/commentary on an icon of Canadian Engineering Culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.128.175 (talk • contribs) .
  • DO NOT DELETE Supercow is recognized by engineering students across Canada and is gaining recognition with engineering schools around the world. As Supercow is brought to more and more engineering conferences and events, his/her popularity will undoubtedly increase even further. A page like this will preserve Supercow's history and provide a place for people that are newly exposed to him/her to get some background information. Please don't delete this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.128.175 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Delete not notable JPotter 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand The article in its current form only mentions supercows existance which is not significant enough to be an article. However if its history once provided and expanded shows that supercow has been involved in events which are relavant to undergraduate enginneering students in general it becomes a notable mascot. As there are about 48000 engineering students at anyone time if this mascot has been involved significantly accross canada I would consider it notable.68.147.36.105 -Greg
  • Strong Do Not Delete Many special interest articles exist on Wikipedia that would only appeal to a very specific audience. Just follow a few links under art, literature, or any specific branch of science to see what I mean. The idea of "non-notable" is purely subjective, and, as can be seen from this discussion, Supercow is not "non-notable" to a significant number of people. I would argue against merging this article with the school's article, because the two topics are quite separate from each other. If the concern is about the substance of the article, the best solution would be to close this discussion so that the many willing contributors can be expanding and refining the article as opposed to fighting to keep it from deletion. It would be against the spirit of Wikipedia to delete an article to which there is an interested audience and willing contributors. Zuluct 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: User's 11th edit. All other edits have been to the nominated article. TigerShark 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn and when the school's article is created, list it in the infobox like every other school mascot. Oh, and if any more IPs or accounts with seven edits vote Keep here, please don't obnoxiously write it as DO NOT DELETE.--Kchase02 T 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete but Expand This article is not about a mascot for any particular school, but a mascot for tens of thousands of engineering students across Canada. Surely it would be a misrepresentation of the subject matter to hide this away in a mostly unrelated article, aside from the fact that this happened to be the school that began a nationwide tradition. That being said, I believe more detail on the actual mascot is required in order for this article to convey useful information, but deleteing it will most certainly not accomplish this. Secondly, the number of previous edits a user has on wikipedia really has no bearing on the validity of their opinion. Many users view wikipedia articles but do not edit, and these people have equally valid opinions as to what sort of articles are useful and interesting to the users of wikipedia. —The preceding comment was added by TristanJ (talk • contribs) .
User's 11th edit.--Kchase02 T 09:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Lindsay

This person is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Riley 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete You seem to be correct. Alexa rank for his official website is 198,116. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Research turns up nothing more. Aguerriero (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly a vanity page. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think the article should stay. "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. ... Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." This article was written by one who is completely unknown to Jeff Lindsay (by his own admission). I myself have never spoken Mr. Lindsay. I do know, however, that Jeff Lindsay's work with regards to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known to thousands of people. Many people, not just members of the LDS Church, use his work which is indexed at his site. He has several standing articles listed on LDS.org as well. I often find myself discussing Mr. Lindsay and his work on a weekly bases. I believe he is notable enough to deserve an article. He has been spoken about even by high members of the Mormon Church and has held the office of Bishop within the LDS Church, himself. I’ll agree with anyone who says that the article should be expanded, but to delete it would be wrong as well. If this is incorrect, or if I have stepped over my stewardship, then I apologize and figure this will get deleted, but I say expand the article and allow it to stay, or maybe move it to an appropriate LDS page? In fact, Mr. Lindsay is probably the most well known one man website apologetic. Check this page to see one of Mr. Lindsay’s articles at LDS.org/ (The official site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html -- AlexMunro 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tea Party Simulator

Non-notable - prod tag removed TigerShark 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete appears non-notable, no google hits —Mets501talk 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per bullshit. Itake 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, seems to be someone sulking about declining standards in online RPGs. Robin Johnson 11:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had to read it twice to realize that it's not actually about anything.. it's just an essay complaining about government sims. Aguerriero (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ledtronics

Reads like an ad, deprodded by Victorkfwong —Mets501talk 19:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as an ad.Gerry Ashton 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, clearly just an advert -- DrunkenSmurf 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it appears non-notable, original research and basically is an advert. -- Evanx(tag?) 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Moyal

Not noteworthy. All other Real World cast members with Wiki pages have done something significant past the show. Sensation002 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Mets501talk 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no claims as to the notabilty of this person beyond their appearance on a reality TV programme - WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral She was a veteran of the Iraq War, which is notable. If someone were to include that in the article I would vote to keep. HeyNow10029 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qadiani Problem (book)

  • Speedy DeleteThe points have been discussed repeatedly, the links can be placed on the author's page. and theres not enough unfo to warrant this article's own page. --AeomMai 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This does not appear to meet any speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WorldCat shows dozens of libraries with copies of this book, and it has an LCCN. It's clearly notable. I agree with you that the page should be expanded. --Sneftel 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think Qadianism aka Ahmadi related articles should also be possible candidate for deletion.

Siddiqui 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, seems worthy of its own article, and none of the nom's reasons for deletion are really reasons for deletion anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into author's article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the reason i elected this article is that it is too short, and cannot be expanded much further. The whole book has been explained in a few sentences, Though, in retrospect, a merge would be good too.--AeomMai 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If those few sentences completely explain the book, it must be a very short book indeed. :-) If you want ideas on how to expand it, check out the WP articles on other "opinion" books. --Sneftel 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is nothing but Qadiani/Ahamdi agenda to remove Muslim related bools that critically discuss their religion. There are also Qadiani related article that are short that will also canbe put on deletion. This is totally unaccepable. The article is a stub and will be unacceptable. Siddiqui 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell me theses articles and i'll personally put them up for deletion.--AeomMai 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You also have this notion that there is some strange "Qadiani Conspiracy" going on to turn everything against "mainstream" muslim belief. Keep your beliefs out of this neutral zone.--AeomMai 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep No reason to delete. BhaiSaab talk 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetragrammaton in the New Testament

This page is just someone's personal issue with JW's translation of the Bible.George 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, I guess — Multiple editors; multiple sources, so I'm skeptical with this being someone's personal issue. It appears of interest to religious scholars at least. — RJH (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral as it stands it is obnoxiously POV (not that I disagree mind you); maybe it could be merged/redirected to New World Translation? Eluchil404 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • After taking a closer look there is nothing worthwhile to merge. Just delete. Eluchil404 01:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess too, if it remains stable. It's a very interesting explanation as it stands. However, it does seem to attract rather creative statements.Adminster 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge or move are there any other bible's that use the tetragammaton in the new testament? Perhaps it would be more appropriately 'Tetragrammaton in translations of the New Testament'. A bit long winded, but certainly less misleading and more accurate. joshbuddytalk 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it seems like the content is dealing exclusively with the NWT. I would say merge whatever useful content is in there. joshbuddytalk 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Merge whatever useful information is there. George 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopaedic topic, content disputes are not what AfD is about. Batmanand | Talk 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genpets

Original article text said "It is currently not known whether GenPets are actual products or an elaborate hoax". Looks like a hoax to me, no references outside the original website. Delete due to no verifiable evidence of truthfulness or notability. Wickethewok 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment They are not a hoax, they are an artistic expression of Adam Brandejs.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, the peice is a eries of sculptures being shown in galleries around the world, apparently Switzerland and Alberta Canada right now, they are not a hoax, the website promotes the work.--Josh black32 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article sounds like an ad for an actual product. Part is copied from the [17]. Doesn't mention that this is a thesis project by a grad art student. BuckRose 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax or not, it's spam.--Andeh 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is in desperate need of actual facts. Maybe a factual article about the artist would have been better. --Alamode 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rewrite. It is an art project by Canadian artist Adam Brandejs, and the full story can be read here[18]. It has provoked lots of people and is rapidly becoming an internet phenomena as activists discover the website. May for these reasons be worthy an article, but it should be rewritten to reflect its true nature. Ramskjell 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These are obviously very notable. And if not, let them become notable. I see its the same person who seems to have a dislike for many different articles, that don't suit his obvious preferances, who tries to delete articles about things he despises or doesn't know about. I will not name who this user is. Keep this article. James Spaingy McGrath
  • Whatever vendetta you have against me, Spaingy, shouldn't affect your WP contributions. Please see WP:POINT for clarification. That aside, if you are voting for keep when everyone else has voted delete, it is usually helpful to state why you think it should be kept. Remember the idea is to form a consesus based on arguments made by editors - it isn't just a vote. Wickethewok 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. If it becomes notable, then put it back up. ... discospinster talk 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity Dr Zak 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it definitely. Rewrite if necessary. This is, if you read the Brandejs.ca link previously mentioned, a work of art that poses thoughtful ethical questions to the future of bioengineering. I wouldn't categorise it as spam because the genpets aren't meant for sale, but to lure the reaction of people. Also, I think it is important that people who are baffled at first, including myself, to get a confirmation that they're in fact not real. User:Doc Daneeka 16 June 2006, 03:22 (UTC+1) (PS. Sorry if I violate some code by not agreeing with everyone else)
Comment. But is it art notable? ... discospinster talk 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


What the hell is wrong with you people?? This article was legitamite, its a thoughtful work of art. Many people believe genpets are real and a wikipedia entry showing they are merely art would resolve issues. There is no good reason to delete it, it is a notable piece of art and internet phenomena. Please put the article back! (The previous unsigned comment was left by User:66.105.67.194 )

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, article has already been tagged for expansion. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towards Understanding Islam (book)

Speedy DeleteStub is too small and simply states the articles name. The links can be placed on the authors page--AeomMai 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete qualifies as db-empty —Mets501talk 22:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete — The page is four months old and still only one sentence. It's hardly encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It will expanded. This Qadiani inspired deletion of Islam related articles that need expansion and review is regrettable. I think Qadiani/Ahmad related articles can also be considered for deletion.

Siddiqui 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. "Stub is too small" is not a good reason for deletion, book is not a vanity title. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to author, although I wouldn't be upset by a speedy delete. (List of subjects and/or section titles is not encyclopedic.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the content added may no longer make it a speedy candidate, however there is much room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Siddiqui, are you really convinced that I deleted this article because it is against ahmadiyyat? First amalgamists believe in fairness to all, but you are going too far. I came to this article through the author's page, and when I went to the article, it was ONE SENTENCE. That is not enough to warrant it's own page, and if there was more information I wouldn't have flagged it for deletion.--AeomMai 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete. BhaiSaab talk 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kusma (討論) 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cortana Letters

Almost completely original research, and the exchange itself is non-notable. Originally WP:PROD'ed by Skysmith; the tag was removed twice. æle ✆ 2006-06-10t20:12z

  • This article is about what was a huge influence and part of the Halo games by Bungie. Strong Keep. -LifeDeathAnime 6-10-06. 5:04 PM PST
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks - it is written in an analysis-style format better suited to a textbook.
Keep: Per lower responses.--Zxcvbnm 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't OR. This is a summary or reasearch from the Marathon's story page and several Halo forums, but it still doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia in its current style. It could maybe be cleaned up, but I suspect it would be better as a section of another article. Ace of Sevens 05:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. A lot of the content doesn't come from the Story page. The last update to the page was written in 1999, well before anyone knew anything about Halo 2 or 3. There is no mention of the Flood, nor Gravemind, etc. in the Story page. In addition, quite a bit of the article is speculation. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t15:08z
  • Ok, gotta agree with Zxcvbnm. Transwiki it or merge it. -007bond 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've crossed out your other vote, assuming you want this to take precedence. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t15:08z

*Transwiki or merge, I don't mind. So long as the analyses and relevant content can remain.Gazdakka 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It needs to be cleaned up and references displayed more clearly, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. GWatson • TALK 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to those proposing a transwiki to Wikibooks: Wikibooks is not for "primary research in any field — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera." If it is agreed that this article is original research, it can't be placed on Wikibooks. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t22:46z
    • Comment it was said before that this article is not primary research, but an amalgamation of various sources which had analyzed the letters.--Zxcvbnm 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright then. Keep or merge if it can't be Transwiki'd. I stand by the earlier "so long as the analyses and relevant content can remain" garb.Gazdakka 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear God. Delete as almost incomprehensible original-research fancruft. No trans-wiki'ing, just oblivion. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, now the thing makes sense. Unfortunately, it's now clear that it's just a stealth marketing stunt, and fit for the bit bucket because it's fancruft, not gibberish. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Halo (video game series) & transwiki annotation (not the letters themselves, those are works covered by copyright) to WikiBooks, where near incomprehensible original research goes to die. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix/Keep the Cortana Letters are of immense importance to the Halo and Marathon communities, and thus I'd hate to see them disappear entirely. Likely, this article just needs to be fixed. Original research ruining it? We'll get rid of it. Too textbook? Let's turn it into an article instead. Forcing a Keep/Delete/Merge just seems like an avoidance of the underlying issue- regardless of where it goes, this article has to be fixed before it can be sent anywhere. Fix it first, then talk about what we do with it once it's clear what should really stay. As part of the Halowiki project, I'd be willing to 'adopt' this one if necessary. Gspawn 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum I've put my fix on the article. It needs work, of course, but one quick session of editing has the article looking very keep-able. In my opinion, anyway. Fancruft is almost all gone, it's now an article instead of a textbook entry, etc. Hopefully we can wrap up this discussion and move to working on the article? Unless I'm totally off-base and someone feels like a reversion, of course, but I think this is definately a massive improvement. Gspawn 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In what way, shape, or form is this "of immense importance to the Halo and Marathon communities"? And, even assuming it is, why is it of the slightest importance or interest to anyone OUTSIDE the "Halo and Marathon communities"? --Calton | Talk 01:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix/ Strong Keep Once again, Calton's elitist opinions cloud his judgement. This entry is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo community, and I can assure you, there are hundreds of thousands if not over a million of them. TruthCrusader 06:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, more fact-free spittle from the inaptly named TruthCrusader. So, once again, this "elitist" (and what the hell IS that supposed to mean or imply?) asks the simple question, "In what way, shape, or form is this 'of IMMENSE (because ALL-CAPS always add meaning) importance to the Halo and Marathon communities'? If it's so IMMENSE, then it's a claim that you should be able to back up with a modicum of evidence -- or is basic adherence to, say WP:CITE and/or WP:Reliable sources the mark of an elitist. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Looks like reasonable reporting and analysis of an event in the development of Halo. - CNichols 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthCrusader and CNichols. I would suggest that Calton review WP:AGF and WP:Civil as a preamble to citing various policy pages and attacking users who express opposing opinions. --JJay 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And I would suggest you use at least a fig leaf of a justification for singling me out while ignoring the ranting of User:TruthCrusader. I would suggest you pay the slightest bit of attention to the actual discussion instead misrepresenting my obvious questions as attacks. I would suggest, since you claim to be agreeing with TruthCrusader, you demonstrate that you understand what you're agreeing to by ANSWERING the very simple question of why "[t]his entry is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo and Marathon communities", and why such pointless eye-glazing fancruft (assuming that it really is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo and Marathon communities) belongs in a general-interest encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did I single you out? I guess because of your generally belligerent tone (once again demonstrated with your newest comment), lines like: "more fact-free spittle from the inaptly named TruthCrusader", and hostile vocabulary ("fit for the bit bucket", "gibberish", "ranting", "pointless eye-glazing", etc.). These discussions are not meant to be outlets for aggression. There is also no requirement for the kind of gutter brawling that is all too often demonstrated on AfD. Language and tone are important in maintaining a certain minimum level of decorum. Having said that, I would also ask TruthCrusader to take it down a notch as well in future comments. --JJay 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GWatson. The information here is useful and necessary, especially to anyone looking into the history of the Halo/Marathon/or Bungie. ArgentiumOutlaw 05:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge An interesting piece of information, but would not be harmed by attaching to another page. Much less obscure (IMO) than many things on Wikipedia. A general purpose encylopedia should not exclude information, but rather cover everything it can. Tru7h343 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So what's the consensus? Are we keeping it or not? -007bond 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like most people say keep. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So we can remove the deletion tag on the actual page and delete this page? -007bond 07:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait for this discussion to be closed by an Admin or other third pary. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How do we alert an administrator to this? -007bond 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, someone will probably close this AfD in a couple of days. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Importance: For those who missed it, my new intro says a major part: The Cortana Letters were the first publicly released Halo material. Predating Halo by several years and two ports. They also demonstrate Bungie's strong ties to their community, they may have been a relatively early if very primitive ARG (see talk)... how about the note that certain lines from the Halo 3 announcement trailer are directly taken from the Cortana letters? I could go on if you want, but most of this is already in the article now. 69.176.41.195 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete since the author blanked the page and this AfD was a unanimous 'delete' anyway. Richardcavell 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amie Street

Does not seem notable. Was tagged as {{db-bio}}, then {{hangon}}, and an assertion of notability was made on its talk page. cesarb 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Hey guys, still working on things here. Please don't take this article as some kind of attempt to blatantly advertise Amie Street, because that is not my intention whatsoever. The reason I started the article was that we've been getting a lot of interest in the company over the last few months. What I really think makes Amie Street notable is the pricing system I detailled a bit on the talk page. Although its a pretty basic concept (supply and demand duh), its an innovative approach tp pricing when it comes to selling music. So please tell me, hwo can I make this better so its not deleted and adds to the community? Thanks, Lucas
  • Delete unless someone can explain how Amie Street could be so notable with only 15 google hits —Mets501talk 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Author has blanked the page. No way it could have survived anyway, per Mets501. Fan1967 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Mesplay

Essentially a vanity page. It takes very little effort to RUN for the nomination of a minor party John Broughton 20:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to waiver a bit on this. Per Pander's approach, I ran a Google search; it showed "only" 11,000 hits. More importantly, the guy seems to be putting a lot of time and effort (traveling, interviews, etc.) into this, which makes it more likely that he'll be around for a while, and others will just recreate the bio, and makes keeping this less of a problem (as in, it sets no precedent for someone who does nothing about announce a candidacy. John Broughton 12:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. Agent 86 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Mets501talk 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He has run for office twice and is a delegate for the Green party on a national level. Googles for 27,000 hits, many about his Presidential bid.---Pander 11:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Star Middle School

I can't find any reference to this "school" on the web. Also, the page keeps being changed to add ridiculous information. --MZMcBride 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but clean up. Just because a stub is currently being vandalized doesn't mean it should be removed. Bp28 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete unless we can verify that this school exists. The only North Star Middle School I can find mention of with Google is in Lincoln. I agree with Bp28 that vandalism is not an argument for removal, though. --Ashenai 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The article has been changed since, and is now about verifiably existing schools. I am now neutral on this issue. --Ashenai 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) *Delete as I find no proof it exists. GassyGuy 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: It does. Vulcher 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I found the same info that is now on the page when I searched too. When I voted, however, the article gave the school a location not currently mentioned on the page, as no school of this name exists in that area. I've stricken my vote as it no longer applies, however. GassyGuy 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are not inherently notable, and nothing in the non-vandalized versions give any indication of notability for this school. Furthermore, if this can't be verified, then that's an even better reason to delete. Agent 86 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow-up. I see that North Star Middle school is now gone, but North Star Middle School has taken its place and is a disambiguation page. As an article, I still see nothing notable despite the recent verification. As a disambiguation redirecting to an article on a school district, as long as it's to a list of schools within a school district, I can't object too strongly. However, it now begs the question as to whether this AfD ought to be closed as the article is no longer an article, and any discussion (if any) must now take place on WP:MFD. Agent 86 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lincoln Public Schools per Rabid Keep but clean up per Bp28. I verified some information. --Starionwolf 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • changed vote thanks to Rabid --Starionwolf 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete To me, it looks like a disambig page, but instead of linking to other wiki articles it has external links —Mets501talk 23:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It now links to one valid source of info within Wikipedia, which has apparently existed a while (Lincoln Public Schools) Vulcher 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Agent 86's thoughts on the (lack of inherent) notability of schools, especially middle schools, and I also agree with his (I apologize if saying "his" is a poor assumption) thoughts on this middle school not being particularly unique or important. WP:V, of course, is also a big issue. -- Kicking222 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article was created by a user in order to put nonsense into Wikipedia [19], [20]. It's not like some seventh-graders wrote an accurate article about their school which was later vandalized. Now this article has been turned into a disambiguation page about two real schools by this name, but these are still just middle schools with no content in this article other than their location and should be deleted per Mets501. --Metropolitan90 23:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless substantial verifiable content can be found. Currently, this is nothing but links. Jesuschex 04:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, this is a valid and now verifiable disambiguation page. Silensor 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alkivar. Also, regularly being vandalized is not a deletion criterion. --Myles Long 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect. Czj 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and please do not redirect there is more than one here Yuckfoo 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems like the information has now been verified, and the schools do exist Vulcher 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful disambiguation page. Bahn Mi 00:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful disambiguation page. bbx 07:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy kept Jaranda wat's sup 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

This guy does not want an article on Wikipedia. You all are failing to understand this. It's been said millions of times that notability has nothing to do with keeping this article and you still don't understand. If you vote for keep, vote for a better reason than notability. This article should be deleted as this person doesn't want an article. Delete. Gostic 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Did you look at the Talk page of the article and the six keep AfD discussion logs listed there? What is the reason for the seventh nomination? Does the article involve libel?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 152.163.100.10 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep,bad faith nomination, speedy kept just 5 days ago. I'm adding this vote after the closure by Jaranda, who is not an admin, just in case someone reverses it. Mangojuicetalk 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan North

A Google search for "Manhattan North" turns up a lot of results, but it seems they all refer to the police precinct or the book of the same name. Comments on the talk page suggest that this term doesn't really exist. Coffee 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I live in NYC, and am in Manhattan often, and have never heard this term. Uptown is used to indicate the northen part of Manhattan Island —Mets501talk 23:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Upper Manhattan. Irongargoyle 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Could a change of the article to the topic of the police precinct be useful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irongargoyle (talk • contribs).
  • Delete Also live in NYC, and its referred to as Uptown as far as I have ever heard. Manhattan North is a reference to a police station as referred to in TV shows, never heard of it used outside of TV relation either. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Replace with article about NYPD precinct grouping. I've never heard this term used except as a reference to the police precinct grouping -- not in books, not the New York Times, not in The New Yorker, not on TV, etc. I'd like to see a single contemporary reference to this term used this way. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or replace with article about a more relevant usage as noted above). As far as I'm aware, the normal local term is "Uptown", with "Downtown" referring to the opposite direction. (The Jargon File does have an entry for logical that notes a geekish usage of "logical north" that refers to the direction that corresponds to north in the structure of some system of streets or highways, even when it differs from true geographical north; the "Manhattan North" noted here seems to be a special case of this.) *Dan T.* 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (moved to Laura Parnes). TigerShark 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura parnes

This article is not written in the style of a Wikipedia entry. Unless it is completely rewritten, it should be deleted. Daly 21:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but clean up, and move page to Laura Parnes. Laura Parnes seems to be quite notable as an artist and has reviews from many major sources (e.g. NY Times). Fair number of distinct web hits. Irongargoyle 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, and move per Irongargoyle —Mets501talk 23:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global hummer

Possible vanity/advertisement page, not notable Irongargoyle 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn CORP and clearly advertising. Agent 86 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Andeh 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, possibly spam. 169.231.23.121 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, advertisement. DVD+ R/W 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above —Mets501talk 23:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as poorly written, half-hearted ad. These people weren't even really trying. Fan1967 00:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant Ad. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Go ahead and delete it. I wrote it and at the time I didn't quite understand too much about the Wikipedia community. I was simply striving to quickly become a part of the community and to contribute. The intention was to start the article and then complete it as time permits...but I believe it probably is not fitting for Wikipedia at this time. user:geniusboy(Geniusboy 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RESULT. TigerShark 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Harkin

Delete. Non-notable comedian. Google shows 61 results, only some of which refer to the Dan Harkin in question. Prod and prod2 tags removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Mets501talk 23:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Show it! Check it! Do it! You got the touch!/You have the power! (Transformers the Movie) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.149.221 (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 No consensus, though I agree with Humus sapiens that this was renominated too soon and could have been speedy-closed. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Valley Driver Video Review

Warning According to WP:DEL#Renominations, "In general, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations."
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review(2). 11 days seem more like an immediate renomination, so I am closing it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does not meet criteria for WP:WEB and therefore should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, it does not have any mainstream credibility beyond a very small niche in the Internet Wrestling Community. Just because it survived afD last time doesn’t mean that its notability was established.

During the last debate, I was not aware of WP:WEB and therefore did not bring it up in the debate. I apologize for that; I was still learning Wikipedia at the time and in fact I am still learning it, and probably will not have the full hang of it for another year or two, but I am definitely learning.

Regardless, there is nothing in WP:WEB about the number of hits a web site gets; therefore the argument last time that it has a 15,000 or whatever ranking on Alexa is entirely irrelevant.

      • If you believe it should not be deleted, then please point out examples of mainstream publications that have covered DVDR - i.e. magazines, newspapers, periodicals, etc. I am not aware that there are any, meaning that per Wikipedia policy this article should be deleted.

Also, please when debating this issue keep WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind. Last debate, a few users were not so civil and as a result the discussion ended up going south pretty fast.

With all due respect to them, none of the writers from DVDR - be it Schneider, Rasmussen, Sweetser, or anyone else - has in any way significantly impacted the Internet Wrestling Community--i.e. like a Scott Keith or someone like that. This is a fluff entry probably started by people who work for the web site and as we all know, Wikipedia is not meant for advertisements.

Specifically, it must meet this criteria:

Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

JB196 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)***



  • Delete - see above explanation.JB196 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't particularly like or frequent it, but it's an Internet Wrestling Community and smark cornerstone, with roots going back to 1995 on Usenet (group rec.sport.pro-wrestling). Professional wrestler Lance Storm took the subject of their critique seriously enough. And yes, good Alexa ranking, yadda yadda. Papacha 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Alexa rankings do not hold any relevance according to WP:WEB. If you can show me where Wikipedia policy puts value to Alexa rankings, then I will withdraw that claim. Also, as established at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bleeding_Was_Only_Half_the_Job, it does not matter at all whether professional wrestlers have in any way endorsed web sites or online articles about pro wrestling. It must have mainstream credibility (coverage in publications) to be featuredon Wikipedia. Therefore, with all due respect, your argument does not hold much strength, Papacha.JB196 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ergo the yadda-yadda; WP:WEB is really a rough guideline.
Verbosity wasn't called for, as it wasn't the basis of my argument. Neither was random bolding to get my point across, for that matter. I'll assume good faith and figure this has nothing to do with TheSmartMarks.com being recently put up for deletion, which you have been instrumental in trying to save. Papacha 00:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether its a "rough" guideline, it is a guideline and as I said the precedent - judging by other similar entries - supports this guideline.
I am not engaging in verbosity. As you can see by my extensive initial explanation at the top of this page, it is simply the way I write. I like to fully explain my point so that you know how I came to my conclusion. I will also assume good faith and assume you did not realize this at first glance and misinterpreted by post. It is of my understanding that Lance Storm's involvement does not at all impact the notability of the entry's subject.JB196 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You do know that "verbosity" referred to my edit, yes? Otherwise, it seems you're prepped and ready for a argument (as you mention the degredation of the prior AfD) in which case I prescribe a cold bucket o' water and a deep breath. No one here's trying to escalate or be insultive, 'kay? Papacha 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I am totally confused by what you mean by "You do know that "verbosity" referred to my edit, yes?".JB196 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Oy! This is going on way too long and taking away from the AfD at hand (this is Talk Page 101), but alright. "And yes, good Alexa ranking, yadda yadda" isn't being verbose. Heck, it barely qualifies as concise. What it means is I didn't expand on Alexa because it wasn't my edit's linchpin, while in turn it was the first topic you expounded on in the reply.
Anything else would be best left to user talk to avoid making further comments über-lengthy and to get the AfD back on point. Papacha 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


STRONG KEEP I am only going to say this once: JB you are wasting everyone's time with your obsession to get this article deleted. It has survived your attempts in the past and yet you refuse to let it go. Be careful, repeatedly listing the same article for deletion is a violation of Wiki policy. I am going to get an admin to review this and possibly revoke this AfD. TruthCrusader 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment -- I presume this little spat in the professional wrestling community is as fake as the sport itself. Correct? -- GWO
    I wouldn't know how to answer the opening bell. My tastes for drooling fanaticism have altered over the years, and I'm sadly out of practice. Only a closet full of WCW Prime and assorted supershows stands as my sad legacy. Though it is a bit off this was nommed again so soon for deletion, just to segue this on a technicality. I rarely post to AfD, so y'all would know the criteria for keeping/cleaving an article far better than I. Papacha 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A website should not have an article unless it has had a huge, profound effect on the real world, and a wrestling website does not meet this criterion. McPhail 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atiana de la Hoya

This is the second nomination for this article (and perhaps the third). The article survived a VFD nomination in July 2005 with no consensus (in fact the nominator withdrew the nom at "four keeps, three redirects, one merge, one delete, one merge or delete". In Februrary this year, MacRusgail attempted to place an AFD tag on here but it was reverted the following day by Cryptic with the message: "previously kept, no new deletion rationale or afd page created".

From memory there has been precedent set recently that being the child of someone notable does not confer notability. Yes the child has been on the reality TV show Meet the Barkers, but I again recall precedent (unfortunately I cannot recall the subject in either case, I think the first one was a Travolta) that suggests one must have a significant contribution to the show to be considered notable.

I propose either deleting this article, or merging it with Meet the Barkers. There is currently a brief mention of the child on her mother Shanna Moakler's article, as well as that of father Oscar de la Hoya. -- PageantUpdater 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I just wanted to add apologies in advance if I have titled this nomination incorrectly, but I could not find instructions on how to set up a second nomination so I just did what I could to make it work :P -- PageantUpdater 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Meet the Barkers, the television show on which she appeared, in accordance with nomination. There is no content in this article other than her family relationships and the fact that she appeared on that television show. --Metropolitan90 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but redirect while there's a lack of signficant content. The topic of this person belongs in the encyclopedia, somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be sufficient content to justify a standalone article now. Normally, a {{mergeto}} tag would be the appropriate route, followed by a redirect in the absence of objection. Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests that "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" should not be deleted, but instead says the solution is to "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect.", by using the {{mergeto}} tag. --Rob 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this person meets WP:BIO, allow article to expand. Silensor 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment how exactly does she meet WP:BIO? Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame) -- no, Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers -- no, A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following -- not for the child, An independent biography -- no, Name recognition -- highly doubt it, Commercial endorsements -- no. Not trying to be argumentative but I truly can't see how this child passes the test? -- PageantUpdater 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Easily, both Barker and de la Hoya have a large fanbase, so the show has a large fanbase, so she meets the qualifications. Easy keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But this isn't an article about either parent, or about the show. Is the child notable? No, because notability cannot be inherited. -- PageantUpdater 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • The child is notable because the parents and show are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, with images going into Saber Marionette J. Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saber Marionette J:Lime

Barest of bones article that would be *extremely* difficult to find. I would redirect into Saber Marionette J, but it seems pointless given the obtuse way the article's been titled. Papacha 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am bundling the AFD with these for similar reasons.

  • Saber Marionette J:Cherry
  • Saber Marionette J:Bloodberry
  • Saber Marionette J Again:Marine
  • Maiden circuit
  • Delete the whole bundle per nom. DVD+ R/W 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. All characters are already covered on the main page. Tevildo 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. GassyGuy 23:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all - heck, they could almost be speedied as db-nocontext BigDT 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Trash the bunch. I think someone was trying to write for WikiBooks, --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Remote

Delete. Non-notable. Advert. Possibly vanity. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement for non-notable software that almost certainly fails WP:SOFT. The chance of anyone votes to keep this article is beyond remote. Booyah! -- Kicking222 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Citrix this ain't - Peripitus (Talk) 01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious paste from somewhere, obvious copyvio and advert. — Nathan (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 05:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sule joseph

Clearly a vanity page, author of page (User:Joseph) has same name as article... No google results on the author or his supposed book Irongargoyle 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon military organisations

Not encyclopedic, not useful, so please kill it before it spreads. Erik the Rude 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete barring some evidence of notability BigDT 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I almost tagged it myself for the same reasons Anger22 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DVD+ R/W 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I recall another list like this that was previously up for deletion. This may be a second recreation. Papacha 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, relevant content is available elsewhere on WP. Jammo (SM247) 00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. fnfd 10:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete before somebody catches them all. --Starionwolf 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to List of Pokémon video game villains.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer Responsibility

This article, though a somewhat worthwhile topic, is pretty much an unusable essay. It is completely original research and is more an instruction manual than an encyclopedic article. The prod was removed by the original creator and thus, I am bringing it to AFD. BigDT 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the author, most of the content in wikipedia is a combination of opinion and fact. Especially when you get into ethical references within this wikipedia. The parts of my article grounded in fact are the contract law references. Most of the content (90%) already exists in some format or another, but this gives focuses on something worthwhile to consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterhawkes (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 No consensus, but this defaults to Rename to Darrin Syndrome. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sargent York Syndrome

Another user - User:Dustinroolez - added a prod tag to this article and listed it on AFD, without creating the AFD discussion page. I switched the prod to an afd and created this discussion page as a procedural nomination so that the AFD would be properly formed. As for my opinion on the matter, the only hits are from Wikipedia ... so this may be a hoax ... I vote delete unless someone can show that it isn't. BigDT 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this article was intended as a hoax, however it is in my opinion a non-notable neologism and one that really is not in common use. Acting roles are played by multiple actors all the time, it has been common for decades, and most audiences can cope with it without too much trouble. I can see this article becoming another horrible list type article where, because the inclusion criteria is vague and cannot be verified, people go in add all their favourite pop-culture items which can then never be deleted because who can say with any authority what should and shouldn't be allowed? User:Dustinroolez created the article himself so if the deletion procedure wasn't properly followed that's probably just an honest mistake. No vote. Format 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Surely if the author attempted to list their own article on this page for deletion the article should be tagged {{db-author}}? I will ask the question on Dustinroolez's Talk page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No, db-author is only used where the person tagging for deletion is the only editor. It's not appropriate here.--Kchase02 T 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This term gets exactly 4 Google hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia, and the other 2 of which are the same quotation on the same web site. [21] I assume that the creator of this idea is trying to popularize this concept as being along the lines of Chuck Cunningham syndrome, but this term is not in common use nor do I expect it to become so. (Dick York preceded Dick Sargent on Bewitched, but the names are reversed in order in this article name so as to make a pun on the unrelated film Sergeant York.) Anyway, there is no reason that the characters in the film should be expected to notice a change in actors playing a character, as this article assumes, since the casting change is extra-diegetic. --Metropolitan90 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources - appears to be a neologism and made up in school - Peripitus (Talk) 01:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete While I've heard of this once before, I have no reason not to see this as WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Not a common term, like Jump the shark. Fan1967 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this is a valid subject, whether it be named "Sargent York Syndrome" or something else. I've heard it referred to as "Darrin Syndrome" or as something similar. Bear in mind, people on the 'net who are probably likely to use the term are not likely to spell the names correctly (users on movie forums are not exaclty known for great spelling; just a side note), ie: "Darren" is a more common spelling of the name; also "Sargent" is more than likely to be spelled "Sergeant," so a Google search may not be decisive at first glance. Anyway, his college professor taught it, so it must be somewhat verifiable. Just my "two cents." Wavy G 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable neologism in danger of becoming a pointless list-cruft article. The same character being played by different actors in different series/films is not notable, unusal, or interesting. Robin Johnson 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject may be notable, but the name isn't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the situation is certainly notable and discussable, but the term looks to be less well known than I thought. How about changing it to "Darrin Syndrome?" Dustin 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: A Google search for "Lazarus Cunningham" returns a mere 6 results [22], none of which are related to the subject of the Wikipedia article, with the exeption of the Wikipedia article result itself (#1 result). Wavy G 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but there's no article called "Lazarus Cunningham"; it's just a redirect. "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome" returns 88K hits. Fan1967 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is Chuck Cunningham Syndrome: Lazarus Cunningham; Chuck Cunningham Syndrome itself is a separate article again. The latter especially is an ever expanding, vague fan-list article but I guess is related to a real life term. The former more a neologism. Asa01 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, and based on the rarity of the term, I'd be inclined to get rid of the Lazarus one. Fan1967 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you get rid of the Lazarus one, someone will add every bit of that back into the original Chuck Cunningham Syndrome article. The Lazarus thing broke off as a separate article to help make the Chuck article better organized. That Chuck article, although it has obviously appealed to a lot of contributors, is an ever-growing mess. It could stand to be whittled down a lot more. Wryspy 06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. It should be Darrin Syndrome. People talk about Darrin Syndrome. Recasts on other shows constantly get compared to the Darrin recast. In fact, there are plenty of cultural references to it, like when Becky got recast on Roseanne and the characters talked about the Darrin recast. Doczilla 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not need a specific article. If the article remains we will forever be trimming down an ever-growing list of multiple and only vaguely relevant examples, like what constantly happens on Jumping the Shark; or merely a vague list like Lazarus Cunningham. The recast of Darrin on Bewitched was itself notable, and that can be, and is, mentioned and discussed on the Bewitched page. How many different pages do we need to discuss the same thing? Asa01 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but call it Darrin Syndrome which is what more people call it. Wryspy 06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename either Darrin Syndrome or another variant. Information in article is useful, only the name is problematic. Rigadoun 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per Rigadoun. Or keep if nothing is more appropriate.--Kchase02 T 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Okay. How do we rename the article? Dustin 19:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The easiest way is to simply move the relevant page, but don't worry about it for now. When the closing admin determines this AfD's consensus, he or she will undoubtedly take care of it.--Kchase02 T 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. For what it's worth, my official vote is Keep but Rename. Dustin 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename J.J. Popplewick 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Judaism

Nothing here worth merging with Habonim Dror Xorkl000 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The one-sentence article doesn't tell an interested researcher anything about the subject. A paragraph could be added to Habonim Dror by a knowledgable editor, if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not useful information, maybe redirect to Habonim Dror. Jammo (SM247) 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
comment - disagree with redirect to Habonim Dror, Cultural Judaism is a far wider concept than just Habonim Dror, see [23] --Xorkl000 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - one sentence that reads as original research. May be a real article there but there's no loss in starting from scratch - Peripitus (Talk) 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyfolder

Non-notable 3 month old image hosting service. Not in top 100,000 websites [24]. Very minimal google prescence, ends at 160 [25] some of which seem to be link repositories. If and when this site establishes any web notability the article can be recreated like the rest of the sites like this. Crossmr 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and also delete Casero Inc. Skyfolder has a pretty poor Alexa ranking of around 300,000, but Casero's ranking is around 4,400,000. Neither article asserts any notability. -- Kicking222 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- unimportant website. Reyk YO! 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vulcher 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Crossmr 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete the unimportaint website. --Starionwolf 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, for now. Jammo (SM247) 05:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. --Terence Ong (talk | contribs | ESP) 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. --Xyrael T 16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Echelon Biosciences

I don't believe this company meets the WP:CORP criteria. Reyk YO! 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was del `'mikka (t) 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxybay

site seems to have had a couple of days of notability in April [26] Currently sits ranked 439,551 [27]. Poor google showing [28] over half the results are non-english. Otherwise completely non-notable. Crossmr 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Flickr is a notable site but this one does not pass WP:WEB - Peripitus (Talk) 01:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,--Crossmr 19:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like an ad. Vulcher 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_June_10_7cd1.html"