Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 17

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Appleton

Non-noteable FlareNUKE 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable actress with notable parents, if she gets more roles maybe, but not now. --Eivind^t@c 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--Auger Martel 06:35, 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 no consensus to delete. At one level this is a cop-out decision, but I have not based it purely on the fact that we have many and strong voices on both sides. There's more to it than that. The issue here is whether a new article should be split off from the existing article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (I'll call this "the main article"). On one side, it is argued that the main article has become too long and is imbalanced by a very long section relating to criticisms and responses. The editorial strategy is to move this material to a new article, with a much briefer account retained in the main article and a link to the new one. On the other side, it is claimed that the relevant material should be kept in the main article for completeness and ease of access, and that any new article will thus be an unnecessary duplication. Those who oppose the new article, or at least some of them, also say that the editorial strategy of splitting off a new article is actually a bad-faith attempt to make criticisms of Randian Objectivism less prominent on Wikipedia. I am not prepared to draw the inference that anyone is acting in bad faith, though it is clear that some people are quick to assume bad faith in others. It seems to me that either editorial strategy could work and that neither has a complete consensus. However, it can certainly be said that the splitting action has not been taken against any consensus on the talk page of the main article. It was approved by a majority of people discussing it there. I am not prepared to draw the inference from the material available at an AfD that there was an actual consensus to split the articles but nor am I prepared to conclude that the majority view in favour of doing so was a bad-faith attempt by an unprincipled group to railroad a principled minority. I recommend that before any further AfD, which is likely to be just as inconclusive, all involved in the underlying dispute should seek mediation of it as soon as reasonably possible. I also note that the issues are complex and that all involved in the mediation should understand that it will take time and be difficult. Nonetheless, it is the only sensible course of action that I can see. I am not a mediator, but I am prepared to assist informally in any way I can. I have some familiarity with Rand's work, know a lot about legal and political philosophy, and am neither attracted by Rand's ideas nor especially hostile to them. However, I'm sort of on a wikibreak right now, and will be physically away from my computer for most of the next two to three weeks. In that time, the parties should be able to find a competent mediator. I'll see if there's anything I can do when I get back. Metamagician3000 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Objectivism

This article is a POV fork from Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which was created against consensus. Historically, the last time the criticism was removed from the main article into a fork, the result was that the main was whitewashed while the fork was eventually deleted, with the net effect of censoring the main. This is yet another effort, as demonstrated by the uniform support given by those who are fans of Rand and the uniform protest by everyone else Al 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note A survey was taken in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." The result of the survey was 6 to 2 (a 2/3 majority), in favor of creating this article for the purpose of cutting that section down to a summary. RJII 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And it was a biased survey. Only Randists voted in favor, and non-Randists opposed it. There was nothing close to consensus. -- LGagnon 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • False. I voted in favor and I'm not a "Randist" or "Objectivist." Don't mislead the voters. RJII 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • RJII, I'm not sure why you bother. Many, many people have told him, over and over again, that they're not Objectivists (or "Randists"). He knows this already, and still he asserts, again and again, that everyone who disagrees with his edits is a "Randist". This can only be explained by a willful desire to smear others or misrepresent their views. Reminding him again isn't likely to change anything. I want all admins seeing this to take note of Alienus's history of doing this. MrVoluntarist 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not for him. I'm sure he knows that I'm not an Objectivist. I just don't want the voters to continue to be manipulated by the dishonesty from Al and him. RJII 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, I do not believe RJII claims about his Objectivist status. His edits speak louder than his words. He is either an Objectivist outright or a fellow traveler whose views are not meaningfully different from those of Objectivists. Good faith does not trump godo sense. Al 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I've been curious about the philosophy, because people seem to get really uptight about it, and have purchased some books to read (now that I have some free time (since the completion of the RJII Project)). In my opinion, the Objectivists or whoever else is responsible for the horrid article haven't represented that philosophy in a coherent or understandable manner, so I'm reading about it and editing the article myself to reflect the explanations of the philosophy that I'm reading. That doesn't make me an Objectivist. Get over your Randophobia. RJII 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. For the reasons stated above. I want to mention two more things. First, there was already a vote to sniff out a possible consensus to create this article. What we found was a lack of consensus, because all the Randists voted to hide the criticism in a new article, but noboody else agreed with them. Despite this lack, Crazynas made the error of copying and pasting to create this article. In short, it should never have existed. The second thing I want to mention is that there has been a recent influx of pro-Rand sock puppets, so I expect them to come here and stack the vote. Al 01:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First I would remind Alienus that AfD is not a vote. Second, consensus was reached, with six editors agreeing to the move and two disenting, Alienus tried to improperly close the staw poll after less then two hours after it was put up. Crazynas 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh. The consensus-seeking straw poll was not a vote, either, but an attempt to determine whether a genuine consensus existed. The result is that no such consensus was found. Putting aside the issue of sock puppets for a moment, the fact is that there are two factions -- the Randists and everyone else -- and there was absolutely no overlap between the votes of these two groups. (This remains the case thus far on the AFD). There was no consensus to create this page and no hope of ever gaining such a consensus, which is why I declared the effort futile. Al 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • mmmmmm that doesn't change the fact that you declared the straw poll closed in less then two hours, when it normally takes days (or weeks) before it is determined that consensus is reached(or not). I agree that consensus hasn't been reached in that straw poll, however it dosn't require consensus to create an article. Note that it wasn't a Randist that nominated this artice for AfD, nor was it a POV fork (as you claim), it is adminstrative, and that is all. Crazynas 01:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Duh. It was immediately obvious that the poll would not result in a true consensus. Creating an article doesn't require a consensus, but forking one does, and the sole purpose of this article is to be a fork. Since there was no consensus for forking, this article has no reason to exist. Of course, you'd like to pretend that we need a consensus to delete, but that's not true in this case: we need a consensus in order to keep. Oh, and as for it being administrative, the fact that all Randists voted pro and the rest of us voted con shows that this is not the case. Remember: WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and the presence of sock puppets dispell any hint of good faith. Now, let's shut up and let other people weigh in. Al 01:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Consensus says that what happened there was not a consensus. What happened was that one side gathered their numbers together to outnumber the opposition and create a tyranny of the majority. Nobody agreed on the fork except for the Randists. -- LGagnon 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As I am the creator of this article, I should explain my reasoning. The current article is copied from Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Responses to Objectivist philosophy. This is not a POV fork, rather it is a stylistic change, and it is not without precedent, there are four other sub articles Objectivist metaphysics Objectivist epistemology Objectivist ethics and Libertarianism and Objectivism. Each of these articles is summarized in Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I created this article because the responses section was overpowering the article, 48% by wordcount, and is generally unweldy. Although the section in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has not been trimed down, and will not be until this AfD is resolved, with this article to provide in depth analysis of the responses, an approprate summary could be created on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Crazynas 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As mentioned by Al, this is a retread of a previous problem. The last attempt to create a separate critism article was used to delete researched info from the main article. This seems to only be a second attempt to do so. Please note that only fans of Ayn Rand are in favor of this fork, while those who oppose it are either neutral editors or others who are not fans of Rand. -- LGagnon 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep it all in one place, please. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The above, by my interpretation, counts as a vote for merge. Lucidish 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep All the bickering over whether Objectivism is a "cult," over who is a "randroid" or not is distracting editors from working on improving the main article portion of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). If we can keep all this stuff in its own article, then I think people will be better frame of mind to work on improving that article. Also, it's way too large in comparison to the rest of the article. The focus of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be the philosophy itself. Right now that article is horrible at explaining Objectivism. Criticism is meaningless if no one can understand the philosophy in the first place. Let those who want to argue over whether Objectivism is a cult have this article to themselves. RJII 03:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were focused just on what Rand says about it, the article would be POV. Which is what this fork is trying to do to the article. -- LGagnon 03:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • POV? It's you and Alenius that have been writing the stuff. Someone simply moved it over to its own article. RJII 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Just a note here: So far, not a single person outside of the Randist faction has endorsed keeping this article. This is a hint as to its purpose. Al 04:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Textbook POV fork. I'd say merge back into Objectivism, but this info is already there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if this article gets deleted then for balance Objectivist metaphysics Objectivist ethics Objectivist epistemology will need to be merged back into the main article for balance, I trust Alienus, as an admin will do this because of the Pov issues involved. Crazynas 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh. That doesn't actually follow. See, "Responses to Objectivism" is intended as a place to hide away criticism, since so many of the responses are critical. In contrast, the child articles for the Objectivist take on various general categories of philosophy are much more legitimate. There is no hidden agenda behind their existence, nor is their existence inherently POV. Also, who said I was an admin? Al 05:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Accusing people of having a hidden agenda without absolute proof isn't a good way to gain supporters. I haven't even been following this until today, but comments like yours make me want to support the other side. jgp (T|C) 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding you being an admin, I thought you did... at some point on the talk page, if you didn't and/or your not, sorry. Well I did not create this article to hide away criticism, I created it because of balance go look at the main article, half of the entire thing is criticism, although I do agree that there should be a section about responses, criticism or not, I don't think that it should domanate the article. Although I agree with many of the points of Objectivism, that's not why I'm here, I'm here to make a better encyclopedia, and I work on this article because I know somthing about it. Whatever you think, I'm not pushing Pov like you said at one point, one dosn't have to be netural about an article to edit neturally, and thats what I'm trying to do. Crazynas 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Must have been some sort of misunderstanding. In any case, regardless of your intent, the others who have signed on to the bandwagon have hearts that are not quite so pure. You see, the reason the main article has so much criticism is that there's so much out there. Balance isn't about forcing a specific ratio of positive to negative, but rather to accurately match what's happening in the real world. Consider that creationism is likely to be heavy on criticsm, not because the article is POV, but because the truth is that there's much to criticize. The appropriate rule is the one about "undue weight". Al 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per LGagnon. Tevildo 09:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Not only is the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) too long, it is being manipulated by Randophobes like LGagnon to reflect their irrational hatred for Ayn Rand and for Objectivism in complete violation of NPOV. The Fading Light 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete of this POV fork per A Man in Black and LGagnon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge but fix terribly written article. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article is currently 45k, which is longer than a Wikipedia article should be. Either that article needs to be edited down aggressively, or it should be broken out into separate articles. I don't particularly care which. The two comments I'd make about "Responses to Objectivism" are as follows: (1) The name is bad. (2) It's poorly written and unsourced. Nandesuka 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, Nandesuka. Small world. Weren't you just personally attacking me a minute ago? Must be a coincidence, not wikistalking. After all admins always follow the rules they're sworn to enforce, right? Al 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Quoting the definition of wikistalking, "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.". There was nothing disruptive, insulting, or otherwise venomous in Nandesuka's comments. jgp (T|C) 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • With all due respect, the disruption comes from the fact that he is the ONLY non-Objectivist to join the Objectivists against me. This has a disruptive effect, however it might have been intended. Al 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Other than Nandesuka, who just so happens to have a history with me and no interest in Objectivism, every vote to keep has thus far come from acknowledged and obvious Objectivists. This once again confirms the "POV fork" theory. Al 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this article intended to be along the same lines as articles like Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam? If so, since there are so many other sub-articles on Objectivism already, I could see this article following the same pattern that is used to handle criticism in other articles - that is, a brief outline of the major disputes, with a link to the main article. But if that's the case, it should be located at Criticism of Objectivism, not Responses to Objectivism, IMO. -- Vary | Talk 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it is not being used for the same purpose. This is a retread of a previous situation in which the Rand supporters used a criticism article as a method of deleting cited information criticizing their ideology. The purpose here is POV censorship, not legit forking. -- LGagnon 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Merge to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I don't see a need for a separate article. However, given the size of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), some breakup might be inevitable, which is why this is a weak merge. Note that this article is not a POV fork. A POV fork is when each point of view is given its own article. This article is titled Responses to Objectivism, not Negative Responses to Objectivism or Positive Responses to Objectivism. jgp (T|C) 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. Two reasons: one, as per Nandesuka, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is large enough that it should be split up; two, the arguments to delete this article are paper-thin, and primarily consist of incivility and personal attacks against people who want to keep it. jgp (T|C) 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right about the title, but not the content. Due to the overwhelming negative responses, any article listing all responses is going to contain primarily criticism. Isolated into a fork, it becomes POV. Only when taken as a balanced part of the main article can it be NPOV. Al 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia isn't required to give equal attention to minority opinions. If Wikipedia gives proper proportionate (not equal) attention to each side, there are no POV problems. If the overwhelming opinion of Objectivism is negative, so be it. jgp (T|C) 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. Certainly, if the majority is negative, then we should not give undo weight to those who are positive. Having said that, the net effect of moving the responses to Objectivism here is to purge the main article of negativity, thus destroying the neutrality of it. Does this clarification help you understand my view? Al 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The material here, from what I have read, is thoughtful. Sure, some of the "bite" should be taken out of the intro, and editors should take pains to make their comments cited. But the deletion of this page would be tantamount to intellectual suppression. (However, the points made by Vary re: the name of this article are very good, and which I support.)

Also, merging would be unwise, for two reasons: first, it's not unheard of to have separate pages for critiques, especially when (as with this case) there are so many ways to critique that it's worth its own article; second, (and less seriously), fanatics on the Objectivism page will likely make a critical article there impossible (although this consideration has no merits in itself, it might save critical errors from wasting their time). In any case, a link from the Objectivism page could and should be made to this one. Lucidish 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote change to Strong delete, due to violations of process noted below by Al. Lucidish 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Al is the one trying to get the article deleted. RJII 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you should not split an article when there is no consensus. That's a violation of process. Lucidish 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the splitting of an article. This is the creation of a new article. Whether they want to delete the information in another article is another issue. RJII 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, elimination of content from one article to be placed in new one is called "splitting". They are not separate issues. Lucidish 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But, it hasn't been eliminated. You say there should be no "splitting" without a consensus, but HERE is where it's determined whether there is a consensus to allow this article to continue existing. You're vote counts as part of the consensus or lack thereof. Voting because you think there's no consensus makes no sense. Also, note that a survey was taken on the Objectivism discussion page whether to create this article for the purpose of cutting that very large section down to a paragraph or two with a link to here. The vote was 6 to create, and 2 not to create (Alenius and Gagnon). I would say that's a consensus. What Al is saying below is innaccurate. See for yourself in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." It's unfortunate that he has mislead you. Please reconsider your vote, given this information. RJII 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstoond me. This article is an anomaly that had no justification for existence unless and until a consensus had been reached on the Objectivism page to split it. Although there was a vote, and a majority, no consensus was reached. Rather, a separate page was created -- as it turns out, redundantly. Hence, the page is both redundant, and is a violation of process. It would indeed be irrational for me to vote (here or elsewhere) on something if it were because of hearing the way the wind is blowing. However, again, the item which changed my mind had to do with the other wiki, and the violations of process involved in it.

In my opinion, the 6-2 vote indicates a lack of consensus, not by the numbers, but by the existence of bad faith editing. Unfortunately, the bad faith influence seems to be on both sides, i.e., from LGagnon and The Fading Light. The fact that the arguments are dominated by these remarks, and that reasonable argument and discussion was explicitly truncated at the outset ("Please just say "Agree" or "Disagree" with an optional short explanation. Any further attempts to disrupt this vote will be reported as vandalism"), are not what I'd call "consensus-building". Lucidish 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you think that the "Please just say "Agree" or "Disagree" with an optional short explanation. Any further attempts to disrupt this vote will be reported as vandalism" was disruptive? Wow. Ok, you just don't know the events. That was just placed there for two reasons. One was to keep the voting in one place, because people were arguing in between the votes from each individual (A space was placed below for discussion). But the second reason was Alenius's attempt to disrupt the survey. He tried to end the vote less than 2 hours into it (only two people had voted so far). He crossed out the survey question by drawing a line through it and declared the survey over. I reverted it, and he did it again. ([1] [2]) That's that "vandalism" that it was referring to. Admittedly, it's a bit complicated to follow --a mess. But hopefully, you can see what's going on now. The bad faith is coming from Gagnon and Alenius who is trying to delete his article, after being unsuccessful at sabatoging the survey. And, he's been misleading people here about what's going on. RJII 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence was "disruptive"; rather, it's abortive. Warding off dialogue makes consensus-building all the more impossible. Anyway, as you indicate, there seems to be bad faith on all sides. I'm not especially impressed with any of this. Perhaps an RfA on the Objectivism page will be more productive. Lucidish 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think you understand the history of Rand's followers on Wikipedia. They did this before to delete cited info. First, a criticism article was created, and then they forced it into deletion to get rid of the criticism permanently. This seems to be a second try at that. If we keep it in the main article, they won't delete the article. This is absolutely needed to avoid their censorship tactics. -- LGagnon 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you point us to the diffs of the earlier AfD? More to the point, if something silly like that does happen again, we just make sure the material is appropriately merged back in to the main article. Nandesuka 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • My main point was that there are so many objections to Rand's philosophy that they deserve their own article. Re: deletion, I'm quite plainly against that, for the same reasons you seem to have. I severely doubt there is any "consensus" here, so the article will not be deleted. Lucidish 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete'. POV fork. If the pro-Rand faction are as rational as they pretend to be, they'd see the criticism section belongs in the main article. -- GWO

• Comment. A point of order. Given that the issue of creating this article was brought up on the parent article's talk page and failed to gain a genuine consensus, the burden is on those who support its existence to explain why it should continue to exist. In other words, we don't need a consensus to delete, we need a consensus to keep, and no such consensus exists.

If this article is allowed to remain, the POV of the main article will be hugely shifted pro-Rand, which is why the Randists uniformly support keeping this article. It is also why this article must go. Al 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At this time, Nandesuka is the only non-Objectivist to offer even tepid support for keeping the article, and even he says "or merge" and admits that, as a stand-alone article, it's terrible. I think that this makes it entirely fair to say that the only people who support the existence of the article are Objectivists, which further supports my concerns that the goal of doing so is to shift the POV strongly towards Objectivism by isolating (and later destroying) all criticism, just like last time.

I also want to clarify one thing: while the creation of this page was out of order, I don't believe that Crazynas acted in bad faith. However, he did act in error and that error has since been coopted by the other Objectivists to further their stated goal of making Rand look as good as possible. Crazynas was just trying to be bold, and while I respect his intent, I cannot abide by the results.

Finally, I want to add that it is entirely reasonable to be concerned about article size, and I support fair measures to trim the main article down. It's just that I don't see this as a fair measure. Once this matter is settled, I will be glad to work with other editors to see how we can break out portions of the main to shrink it down, without shifting away from neutrality. Thank you. Al 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true that "Nandesuki is the only non-Objectivist." I'm not an Objectivist. RJII 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are as much of a Randist as Bill O'Reilly is a Republican. And your argument against this is as see-through as his. -- LGagnon 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than refuting this myself, I will direct anyone who doubts my claim to look at your history. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No thanks for you calling me a liar. RJII 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable people can honestly disagree on such matters of classification. Please assume good faith and do not take everything as a personal attack. Thank you. Al 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What Alienius is saying above is false. There was a vote on the Objectivism talk page. The result was 6 to 2 to do this. Only 2 voted against. Those two were Alenius and Gagnon. 6 to 2 represents a conensus. It's not just a majority, but 2/3 in favor. See for yourself in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." RJII 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The poll to determine whether Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be split failed to gain consensus because it was uniformly supported by Objectivists and uniformly objected to by by non-Objectivists. The fact that people voted right down the party lines, so to speak, showed that there was no meeting of minds. It's clear that any temporary majority was no more than an artifact of greater participation by Objectivists, which is a fine example of why voting is evil. Moreover, speaking of fractions is meaningless when dealing with small numbers.

Fundamentally, we are not discussing whether a new article should be kept. This is not a new article; it is a fork of an old one. Moreover, it has been seen by almost all non-Objectivists as a POV fork, which is good reason in itself to remove it. Not a single non-Objectivist has fully endorsed keeping this article, while all Objectivists have done so. Remember, consensus can never trump the rules and cannot exist when there is strong factionalism.

Consider the parallel case of the cult labels. Multiple reliable sources have been put forth to show that there are articles and even books which call Objectivism a cult and Rand a cult leader. True or false, it's verifiable and notable, so we should report it. Once again, however, all of the Randists oppose this and all of the non-Randists support it. The result: party-line voting and no consensus to remove the tags.

We have to get past this partisanship if we're going to get anywhere. The first step is to burn this POV fork to the ground and salt the earth. The second is to require that everyone vote based on the rules, not merely what result they'd like. Otherwise, we will never achieve anything close to neutrality. Al 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

False again. I voted to create this article, and I'm not an Objectivist. You keep misleading people here. You've told them that there was no consensus to create this article, but there was. Then you tell them that the only people that voted in favor are Objectivists. But, that's not true either. RJII 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. You just act like one in every way. It's a bizarre concidence. Al 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up "Randophobia." Everyone that opposes you is not an Objectivist. There is no particular way that Objectivists "act" that is different than any other person. Everyone, including you, is human. RJII 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with this comment. I'm not an objectivist, and the uncivil actions of the Randophobic faction here makes me ill (gotta love personal attacks like "I have not disenfrachised anyone; you Randists have" coming from LGagnon). All I've noticed from this discussion is that people who have a passionate, irrational hatred of objectivism are trying to get this article deleted. jgp (T|C) 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, how long have you been a Libertarian? Al 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Libertarian. I do not like your tone, and you have just proved to me that you are trolling. jgp (T|C) 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user page identifies you as having views that I cannot distinguish from Libertarianism. Perhaps you're a fellow traveler, then. Al 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're really confused, then. Being a libertarian doesn't make someone an Objectivist (I'm sure the vast majority are not). But, I don't identify as a libertarian either. I'm simply a person who believes in maximizing individual rights. Believing in individual rights does not make one an Objectivist. You have a tendency to associate everyone who seems to share any similarity with any ideas found in Objectivism to be an Objectivist. But, that's not the case. Support for individual liberty has been around long before Objectivism: ""rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -Thomas Jefferson. Everyone who supports individual liberty is not an Objectivist. RJII 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I follow my own political beliefs. I have some views in common with Libertarianism, but sharing some views doesn't make me one (you want an example of where I disagree? I support the idea of a public education system). I'll also echo RJII's statements about believing in maximising individual rights. jgp (T|C) 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do follow your own political beliefs. However, they happen to sound pretty much like libertarianism. After all, "maximizing individual rights' is the rallying call of the libertarian. Not all libertarians are Objectivists, but all Objectivists are (despite their dislike for the term) libertarians, and the two have many issues that they agree entirely on. Rand herself was highly important in the formation of the American libertarian movement, again despite her hatred for it. The bottom line is that the only people supporting this fork are Objectivists, closet Objectivists, libertarians and fellow travelers. Or, for short, Objectivists. Al 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You left out classical liberals. They would be Objectivists according to your definition as well. Get real. RJII 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any more square pegs you want to whittle into your round hole? So far, you've managed to create a category to shove all the keep voters into, and then lie in order to stuff us into it. You are being intellectually dishonest, insulting, and a troll. Saying that everyone who votes keep is some flavour of Objectivist just so you can further your own rampant Randophobic agenda makes me physically ill, and shows that you should be banned from Wikipedia. jgp (T|C) 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the supporters are either outright Objectivists or at least fellow travelers. Al 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, no question. Aguerriero (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- I find it odd that the editor proposing the deletion did so in part on the ground that it may be "eventually deleted"! We're supposed to delete it now out of a fear that otherwise it might be deleted later? Unfortunately, no better reasoning than this has been offered yet on the delete side. Furthermore, I'm not an objectivist, never have been, and I have no history with "Al," whoever he is exactly, so just by casting this vote I ruin a couple other of his 'arguments'. --Christofurio 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It will be eventually deleted by the same people who created it, but only after they've moved all the criticism out of the main article and into this POV fork. On a side note, I wasn't aware that anarchists and minarchists were radically different. Last I checked, they differed only in degree and rhetoric. Al 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You have absolute proof to back up those accusations? Because, you know, falsely accusing people of having a hidden agenda is a Good Thing. jgp (T|C) 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a precedent; it has already happened with a previous attempt to create such an article. -- LGagnon 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • So accept the continued existence of this article now, and then, when those O-word folk do try the second half of their alleged little scheme and ask that it be deleted, you and I will work side by side to demonstrate lack of consensus there, too. I'll now work to save this article from you, so you and I can work to save it from 'them' later. All in a day's work. Hand me my cape and tights. --Christofurio 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Al, You are still in the rather odd position of promoting a deletion to avoid a deletion. Anyway, your earlier statement was that only Objectivists opposed this Afd. Now that I've helped scotch that notion, you are saying that those who oppose fall into the much much broader category of "anarchists and minarchists". So Bakunin and Rothbard and Rand are all virtually the same, eh? Of course they are, because they all disagree with you, and only people who disagree with you, disagree with you. The world's most important tautology. My only interest in saving this article is the good of wikipedia. I think in this case a fork is the best way to produce two decent articles, rather than one perpetual battleground mishmash. What is still more obvious, though, is that you don't have a pro-delete consensus. --Christofurio 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to follow summary style appropriately. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reasons as Crazynas and Goethean. --GreedyCapitalist 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While, depending on the fate of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, some of this information may need to be separated, it is inappropriate to remove all criticism from any article, particularly when the criticism is indisputably relevant to the topic of the article. ^iggy_talk 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment note that the intention is not to remove all comments on Objectivism from the main article, it is to appropriately summarize it down. Crazynas 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering all the hostility from the Randists, there's no way we can "appropriately" summed it up. Randists are too quick to delete anything that goes against the cult's views, and claim things are "POV" or "unsourced" even when presented with sources. To reduce the section would only make it easier for such biased editing to happen. A summary is more likely to be attacked by Randists under the same accusations. -- LGagnon 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The only hostility I've seen here comes from you and Alienus. And quit making accusations without proof. Honestly, anything politically charged is going to be likely to be attacked by POV-pushers. Anything. So, by your logic, we should just remove all content on Wikipedia that mentions a political movement. jgp (T|C) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Crazynas. Common practice in splitting up large articles is to leave a short summary and a link to the main article on the subject's overview page. jgp (T|C) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that having the responses (note that there are both positive and negative responses in this article) dominate O is the way to go. Crazynas 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article will need a LOT of work, but I think we can improve it dramatically LaszloWalrus 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same reasons as Crazynas and Goethean.Xyz90009 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. per LGagnon. merge if the info is removed from the main article. Skyraider 21:08, 21 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tre Sims

non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per AbsolutDan. A good bit of POV, too. AdamBiswanger1 04:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AbsolutDan, google test[3] reinforces fact he fails WP:MUSIC. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Made by the subject so I userfied it.--Andeh 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Riddled with pov and self promotion. Isn't notable in any constructive way either.--Auger Martel 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per....(already been said above). Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -- Vary | Talk 16:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tho greatly amused by talk of "Tre and the use of his "syllables""... what do other rappers use? W guice 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They use "gibberish" oh wait, no personal opinions here, sorry! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy 21:16, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primordial (company)

Advert for nn company / product. Author removed prod after a minor copyedit. Deizio talk 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, author / CEO has very helpfully posted some media links which demonstrate some local and industry press coverage... still very ad-like, but one to watch. Could be a WP:HEY in the making. Deizio talk 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the spam. Not spam anymore, but still doesn't seem notable. RedRollerskate 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement/NN --Alan 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As the article's author and company's founder, I made several edits in an attempt to eliminate bias. I also added external links to indicate noteworthiness and facilitate verification. Please let me know if you recommend additional changes. --Randy.Milbert 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The good news is that you have done a nice job of removing its spam-like qualities. The bad news is that the article's still low on content. Also as AdamBiswanger1 pointed out, you have a very low number of Google hits. Just to make sure I covered all the bases, I searched Usenet and Google News and came up with zero hits. We use search engine results as a rule of thumb to determine notability, and you seem to be lacking in that department. RedRollerskate 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Plus, 200 google hits. AdamBiswanger1 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While google search comes up short, the article does link to 5 articles, at least 2 of which are from what I consider to be reputable websites (not saying the others aren't, I just aren't familiar with them). Google is not (dispite beliefs otherwise) the whole world. Mrjeff 12:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per notability and content. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. External links needs cleaning up, though. Business Journal: Drill field-tests Soldier Vision seems to be a bad URL; it links to an article on cancer research. I'm not sure EE Times: Flexible displays, e-paper are around the corner should even be included, as it barely mentions the product, and only because it uses the technology that the article's about. Also, I think it's the product, not the company, that's notable, and since it's really the product that the article's about anyway, it might be appropriate to move to Primordial Soldier. -- Vary | Talk 16:31, 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 keep. DS 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Steenstrup

Is this guy notable enough? RedRollerskate 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Inclined to give interested parties the chance to prove he cuts it as an author. Could be tempting to jump to systemic bias scented conclusions here... don't like the CV vibe in the article but that's a style concern. Deizio talk 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PROF, in my opinion. AdamBiswanger1 04:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to pass WP:PROF. Kershner 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He has an importance greater than the average prof. Interlingua ^talk 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject and publications to justify article. Meets WP:PROF and plenty of references to back up claims.--Auger Martel 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Em-jay-es 07:38, 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 speedy deleted by Xoloz. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sex Symbols

This page was previously (and erroneously, but in good faith) nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: "original research, potentially infinite, unencyclopedic, inherent npov problems, American bias, etc." While it's not exactly speedy criteria, it's a great reason to have it deleted via the consensus process. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unreferenced, unmaintainable and POV. If kept, title should be changed to remove capitalization. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Defines "subjective", "spam magnet", "unsourceable", "unreferenced", "listcruft" and "unencyclopedic" all in one go. Deizio talk 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the one who originally nominated it, for those reasons. Sorry I went through the wrong channels. --Grace 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (2) BigDT 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 04:32, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stevie Ryan

non-notable actress (fails WP:BIO): only relevent google hit seems to be a couple forums (and a hit at youtube) [4]. This article tries to piggy-back on the popularity of YouTube itself --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn AdamBiswanger1 04:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, even people on Youtube feel extremly apathetic about this. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just being on youtube.com isn't enough. Interlingua ^talk 05:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Beyond youtube, zero notability. Article itself, for what little there is, contains blatant vanity and self promotion.--Auger Martel 07:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Article revised please revote. --Mlle reisz

• Delete - As above, still useless after revision. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Youtube is as valuable in asserting notability for actors as Myspace is for musicians. Fan1967 13:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely NN. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. YouTube? you aren't an actress, you're an uploader W guice 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Still Delete: still non-notable. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously a miniscule claim to fame, but it exceeds my threshold. Wikipedia is not paper. snug 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Her racist portrayals and comments make her undeserving of any fame, however slight it may be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.213.10 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 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 per CSD G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer) Naconkantari 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hooked: The Final Cut

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can find no google references and no references under the list actors/producers/writers. Kershner 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. User has been consistently posting unsourced, unreferenced sequel articles. — Mike • 03:19, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballibay

WP:NN This article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic. A music camp is not notable simply for being a music camp, it must have encyclopedic content to be included. Kershner 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as nn. AdamBiswanger1 04:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like a pleasant place, which enough for an advert listing but not for an encyclopedia. Interlingua ^talk 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not particuarly notable, reads like a tourist advert.--Auger Martel 07:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yep it does sound like a nice place but, sorry have to agree with nom, not encyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "cabins are separated by gender" - how does one tell the gender of a cabin? nn. W guice 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It exceeds my threshold (for Wikipedia) of notability. snug 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. No more notable that any other campsite around the world. Rockpocket 06:32, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of magic organizations

Barebones list, pointless with the existence of the category. Was Afd'd before, and hasn't been touched since. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete could easily be contained in a category. In fact, it is. AdamBiswanger1 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a list. Interlingua ^talk 05:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Benjaminstewart05 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 17:18, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacey

Quoting from Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." This is exactly that. See Michael (disambiguation) and note that no list of people with that given name exists there. Kershner 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep see Sergio and Ronald. This is a common practice. I would hesistate to call it a disambiguation page, though--It should be a page on the name "Stacey" with a list of notable Staceys at the bottom. I'll fix it up a bit--take a look. AdamBiswanger1 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Further edits to the page have eliminated any semblance of a list. The page now references the meaning of 'Stacey' and points to lists of people named such. Kershner 04:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep — nomination withdrawn. —EdGl 04:53, 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. Punkmorten 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movicasts

As the merge proposal points out, this duplicates an existing article. However, there is no info here not already in the other article and a google search for movicast only gets 70 hits. The only place it is used as in the article are the article and its mirrors. The only reference given is a broken link. Given this, I believe a delete is more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 7 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. nonexistant term. AdamBiswanger1 04:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The info that is important is duplicated elsewhere, as per above. Interlingua ^talk 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. The term does not seem to be widely use. It is duplicate information that does not appear to add anything of substance over the merge target. No appreciable edit history either. - Motor (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Optichan 15:50, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rufio

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability AdamBiswanger1 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't realize they were on the Warped Tour, so I'll change my vote to Keep. (Even though each Warped Tour features 100+ bands. AdamBiswanger1 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with above. Notability is missing. Interlingua ^talk 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Recordings and tours add up to notability. TruthbringerToronto 05:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Article states that they were on a national tour (Warped Tour) and they meet others of the notability criteria. Tag the article to have notability asserted instead of deleting it. fuzzy510 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Doesn't quite reach acceptable levels of notability or WP:MUSIC.--Auger Martel 07:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Clear keep. Released two full albums on Nitro Records, and they did appear on Warped Tour (see [5]). Notability is asserted. Punkmorten 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Content seems fine to me. David L Rattigan 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seem notable. Just came across this page after seeing a music clip on Australian TV. Cedars 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, plenty of media attention, charting, and touring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. plentiful references in several mainstream music papers, also per Punkmorten W guice 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Absolutely a notable band, if for nothing else besides touring and being on a notable record label. Plus, unlike 99.9% of bands with articles on WP, I've heard of them. -- Kicking222 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. King rich 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This deletion is a joke, there is no point to delete this article. They’re a real band that tours and have a nice fan base. DidYouLoseASock 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, couple of albums on notable indie labels and a well established tour. Good enough for me per WP:MUSIC. Rockpocket 06:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. WesleyDodds 07:34, 21 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 Speedily deleted as it contained no context.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abyss of Chaos

I have no idea what this page is talking about. Perhaps it's nonsense? —Mets501 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense with no context -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per both AdamBiswanger1 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense (or {{db-nocontext}}). I suspect this is referring to something in some video game, in which case the hoax tag wouldn't apply, but even then it might be cruft, depending on its importance and the game. Morgan Wick 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. Or if it isn't nonsense, the author completely failed to demonstrate this with mention of the context. Interlingua ^talk 05:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Throw into the Abyss of Deletos and bolt the Well of Souls shut. Patent nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete. Em-jay-es 07:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Utter nonsense it seems.--Auger Martel 07:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a part of a game/movie which doesn't deserve it's own article.--Andeh 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, db-nocontext added. Even if you overlook that, it reads like a howto for a game WP:NOT. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 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 Speedy delete. —ERcheck @ 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohd Izzudin

Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I transfered the nomination to a speedy delete (db-bio), because it was an article about a newborn with no notability. AdamBiswanger1 04:23, 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, after discounting the comments by the sockpuppet, and after carefully looking at each comment, I find the consensus, votes, and comments are stronger for deletion than for keeping the article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George R. Binks

WP:FICT Character which appears in one comic book vaguely associated with Star Wars. John Nagle 04:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to whatever starwars article corresponds per John Nagle. If there are any starwars people out there who can attest that this characters is really insignificant, I'll be happy to change my "vote". AdamBiswanger1 04:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This character appears in one "non-canon" comic book by a Star Wars licensee. This is the sort of thing Wookiepedia was made for - non-notable Star Wars items and characters. --John Nagle 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though it's a well-written and formatted article, it's still about a character who appears just once in a backwater comic. Interlingua ^talk 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Jar Jar Binks. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is indeed what Wookipedia is for. -- Vary | Talk 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I would have never created this article if the page for Star Wars Tales #20 hadn't made it seem as if an article was required. Iodyne 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Part of the problem is that all the "Star Wars Tales #NN" articles have redlinks for each individual story in each comic. That needs to be cleaned up. --John Nagle 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, there is enough information about George R. Binks to create an entire article for him. He is just as significant as any other Star Wars character. None of the users calling for his merge or deletion have enough experience or knowledge with Star Wars to make a proper judgement on the degree of his significance. I have read Star Wars Tales 20 and I can attest that he is a very important and integral character to the Star Wars universe. Maybe he is not as evil and methodical as Darth Sidious, as wise and pure-hearted as Yoda, or as brash and strong willed as the young Luke Skywalker, but he is a character nonetheless and Star Wars fans recognize him. Leave discussion on George R. Binks to the fans. Bromyne 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)(user indefblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Maior. Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your support, Bromyne. I was looking around for a good Star Wars character article to compare my article on George R. Binks to and I came across the entry for Yaddle. In all my 28 years as a Star Wars fan I have never come across someone who has as vigorously and valiantly been a fan of Yaddle. On the flip side, my friends and I regularly discuss George R. Binks. We have had discussion about just how he overcame the typical xenophobia most Gungans display and set out to sail the seas on the surface of Naboo. We have also discussed what it must be like to father a child like Jar Jar Binks. Was he initially proud of his young son and endeared by his goofy antics? How must he have felt when Jar Jar never grew out of these childish displays? He must have been crushed. All this debate has been sparked from a single story in Star Wars Tales, and there is still so much we do not know about Binks. How did he escape the island him, his wife, and his son were trapped on? How did he feel that his son was the first senatorial representative of the Gungans on Naboo? The emotional roller coaster that this character's life must have been not only should prevent this article from being deleted but should inspire hundreds of "Wiki-ites" to make this article into the best that it can be. If the article for Yaddle, a simple Whill who sat on the Jedi Council, garnishing around 4 seconds of total screen time, is allowed to stay, then the article about the man who fathered the character who was such a necessary catalyst in the events taking place throughout the history of the Star Wars universe including, but not limited to, leading Gungan troops into battle at Naboo and nominating Senator Palpatine for the role of Supreme Chancellor, must stay as well. Iodyne 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd say I'm a fairly big Star Wars fan, and I'd never heard of this character prior to reading this page. I think this would make a good Wookieepedia article, but I don't think it's Wikipedia material. Could this information not be merged into Star Wars Tales 20? I'd be happy with that. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your bolded vote is to delete it, yet you describe that you want to merge it with another article. I don't think you know what you're saying. Bromyne 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (user indefblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Maior. Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

  I think I know what I'm doing, thanks. Any regular in the RfA circuit can clearly see my meaning. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Stories in Tales 1-20 are officially "S-canon," unless referenced elsewhere. Tales was formatted so that there were 64-page issues divided into many smaller stories. This story is only 10 pages long, and hasn't been referenced elsewhere, and thus does not warrant an article here. It's already at Wookieepedia [6]. -LtNOWIS 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia. Add to Wookipedia. --Atrian 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as for a bunch of similar pages. ImpuMozhi 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saudangi

Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Raj Comics without prejudice to re-creation. --Gurubrahma 05:32, 9 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above AdamBiswanger1 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per TBC. -- Vary | Talk 17:28, 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Disney characters' names in various languages

Prod, deprodded by me, because of my previous experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages. Prod reason was "Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I agree, and let me add to that: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is totally unverified, and the amount of individual separate verification it would need makes it arguably original research. Furthermore, we have the sidebar for all the relevant pages linking to wikis in other languages. Mangojuice^talk 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously, as the guy who put prod on this, I vote delete. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mango AdamBiswanger1 05:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm going to state a preference that maybe isn't Wiki-policy. I think this page could be quite useful and is about Diseny, something certainly notable. Rather than delete, I'd favor putting a {citation-needed}} tag on it. It really isn't original research but is a collection (still not yet in proper Wiki-form, I admit) of info from secondary sources. Am I going to get jumped on for this? Interlingua ^talk 05:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to Strong Keep I don't follow any of the arguments of the nominator. WP:V is about verifiability not verifiedness (is that a word?). I tried a few and had no problems verifying any of them. Also none of the entries are strictly dicdefs. I don't even see the need to tag it with a {citation-needed}} tag, since the info is not controversial and probably frequently patroled by international editors anyway. (See recurring What nonsense interjections which should probably be removed.) I think the list is too unwieldy and also believe that all lists should eventually be outsourced to Wikilistmania, but these are not AfD issues. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. With (until now) 237 editors contributing to the article, this is probably one of the most verified articles on Wikipedia. It is also quite useful for, say, a Finnish user, who wants to read up on her favourite character Pikku Apulainen. Just enter it in the search box and bingo. Without this list, the search would produce "No results found. For help on searching, please see Wikipedia:Searching." --Lambiam^Talk 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (Discussion refactored to talk page)
  • Comment: on the contrary; though there are a lot of editors on this page, I found very few that actually came BACK to the page after another editor had edited the page. For the most part, all those editors just edited the page once, or a few times, and then never returned. Mangojuice^talk 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm desperately unimpressed by the assertion that this turgid mass of cruft "might be useful;" that's the usual last defense of the editor who lacks a genuine reason to keep, and somehow the ways this might be useful seldom are cited. I likewise see no reason to cater to the Finnish user who cannot operate her own language's Wikipedia. WP:NOT. RGTraynor 08:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and per RGTraynor. The arguments made for keep are distinctly desperate. "Just enter it in the search box and bingo." (Lambian). A Finnish user would be better served on the Finnish Wikipedia... looking at, oh I don't know, the Finnish Disney article. It's a horrible, cross-language Wiki mess of an article... and list-cruft - Motor (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not seeing any obvious violations of policy, all info is verifiable in principle. No rush to save space. David L Rattigan 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per David L Rattigan Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mango; seems like a candidate for WP:BAI (do not write articles which are redundant due to existing categories or interwiki links). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor. --Shizane 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Motor. BoojiBoy 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor. Optichan 21:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless list, I mean how often is someone going to need much less be intrested in the chinese characters for Micky Mouse, it'd be intresting if the names were significantly different but alas that doesn't seem to be the case. Deathawk 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per many people above. Listcruft, ahoy! -- Kicking222 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not everybody who speaks English know the original names of the Disney characters, I certainly don't know half of them. Disney character names are usually regionalized as this list shows. I usually "vote" delete on lists, but there's no good way to preserve this information other than a list. -- Eivind^t@c 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. We do have List of Disney characters, which seems to accomplish the use you're interested in. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• WTF?, er... Keep This page is odd, but I have seen some disney cartoons in other languages (was it german or french?). Anyway, somebody will find it useful. MichaelBillington 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valuable reference tool. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work. Fg2 13:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial. Cute, but trivial. This belongs on a Tripod page somewhere, not in an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If any are notable, they can go on the relevant character pages. Ace of Sevens 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep some Wikipedias do not have all of these characters listed, this lists makes it easier to find the names of the characters in another language. --84.184.95.151 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User has only three edits, all in deletion discussions. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete Hard to justify its existence because it's a messy and somewhat difficult to maintain way to construct the list; the comics have been published in many languages and there's hundreds of notable and even non-marginal minor characters. Perhaps add these to the articles about the characters, but even in them, interwiki links are somewhat more helpful... If I want to know what "Pikku Apulainen" is in English, I type Ctrl-T, Ctrl-L, wpfi Pikku Apulainen, Return and follow the interwiki links, and bang! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  And what do you do for "Varyemez Amca"? --Lambiam^Talk 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Use google? Let me counter: what do you do if you want information on Ballibay? Obviously, any deletion implies a loss of information that, if you were specifically looking for it, would be useful. We need to answer the question of whether this kind of information belongs in an encyclopedia, not whether it would serve someone. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think the argument that when information is deleted from Wikipedia you can get the information by doing research outside Wikipedia does not work at all in favour of deletion. The number of editors that the page has attracted shows this topic is notable enough. The criteria for inclusion are quite obviously not arbitrary, and the information collected here is not at all indiscriminate. So why should this not belong in an encyclopedia? I've said before that I can't see verifiability as an issue. Finally, I do maintain that the usefulness of the information is an argument. --Lambiam^Talk 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the line in your opinion, then? If we have this, should we have, for every fictional universe, a "list of names in other languages" for that universe? What about places? Or real people? Or ordinary nouns, verbs... this starts to sound like a translation dictionary very quickly: do you think all of this is okay? If not, where do we draw the line? I think the place to draw the line is where we can write ABOUT the translation and actually say something; to me, that's the equivalent standard that differentiates a dictionary definition from an encyclopedia entry. Most of these, there's nothing to say. Mangojuice^talk 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Although many interesting things can be said about the translations, that would mostly be OR. Among the "recognized" main purposes of lists (see Wikipedia:List guideline) are information and navigation, both of which are provided by the present list. It's nice if you can create an annotated list (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), but this is only one of several recognized formats, and the fact is that the majority of present non-controversial lists, like List of Maine rivers or List of U.S. Army installations in Kuwait, is not annotated. Should there be a list of names in other languages for the fictional universe of, say, Pride and Prejudice? Well, the fact is that Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy are Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy also in translations in other languages. So, no. This is the case for almost all notable fictional universes. But there are a few exceptions. I'm also in favour of having a list of of Harry Potter characters in other languages, so that a reader can find who Severus Rogue is, or Petter Pittelpytt. Such lists are not going to overwhelm Wikipedia, and unlike for names of nouns etcetera it is not something you learn when learning English as a second language and not something you can look up in a dictionary. I'm also in favour of keeping Names of European cities in different languages and similar articles, and I've tried to explain on the deletion page that the argument that there are hundreds of cities and hundreds of languages is specious. --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates policy by being unverified and original research, not to mention unmaintainable and POV in its selectiveness. Also unencyclopedic and irrelevant. Indrian 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless article. Doesn't even include Elbonian. --Atrian 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I voted keep and cleanup in the last AfD, and might have voted again this time, but the consensus to delete is pretty clear. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have several reasons for nominating this.

1. First of all, most Harry Potter books have articles in many other wikis, so the titles of the books in other languages can be obtained there.
2. Second, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of having articles like this -- WP isn't babelfish.com and it isn't a dictionary either; I think this is unencyclopedic... I know Harry Potter is popular, but if we keep this it's a slippery slope. Occasionally, the translation of a book title is interesting, for instance, the German title of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is translated as "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fear", but (1) the article isn't about the interesting alternate titles, and (2) in any case, we have a good article on the translation of Harry Potter: Harry Potter in translation.
3. Third, this article suffers from a complete lack of sources; it's been a month since I added the {{unreferenced}} tag, and 3 since the first nomination, and no referencing has happened, nor any cleaning up.
4. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, if the article were properly sourced, it would look suspiciously like original research, I think: unless someone ELSE has ever written an article or book about the translation of Harry Potter, we're going to be using entirely primary sources.

For all these reasons, delete. Mangojuice^talk 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous nominations VfD, 1st AfD

• Comment Per WP:NOR, there is nothing against creating an article based on primary sources per se. What it talks about that's not allowed is a Wikipedia article actually being a primary source. Of course, creating an article based entirely on primary sources causes some OR problems with some people. Morgan Wick 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is true, and a good point. WP:OR says that in the case of an article that makes only descriptive claims that can be easily verified by any adult without specialist knowledge, an article can be based only on primary sources, implying that otherwise, articles should not be based only on primary sources. I think the other-language titles are probably okay, but most of the interest in the article is the translation back to English, and I certainly don't think, for instance, that someone could verify the back-translation of, say, a Chinese book title without knowing at least some Chinese. Mangojuice^talk 04:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's obivious a strong effort went into this, but this does not creat instant notability/worthiness of an article. It seems a little ridiculous, unnecessary, and excessive to have a list like this. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't like to call into play the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" clause, but it might apply here. Perhaps it could be merged to the Harry Potter page? I doubt it. AdamBiswanger1 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why dump a ugly list onto a decent article? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I argued for keeping the list of names of Disney characters, I think this one should go. This functions much more as a dictionary entry (not encyclopedia) and, as pointed out above, the titles are readily available by clicking on the side bar. It's not as important or as interesting as the names of the Disney characters (which, I admit is still too list-like but is considerably better than this pure list). Interlingua ^talk 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm inclined to follow Interlingua's argument here too, but it turns out that there isn't a Greek entry for the first book, whatever it's called, and if there were I take it there wouldn't be a Latin transliteration of the title. So this does seem to contain some additional information. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Harry Potter in translation; failing that, delete.—Scott5114↗ 07:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't really notable and seems like an unnecessary. I don't really see any of the information contained in the article to be of worth elsewhere so I'm not inclined to recommmend a merge.--Auger Martel 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there might be reasons for mentioning some translated names of Harry Potter characters (on the HP article), such as any that caused particular problems in certain languages. This, however, is cross-Wiki-language list-cruft with severe verifiabilty and WP:OR problems. It does not justify its own article. - Motor (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mango and Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Bwithh 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Harry Potter in translation or just delete W guice 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but include Latinization of other scripts. That will make this a valuable reference tool. It makes Wikipedia a reference work. Fg2 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates no original research rule. --Atrian 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images of chronic wounds

No text, page made because some images were deemed too strong for main article. This is not a valid reason since Wikipedia is not censored. Also other ways around this are presently available, see autofellatio Joelito (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I have readded the images to Chronic wound. After the silly Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons argument, I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia is not censored for the faint of heart. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The pictures belong, but not here. And since this isn't an article, it should be deleted. Interlingua ^talk 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Move the pictures elsewhere, but get rid of the article. It seems purely created to promote the pictures.--Auger Martel 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)}'s actions. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, two images no not consitute an article. Paul Carpenter 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ouch! that looks painful. as per sticking the pictures back in Chronic wound W guice 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia is not an image repository. - Tangotango 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge images into Chronic wounds Perhaps as a gallery?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:55, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advomentary

Then delete it why don't you! It will be back someday whether you like it or not. Complete Neologism - zero Google hits not counting Wikipedia. This is not the place for made up crap. Save that for the Advomentaries. Rklawton 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Interlingua ^talk 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete why are these cutesy portmanteau neologisms so popular anyway? Opabinia regalis 06:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

With zero Google hits, I wouldn't even call this one "popular." Rklawton 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is obviously an attempt at the same sort of thing as docudrama, edutainment, etc. Which are all, though better-established, still obnoxious. Opabinia regalis 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, zero google hits. Not even urban dictionary has it. My guess is that it is a right-wing POV article, given the stated origin and list of "advomentaries" supplied. Someone requested that it be Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-11#advomentary motion picture film or video too, and got told no. - Motor (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. just sounds like pointless neologism jargon for what we used to call agit-prop. or even just "an auteur having a point of view" W guice 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all portmanteau neologisms. Jammo (SM247) 01:08, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheeyat

Unsourced dicdef, should be deleted or transwikied. Speedy filed in March, deprodded without comment or explanation. RGTraynor 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Holy sheeyat. AdamBiswanger1 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It has variations? Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary entry. Interlingua ^talk 05:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Opabinia regalis 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yanksox.--Auger Martel 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicionary entry. Maix84 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The whole piece, all two sentences of it, is a great big "who says?" W guice 20:54, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft Secret Missions

This is nothing but a blow-by-blow plot summary of a handful of Blizzard-made downloadable Starcraft missions. It's absolutely excessive plot summary (failing WP:FICT miserably), and has no merge target I can think of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trans-wiki to wikibooks, where such a thing is commonplace. AdamBiswanger1 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • They don't want this kind of thing any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No? Eh, I never bothered to learn about wikibooks anyway. Go ahead and delete it. AdamBiswanger1 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. A one paragraph or less summary (read: not nine pages long) in Starcraft or something is all that's needed. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the most cruftilent of cruft. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, User:Opabinia regalis said it best. This article is truly spectacular in its excess. Aplomado ^talk 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Auger Martel 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. Cleaned up, it could appear on a games how-to website rather than an encylopedia.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOT for HOWTOs (instruction manuals), tutorials or game guides. I'm sure someone will be along soon to argue that it is "useful" to someone (along with comments about Wikipedia's mission to encompass human knowledge and probably a quote from "Socrates")... but that does not make it an encylopedia article. Take the content somewhere appropriate. - Motor (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Trans-wiki there has to be a starcraft wiki at wikia. I'll copy the code to my sandbox, after that delete it. MichaelBillington 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been afd'd and kept before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various StarCraft articles. —Lamentation :( 08:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Trans-wiki if possible, otherwise Keep, it's not hurting anybody. --Liface 01:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - wikipedia has several other well-detailed plot summaries of fictional material, including the other StarCraft storyline articles and the summaries for novels such as the Dune series. As mentioned above, this article already survived an "article for deletion" debate. The bonus missions add greatly to the StarCraft lore. Kimera757 03:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Little (attorney)

Non-notable attorney, created originally by User:Boblittle, indicating vanity. I think only especially notable lawyers deserve articles. AdamBiswanger1 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. Never mind the question of who would try to find a lawyer on Wikipedia - is that picture really helping his case? Opabinia regalis 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity. Subject is not notable enough either. Ydam 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert, and given the author WP:VANITY. The fact that User:Boblittle also created this article, uploaded his picture (Jan 17th, 2006) and nothing else should also count against it, and strongly towards being spam and an advert. If he'd contributed elsewhere I might have, at least, offered him the chance to demonstrate notability with links to reliable press coverage... but as it is... DELETE. - Motor (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but be careful about personal attacks Opabina. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. W guice 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is yocto-notable, but that is above my threshold for inclusion. snug 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Snug, please review WP:BIO. While you certainly may support keeping this article, it is much better to convince other editors why he is notable, rather than to state your opinion, which is in direct opposition to a guideline. AdamBiswanger1 01:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not an average lawyer. Article states: "A published author of scholarly articles on criminal legal issues, Little is one of about a dozen American lawyers both Board Certified as a Criminal Trial Specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and a life member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers." TruthbringerToronto 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kershner 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Aside from being one of very few lawyers to be board certified/life member (see above), he is also an elected official. I've seen him on CourtTV, too. (And, I will say that I don't want to see my changes to his page go down the crapper.) -HiFiGuy 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  (PS: Just found this Trial set to open in woman's slaying on the Star Ledger website. Stale 2003 murder, and yet it gets ink two weeks before the trial opens. Hmm...)

• Delete. The board-certified/life-member combo is not the sort of special accomplishment that would justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. According to the [NACDL website], any attorney can spend $5000 to be a life member. So Mr. Little is a certified trial specialist, and he's splurged for a life membership in an organization of attorneys, whereas most of his counterparts apparently renew their memberships by the year. Kickaha Ota 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IMO non-notable. --Atrian 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appadurai Muttulingam

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

• Strong Keep Please note that less than 1 % Tamil literature is available in net and because many of those are not with Unicode, that may not come up in Google Search. As an author of books which are available in Amazon, this article has to be kept Doctor Bruno 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only 77 Google hits, many referring to this article. Seems to be vanity or promotional. The results of the previous AfD apply. AdamBiswanger1 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Kalani ^[talk] 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it necessary for books to sell in order for someone to count as notable enough for Wikpedia? The charge in the archived articles that the book on Macros was from a subsidy press diminished the claims of notability for that volume, but what about the others? Standards for professors is that their publication exceeds that of the average prof at a university, right? There's no real requirement that people read the books they publish. This man isn't a prof, but he seems to have published a number of books in Tamil fiction. I'm not familiar with either him or his books and haven't read any Tamil literature in 15 years, but just judging in terms of the article, it seems NPOV and sufficiently notable for a keep. Interlingua ^talk 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete mindful of systemic bias, maybe the lack of google hits is due to searching using the Roman alphabet and/or searching with one of several possible spellings. But the fact that it was originally a vanity article and the list of publications is shaky (marginal vanity, little readership) makes me lean toward delete. Change to a keep if someone familiar with Tamil literature thinks this guy is notable. Opabinia regalis 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "அ.முத்துலிங்கம்" gives 39 unique Google hits, which may not seem a lot, but Tamil is not strongly represented on the Internet. The article should be merged with A. Muttulingam (which I don't think was created as a vanity article); this may actually be the more common search term. There is also the spelling "A. Muthulingam", as he was referred to in the section "Famous contemporary authors" in the article Tamil literature until the whole section was deleted in this edit: [7]; see also e.g. the last entry on this page: [8]. And finally, you can also spell "A. Muththulingam". --Lambiam^Talk 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Books seem verifiable e.g. [9], [10]. Probable systemic bias issues here. And no, I can't spell his name but Tamil-speakers may be able to. Dlyons493 Talk 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that this article and A. Muttulingam are both about User:Amuttu (who only contributes in Tamil; see his talk page). 145.222.138.134 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambian and Dlyons493; searching for Muttulingam and checking the English results closely finds several references which suggest the subject is considered a notable (and probably popular) Tamil-language author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but... A. Muttulingam neeeds to be merged with this article. In addition, vanity elements such as the jobs of his children and the praise of his writing style need to be removed. Some minor references to the writer can be found in The Hindu newspaper here Bwithh 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but merge with A. Muttulingam and clean up. - Parthi 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I own a couple of his books, and I can confirm that he's a well known short story author - for example, this archive[11] features his works (Nos. 46, 47, 85, 86, 87, and 132 are by him). If I remember right, he's even won a couple of literary awards. -- Arvind 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babu Gogineni

This article on Babu Gogineni was originally contributed by me, user:Skollur. But another user with a similar userid, user:S_kollur started a malicious campaign alleging that I am none other than Babu Gogineni himself. Believing this allegation, a wikipedia administrator User:Gurubrahma categorized the article as one for deletion as it is an autobiographical article.

Though I think that Babu Gogineni is a notable person, other wikipedia users may not think so. Let there be a democratic decision on this point and then decide whether this page should be kept as it is, in a modified form, or deleted completely. Whith this intention I replace the template. Skollur

• Weak keep without getting involved in whatever dispute is going on between these two users, which I won't try to figure out - IHEU is notable, so as the executive director this guy is moderately notable. The article needs some cleanup but isn't an obvious vanity page (well, except for the part about writing an Encarta article - that's not terribly useful even if true). Opabinia regalis 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. RGTraynor 08:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prodded the article but violation of WP:AUTO was only one of the three grounds or so I had for PROD-ding. delete as NN and apologies to user:Skollur if I have hurt his feelings by my seeming aspersion of vanity/ violation of WP:AUTO. --Gurubrahma 11:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Considering the standards of WP:BIO, upon what grounds are you asserting that the subject is NN? RGTraynor 15:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Opabinia regalis; re PROD, the article makes claims to notability, per Skollur is not an autobio, and I fail to see the "thinly veiled advert" (advert for what ?). Angus McLellan (Talk)
• Keep. Rationalism and rationalism organizations are an important part of the Indian scence, both contemporary and historical. Rationalist organizations in India tend to be like James Randi in the US and debunk what they consider superstitions. Given that advocacy, something inherently POV, is one of their most important goals, I'm impressed by the NPOV tone of this article. Interlingua ^talk 13:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Interlingua. W guice 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an auto-bio. Many claims are nowhere except in his own controversial interview. The claim that he is a rationalist intellectual is based only on a degree in microbiology (in his own words in the newsletter that he edited later -"after a first degree in biology, I took a break from college and have not returned ever since!")-, some gossip articles in a quarterly newsletter that he edited, and a single small contribution in the Encarta on M.N.Roy.

This article as well as an interview in the newsletter that he edited later, it is claimed that he is the Founder-General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India. Is this correct? In the web site of IHEU where he was employed for nearly 10 years, there are announcements about the 75th anniversary of Rationalist Association of India at Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2006. See links [12] [13]

That means Rationalist Association of India was founded somewhere near the year 1930. How did he become the founder general secretary of it decades before his own birth?

I am a rationalist. Still I vote for deleting this article.

S_kollur

• Keep Exectutive Director of IHEU is probably notable ex officio. If it's POV or inaccurate it can be fixed but no need to delete it. Eluchil404 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Gogineni is at Hyderabad now, not at London where IHEU has head quarters. The present Company Secretary and Director of Operations of IHEU is Suresh Lalvani. S_kollur

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle Sector 01

Delete. Very non-notable fansite. Does not meet WP:WEB or any other form of notability check, hence violating the whole Wikipedia not being a web directory thing. Does not show up in the first 5 pages of Google results for bionicle, unlike another fansite that has so far been accepted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Full name returns 31 google hits [14] and absolutely nothing showing anything notable. The site forum has statistics disabled, but there were 0 members online at the time I checked--an impossibility if it has enough members to be notable by population. Text of site appears to have been written by the prepubescent: "Bionicle fandom would forever have a reference site that did not suck." --Fuhghettaboutit 06:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above; pretty much ... the site creator abdicated because high school required more of his attention. An illiterate article that doesn't even give the link for the site it's touting? RGTraynor 08:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, as well as a lack of sufficient notability to warrant own article.--Auger Martel 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, Alexa Rank: 978,865. Not notable. - Motor (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minimal web presence, no attempt to explain the justifiability of "bionicle" or even explain what it is. Back to the drawing board. Interlingua ^talk 13:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Does anyone even know what the hell it is yet? W guice 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The wikipedia is loaded with Bionicle fancruft, apparently. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:WEB, not notable enough. Jammo (SM247) 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello all. I am an admin of the BS01 Wiki (Or Utopia as noted on this page). Personally I think that this page should be deleted. The maker of this page, a co-worker of mine, has done nothing to this page. All it consists of is the wiki itself. So I, an admin of the wiki, thinks it should be deleted. Obviously this should be enough to get the job done. But now, I must give some other comments... Bionicle Sector 01 is the most trustworthy and reliable database of Bionicle knowledge for the storyline itself. Quite frankly, I find is funny that you guys take hits on google as a criteria for a website. BS01 does not need to explain what Bionicle is, because all fans that use the site know what the heck it is. It is a database for storyline information. As for the wiki, that is entirely different. The wiki is an add-on of the site and has grown considerably: It it now the biggest database for Bionicle storyline information. Consumed Crustacean, sure you guys have a page called Bionicle, but your pages on Bionicle are very inaccurate. In fact, it is a running joke on BZPower, the largest forum site for Bionicle, that Wikipedia is very inaccurate. Even the writer of Bionicle himself deems it false. XD. ~Utopia from BS01 Wiki

• Comment - Well, considering that Wikipedia gets over forty billion hits a day, and that your "Bionicle" site isn't even in the Alexa top hundred thousand sites for hits, one would think that if you were serious about this subject and found the information on Wikipedia lacking, you'd improve the article. Surely there are devoted fans of these toys somewhere who consider it more productive to get the message out than to jeer. RGTraynor 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh, believe me, we don't just jeer. We majorly help changed Wikipedia's pages on Bionicle. We almost made everything accurate, but then some other nutcase (as some member once called them) edited in pure speculation. So we actually do both. As for hits, I wouldn't doubt it. Bionicle isn't exactly your greatest of subjects. Besides, Wikipedia is huge: Just about everything is here and everyone over the entire nation, and sometimes elsewhere use it. So I find it highly unfair to compare both sites. I mean, let's look at the facts. Our wiki has 9 sysop users, only 5 or them are true staff. You guys have almost 1000 admins. Now, the ratio of admins to members is about the same for both of our sites (last time I checked) so if you compare that... 6/1000 is a pretty big difference. Not enough to minimize the gap in hits, but oh well. And also, why do you quote Bionicle? You guys can't exactly compare any wiki to BS01 Wiki because there is a much smaller population going at it. ~Utopia

• Comment - I would like to apologise. I was busy that day and I could only complete the wiki part of it since that's the place I know the best. I will go and update it as soon as I can. (which is not now) Again, I am deeply sorry. (And Utopia, you are a Moderator, like me, not admin. Swert is admin...) - Bioran23 ^Quick-Speak

• Comment - Also, it is NOT a non-notable site. As I stated already, it is supported by the site BZPower, and of which does shows up within the top five of BIONICLE on Google. May I also say that the BS01 members is actually BZPower members. BS01 does not have it's own forums, meaning that it's forums are supported by BZPower. The admin CM has left of which is correct, but it has been passed down to administrator Swert. And also, although there are approx. 600 and more members, they have many unregistered members who read it without signing in. As far as I and Utopia knows, information of the wiki has been quoted more than once on BZPower as proof to many things. As Utopia stated already, Wikipedia's BIONICLE page is being laughed about for it's strong inaccuaracy and lack of information, unlike BS01 Wiki, which has many DETAILED pages on different objects and Locations (Of which I tend to) plus detailed entries on the characters. I found it rather rude to comment on a site which you know nothing about by just "Looking it up on Google as if it is the best source in the world" while your pages are being joked by 30000 people around the globe. And also, Wikipedia is huge, yes it is, but you can not just comment on something which is smaller and seems to be less important in your eyes. You and I are all humans, and you and I are all living organisms, there is no difference. - Bioran23 ^Quick-Speak

• Acknowledge - Look, if the page really lacks so much then yes, go ahead and delete it. - Bioran23 ^Quick-Speak

• Delete as per nom. NN and fails WP:WEB Amalas =^_^= 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Bioran, technically, we are all admins. Saying admins is for simplicity sake here because they don't have "moderators." They have different terms, we have different terms, so I'm just speaking in their language. And also Bioran, I see some problems with your comment. You see, we are talking on WP now, and must play by their rules. Now they say we have to be seen by google, for us to have our own page. Although I think it is unfair as well, that is the way things work. But now, using humans and wikis in metaphor? I have to say that there is a difference. But in the end, this duscussion is just a train derailing: It can't be stopped from its doom. Per say their...WP:WEB rules this page is to be deleted. Sorry I couldn't add more...~Utopia

Look. I hate arguments and most of all, fights, so:

• Delete under page maker's request. - Bioran23 using I.P 202.85.42.140

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

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

The result of the debate was Already speedy deleted. —ERcheck (talk) @ 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delajoker

Vanity article. Kf4bdy 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• It appears to have been speedied already. This can be closed now. WarpstarRider 08:07, 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. DS 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of education program failures

essay that fails NPOV Nuttah68 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as turgid mess that fails WP:NOR, NPOV and WP:NOT. More suitable for an op ed piece than here. RGTraynor 08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor, problems with NPOV, WP:NOT & WP:OR. --blue520 08:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:OR and WP:NPOV. couldn't really be anything else. Ydam 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Zero references, full of original research, fails to be written in a neutral point of view and isn't notable.--Auger Martel 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. David L Rattigan 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, add to list of failed Wikipedia articles. - Motor (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. Inner Earth 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'd say the topic certainly is notable and that the author does a good job of mentioning many of the sub-topics important in the ongoing debate/disilusionment with education and its reform. Having said that, I must agree that it's a POV op-ed piece and not an encyclopedia entry:mere mentioning isn't enough to be a Wiki-worthy article. The style is jaunting and chatty in a way that works well for a newspaper or blog, but encyclopedias need to aim for something drier and more neutral. I'd like to the author (or others) produce something on this topic but to save it from being deleted as either POV or OR (original research), it'd need more citations from the beginning. Interlingua ^talk 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What a POV stinker. Even if NPOV'ed, I can't see any non-arbitrary inclusion criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. agreed with Interlingua regarding the flagging up of some issues that sound as if they could well be documented in the relevant education pieces. however the rest reads like an ex-educationalist holding forth at great length on his "theory" in a bar somewhere W guice 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and even if it was NPOV, I don't see any purpose for it in Wikipedia. Kariià 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cosign with Interlingua. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the very premise encapsulated in the page title is utterly somebody's own POV and unsalvageable. Jammo (SM247) 01:11, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GLOPOREIMS

Delete. Company does not seem to meet WP:CORP, and has less than 100 Google results. It's an obvious advertisement. I don't know if it meets CSD, and attempts at prodding have been resisted, so here be the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blatant advertising for company that does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria. Delete -- The Anome 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert for a non-notable company.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviuos vanispam. Being written in the first person doesn't help. Ydam 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement more than anything. Not notable and fails to meet WP:CORP.--Auger Martel 10:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speed Delete This article is just a copy of their homepage! Maix84 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. i thought this read like a horrible corporate Powerpoint presentation even before i read Maix84's comment. W guice 21:04, 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, in addition, references not provided per Mikka's request. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

Not notable Benjaminstewart05 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• conditional keep if valid references provided for some national fame that was mentoned. `'mikka (t) 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, no G-hits. So they appeared - or claimed to have, anyway - on a Filipino afternoon TV program. What about that makes them notable? (I'd try the Tagalog Wiki, myself.) RGTraynor 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The notability means that the subject might be of interest to a sufficiently big nubmer of people. If they appeared on national TV and not once, then do you think TV people are morons to waste the money on a nobody? And many people saw them and may be interested to know about them. `'mikka (t) 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless they've got anything which satisfies WP:MUSIC which at the moment the article does not say they have Ydam 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible WP_MUSIC items are Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network and about national tours. But I agree the article doesn't spell it clearly and verefiably. Therefore I myself voted "conditionally". If the article will not improve during the voting period, I'll change my vote to "del". `'mikka (t) 17:21, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Znachor

Del Foreign dicdef. A Slavic word for medicineman and nothing more. `'mikka (t) 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Del Ditto. Reichenbach 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef. AdamBiswanger1 21:02, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multimodality Integrated Biofeedback Therapy

Spamming of original research. User has spammed this content to several other articles also. Barrylb 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 09:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article created by User:Jasonmark about a technique "Developed in Israel by Jason Mark Alster in the 1990". It's spam. His home page is on googlepages: "Create your own web pages, quickly and easily." and the links supplied are to press release/adverts written by himself. - Motor (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. spam, vanity, nn, snake-oil... take your pick W guice 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'Very OR. AdamBiswanger1 21:08, 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 Speedy Delete, per author's request. --JoanneB 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Island Of Dr. Mogulus

Appears non-notable; only three google hits. --Robert Merkel 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by the current version of WP:BIO.--blue520 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn.--blue520 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR

this story has been published. If you do a google search as simply "Island of Mogulus", you get the following result [15] I sat with the author of the book today and spent 4 hours on this entry. please provide advice as to what needs to be done to comply. I would be more than happy to do so.

I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.Glenn King

• Delete the additional info posted by the author is a blog Nuttah68 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely NN fanfic. To answer the author; to achieve notability per these guidelines - "books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." Get the book published, basically. Tevildo 10:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade to Speedy G7 per reply below and blanking by original author. (It's wikipedia.org, incidentally). Tevildo 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR

this is not a fanfic. reading the article would have shown you would know this.

As per the fact that the author doesnt' have an Isbn number, there are articles on this site that I have read that have not been flagged about things as irrelevant as FORUM THREADS. this led me to believe this site was something it is not.

• Delete I myself wish the article to be removed. And I doubt Wikipedia.com will hold as much cred with me in the future as it used to.

I also suggest if articles like this are irrelevant, and editing is so reversible, to hold higher standards as per who gets to edit and who gets to create articles.

I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.Glenn King

• Delete per nom and Tevildo. After a good look around I can not find any thing that points to being well-known or remarkable. blue520 10:36, 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. Xoloz 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia jenner

Not notable. She ran in the "Democratic nomination for Governor for the State of Oklahoma" in 1986, and got 4 % there. In other words, not close to being a holder of public office. 28 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above Nuttah68 09:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough, unless she can assert it for something else Ydam 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --SomeStranger^(t|c) 14:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Ted 15:39, 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. Xoloz 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tropical countries

This list is not useful. "They usually have high quality beaches, a hot climate, and they are known to produce many varieties of exotic fruits and vegetables." Punkmorten 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Poorly-defined and not-very-useful list.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Nuttah68 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is what travel agents are for. Dlyons493 Talk 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research resulting in an incorrect definition, silly characteristics, and a pathetically incomplete list, also listing entities that are not countries --Lambiam^Talk 10:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is now article on tropical country which could adequetly define what a tropical country either Ydam 10:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Littered with original research. Isn't a particuarly useful list and has the potential to repeat information which is better explained in other articles.--Auger Martel 10:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I tend to be strongly inclusionist and even for lists am willing to consider 1) utility and 2) possibility of future growth as extenuating criteria. But this really fails for utility, as others have mentioned. If the author wants to work on this topic, I'd suggest working inside a main artile. Hmmm...I just searched for a main article on the tropics or tropical zone/climate and had no luck. For the author, I'd suggest going to Climate and working from the list of climate zones that are given there. Don't just put this list on that page! But start with tropical climate and start writing there using sections breaks when you edit: == Tropical ==. And then summarize important features of a tropical climate. Interlingua ^talk 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not useful - and potentially misleading. Delete unless someone can point out to me any high quality beaches in Chad or Botswana. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Incredibly subjective original research. Tell me, what does "exotic" mean, exactly? Grandmasterka 04:44, 20 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 one wants this deleted, thank goodness. As it is, we have a 60% vote for merge, but I'm going to exercise a bit of discretion here -- the Chairman is a very important person, and a frequent spokesperson for the US military. In my view, Jayzel's points are well-taken, so I'll keep outright. Xoloz 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

this article is a almost exact duplicate of what is already written in Joint Chiefs of Staff#Chairman A mon avis, there is no point in having two articles listing the same things. Knows it all 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per what seems to be already happening anyway Ydam 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, the article name is useful for searches, but the content is just duped without good reason. If the original Joint Chiefs of Staff article grows too large, it can always been unredirected. To the nominator, I suggest you withdraw your nomination of this article for the time being and go ahead and merge redirect it youself, but it's your choice. - Motor (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Motor. jgp (T|C) 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, this is an informative article and should be keept so that more info can be added to it. Rockfan1 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as is. If anything, the Joint Chiefs of staff section dealing with the chairman should be re-written in summary stlye with a link to this article. This is the top military position in the U.S. army. To delete or merge it would be like merging President of the United States with Federal government of the United States just because there is some duplication of information. --Jayzel 02:00, 21 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. Xoloz 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Goldlist

Defeated city council candidate with only limited claim to notability apart from that; page created by User:Goldlist and hence most likely WP:VANITY. Previously had a {{prod}} notice on it, which was removed by an anon IP with no discussion or reason given. Delete, sez I, though I'd settle for a userfy, too. Bearcat 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete see WP:NOT guideline 1.7 (6) Genealogical entries. Criteria calls for "some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety" as can be measured by "external sources (on or off-line)." This article does not contradict the guideline, and I believe adds to WP, definitely does not detract. Ottawa politics (contribs) 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article as it has made an impact and is noteworhty in the small local community of Fredericton - Just because I've never heard of that city, it is the capital of the province of New Brunswick and has evidently left an impact there. Does the criteria of wikipedia call only for national or international notoriety? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.17.140 (talk • contribs) . All of this user's edits have been on the current subject.

Yes, actually, the criteria of Wikipedia do call for that. Bearcat 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable Nuttah68 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear vanity. Subject is not notable enough Ydam 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn NawlinWiki 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and vanity.--Auger Martel 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, v. he's notable for being defeated in a seven-month campaign? W guice 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, db-bio, being a defeated candidate in a municipal election does not, under any stretch of the imagination, constitute a valid claim to notability. Not to mention that he brings up less than 150 Google hits, almost all of which relate to various academic awards from UNB - pm_shef 22:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deet 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I live in Fredericton and barely remember this guy. Just for comparison, no current sitting Fredericton city councillor has an article, and even the mayor only has a sub-stub. Kirjtc2 22:57, 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Huzzey

Only author of the page, Joe Chick (contribs), has tagged it for AfD, but never completed this article, so I have tagged it for Speedy db-author. Fan1967 00:22, 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. Xoloz 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twsf.co.uk

Advert and not a notable company Benjaminstewart05 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above Nuttah68 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete advert Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete blatant advert, nn. -- Inner Earth 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising.--Auger Martel 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. heartwarming optimism about upgrading due to bandwidth demand, tho. W guice 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no merit whatsoever. Ace of Risk 22:30, 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 moved to correct location. Vary | Talk 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Programming the Universe"

unnecessary quotation marks. I copied the article to Programming the Universe, linked this page, as it was an orphaned page, to the article Seth Lloyd. Now there are two articles with the same content, "Programming the Universe" and Programming the Universe and I'd propose the former to be deleted. VStM Mari 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No need for duplicates. Content aleady exists elsewhere prectically word for word Ydam 10:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate, no need for a redirect or anything else.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate. --Optichan 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to delete Programming the Universe and move "Programming the Universe" there to preserve page history. Renaming a page using the move function is preferable to copy-and-pasting to a new location, even if there's only one editor. -- Vary | Talk 17:53, 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. Xoloz 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrumology

Blatant adcruft; created by user with same handle as owner of spectrumology.com CH 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per WP:OR. Tevildo 11:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense original research.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a vengeance. GregorB 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete pseudomathematical, pseudonotable. W guice 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wide spectrum delete per the above Jammo (SM247) 01:12, 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. Punkmorten 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ty Wood

Another NN child actor. Has a few film credits, but these are in bit parts. Has a handful of TV credits as well. Besides these credits there is no biographical infomation available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no major roles yet per IMDB profile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 7 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, TigerShark 10:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Nuttah68 12:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there simply isint enough to write an article on Ydam 12:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and fails to meet requirements for WP:BIO.--Auger Martel 14:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wonder what he worked as with Robin Williams W guice 21:13, 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. Xoloz 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosslynn Taylor Jordan

Fails WP:BIO in my books, nn voice actor and casting director with most of the work related to the Survivor tv series, and only 137 ghits. It may deserve some minor mention in the main Survivor article, but otherwise a clear case of survivorcruft. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Shizane 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Barely notable.--Auger Martel 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE 137 ghits? My name gets more than that, 739,000. MichaelBillington 01:08, 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 userfy and delete. I moved the text to a subpage of the user's page and left a message. Hope that will be it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Ali Salman Al-Hajri

nn bio BillC 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy to User:BuHani, then delete. BillC 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy as above. article fails to establish any notability of the subject. Ydam 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per Ydam; does not claim notability let alone establish it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and then delete. Even though he "has three kings" :) I think it's still non-notable. I'm going to go and change the "kings" to "kids" and then whomever knows more about this things userfy the article at the end of the AfD discussion. Interlingua ^talk 15:11, 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. Xoloz 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead stop (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to satisfy the necessary requirements for WP:MUSIC--Auger Martel 14:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously "incredibly influential". W guice 16:45, 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 Keep. Xoloz 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank E. Willis (mayor)

Non-notable local politician. Does not meet notibility under WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mayor of a city of 30,000 (metro area 200,000); that in itself seems notable to me. NawlinWiki 12:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Shizane 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as NawlinWiki. -- Inner Earth 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being mayor of a city of 30,000 is -- at best -- notable within that community. Outside the county, no. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's as notable as South Carolina State Assemblymen who meet WP:BIO ex officio. Eluchil404 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per what nawlinwiki said seems notable to me too Yuckfoo 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge tags added. This AfD has inadequately addressed the question of whether an article on a "film" distributed via the Internet with no third-party sources and no assertion of notability belongs anywhere in an encyclopaedia, and I am not prepared to call this a 'keep somewhere' consensus. We'll see if someone actually cares enough to merge the material, and whether it sticks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-ray of a Lie

Film made by "a group of citizens" in response to a documentary on Hugo Chavez, found only on Google video; nonnotable NawlinWiki 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary). GregorB 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per GregorB. Ted 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GregorB. --Zoz (t) 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per GregorB. Jumbo Snails 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect -Zorblek (talk) 08:51, 23 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 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myelin Media

possible vanity page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddariusbijan (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But with major revamps, google test results[16], and google news results[17]. Seems notable. Yanksox 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. I'm unconvinced by the google results. So the company has a competent PR director. thats about it Bwithh 15:40, 7 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, TigerShark 12:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Yanksox AdamBiswanger1 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. // Liftarn 14:56, 20 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. Kimchi.sg 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian J.G. Pereira

Not sure how to handle this one (or the redirect Dr. Brian J.G. Pereira). Questionable notability and article appears to be largely lifted from this website: [18]. Medtopic 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to meet notability guidelines for academics, eg PubMed gives 172 citations for "Pereira BJ" which seem (from a quick scan) to be him. Does need considerable tidying up though. Espresso Addict 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article should be taken to copyright problems. If it isn't, delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Not sure about the Copyvio, it seems a summary of his bio rather than a copy-and-paste act. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 7 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, Petros471 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite Seems adequately notable but it's not an article right now. Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Espresso Addict. --Gurubrahma 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Espresso Addict. ImpuMozhi 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is adequately notable Yuckfoo 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mychub

Speedy Delete Non notable site. Author has removed three speedy templates Nuttah68 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nonnotability is only a speedy criterion for people and groups of people, not websites. That said, this website doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:WEB, so delete. Angr (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just an ad for a web site. --thickslab 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it is a) an ad for b) a non-notable website. Jammo (SM247) 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; it sounds like it could be notable, but there's no firm evidence that it is, and I'm not finding much useful on google... Mairi 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn Eluchil404 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Flag

I found this as a speedy delete and changed it into a redirect to Flag. That was reverted so I tried a Prod but that was removed. I don't think there is a need for an Islamic flag article that is seperate from Flag. This material right now is original research, has no references and and seems a bit POV. Also a lot of the information does not seem to have anything to do with Islamic flag. Delete or if someone thinks that any of the material is salvageable then merge into flag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Based on the edits and remarks by both Grutness and the original author, Schowdhury (Sadullah), I am withdrawing the nomination and changing to Keep. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into flag and Delete The content in this article is similar to that of flag. Furthermore we should not seperate flags by religion. SomeStranger^(t|c) 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. The page has improved immensely, which has made me reconsider.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any material that can be established is not OR into flag and delete, per SomeStranger & nom.--blue520 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a perfectly notable and valid subject. The article just needs to be improved. And if you merge it, merge it with Islamic symbols. Afonso Silva 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this page as this subject will grow quickly. I am the author of this page "islamic flag". I am new to wiki and this is my first project. There are lot of information such as islamic rules and regulation in relation flags they will come in near future. I don't think merging will be good idea as it is specific project and unique project will serve people who intersted in the evolution of Islamic flag. there isn't much information available in wiki. I am more then will to share your ideas in relation to this project. This is by no means of just a flag article. this not an article seperate religion by flag rather it focusing no the how islamic flag began and what is its status at present. it will improve in time.

--Sadullah 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak merge or delete. The discussion of Islamic flag rules is interesting, but without citations, it comes across as original research. The tone of the article is not encyclopedic. If it's going to be kept, it needs an immediate cleanup and wikifying effort, since any religion-based article that appears to violate Wikipedia standards will inevitably generate a lot of controversy and divisiveness. Kickaha Ota 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the recent edits made to the article, I would say Weak keep instead. The page still needs a great deal of additional sourcing, and the tone of the article still needs work; but the improvements thus far show enough potential to justify encouraging the editors to proceed further. Kickaha Ota 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw My suggestion is to withdraw the nomination & let the author know that you will give it a couple of weeks to include some sources. I cannot judge if the topic can be saved, but a new editor should be given some leeway to work on it. I also don't see this as a case of vanity or an obvious attack article. It may be somewhat controversial, but even so, it seems to be a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. I believe we can let it mature a little. As for POV, that will have to be worked out if it can be cleaned up with some sources. To the original editor, regardless of what happens, try to gather some sources (in English) that support the topic.Ted 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

keep the page.Comment: The author. your inputs are appreciated. I need some time to work on it. I just joined "wiki" 2 days ago. testing my article writing and just geeting to know wiki. If you read this article you will find that it is unbiased. I will try put islamic flag information unbiased manner. Your input into the article will be ver much appreciated. It will certainly get better.

This article will not be citation in any way. I am keeping close eye to make sure of that. On the other hand some subject matter may be controversial where carefull choice of word will be considered.

I would like you all check the article as often as you can so, you may advise me.

Ted thanks for your advice

--Sadullah 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Duplicate "vote" by creator of article changed into comment.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Extend or Merge into Islamic symbols Maix84 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

keepComment: in response to Maix. First of all there are no symbols in Islam. However, A symbol may be adopted if there is need but the symbol should be the most simplest form. example a single colour flag meets the need to have unique flag. There are other rules which govern what can be incorporated in a flag. symbols that identify muslim nation doesn't constitute an Islamic act. People need know these issues for better understanding. Deleting an article which written in good faith will deny the opportunity for people find out the truth. I believe the truth should be available for people make choice.

--Sadullah 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Duplicate "vote" by creator of article changed into comment.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Extend. This article taught me (and my family) quite a bit, and I think the subject is valid. I think with enough material it could easily stand on its own. If not, possibly merge to Islamic symbols. Xiliquiern 20:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• HI the author again, I have included more stuff in 24 hours but still doing my research. More stuff is comming soon, you comments and suggestions are welcome.

--Sadullah 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems an interesting topic to me and the author is actively working to improve it. Capitalistroadster 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though it needs a massive cleanup. I've added a section on the pan-Arab colours (how could an article on Islamic flags not deal with that topic?). There's quite a bit that's dodgy in there, though - talking about the difference betwen "Muslim flags" and "Islamic flags", which reeksa of OR. And the title should be "Islamic flags" or "Flags of Islamic nations", not "Islamic Flag" - theer is no one "Islamic Flag". Grutness...wha? 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• This page will be renamed to "Islamic Flags" as suggested by Grutness and I agree. Renaming will take place on 21/06/06 as my account is not old enough to move.

Sadullah (Talk) 12:11, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Diplomacy

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, meets the criteria. GregorB 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Auger Martel 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "They have basically no recorded material, have never played a live show, and until recently were separated" - wonderful... W guice 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, never recorded, never played. DrunkenSmurf 17:38, 20 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carter up all night

Non-notable blog, c. 100 Google hits. Essentially an advertising/vanity page. GregorB 13:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement for the blog. It also has a section at the bottom of the page which outlines why it should not be deleted, if that is not an invitation I don't know what is. SomeStranger^(t|c) 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, particularly for a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB. Gwernol 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and advertising.--Auger Martel 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, advertising. Ted 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "oh my, i'm so controversial, everyone hates me and i don't care..." nope, they simply aren't interested W guice 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete them all. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Artists Who Have Had Soft AC Hits Or Typically Receive Soft AC Airplay

Original research, not verifiable, depends on definition of typicallity. I can't see a speedy deletion category that would satisfy this, so am bringing it to afd. Inner Earth 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a list based on subjective belief, not encyclopedic Nuttah68 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inherently WP:POV article with no context. Gwernol 14:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The same author has also created List of Artists Who Typically Receive Hot AC Airplay and List of Artists Who Typically Receive Urban AC Airplay Nuttah68 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Billboardcruft (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info) and unsourced original research. These lists appear to have been split from Adult contemporary music, but they should have been removed completely. Delete the other two as well (I've listed them for deletion). Extraordinary Machine 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have also nominated List of Artists Who Typically Receive Soft AC Airplay; List of Artists Who Have Had Soft AC Hits Or Typically Receive Soft AC Airplay is now a redirect to List of Artists Who Have Typically Receive Soft AC Airplay, which has the original afd notice on it. Inner Earth 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete horrible NPOV mess W guice 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POVlistcruft^squared. --Eivind^t@c 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless list without content. Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We had a similar situation on classic rock, in which one editor was adding artists not normally associated with the classic rock format into the list simply because he thought they were classics. It was decided that the list was not necessary and the easiest way to settle the issue was to delete the list entirely. Haikupoet 02:14, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project69

Unnotable MMORPG private server. This article is essentially advertising. Legend of Mir 2 is certainly notable, but an illegal server running out of some guy's bedroom isn't. —Xezbeth 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note that it is not illigal and is not run from "some guys bedroom". —TheStinger
• Delete not notable and doesn't seem to be particuarly encyclopedic.--Auger Martel 14:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from the article With daily user counts of 10. says it all really. No outside references to the subject so it fails on the notability front. Ydam 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• "daily user counts of 10", says it all, delete. Paul Carpenter 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that particular comment was added by a vandal, but even if it has hundreds of simultaneous users, that isn't very high. —Xezbeth 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (This site) actively follows the usercount. It must be remembered this the ammount of players connected at the time of the scan. —TheStinger

With the ammount of vandalism this page is recieving it would probably be in everyones best interests to Delete. —TheStinger

• Delete Agreed. -JE 20:27, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Fagan

The article doesn't assert notability, and I don't think that the person yet satisfies the requirements for notability, having not yet played professionally. Benjaminstewart05 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. When he makes his début for the senior team he can have an article. BoojiBoy 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Above my threshold for notability. snug 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per BoojiBoy. Not so sure after seeing how many football players from the Manchester United F.C. Academy page have their own pages... --Missmarple 22:21, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zwo

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which still holds. This is an article concerning the usage of a single word of German, a topic much better discussed at wikt:zwo. Delete. Angr (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary Ydam 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I note we have similar pages such as Xyr - but, this is somewhat too narrowly focused. Jammo (SM247) 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think this is a simple dictionary definition, but rather an encyclopedic discussion relating to linguistics. If this article is deleted simply for being an article about a word, then articles on the and von (and many others) should be deleted as well. -- Loudsox 16:26, 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. Xoloz 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Bagnato

Non-notable biography. Delete —Mets501 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• 10 hits on google. Hardly notable. "He has long been fighting for his idealistic views and believes all whose thoughts differ from his are wrong." Heh, delete it please. The article largely appears to be a hoax as well.--Auger Martel 14:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete hoax/attack/vanity page, take your pick Deleuze 15:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear hoax/spoof/attack page. What more is there to say Ydam 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per it being tripe W guice 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom + plus it is probably a hoax. Em-jay-es 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax (15 and 20 pound babies) Interlingua ^talk 02:58, 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 redirected to Yahoo!, nothing to merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Yahoo! Services

Not a bad idea, but it couldn't have been more poorly implemented if they tried. Stev0 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to List of services offered by Yahoo!, Rewrite or possibly Merge into Yahoo!. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, copy what little is there to Yahoo! and get rid. - Motor (talk)
• Merge usable(?) content into Yahoo! and then Delete. Eluchil404 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hardly creditable that this could have been produced. Not worth bothering with. BlueValour 02:36, 23 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Yahoo! then Delete. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is alrady such a list on the Yahoo! page. Stev0 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Yahoo!. - Tangotango 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to yahoo! then redirect. MichaelBillington 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It could make an interesting section in the main article. Not a stand-alone. Interlingua ^talk 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean like this: Yahoo!#Yahoo.21-owned sites and services? Stev0 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete - Not worth a Redirect. BlueValour 02:36, 23 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 merge tags are up and someone has indicated they will do the merge. W.marsh 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Drams

NN band, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge The Drams, Slobberbone and Brent Best all into one article, akin to Songs: Ohia. Slobberbone is notable as per a string of mid-indie releases. Drams might eventually become notable in their own right, but for now the information is best collected in one article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 7 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Turns out the Drams are notable per Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, but I'll happily merge the three if this is uncontested. ~ trialsanderrors 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As they have yet to record their first album it is too soon to make an assessment as to whether they will become notable. The article should be deleted now but the topic can be revisited in a year or so when they have had chance to make their mark. Non-notable spin-off from barely notable band.BlueValour 20:12, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wael Zuaiter

(Alleged) terrorist that was assasinated by Israel by involvement in the Munich attacks. There are so few English results on google for him though, that I think that is his only claim to notability. There were plenty of terrorists who attacked Israel - I think including all of them if they are not otherwise notable would be glorifying them. -- Where is Where? 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. if he had been recorded as being a terrorist by sources other than the israeli governement then maybe it would meet WP:BIO.

Changed to merge This guy appears to be more notable than initially thought but I'm still not sure this guy needs his own article unless there is more to say on him. Ydam 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Verify and Merge into Munich Massacre Maix84 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, he is featured in the move Munich by Stephen Spielberg, and no real reason for deletion given: "there were plenty of terrorists"?? There has never been any proof that he was a terrorist, just because he was killed by Mossad doesn't automatically mean he was a criminal, take the example of Ahmed Bouchiki. What's interesting about Boukichi is that he was killed by Mossad and not whether or not he was a terrorist. Deleting this article smells strongly of POV itself and can be interpreted as an attempt of cleaning up (i.e. censoring) Mossad's dirty act, no matter if that is the nominator's actual motive or not. Also, I see no reason to merge, what does Wikipedia lose on having a separate article on him? Mackan 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Article reeks of POV but subject is clearly notable per Spielberg connection and attendant media coverage. Also an alternative spelling seems to be Zwaiter. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as per trialsanderrors. The connection with Spielberg's Munich gives it clear, immediate notability, but it would have had that even in the absence of the film. As for POV, I think we can guess the political sympathies of the author, but the language is still generally NPOV. For example, he's described as a spokesman, not a liberator; there's the word "claim" about his being a terrorist, but it's not qualified by any POV adjective. Balancing that, the article clearly talks of the "killing" of the athletes. The number of bullet shots and number of athletes killed are both given in an objective form without any editorializing. Interlingua ^talk 03:07, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy industries

Yet another nonnotable corporate vanity page NawlinWiki 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not seem to meet WP:CORP Ydam 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more corporate brochure waffle W guice 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not seem to meet WP:CORP BlueValour 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, operating history of a non-notable company does not belong here. Jammo (SM247) 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• While I appreciate the discussion, I highly disagree with the 5 comments to "delete". By the standards of Wikipededia's WP:CORP rules: Criteria for companies and corporations

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

This company had significant coverage by multiple published works which do not tout the company in itself. Simply Google or Yahoo! search them and you will find any number of newspaper articles, I have found at least 4 articles written on energy topics not relating to the company's marketing, 1 television documentary and others. I ask you to reconsider after conducting your own due diligence. Unsigned

• per WP:CORP, this company is significantly "notable" having been nationally recognized for its work in energy efficiency, having presented for the Department of Energy across the world speaking on the Energy Star program, is a recognized expert in the energy industry, has been covered by multiple published works including Hawaii Business Magazine, Pacific Business News, Hawaii Building Maintenance, Earth Toys, NBC, LD&A Magazine, HPAC Magazine, AEE Publication, Pacific Press, Honolulu Advertiser, Star-Bulletin. The company was awarded the SBA Service firm of the Year, the Entrepreneur of the Year in an Emerging Sector and Young Entrepreneur of the Year. The company is currently in consideration for INC's 500 top business of 2006 and received Energy Pioneer of the Year 2006. Please visit: http://energy-industries.com/news_media.php for validation.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cheetah Girls 2: When in Spain Soundtrack

This page is for the soundtrack that doesn't yet exist for a movie that doesn't yet exist that if it actually occurs will be released straight to video. Not Notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kershner 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge into The Cheetah Girls 2: When in Spain. No redirect needed. Ted 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The only content is the playlist, which is entirely speculative...the link given on the article does not mention the soundtrack or playlist. Once the soundtrack is released (it makes sense Disney will cash in on their audience and release one, but that's not concrete yet), then add the playlist to the movie's article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified, in which case merge into the movie's article. Not notable enough for a seperate article. BryanG^(talk) 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. HD123, the main editor of the article, is deleting the AfD tags. Can somebody else please restore them, to keep me free of the three revert rule? —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know the procedure for recommending a block, but HD123 should be blocked from editing this page until the AfD is resolved, he's removed the AfD tag 5 times already.
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 21:40, 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 no consensus, with weak arguments on both sides and no significant majority in numbers. Although those arguing for deletion haven't responded to the references presented, as none of the information Steve presented is actually used in the article it's unclear how they will affect it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slam Bang

Seems to be a vanity article promoting a comic book published by the editor. While my first thoughts were that making it a stub may be more appropriate, other similar articles created by the editor (Allen Freeman and Fan-Atic Press) seem to have been simply deleted. While I can't seem to find any evidence of them anymore on Wikipedia, I'm sure they existed, as the content still seems to be mirrored on other sites. Dancter 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it can assert notability, Delete. Adambiswanger1 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep the article has verifiable comics press mentions, being purportedly reviewed twice in the Comics Buyer's Guide and the refusal of Diamond Comics to distribute it covered in The Comics Journal. If it's true Rick Geary contributed, you can add that to the list too. Steve block Talk 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 19:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ BlueValour 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment, WP:VANITY is not a reason to delete, and given this is a discussion rather than a vote, it would be helpful if you could offer some opinion as to why you think this article should be deleted. Any transgression against WP:VANITY is fixable through a rewrite, not through deletion. Steve block Talk 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --JJay 00:24, 20 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarter Circle Forward

Not particularly notable internet radio show. No claims of notability, press coverage, etc... My vote is clearly delete. Wickethewok 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• keep, i get the feeling this nom is in response to my vote on another article arikane

• To what are you referring exactly? Wickethewok 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• well this nom was put up shortly after my vote on Lightsaber combat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arikane (talk • contribs).

• Ah, my response to that nom was no vote. If indeed I had such a visceral opinion on deleting/keeping that article, I probably would've voted. Wickethewok 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think so; I've thought about putting this article up for deletion myself ever since the AfD for The Greatness. Voice of Treason 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• NO VOTE from wikipedia notablility page: "The content is distributed via a site which is independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" vgamp, real life radio, and rant radio seem to fit as independent broadcasters. antmoney85

• Comment They're no longer carried on Rant; vgamp has an Alexa rank close to 2 million, and real life radio doesn't seem to register on Alexa at all. Fan1967 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist this maybe? Wickethewok 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Between being carried on Rant, vgamp and real life radio, an argument can be made that they are independently distributed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable show. It's my reading of WP policy (whether or not my reading is accurate is obviously open to debate) that an independent distributor has to be a notable independent distributor. If my crap site hosts your crap comic strip, it doesn't make your comic important. -- Kicking222 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • theres a big difference between hosting and broadcasting live streams.Antmoney85 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The non-notability demonstrated by their difficulty getting aired. BlueValour 02:48, 23 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. Punkmorten 12:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoir Road

Non-notable road. Last section (Einstein & 100 sexiest roads!) obviously made up. Lancsalot 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 19:45, 7 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "Reservoir Road has a postbox... Letters are collected regularly." - Richfife 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Albert Einstein staying one night at an inn over 50 years ago does not make this notable (nor does it make him a resident). The mention by Channel 4 is good, but notability requires several such notable events. Does not reach notability. Ted 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although the 'Topographical Features' section is a deadpan masterpiece of writing... "What began as a relatively straight road rapidly becomes curved, as a short corner is turned" indeed... W guice 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article gave me a stack of laughs...for all the wrong reasons sadly. That said, this isn't a notable subject to say the least.--Auger Martel 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a street directory. Jammo (SM247) 01:18, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Revenge Tragedy

i believe this to violate WP:BAND and to be supporting itself with an intricate network of other NN articles W guice 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non notable WP:MUSIC.--blue520 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable at present - can be revisited if their new album proves a monster hit :-) BlueValour 02:51, 23 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pam England

seeming nn, but wrote a famous book (needs verification). Speedy was contested. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note that the famous book doesn't have an article. --Rory096 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep the book does have a number matches on google. And she is definately the author. See [19] Amnonc 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Have added book references and web site details, but doing a mental trim of the article, removing all non notable details, simply leaves the book. (the paintings aren't referred to except on subjects web site) but that, by itself, would fail WP:BIO unless references are forthcoming that this is a groundbreaking enough book to merit the co-author's article being kept on that basis alone. Regards, MartinRe 22:53, 7 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article cites no awards this author has won nor reviews of her work, so she fails WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the one who protested the prod in this case (about a month ago now?!?! wierd...) I ran her book thought google and got 57k hit. A few of them were from people offering classes (& here) and a few articles in specilty journals (& here) related to child-birth. I think thats a good case for the book being notable, but does it make Pam notable? I'm going to abstain on that one for now. ---J.S (t|c) 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Pam describes the new understanding that came to her". Yeah, right, the new understanding that has come to me is that this is a non-notable person. The book OTOH is well regarded and could merit a standalone article. BlueValour 02:56, 23 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew J. Maxwell

Non notable bio Lewispb 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article doesn't even attempt at asserting any notability Ydam 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--Auger Martel 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but the photo adds nothing, recommend that be eliminated. Otherwise above my threshold for inclusion. snug 22:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable, and only barely attempts to assert any. The name of the user who created the article is Dmaxwell, meaning it's almost certainly either vanity or promotion for the editor's brother/cousin/whatever. -- Kicking222 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--MichaelMaggs 16:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kershner 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. MaxSem 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This article and Big Hands for Little Hearts were deleted by AFD once before. Ckessler 07:02, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Eluchil404 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Amarilla

As an encyclopedia wikipedia shouldn't have a page for every referee no matter how popular the sport. Only notable individuals should be given a biographical page. Kode 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article should not be deleted. This is not just a 'regular' football referee. He was chosen among thousands to ref at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, the most watched sports event in the world. Bruno18 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Being selected to the World Cup passes WP:BIO. BoojiBoy 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Shizane 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. -- Abid Ahmed 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep!--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. By what criteria should the article be speedy-kept? —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BoojiBoy. IMHO, articles on referees should be more selective than on athletes, with emphasis on longevity (Jake Ireland), popular familiarity (Red Cashion) or notoriety (Don Denkinger). Selection to the World Cup definitely leads to popular familiarity, though, so this article should stay. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a 2006 FIFA World Cup referee. Carioca 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO. — TheKMan^talk 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:BIO: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Being selected to referee in the FIFA World Cup is about as big as it gets in that field. — TheKMan^talk 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As above Edd8990 13:16, 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. Reasons to delete far outweigh the (lacking) reasons to keep. Having other useless articles is never a good reason for an useless article to be kept. And J.smith's request for it to be kept if an article doesn't already exist is negated by the wonder that is Category:Mathematics, probably the most complete category I've ever just looked up to see what was on it, and its subset dedicated to this, Category:Mathematical logic. Proto///type 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical logic glossary

Basically an empty list that has not changed since October 3, 2005. Deprodded by User:Freakofnurture. —Mets501 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Paul Carpenter 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per wiki is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ydam 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not much of a glossary. W guice 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per before. I didn't de-prod it, by the way. Examine the history more closely [20]. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:41] <freak|talk>
• Week keep and rename to List of mathematical terms (if an article like that dosn't already exist that is. ---J.S (t|c) 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have dozens of other glossaries on subjects less notable than mathematical logic (take a look at Category:Glossaries). Also, emptiness is not a criteria for deletion (otherwise all stubs would be deleted).-PlasmaDragon 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing intrinsicaly wrong with a glossary. Don't rename to "List of mathematical terms". Paul August ☎ 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that this has existed since October 3, 2005 with absolutely no improvement, and it does not look like anyone is willing to improve it (as of now). —Mets501 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless improved during the AfD period. 4 entries does not a glossary make. (I could probably improve it, but I'm too familiar with the terms to know what requires a definition.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added some definitions.-PlasmaDragon 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another article kept on the basis that 'it might be expanded' though every one knows it won't be. This sort of half-cooked work does WP a disservice. BlueValour 03:00, 23 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. Proto///type 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axonai

Per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP, only 812 Google results, prod was contested--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (weak) For this article, WP:CORP is the applicable standard, not WP:SPAM. Invoking WP:SPAM in this case is not consistent with WP:assume good faith (IMO). Will freely change my vote to keep if WP:CORP is met in the next 5 days. The Crow 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, articles that fall under WP:SPAM are "articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual". The Axonai article (as of now) reads like an advertisement for a company, not like an encyclopedia article, thus (in my perspective) it falls under WP:SPAM. Also note that I am doing my best to try to assume good faith and remain civil, though if I am not, feel free to remind me.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility here. Just in general I feel like "spam" is a strong charge to make against a single article because it suggests self-serving intent on the part of the creator, and the problems with the article are adequately covered by WP:CORP and WP:NPOV. The Crow 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:CORP, but needs to be written less like an advertisement. I have added the {{advert}} tag and linked in the references which were easy to find online, and definitely seem to be nontrivial published work about the company from external sources. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Changing to Weak keep. One of the sources, the Purdue Research Park source, is apparently a newsletter for the office building campus where Axonai is housed; this hardly seems independent. The Journal and Courier is a local paper in Lafayette, Indiana (with a bare-bones website, I might add), but the Indiana Business review interview is the real deal. 2 is technically multiple, but this barely counts. Mangojuice^talk 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see how this meets WP:CORP. References in published works consist of a company press release published in 3 different hometown newspapers (if you notice, it appears to be all the same press release). Google shows only 507 hits, many unrelated. Company website is a shell with no info on partners or customers. No specific employment figures, no revenue figures, no management names. Someday it may be notable; I'm not seeing it today. The Crow 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• According to my web search, the Inside Indiana Business article was broadcast on WFYI Indianapolis, so I think that one counts. No argument about the other two, except that they aren't press releases. Even the Purdue business park article has a byline from someone not based in the company. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note that the criteria states that the "company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Axonai article, on the other hand, has been referenced by only one notable published work (the other two sources don't seem to be notable. Also, the Purdue Research Park source most likely isn't independent from the Axonai company) --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• No argument here. I just like to do the research, present the facts, and let the community decide. To me, 2 is multiple, but that's about as weak as you can get. :) Mangojuice^talk 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Creator is User:Mceneviz. CEO of the company is Cesar Ceneviz. Coincidence? We think not. ~ trialsanderrors 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• shrug* Maybe, maybe not. Lots of people document their own employers, hobbies, academic fields, schools, whatever. As long as it's notable and meets Wikipedia standards, no problem. The Crow 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:AUTO: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ~ trialsanderrors 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:AUTO references this observation from WP:V: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. WP:V is a Wikipedia policy; WP:AUTO is only a guideline. The Crow 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So? ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So, WP:V says self-documented sources are allowed, within limits of notability and POV. WP:AUTO is not a policy. The Crow 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? It's a guideline and I tend to adhere to it. I have no problems with this article being verifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO is a good guideline, and vanity articles tend to have significant problems of NPOV and verifiability. However, I don't think articles should be deleted on the basis of WP:AUTO when those problems have been resolved, and the subject of the article is worth including. The difference, I think, is that vanity articles that no one has bothered to verify or make neutral can be deleted because of the concerns in WP:AUTO, but non-vanity articles with these same problems, we should keep around and hope they get fixed up. Mangojuice^talk 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and The Crow -- getcrunkjuice 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP & WP:AUTO. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another strtup with a great idea but whose time has not yet come. Less notable than SILO, recently deleted. BlueValour 03:04, 23 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 to Load (album). Proto///type 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ain't My Bitch

Prod, deprodded by me; prod concern was for notability of the song. The article claims it received attention for its use of a guitar slide in the guitar solo (no source for this), which is a kind of notability I hadn't seen a debate on, so I brought it here. No vote from me. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere else. It is five minutes and 28 seconds in length can be condensed to (5:28). ~ trialsanderrors 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't imagine this song being notable for any reason. I don't think anyone is that concerned with usage of a guitar slide. The song wasn't a single, and lots of singles don't even have articles. -- Kicking222 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the article for the album it comes from. I'm happy to keep articles about songs by very notable bands, like this one, if they contribute any unique, notable information, but I don't think this one does that. But make sure you leave a friendly note to User:Pail, who created the article; he's a high school student trying to contribute in good faith. He's created a number of articles for Metallica songs which you might want to check for notability, for consistency's sake. --Grace 23:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Load (album). We should do the same for the rest of the tracks on the album; apparently someone felt the need to write an article for every song on the LP, a direct violation of WP:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per FuriousFreddy. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• According to Load (album), "Ain't My Bitch" was a charted single...if that's true, I vote Weak Keep with some cleanup (i.e., condense and add chart info). I'd fully support deletion/merge to Load of all non-singles and that have articles, though. -- Scientizzle 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Not worth a redirect. BlueValour 03:07, 23 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 prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form. Reasons to delete (that pesky WP:NOT) were far stronger than reasons to keep ('I think it should be kept', 'weak keep', 'keep although it needs substantial work'. I've dumped a copy in Omagh Bombing/names, if anyone wants to use the information. Proto///type 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now moved to Talk:Omagh Bombing/names per WP:SUBPAGES.--Chaser - T 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Omagh Bomb Victims

WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. Paul Carpenter 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think this should exist as it's own article. I'm not sure if ot would be worthy of inclusion in the main Omagh Bombing article though Ydam 17:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, that's precisely what i was going to say... W guice 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it should be kept and expanded. There is a page listing the victims of the July 7th bombings in London for instance. Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings I think the page should be similar to that article and I will gladly work towards updating information on the victims and on the medical response to the bombing. AlanMc
  • Comment: if the article can be brought up to the quality of the July 7th article, i.e. include more useful infomation than an unformatted list then I would be willing to vote for keep + rename to remove "names of".Paul Carpenter 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as it stands now, but would change to definate keep if improved, as suggested above. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: although it needs a very substantial amount of work.GiollaUidir 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to main Omagh Bombing article. If it gets expanded sufficiently, it could be split off again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's prob a better suggestion.GiollaUidir 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as above... --Charlesxavier 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mego Inc

Speedied twice at Mego inc. Founded last summer, planned product launch in October. Author/cofounder of the company disputes deletion, see talk. Bringing here to gain consensus. Vary | Talk 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a whole lot of impressive-seeming waffle about nothing in particular W guice 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NOT, in terms of promotion and advert, fails WP:CORP: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Fails[21]. It also really can't pass any other measure of Corp since it isn't up yet. An important read (something I helped a bit) is WP:INN. Yanksox ^(talk) 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet the necessary requirements for WP:CORP--Auger Martel 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This company has not even launched a product yet, and therefore cannot, by definition, be notable. GentlemanGhost 05:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Company doesn't exist yet. Totally non-notable.Dipics 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per ....... ^^^ all the above. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but with well-wishes to Julia. I hope to see an article about your company here on wikipedia someday... but now is not the time. You gotta make a name for yourself first! ---J.S (t|c) 19:40, 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 keep. Proto///type 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manikonda Chalapathi Rau

Subject seems non-notable and books do not exactly appear to be bestsellers from Google results. - Tangotango 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The author does not show up in my A9 search. Delete per WP:NN --Alphachimp ^talk 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Oddly, the few Google results he does get seem to call him "famous", but without really qualifying that statement. See this. Looks like it may be an attempt to write himself into history, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Books are easily verifiable e.g. [22] Dlyons493 Talk 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your link in broken. However, a search indeed confirms their existence. They aren't particularily in many libraries, but they're out there. I'm still abstaining. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe a browser issue - it's working fine from here. Suggest you try to cut and paste the link into your browser. Failing that search on the names of some of the books. I think this is a a typical systemic bias issue - he's actually quite famous but under-represented on the Web. Dlyons493 Talk 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Broswer or Wikipedia. It's parsing the space in the link as being the separation between the URL and the text of the link. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is the first time I am adding a page on Wiki. The content is genuine. The author, Chalapathi Rau M, was a famous journalist and had a profound influence on the development of journalism in India during the post-independence era. All books of this author appear with name Chalapathi Rau M. Search on A9[23], Google[24], [25] etc. with the keywords "Chalapathi Rau" or "Chalapathi Rau M" or "M Chalapathi Rau" will verify this. I am working on getting the exact birth and death date of the author and brief biography of this author. I will update this page with these details at a later time. But, in the mean time let me know how I can stop this page from being deleted. Thanks. --Manikond@gmail.com 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems to be a published author of note. ImpuMozhi 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: seems notable, as an editor of the National Herald for thirty years. The Publications Division of the Government of India seems to describe him as a scholar of note, and that may be true. However, I have noticed over the past couple of days that the references sections of certain articles are being bombed with Chalapathi Rau - authored references. Jawaharlal Nehru is one example. That makes me suspicious. No vote. Hornplease 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No need for concern over recent activity on Chalapathi rau M. I have been trying to refer his work at all relavant places in Wikipedia. Chalapthi Rau M was close associate and friend of Jawaharlal Nehru and an expert on Nehuruvian thought. The books added in Jawaharlal Nehru are commonly referred works on this topic.Manikond@gmail.com 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per the last link added by me just now in the external links of the article; Mention in a reputed academic article is something. Also, being regarded as Nehru's unoffical media advisor is notable, imo. I guess the problem with Ghits is due to various transliterations possible. Also, suggest that it be moved to Chalapathi Rau or Chalapati Rau. --Gurubrahma 05:28, 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. Proto///type 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PetrolPrices.com

Tagged for deletion by Nuwewsco (contribs). Comment on talk page is "Spam for www.petrolprices.com"'. Just completing the nomination. No Vote. Fan1967 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If there were an article on gas (or petrol) pricing sites, merge there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Arthur Rubin. Deleuze 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN website. BlueValour 03:09, 23 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Village Market

Non-notable commercial outlet, non encyclopedic content.Bob 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete even admits to being one of the smallest ergo non notable. Needs to show some assertion of notability. Ydam 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Nuttah68 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously non-notable. Unrelated: much of the page reads more like a Zagat's review than an article. -- Kicking222 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:58, 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. Not really suitable for automatically userfying, as he didn't make it himself. Proto///type 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew McBroom

It is an obvious vanity page created by user 'mcbroom'. It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wihut (talk • contribs) .

• Keep exceeds my threshold for notability. snug 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy If my threshold for notability was weakened by 90%, McBroom still wouldn't pass it. Fails WP:PROF. -- Kicking222 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete google finds very little on "Andrew McBroom", the only hit which might be the subject is a teachers golf tourney score. --Eivind^t@c 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Userfy as per Kicking222. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PROF Kershner 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The "presenter for the Discovery Channel" might provide sufficient notability if it were "frequent", rather than "occasional", and if it could be verified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I doubt this is a true vanity page; I have been to the school at which he teaches and know the man. While I cannot comment on the validity of the stated reasons for notability (i.e. presenting on a famous TV channel), I doubt that he himself has written the article. I am almost certain, in fact, that the page (and the associated user account) was created by a pupil of the school; a pupil who probably thought he was being undoubtedly witty and hilarious. And finally, it is not entirely unreasonable that he had, in fact, presented a television programme. As many have stated, however, this is not enough for an article, and he is as famous as several other teachers from said school. --Masud 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am pretty certain he didn't personally create this page, and you need to take into account that the pupils at the school will continue to vandalize the page as long as it is here. I also don't think that being an occasional presenter for the Discovery Channel is enough to warrant an article - how many others have their own page? Paddyohale 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What's the harm anyway?! schuldy 17:34, 22 June 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Summers

Doesn't meet inclusion guidelines at WP:BIO —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:36, 9 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, Petros471 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Auger Martel 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What? His desk was used by previous governors? Surely not! W guice 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SomeStranger^(t|c) 18:55, 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 keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chubby Killer

Was prodded, editor removed prod without explaination now comes to Afd, nn notable film not yet released googled as in production, no Alexa traffic rank.--Dakota ~ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At this time I withdraw the Afd nom seeing a sufficient concensus of opinion to keep. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as nom, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball WP:NOT.--Dakota ~ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; the movie was in post production as of February. In addition, I see 160,000 Google results for the movie. Lastly, there are many movies not yet released that have articles (e.g. Believe It or Not, scheduled to be released in 2009). joturner 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment However, I must not that the article is poorly written. But that's not reason for deletion. joturner 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was listed as to be released by IMDB Feb. 2006 and Oct. 2006 by Yahoo movies, had no Alexa rank and was previously deleted June 17, 2006 so is actually a recreate.--Dakota ~ 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The 17 June deletion was for an empty article, so the fact that the article has been written with content added does not violate the recreate policy. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Week keep We kept Snakes on a Plane. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Fangoria article cited counts as outside coverage, so between that and the IMDB article, I think we've got enough evidence that the movie exists and is in post-production. Close enough to release that we're not invoking the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Movie actually exists and is verifyable (unlike Shrek 4). Actual release is too high a bar to set. (No one would recomend deleting Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest would they?) Eluchil404 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it exist and is verifiable too Yuckfoo 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Rrgfilms has been temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing the AFD notice from this article, and the notice has been restored. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am not keen on any pre-release films being given an article but, in addition, there is no assertion of notability. BlueValour 03:12, 23 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 this content does get merged somewhere let me know so I can undelete the history. W.marsh 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnecular bond

This concept exists only within a not (or marginally) notable fringe theory, how to fuel cars with water. Please delete, eventually adding a line to History of perpetual motion machines. --Pjacobi 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. A fringe theory may in some cases be notable (not that this necessarily is), but not a part of it. Zarniwoot 19:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete nonsense. No theoretical chemist, and I am one, would have a bar of it. --Bduke 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• I demand equal attention to my theory of the Ridicular bond (with a tentative theoretical interpretation based on the new species of Lambiam ridicules). Here is a quote from another equally revolutionary theory of the same pfysicist: In this note, we propose, apparently for the first time, a new type of controlled nuclear fusion called "intermediate" because occurring at energies intermediate between those of the cold and hot fusions, and propose a specific industrial realization.[26] That having been said, I'm afraid that this magneculous theory has some degree of notability, not as much as perpetua mobilia and antigravity of course, but perhaps enough to warrant an article. If someone has access to Springerlink they may want to summarize a review in Foundations of Physics of Santilli's Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry on which this all is tentatively based. --Lambiam^Talk 23:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. New woo theories should try to explain the basics first in a central article (HHO gas would do, but redirects to Yull Brown anyway, which doesn't tell anything that makes sense yet either), then the particularities take root in sub-topics. Femto 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense.--MichaelMaggs 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's in contradiction with the theory of the Deletium Principle. linas 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge my new version, darn it all, with Water fuel cell; note well that Ruggiero Maria Santilli is prone to found "journals" in order to self-publish his own cranky papers. Alas, he has at least three websites with enough visibility on the crank web that this is likely to pop up again. None of us needs the grief which would result, but I see a real need for a searchable cranksite database to help us keep track of what I see as a kind of shilling via obscure multiple identities, crank journals masquerading as mainstream (see Journal of Scientific Exploration where I could use some support).---CH 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Or maybe merge with this draft. Santilli appears adept at self-promotion and he does have a presence among the new energy cranks, so there may be some value on attempting to provide some kind of links to debunking sites.---CH 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Move and merge with draft into Ruggero Maria Santilli. (Keeping a redirect from magnecular bond seems unnecessary, as it's unlikely there's any time soon going to be need for linking this title from articles that are not related to this guy.) Femto 12:01, 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 speedy deleted by Fang Aili, recreated, re-speedied by me and then protected. It's time this three ring circus left town. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaka (The Lion King)

Most of the text came from Kopa. Also, I can't find any reliable information about this Lion King character. Starionwolf 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this and keep Kopa. The difference in name is unexplained. Note the author has been removing the AfD notice and blanking the Kopa article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: On this page, the author replaced Chaka with Kopa. Apparently, he wants us to unknowingly delete Kopa but keep Chaka. --Starionwolf 21:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to be the result of some desperate user's fanfiction. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the user is a blatant vandal. Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing in The Lion King universe called Chaka. Chris1219 05:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (Edited Chris1219 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I've edited my post. ^^ Chris1219 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per db-blanked, CSD G7 and CSD A1 - Author blanked the page. --Starionwolf 16:09, 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. lots of ghits for "wunderland" none of which are this company. Fails WP:CORP, no evidence of notability in the article --++Lar: t/c 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wunderland

I just can't see how this passes WP:CORP. UsaSatsui 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. W guice 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A video arcade chain with five locations does not pass WP:CORP. DrunkenSmurf 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Satori Son 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. No ghits except mirrors of us. Consensus seems clear, funny comments or no. --++Lar: t/c 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyper super dyslexia

Dyslexia makes no mention of this variant and a quick search on the internet also turns up nothing. I think that this is not a recognised variant and hence is not worthy of an encyclopaedia article RicDod 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per what RicDod said. also blatantly stupid W guice 21:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete reads like patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When I saw this article on Wikipedia I thought I had come down with some form of Hyper Super Dyslexia

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as whatever that CSD is that is all internal or external links. Kotepho 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Bible

Totally inappropriate use of wikipedia. We do not need a list of 36,000 redirects. Nor do we need a list of lists of redirects that together constitute 36,000 redirects. Clinkophonist 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this and all of the below. Biblecruft. ~ trialsanderrors 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. I find it rather sad that someone has spent so much time on something so pointless, but then I guess I'm an old softy! BlueValour 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. it's like a red-link massacre out there W guice 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wow, just wow. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all "List of chapters and verses" articles below per nom. SomeStranger^(t|c) 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all similar listings below - there are plenty of full text Bible sites, WP doesn't need to be another one. NawlinWiki 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this and all the other lists. I have never seen so many redlinks. skorpion 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete any good Bible will have this in it (smirks to self). Jammo (SM247) 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Damn, uh... I guess someone's on a mission here. Just the same, delete this one and all the related ones listed below. (I thought about pasting "delete" to every single one of them, but honestly? I don't have the perseverance displayed by the creator of these articles...) -- Captain Disdain 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• KILL with EXTREME prejudice. Or just DELETE. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 00:35, 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 Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Gospel of Matthew

Its a list of 2000 articles. All of which are redirects to Gospel of Matthew. Clinkophonist 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, some of them go elswhere (i.e. to events described in the Gospel of Matthew), but concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:13, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in 1 Esdras

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:14, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in 2 Esdras

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:14, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in 1 Maccabees

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:15, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in 2 Maccabees

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:16, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Tobit

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:17, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Judith

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:18, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Wisdom

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:18, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in Ecclesiasticus

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:19, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Baruch

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:19, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Story of Susanna

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:20, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in Bel and the Dragon

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:20, 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 deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and verses in Second Chronicles

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. BlueValour 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. W guice 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur absolutely. Jammo (SM247) 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• OMG my screens gone red. Speedy Delete, (to quote ' & Captain Disdain) Damn, uh..... Wow, just wow. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)