Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 1

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. Tawker 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholl

Sadly doesn't fit any CSD criteria (perhaps A6?), but it is still wholly inappropriate. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I deny any wrong doing. Equendil 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or Userfy Even though I have to squint a little to see it, I'll buy the A6 argument. Maybe A7, too. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:12, 1 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 all. TheProject 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 123456789 (number)

non-notable number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the same reason:

• 1023456789 (number)
• 1234567890 (number)
• 12345678987654321 (number)
• 987654321 (number)
• 9876543210 (number)

• • Comment All have only one property listed, while WP:NUM suggests at least 3. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. The concept is well-covered at Pandigital number; there's no need for articles on these examples, and I see little room for article growth. ×Meegs 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I agree, numbers only deserve articles when they have a certain number of special properties. Pixelanteninja 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I agree - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to pandigital number, I've added them there. Hoof38 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We do have a precedent for redirecting absurdly large numbers to the appropriate parent article. I still think a delete would be better. (Do we now have to resubmit this to WP:RfD? What if the change to a redirect is reverted?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, this is covered at Pandigital number, not needed in its own article unless it has notability. --Terence Ong 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Melchoir 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the redirects. I thought this should be at RfD until I saw it had been changed after appearing here. The redirects won't hurt people, and strangely enought, mathematicians or others might go to see '123456789'. However, Rename to exclude the 'number' from the end of the article/redirect name. Also, cure all the double and even triple redirects (ie: 123456789 which goes to 123,456,789 which goes to 123456789 (number) which now goes to pandigital number (aye aye aye)). Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all number pages (including redirects) created by Hoof38 since 29-May-2006. Having looked at his other contributions, reversions of vandalism etc. I think we can assume good faith, he just made an error in judgement about the need for these articles. Paddles ^T_C 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all they don't deserve their own article space The Halo (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as above Trebor 11:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Chuck. At least redirect 123456789, but you could delete the rest if you like. JeffBurdges 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as nom. Beno1000 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -Big Smooth 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no use to the encyclopedia. --Xyrael ^T 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Base-dependent mathematical properties are generally considered not as interesting as base-independent ones. Anton Mravcek 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not interesting enough to be worth an entry, as pandigital numbers are obvious by inspection. I'm not sure the following hypothetical danger is worth worrying about, but if we did not delete them we would be setting a precedent for allowing, say, robotic generation of millions of redirects; e.g. 1023456789000001--redirect Pandigital number; 1023456789000002--redirect Pandigital number; 1023456789000003--redirect Pandigital number; etc. Oops, did I just violate WP:BEANS? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per nom. Crazynas 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all The only useful redirect here is 123456789 to [[Pandigital number; we can reconsider when it's needed as a year. Septentrionalis 18:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. No redirect needed except perhaps for the smallest base 10 pandigital. PrimeFan 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect 123456789. It's somewhat special number, and the reader might not know the pandigital number term, so there's some point in this redirect. Delete all others, as completely useless (123456789 gives 2.5 million google hits, others times less). CP/M 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect 123456789 (and possibly 1234567890), if only for the surprise factor: I can imagine some kid actually typing this into the "Search" box, and I like the notion that he or she would actually get a real response, one that might teach 'em something. The rest can go into the bit bucket. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, per WP:NUM. I'm undecided about redirecting them. (I like Calton's point though.) Grandmasterka 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, although I notice 3 now has the added property of being "the number of special properties, under which the article on that number on Wikipedia will be deleted. TheProject 03:09, 2 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. Sango123 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubya Dubya Three

Non-notable neologism -- violates WP:NEO Morton devonshire 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable and little point in keeping -- Tawker 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Karl Rove 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OK, that article just puzzled me to no end, it's so weird... --Bill (who is cool!) 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. I was also quite puzzled. But no matter what, it was jsut an nn neologism. -- Kicking222 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- a weird part of me almost thinks it might be better to simply slap in a redirect to World War III, as redirects are cheap and harmless, but honestly, I can't really see anyone who wants to read about WW3 typing in "dubya dubya three" instead... Anyone dumb enough to do so probably couldn't read the article anyway. -- Captain Disdain 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. jni 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly. (If you think the article's disconnected, try the talk page). Vizjim 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism (and yeah, it's a bit odd) Trebor 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable neologism. JIP | Talk 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless WP:NOT article: neologism, little more than dicdef, no sources. Шизомби 12:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a soapbox and nn neologism.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Odd neologism, no sources. Grandmasterka 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WW3 --999 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agreed, non-notable neologism. --Northmeister 03:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Carr

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Border history of Romania

This article just appears to be a map gallery. Although I like the pictures, it is by no means an encyclopedic article—it doesn't even have a single paragraph in it. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Might I add: what the hell does "border history" mean? Dahn 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless it is expanded it's pointless for its own article, "border history" means what it says, the history of a countrie's boarders, as they changed due to war and such. Pixelanteninja 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SM247 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Clean up or Delete. It seems to be somewhat notable to Romanian history, but the different maps make it confusing. If someone can find a way to make it less of a clump of crazy pictures, I'll give my vote to keep it, if not, get rid of it. Sens08 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it's bad in its current state, but the topic is plenty notable and verifiable. ScottW 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ScottW. I guarantee within a week it will have plenty of text; the Romanian portal is very active. Teke 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for Romanian history. Could stand a bit of Clean up, though, but that's not a good enough reason to delete it. I suspect TKE is right; give it a month or two and the article will probably improve. --BrownHornet21 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --ManiF 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic. --Terence Ong 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just becuase there is no explanation of the pictures, doesn't mean this shouldn't exist. Tobyk777 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but explanation for the should be given quickly. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all,
  • or include text and keep only the images depicting the situation after Romania was created (19th century), otherwise the title is misleading.
  • or change the title to "former states and administrative units on the territory of present-day Romania" or something similar, and include an academic quality text including Visigoths, Celts, Huns, Kumans, Magyars, etc. --KIDB 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that the article can be cleaned up and more text included, such as more detailed reasons as to the changes. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic at present. However, I will change my vote if the cleanup is carried out satisfactorily. Vizjim 10:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The sequence of maps makes perfect sense to me. Clear, interesting and definitely encyclopaedic. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikimedia Commons --Yakudza 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keeping toghether all maps linked with a country or territory is welcomed however I vote for deletion until the title is changed to something more appropriate --fz22 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Evolution of the territory is naturally already present in History of Romania and sub articles Dacia, Roman Dacia, Romania in the Dark Ages, Romania in the Middle Ages, Early Modern Romania, National awakening of Romania, Kingdom of Romania, Romania during World War II, Communist Romania, Romania since 1989, where maps are or can be related to historical events. On the other hand, the perspective is different. I can't decide between delete and keep. If the article is kept, please consider moving to a less confusing title such as Romanian territory through history, and at the very least write an introduction). Equendil 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, rename might be wise, whatever. JeffBurdges 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it could definitely become encyclopaedic with a bit of clean-up Trebor 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, great maps, just needs a clean up. --Guinnog 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Romania, it's borders and the history thereof is clearly notable. Markb 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and use the maps as useful illustrations to other historical articles. Zello 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Some information is more easily conveyed by pictures. Having them together tells a story; sending them into separate historical articles would not. These pictures would create clutter and size/scrolling problems anywhere they might be merged to. Agree that it needs somewhat more introduction. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since whatever useful it contains belongs to the numerous articles on the History of Romania. KissL 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article might be a map gallery at the current moment, but this only mean that we have to improve it, not to delete it. More text should be added to explain maps, and then article would be decent one. PANONIAN (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination. Also vey hard to reach (links only from talk pages, wiki logs and things like that). Anonimu 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article, move pictures to Commons and create a page or category there for them; add links to the Romania or History of Romania article. – Alensha 寫 词 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up, possibly rename, but the information is useful and the topic seems reasonable. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Don't delete what can be fixed, expanded and turned into a decent article. --Zoz (t) 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment exactly what Zoz said. Teke 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikimedia Commons, since it's just a map gallery. 69.118.97.26 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, if someone comes back and writes an article then good Crazynas 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep change title, and clean up. It certainly needs text, but maps are a great way to convey information. This would be a useful adjunct to History of Romania.--Pastafarian Nights 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good layout of maps, and definately needs to be split from an article. Maybe rename to something more intuitive, and make sure it is linked from History of Romania. Aguerriero (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , it is a picture gallery and not an article. Luftburger 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - currently not useful, but certainly a significant topic. fel64 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some of the pictures really belong in History of Romania, which needs more meat to it. This is redundant with that. Grandmasterka 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up-although it is a "picture gallery" for the moment, I think that it is a good start for creating an article. We should keep this and expand on it. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be cleaned up and have more info to go along with the photos WCX 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. BODI
• Delete, agree with KIDB. Olessi 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and userfied. Mailer Diablo 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Seed

Vanity article created by subject. Producer on the radio. Kinda notable, but not particularly. Ordinarily I would be inclusionist enough to let it stay, but with the vanity aspect, I have to propose Delete and Userfy - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: He's a local radio producer. I don't find that extremely notable in and of itself. --Hetar 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yanksox 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds noteable enough. I added some useful categories. TruthbringerToronto 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fledgeling 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete and userfy per nom. DVD+ R/W 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about Merge into the guy's user page? Is that what Userfy means? --BrownHornet21 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, so that didn't take long. I cut 'n' paste the article to his formerly blank user page (let me know if that's a Wikipedia no-no). My vote is Delete for now, until he becomes a big star and we can all say we knew him back when. --BrownHornet21 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Userfy per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per nom. Clearly vanity... notability is possible, but if he is notable enough, then someone else will create an article about him sooner or later. Comment Do we need to do anything about Blunt Youth Radio Project? Also unsure about edits made to WMPG (as User:Kerryseed and User:72.224.164.251) which have improved the structure but added vanity too. Don't want to encourage vanity, but don't want to be too delete-happy. Paddles ^T_C 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I see the page has already been userfied. Molerat 10:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Trebor 11:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per nom. Xyrael ^T 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep. Carr
• 'Delete per nom. It is possible that some of the subject's work may be notable in other contexts, but we shouldn't allow vanity pages. --Cedders^tk 17:49, 7 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 & delete. Sango123 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard C. Beaudreau

Vanity article created by subject. Published economist. Kinda notable, but the two books are appropriately obscure. Ordinarily I would be inclusionist enough to let this one stay as well, but with the vanity aspect, I have to propose Delete and Userfy - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and userfy to User:BernieBeau. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. --Ezeu 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete. --Terence Ong 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete as above. Trebor 11:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• abstain I can't find out much about his publications. [1] JeffBurdges 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 18:38, 1 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 transwiki. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tahdiq

Wikipedia is not for instructions (see WP:NOT). -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about the dish would be fine, but a recipe is unencyclopedic. DVD+ R/W 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah... that's a recipe. -- Kicking222 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, proposed transwiki to Wikibooks. --Terence Ong 03:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT how-to Trebor 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is still not a cookbook. JIP | Talk 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• TransWiki Wikibooks Crazynas 18:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• TransWiki Wikibooks--Pastafarian Nights 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• TransWiki to the recipe Wiki (whatever it's called) —Mets501^talk 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• TransWiki to that cookbook wiki, if it exists. No cookbook wiki? Delete Doesn't belong on here. Kevin_b_er 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an attack page and non-notable biography. -- Kjkolb 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bo'jangles

All signs point to a non-notable bio article. The article gives no reason for his supposed Internet celebrity, neither does Google. Crystallina 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just some forum member. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This would be a speedy candidate if the highly POV claims were not theoretical assertions of notability. -- Kicking222 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Based on some searching, the TS forum named is Teknoscape, which Alexa describes as a "Perth clubbing and raving resource" and which has a ranking of 261,000. The forum is nn, and so is someone whose only claim to fame is his activities there. Fan1967 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page has to be a joke - "The young trooper completed his service in a period of remarkable peacetime and was thus sadly never shot in anger. " --BrownHornet21 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete--Peta 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bill Robinson. 23skidoo 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable biography and attack page as the last paragraph. Possible redirect to Bill Robinson although the apostrophe in the middle makes it less likely as a search term. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Hey, I'm am notable contributor to some online forums, when do I get my WP article? :) Paddles ^T_C 06:27, 1 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. Sango123 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doolox

Vapourware, ie. non-existent software. As well as removing the prod, the author removed the link to the "Doolox web site" which says it all. -- RHaworth 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I hates ze vapourware. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The web site really does say it all. -- Kicking222 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website, spam. --Terence Ong 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 06:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Molerat 10:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Trebor 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, vapourware. JIP | Talk 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. CP/M 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page.  RasputinAXP  c 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinsmeistering

Neologism, no Google results. Enough said. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Google has its limits:

• Check the Washington Post's recent editorial using the word "Zinmeister"
• http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002610767

Newly discovered political tactics will, necessarily, involve new words, e.g. Coingate

rewinn 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)rewinn

• The site you linked to has no reference to the word "Zinsmeistering"... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Still a non-notable neologism. -- Kicking222 01:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• This story in Editor&Publisher mentions the neologism, but cites Wikipedia as a basis. Talk about bootstrapping! Too cool a precedent not to set.
• "Page does not exist" Vizjim 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A6 attack page and per all above. Paddles ^T_C 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I know an 8-year-old who makes up words, too. I'm not putting him on Wikipedia either. Tychocat 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, attack page. Vizjim 10:26, 1 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 delete as "blindingly obvious and nonsalvageable nonsense" (and WP:SNOW. JDoorjam Talk 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew E. Gibson

Obvious hoax and nonsense, but the article It does make some assertions of notability, so perhaps a speedy deletion would not be appropriate here. (Not that I would object, obviously.) Captain Disdain 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. -- Captain Disdain 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I can't think of what speedy criteria it meets, but it has to meet something. Why is "obvious hoax" NOT a CSD? -- Kicking222 01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't know what I was thinking -- I just reread the article and whatever serious-looking stuff I imagined I saw there most definitely only exists in my imagination. I put it up for speedy deletion, and good goddamn riddance... I can't imagine it not being speedily deleted as blindingly obvious and nonsalvageable nonsense. Sorry to waste your time. =) -- Captain Disdain 01:49, 1 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. Sango123 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanities magnet

Is this really at all notable on its own? It doesn't seem to provide any reasons for it, and would seem more useful merged and redirected to the Highschool's main article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea to post a magnet program in Wikipedia especially when it should be recognized. for example, it is a college prep program that has helped many people. I believe that it can stand alone because there is and will be enough information to support it and back it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrazeLooney (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of promoting the recognition of anything, however deserving. Wikipedia is about things that have achieved recognition already. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete CSD A8 copyvio. Schools are notable, but not as crufty as it is. If it detailed more about the actual school instead of blurb and a bell schedule, it could be a good article. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete May be notable but including a timetable is a strict no-no. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete might be notable, but current article reeks of advertising. Paddles ^T_C 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (and current article very POV) Trebor 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is useless, and subject not notable enough to justify trivial info. CP/M 22:40, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-cut trailers

The article is unencyclopedic, contains original research, is poorly formatted, has little value other than a farm of links to videos. It belongs more on something like ebaumsworld, not on Wikipedia. CSA956 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR, "poorly formatted" is not a reason why you should nominated the article for AFD. --Terence Ong 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with cleanup and cites required, I'm not certain that this is OR. Paddles ^T_C 06:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with "Internet Phenomenon", assuming the Internet Phenomenon article holds water. The Recut Trailers article appears to describe a genuine occurrence, but I don't think it's worth the button-collecting of examples on top of examples of flash-in-the-pan momentarily notable movies. Tychocat 08:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with major cleanup and expansion. This has become a legitimate phenomenon, starting with the "Brokeback to the Future"/"Top Gun: Brokeback Squadron" thing, and has since exploded, with coverage at The Onion's AV Club. As "Trailer mashup," which is how I know them as and what the title likely should be, we see more coverage at BoingBoing, Wired, The Guardian to name a few. More than meets basic notability standards, easily verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Striped bass - These things seem notable enough to me. I don't know how well a merge with Internet phenomenon would go because that article is more of a list than an article. --Cyde↢Weys 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. ScottW 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've seen these kinds of videos before, as long as the article is kept clean I see no problem here. This should probably be Kept the same reason List of shock sites was.--Andeh 15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff and Cyde↢Weys. Could do with improvement, though. Molerat 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff Aguerriero (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Re-cut trailer is an accepted term, that's enough for inclusion.CP/M 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable internet fad. The article does need some work, though. Ace of Sevens 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What's the original research? Darquis 05:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff, this is a notable enough subject for coverage. Yamaguchi先生 15:51, 5 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. Sango123 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spotlight Toronto

Undeleted and listed here per request of page author. Article consists of some background on and a weblink to an independent Toronto entertainment website. Deizio talk 01:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is completely (and I mean from first word to last word) a blatant advertisement. Spotlighttoronto.com has an Alexa ranking of around 405,000. The article is very unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. Paddles ^T_C 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per advertising. Tychocat 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Molerat 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Trebor 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Guinnog 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. It worked though, I live in Toronto and hadn't heard of them till this -- Samir धर्म 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222 and Samir. Grandmasterka 01:22, 2 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 and move to Buffyverse canon. Discussion of a merger can continue on the talk page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse canonical issues

Novel research and wikipedia is not a platform to discuss these issues, non of the cited references (except for some cited forum discussions) gives convincing evidence that something like this exists. Should probably at least be moved to the Buffyverse project pages. Koffieyahoo 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Buffyverse. Does contain a bit of OR but the author seems to have put in quite some work to write & atleast try to reference it. Merge it with the Buffyverse pages & if references still don't turn up soon, then deletion should be considered. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Buffyverse. I don't think a daughter article is required. Paddles ^T_C 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Buffyverse. Were people writing stuff like this about Doc Savage, back in the day? Vizjim 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon, so that it mirrors (very) similar articles like Star Wars canon and Star Trek canon - CNichols 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Buffyverse. Interesting to BtVS fans, but doesn't seem sufficiently distinct for a page of its own. Espresso Addict 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon, as per CNichols. Carioca 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Star Wars and Star Trek have canon articles. Why not Buffy? Ace of Sevens 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The difference with the Star Wars and Star Trek canons is that those are much more established. While, if I look at the Buffy canon I essentially see one relevant quote/reference:

    Joss Whedon was asked How much attention do you pay to the peripheral stuff, the novels and the comics?. Speaking of those he did not write himself, he responded Not very much. I just don’t have time. I give them a few guidelines of things they should stay away from, things that we’re going to be dealing with or things that would disrupt the canon or things that are just antithetical to what I believe in.

  From my point of view no evidence (in the form of references) is provided that the canon as mentioned in the page is actually the canon. -- Koffieyahoo 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon - A Buffyverse 'canon' is still referred to by people all the time; by the shows' creator, by writers who have written for Buffy/Angel, by people who have written for the Buffyverse Expanded Universe (books and comics), and by fans all over the world. It is true that the Star Wars canon and Star Trek canonare more clearly established and defined whilst the Buffyverse canon is a bit more fluid. However should wikipedia be discounting articles just because they deal with topics that are hard to define.

"From my point of view no evidence (in the form of references) is provided that the canon as mentioned in the page is actually the canon."

"essentially see one relevant quote/reference"

Is deletion really neccessary just because the article is presently insufficiently referenced. Why not let the article be improved - there are plenty of sources that discuss Buffyverse canon on the web, for example here is Mariotte's take on canon from Comicbookresources.com:

"Fans should be careful not to treat the comic as the "official" continuation of the franchise, as Mariotte explained. "Typically only what appears on the screen is considered canonical. If the original property's creator writes something -- like Joss writing comics about his own characters -- then I guess you can consider it canon even though it's on page instead of screen."

There are plenty of quotes from Pocket Books writers, Dark Horse comics, IDW writers.. who have commented on 'canon', and such quotes can be used to reference the article. I would be willing to improve the referencing over the next few weeks.

Merging with Buffyverse is one option, but won't it make the 'Buffyverse' article unneccessarily long? -- Paxomen 02:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon as per above. --Merovingian {T C @} 02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - We also need to keep in mind that this article is of direct importance to many Buffyverse-related pages. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Buffyverse_canonical_issues: the page is linked to around a few hundred other wiki-pages. -- Paxomen 01:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon - As mentioned above, the referencing is inadequate in places but can be improved within the next few weeks (I too will be willing to help with this task). -- Buffyverse 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Buffyverse canon - This can help in crease the size of the article and help it fit in with convention. -- Majin Gojira 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Buffyverse, trim the unnecessary bits and tidy up the OR bits. NP Chilla 11:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon as per above Markeer 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon --Wolfmoon 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, per other voters.--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:29, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Trip

Non-notable book by a non-notable author (Brad Norman) who is himself the subject of an AfD – Ezeu 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Norman

• Delete per nom. Note that User:192.197.71.189 deleted AfD tag from Brad Norman and may attempt to do the same on this article. Paddles ^T_C 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn from vanity press (Lulu). Tychocat 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Trebor 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Pastafarian Nights 20:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn self publishing ccwaters 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it! I don't see why this author should be treated any different from any other published author. His book was published, has sold many copies, and is sold over various vendors including Amazon. Just because he is not yet well known doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article. I googled the guy and there's piles of articles and whatnot about him. I say the article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.71.189 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 June 2006.
• Delete Same reason as Brad Norman entry: Amazon.com Sales Rank: None, Yesterday: None ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• The sales rank is none because it is currently unavailable for order. And whether it sold 1, or 1 million copies, it is still a book and should be entitled to the same priveleges as any other book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1987 (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006.

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria ccwaters 16:20, 3 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, delete, delete. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europa (warcraft)

This looks like nn fancruft to me... What do you all think? Dakart 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question from Original Article Creator What does nn fancruft mean... many people I know on warcraft appreciate this article.. besides it was made yesterday so give me time it's my first article, I'm trying to make it nice. Specifically though this article is appreciated by Clan xEHU which is a thing I mentioned in the article, also tell me if it does not fit wikipedia standards and why please01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like Non- notable fancruft to me, but id does look well-done. Still... Fledgeling 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Its been up for less then a day... besides its my first article and I'm trying to learn how to do this stuff. (still what does non-notable fancruft mean then..) Zach 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Oh yes, thanks for compliment I thought it would be crappy and it needs pictures. Hey wait a second I just found a Don't bite the newcomers policy >< Zach 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like you spent a lot of time and effort into it. Looks like it hasn’t been explained to you what non-notable and fancruft is, which isn’t fair to you. To he best of my knowledge, it means... that this was created by a fan and goes into too much detail for something that is relatively insignificant to the workings or parts of the game... um well I mean is that if “article may only be understandable by people who play Warcraft 3 or people who solely play the map itself and possibly StarCraft” that is very few people would be interested in unless you directly played the map, and if you did so, you probably know all of that anyway. Fledgeling 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: When your article starts with a disclaimer that says, "Note: this article may only be understandable by people who play Warcraft 3 or people who solely play the map itself and possibly StarCraft" you know you have a serious problem. While I recognize that this may be the creator's first attempt at creating an article, they should definately read WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:NOT. This type of an article is much more welcome over at Wowiki. --Hetar 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This isnt related to World of Warcraft ...at all its for Warcraft 3, plus I put that there as a warning, it is a map specifically in that game only and I wouldn't want people to waste their time reading it then if they wouldn't be able to understand it (plus its not like it does anything bad to Wikipedia .. the article title specifically relates to Warcraft then a map inside of the game I doubt anyone else would need that same title for an article when they could just make edits to it because it would have to relate to the subject I'm talking about...Plus I don't think it would do any harm to you guys who want it deleted anyways.. Zach 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Hetar. I'm not biting, but you know it's got to go when an article outright states it can't be verified. Fluit

03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I know of no known published source that could verify the article, plus people do NOT have to believe it. People of warcraft though could possibly use this article for tips on how to play the map. On warcraft though it generally seems though if a person is a noob at the game, and this map being complicated, they may get frustrated and not want to play it and could come to this and learn how to play. I'll put the believing statement in my disclaimer even more so people do not have to accept it as the outright truth. If they wish to truly know that it is correct they will do independent research. (Unsigned comment by ShadowZach)Oh, sorry I forgot that part its not really habit yet.. Is there something I could change in this article to make it fit Wikipedia standards?..I don't really understand why its been nominated for deletion.

• Comment Could be useful to a small number of gamers. I'm sure you could find any number of free sites where you can post this freely. This is just the wrong place for something like that. Fan1967 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft. Fan1967 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Once again I ask what does fancruft mean and a new question now what does gamecruft mean.. I cannot reformat the article to meet the standards if I do not know what it means..Zach 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Also, this is the only well-known source I know of that could be a home to this material, I have no idea of other sites that would welcome this length of information stated in that article.Zach 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete CSD A7. NN fancruft. Look up what "cruft" means on a regular dictionary, then attach that to "fan" and "game". Basically, a really really bad article that only fans could appreciate or that pertains to a game. There is no way for you to fix this, because this does not belong to Wikipedia since it violates our policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT). You also say it yourself: "this is the only well-known source I know of that could be a home to this material". Wikipedia is not your personal webspace; get a free one such as Geocities or find a friend who will host it for you, or shell out with your own money for it. Sorry that your first article turns out like this, but we are an encyclopedia that serves the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Your article simply is not notable enough to the general population to matter. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I looked it up in Wiktionary and still dont understand what it means.. does it mean false or something?Zach 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia has a nice article on fancruft, which explains it fairly clearly. A single custom map for a game falls under this to such an extent that I do not see why it should avoid deletion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this should have probably taken place on talk pages, but oh well Wiktionary:cruft Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reply There are a decent amount of articles which are a specific custom map for Warcraft 3. Look under the popular map section in Warcraft 3And I do not see the ones I have looked at been suggested for deletion. I view this as hypocritical and also you guys are not telling me what exactly is wrong with my article. I have been a wiki-member for less then 2 days and yet you critisize my article without telling me exactly how to change it to make it fit the standards, also if you dislike it enough you will make the edits yourself. I've been trying to change it to fit what standards I know of but still receive delete comments.Zach 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I actually have gone through all the other maps section of warcraft 3 and find none of them but my own being recommended for deletion. They are all custom maps for a single game. The worse I found in a article was a cleanup request and a request to verify references. This is actually relevant to my article but it was actually recommended for deletion while the other was not.Zach 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment But you see, that's the POINT. We CAN'T edit it because we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about it since it is so non-notable. We are telling you what is exactly wrong with the article. We are deleting it because it's the SUBJECT MATTER that is the problem here, not merely the article itself. Thus, you cannot change anything about it. We understand that you are a new user and we are not criticizing you for this. We want to help you understand this process; however, despite the fact that you are a new member, the article must go. If you want, I can make a WP:POINT and nominate all of the other articles for deletion. Actually, that would not be a bad idea, considering they all probably violate the same principles. I'll look into it tomorrow. *Yawn* I'm going to sleep now Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete due to WP:V and WP:V. I've elaborated on talk:Europa (warcraft). Gerry Ashton 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Give it Time I understand your arguments but you must understand this was requested for deletion for less then a day it was created and less then a day I made an account for Wikipedia. During the time I have left over from school, sleep, and other activites/responsibilities I do not have much time to work on the ariticle and make it acceptable to what little amount of standards I have learned in a very short amount of time. I will try to work on it to make it acceptable but I simply think it was requested for deletion to quickly and I will accept and consider requests that may be done to the article; if you think I will put your requested part in the article in a wrong way you can simply add it yourself; I will not change it.If you guys give me time I think I can make this article acceptable Zach 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subject of the article is unacceptable fancruft, no matter how much time and effort you spend on it. Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia is not a webhosting service for fan communities Bwithh 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• ANGRY Ok, seriously I am getting pissed off now. I have been given very little time to make this article acceptable and there is other articles like this. I am starting to find these comments hypocritical. If you wish to see other maps for Warcraft 3 go to Warcraft 3 and then on the table of contents thing and go to other maps. There will be a list of maps including the Europa one which I did not put there but added the link to my article. None of these articles since last I checked have been suggested for deletion which makes me think some of the comments said here are hypocritical while the other articles have been there for many weeks/months but this is unknown to me but I know they've been there for awhile. Compared to mine me a noob to Wikipedia have been given very little time to make this article acceptable. I know I am repeating but it seems like people aren't getting my point. Zach 04:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Calming I'm sorry you're getting "pissed off." The Wikipedia society is not attacking you. The term fancruft has nothing to do with the quality of the article. In fact, you wrote a great article and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Fancruft suggests that the article is only understandable by a small group people who know about the subject. NN stands for non-notable; this just means that the article's subject is not large/popular enough of a topic to merit a Wikipedia article. About those other maps, I plan on nominating them for deletion soon. There are other sites that are designed for this purpose. --Dakart 06:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed, the new editor deserves explanations when he asks questions. I mean, he's not a vandal or spammer as far as I can see, no reason not to assume good faith. Thanks Dakart for giving a good response. Paddles ^T_C 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Another newbie bitten. Silensor 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• And another newbie to whom a number of editors have been patiently trying to explain that Wikipedia has certain standards for articles, and his not only does not meet them but likely never will. I have long been bemused by the premise that WP:BITE requires us both never to contradict a newcomer or explain to him why Wikipedia's rules and guidelines apply to his own efforts. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 07:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRUFT. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete and clear case of cruft, I see no reason why there has been so much deliberation. SM247 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like the new editor has made a decent try, but it does seem to me to count as fancruft and hence not suitable for WP. I'd say the same applies to the other maps referred to earlier. Paddles ^T_C 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no serious reason for deliberation, but certainly reason not to piss him off. The article is getting better fast, which is certainly admirable. But the article's subject matter is not - just like we cannot have an article about the chair I am sitting in because it would be based entirely on me and not sources and because not enough encyclopedia-goers would be interested. Certainly a lot of WCiii gamers might be, but this does not warrant inclusion here, sorry. I sincerely hope you are not put of by this and I apologize if I have been rude, the last thing I want to do is run you off WP, you seem motivated, interested and capable. Lundse 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per the arguments above. Hope that the creator reads up on the policies that have been linked and continues to work on Wikipedia: also that he recreates this article elsewhere. Vizjim 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Cruft is a neologism, fancruft even more so, neither are widely used, it'd be nice if people explained these terms rather than assumed everyone is conversant in subculture jargon. --Coroebus 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. You're right (although I do think the word is wicked cool), especially newcomers should not be subjected to unnecesarry slang. We should have been better at explaining this term early on and/or providing a link - something to take note of for the welcome commitee. Lundse 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game map, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I can understand the confusion when other articles about specific maps are not deleted. Is there something different about those other maps, or is this just inconsistency. Trebor 11:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a user guide. Markb 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN fancruft. Beno1000 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is fairly consistant practice that mods and maps don't get articles unless they become enormously popular (ala Counterstrike). I also want to second what Coroebus and Lundse stated above. Nominating someone's article for deletion is likely going to irritate them from the start. When they come here and see arcane references like "nn" and "cruft" it doesn't do much to encourage them to continue involvement here, or even explain to them what the problem is. In my opinion, Lundse's deletion opinion is the right way to do things.--Isotope23 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment To the creator: just copy this article to specialized Warcraft wiki. You might also "userfy" it, moving to your own namespace, like User:ShadowZach/Europa. Overall, the article doesn't deserve deletion, but it's simply out of Wikipedia's scope and needs transwikiing. CP/M 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy / Transwiki it, then Delete per Hetar --Zoz (t) 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all video game trivia. Sandstein 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Other articles on video game maps have been kept, and recently (see de_dust, etc.) so there is precedent for well-written game map articles here. That being said, THIS article is an unholy mess, but it should have been tagged for cleanup and wikify before being brought here, especially when it was just created yesterday. Most articles are a work in progress and don't get spit out all sparkly on the first iteration. Aguerriero (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh Oh thats what fancruft means,I'll try to make more articles if I get any ideas..Zach 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

-Maybe I should make a popular wc maps section so its more able to relate to more people but it could also have a section about this.Zach 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) -Wow I just checked, someone nomianted all those sections to be deleted after I talked about them earlier, atleast this deletion is less hypocritical or at all now.

• Merge Into a List of maps in Warcraft article, delete cruft such as the section on "how to tell if someone's a noob"--Zxcvbnm 00:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETION Eh, screw it, it's overwhelmingly favor in deletion, I have article saved on Microsoft Word if I decide to bring it back when I'm more experienced with Wikipedia or if I hear several people wanting it back... I am going to delete this article unless others want it kept...Original Article Creator (its a waste of time to keep this deletion thing still here, its gonna be deleted...) Zach 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• I mean theres 1 keep besides me and the rest are deletion... it's obvious which side wins.Zach 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just don't take it personally. It's not that article is bad, it's just that the general opinion here is against keeping it in the namespace. I'm sure wowwiki or some gaming site will appreciate it, WP is simply too generic for it. CP/M 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - wikipedia is full of articles like this, I can't see any reason to delete it.--Pokipsy76 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Somone put it back up anyways... I guess I'll just wait till the article deletion suggestion thing is over.Zach 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah... On Wikipedia, you don't just delete the article. You have to nominate the article for deletion, people have to vote on it, then an admin will come and delete (if the majority of the votes say to delete) the article about 5 days after the nomination. --Dakart 01:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete: I don't think there should be a article for a map. You can't pick much out of it. Maybe, if there was a article with ALL MAPS for this game.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starmenclock (talk • contribs) .
• reply... Yeah an all maps section will never happen... theres THOUSANDS of maps for warcraft and about 99% of them arent even popular though, a popular map section would be better.Zach 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmmm ... if its 5 day article deletion my article will be deleted on 666.... so cruel ..Zach 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Zach, without denying that you are a major contributor to the article in question, remember that it is WP's article, not yours... see WP:OWN. Also, the five day counter for AfD discussion is approximate not precise - some articles are decided on quicker (speedy candidates), others can go for a week or longer. Paddles ^T_C 09:22, 6 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. Sango123 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin John Callanan

Does not meet the standards for notability as this photographer has not been published and received multiple independent reviews or awards for his work. In addition article is apparently a vanity page created and primarily edited by the subject. Note that Greyisgood is the same name as the photographer's official website. SteveHopson 01:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Notability questionable, but definitely vanity. Paddles ^T_C 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Based on Google hits and other things, I agree with the nominator that this person probably does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. --Rory096 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Advertising & self-promotion. I think it's his resume. Tychocat 09:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rory096.--Pastafarian Nights 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy WP is not an advertisement vehicle, the only possible place is user's page.
• Delete. Carr

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North District Town Hall

An advertisement for a venue. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable and non-redeemable, unless the place has some non-obvious cultural or historical significance that separates it from the thousands upon thousands other comparable venues in the world. -- Captain Disdain 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sez I. -- Captain Disdain 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Highly nn and a blatant ad. -- Kicking222 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oh, yeah. Tychocat 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. StuartF 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 11:34, 1 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 (by Marudubshinki). -- Kjkolb 06:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubcc

Non-notable forum. 0zymandias 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Keep - Is a notible forum connected to dubcnn.com, which is a news network for West Coast hip hop. --Ted87 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense (note that I didn't place the tag on the article). The thing is a mess which could not possibly be salvaged. It's an article about an insignificant web site (Alexa ranking of 368,750) which doesn't even try to assert notability. Even if the article actually said something comprehensible, the site would still fail WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria, nn forum. --Terence Ong 03:40, 1 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. Sango123 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Scott

Delete - this person may have been a Marine but the bio is an obvious lie, the gulf war incident never occured, the 6 purple hearts are also a fallacy. Individual in not notable enought to rate a page. It appears to be a page created by this person as a joke. Google search only shows websites that have scraped from this article.--Looper5920 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete-i agree with Looper5920, this bio is a definite lie, and seems to be a joke. It makes various fals claims such as "saving 80 Presidental guards". Thetruthbelow 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, but was this ever listed on the articles for deletion log? the intial entry is 14 April 2006, and no resolution yet, as of June 1st,2006 --Nobunaga24 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per al above. Paddles ^T_C 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't they send you home after 3? I agree that this article is probably a hoax. --Rory096 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment I can only find one fallacy for myself - the movie "Heartbreak Ridge" listed TWO people for military tech advisor and military liaison (both uncredited) and neither of them was Scott (see IMDB). There are some odd typoes (how could anyone connected with the military misspell "sergeant"?) and it's called Force Reconnaissance, not Elite Force Reconnaissance. I'm dubious about the article, but I'd like to know where others have documented facts to verify "lies", i.e., what's up with the Purple Hearts? Tychocat 09:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 15:51, 5 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 as CSD-G7, which it almost was. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle's Mall Tycoon Malls

This is a vanity page, devoted solely to tracking the progress of one person's video game endeavors. Pjorg 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Amazinglarry 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd like to vote speedy; while it doesn't really meet any speedy criteria, it should still be deleted as fast as can be. -- Kicking222 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 and possibly A1. Paddles ^T_C 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article does not meet any criterion in WP:CSD, as it is not a person, but it is certainly not notable nor encyclopaedic. --Rory096 07:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 09:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... since the author blanked the article it would appear they are possibly agreeable to the deletion. If someone wanted to contact the author they might get tacit approval for a CSD:G7. Right now I don't think it is a speedy candidate though.--Isotope23 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, {{db-blanked}} --Rory096 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Burn down the Malls! Dominick ^(TALK) 19:16, 1 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitter Like The Bean Records

No demonstrated notability since June 2005, delete--Peta 02:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is a very subjective thing, and I think this meets Wikipedia's fairly low threshhold for notability. --BrownHornet21 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Never a good sign when Wikipedia is the second Google hit. According to their website, "No one's touring...no one's playing." Opabinia regalis 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete their own website indicates lack of notability. Paddles ^T_C 07:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Was it even notable in 2005? Tychocat 09:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN as the nom says. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability asserted and nothing showing it elsewhere. Would be a speedy if {{db-bio}} were extended to include companies. Grandmasterka 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep It meets the low notablity threshold mentioned earlier. Nertz 05:16, 2 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. Sango123 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assemblies of God Jobs Online

NN, vanity. Google hits for '"assemblies of god jobs" -wikipedia -answers.com': 562. Moe Aboulkheir 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 - article indicates that the site itself is open only to a very limited number of people. Paddles ^T_C 07:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The alexa ranking was surprisingly high (low number;) close to 1,500,000! Of course, on Wikipedia, that's nowhere near enough. Grandmasterka 01:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Obvious spam.Fearwig 23:17, 4 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 all but Lipton Invitational Cup. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lipton Invitational Cup, Lipton Invitational Cup (basketball), Lipton Invitational Cup (volleyball), Lipton Invitational Cup (swimming), Lipton Invitational Cup (badminton), Lipton Invitational Cup (taekwondo)

School sports carnival and results unencyclopedic, delete--Peta 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as per nom Bwithh 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all unencyclopedic. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all above. Paddles ^T_C 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The main article, Lipton Invitational Cup may indeed be notable enough for an article, as it's sponsored by Lipton, an international company. The others probably are not worthy of their own articles, however. --Rory096 07:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Lipton Invitational Cup per Rory096, Delete or merge the rest of the articles are nn. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lipton Invitational Cup and improve it, Delete the rest. The Halo (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also like the idea of keeping the main page and deleting everything else, which are merely results pages. -- Kicking222 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Lipton Invitational Cup as a notable University-level national sporting event, delete the rest as insignificant results. Grandmasterka 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Lipton Invitational Cup, but delete the rest. Too bad we can't wikify to Wikisports to maintain the results. B.Wind 03:59, 2 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. —Xezbeth 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ytmnd mystery song

Notability is a mystery, seems to be an in-joke for a internet forum. hateless 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:BAND. --John Nagle 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Fancruft bollocks. Moe Aboulkheir 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. We just covered this topic in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery song this past week, although in fairness this article is more informative than the previous one. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete looks like G1 or A1 to me. Paddles ^T_C 07:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete While not an exact recreation, I see no reason to keep something validly AfDed just last week. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Belongs in the Ytmnd article. Not notable enough for its own article.--Andeh 10:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Molerat 10:46, 1 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 and protected from recreation by User:BorgQueen --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowscourge

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This was originally so far from claiming notability that I had tagged it with db-group. Seeing the tag the author has changed it some to try and make it look significant, so I am bringing here for community discussion. Yet another set of forums. So far off the scale that they can't afford their own hosting. Completely fails WP:WEB and reliable sources are nonexistant. Based on the above I am recommending delete. --Hetar 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Trash. Moe Aboulkheir 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The nom says it all- fails pretty much everything it can fail. It's also blatant advertisement. -- Kicking222 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete I'm the creator of this page, I'd like it to stay because I think everything should have an equal right to be on this site, and I apologize for deleting that notice above it, it's my first page and I wasn't sure wat to do. Shadowscourge is just a legidimate group on the opposite side of the scale of SuperShadow. As for my sources gentlemen, if u take the time to read certain elements on dtheatre.com, the story is right there for you to see. Sato Stars 11:36, May 31st 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems to have been speedy deleted, likely under a db-group. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note -- as at this daydatetime, the page appears already to have been deleted, rending this whole argument discussion moot. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's deleted now..--Andeh 10:03, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lahu churches

Survived a vfd cause noone voted. Article is unencyclopedic and unverified, delete--Peta 02:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete SM247 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep having seen GRBerry's rewrite. Paddles ^T_C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current article is poorly written, I'm going to try a fix. It probably will entail a rename. I've done a complete rewrite and replaced all article text - every sentence is now derived from a cited (or linked) source. The rename is needed, but I didn't have time for it. Part of the problem is the systemic bias of the internet. The Lahu are a generally rural ethnic group in an area of the world where there is limited internet acces. And, of course, the Christian portion in China would have even less access to the internet than most Chinese do. But, as per Christianity Today, Christian Lahu churches have been around since before World War II. GRBerry 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGRBerry has re-written artcle. Now seems to be a factual article about a small but interesting Christian denomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Johnson (talk • contribs).
• Keep The rewritten article by GRBerry is a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. Lahu Christianity itself is notable as an example of the complex links between religion and ethnic identity. Ngio 13:43, 2 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melonsoft

NN, vanity. Roughly 900 Google hits, and mentioned in 57 Usenet posts, as recorded by Google (mostly in the context press releases and signatures). The enthusiastic author of the article, User:Axios101, appears to be the employee "Scott Stevens", who is mentioned in the first paragraph (judging from the fact that his userpage says his name is Scott, links to melonsoft.com as well as photograph of himself that is hosted there). Delete. Moe Aboulkheir 02:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, vanity, advertising - whichever floats your boat. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 vanity with no assertion of notablity. Paddles ^T_C 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if expanded. Xyrael ^T 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability unclear, not wikified, sounds like an advertisement, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 00:42, 5 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. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Logging System Professional

NN, vanity, spam. 231 Google hits, excluding Wikipedia and Answers.com results. Moe Aboulkheir 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, spam. --Terence Ong 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SM247 06:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete this is a knowledge base for people to know how trackers work the100rabh 11:34, 3 June 2006 (IST)
• Strong Keep. Reasons below:
  1. Not vanity: all contents are verifiable through the softwares website: http://www.ulsp.info/. Moreover, technology of ULSP is, to some extent, unique among web-based programs. This makes ULSP noting-worthwhile and non-vanity.
  2. ULSP is notable: ULSP website's visit count is 1266810 since November 2005, and currently has 17314 users. It is known by most Xangans in Hong Kong. Previous vandalism content about how to attack the system [2] also gives evidence that ULSP is notable.
  3. Non-neutral does not mean should delete. Instead, they should be kept and improved.
  4. Please give evidence (link etc.) to show that you yielded only 231 Google hits. According to my search on Google Hong Kong with the keyword "Ultimate Logging System Professional | ULSP", 25,800 hits were found; whereas a Yahoo Hong Kong search of "ULSP" yielded 3,330 hits and a site category (Yahoo Hong Kong doesn't provide an "inclusive or" searching function between two multi-word keywords). As many articles and reviews about ULSP referenced the program using the initials "ULSP" instead of the full name "Ultimate Logging System Professional" and were written in Chinese, it is necessary for one to turn off the language filter and include the initials "ULSP" in the search in order to yield more balancing results.

  Therefore, I believe the nominator's argument does not hold owing to his lack of knowledge about the background of the program, and the article should be kept. --Deryck C. 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NN means "non-notable", not "non-neutral". With regard to your google-fu, ULSP is an acronym with a variety of uses (Ultra Low Special Products, University of Louisville Summer Program, Upson-Lee South Primary School, etc). Similarly, the words "ultimate", "logging", "system" and "professional" are, as I'm sure you know, extremely common. The exact query I used to produce the 231 number was "ultimate logging system professional" -wikipedia -answers.com, which now (several days later) yields only 196 results. Similarly, "ultimate logging system professional" alone only yields 251 results. Searching for ULSP xanga, and making the assumption that every single result is a reference to Ultimate Logging System Professional, then we get roughly 9,500 results. My vote - delete - still stands. Moe Aboulkheir 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, may be warranting {{advert}}. Isopropyl 12:45, 7 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. Sango123 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nintendo video game sports equipment and vehicles

Unenclcyopedic videogame list-cruft, delete--Peta 02:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SM247 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, smells like cruft to me. Opabinia regalis 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamelistcruft. Paddles ^T_C 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 10:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a Nintendudist list. Grandmasterka 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no purpose for this list. Ace of Sevens 11:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:30, 2 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. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillcrest Golf Course

Notability of golf course in Jamestown North Dakota not established. JChap 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are approximately 45 golf courses listed in the category Category:Golf clubs and courses in North Dakota. The articles I saw consisted of

The Hillcrest Golf Course is an 18-hole golf course located at 626 3rd Street Southeast Jamestown, North Dakota. It measures 6592 yards from the back tees.

None of these looks particularly notable. I cannot think of any reason we should keep any of them. Any way to expedite deleting all of them without tagging for a multiple delete? --JChap 03:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, it's just a stub. Give the article a chance to expand. --BrownHornet21 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article sat as it was for two full months, how much more chance does it need? Articles with far more work done on them are regularly deleted far sooner. Paddles ^T_C 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I wasn't the creator of these golf course articles, I am an active member of WikiProject North Dakota and I see no reason to delete any or all of these articles which we could greatly expand in the near future. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Paddles ^T_C 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article makes no claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to the Golf Clubs of North Dakota. -- GWO
• Delete along with the other North Dakota golf stubs, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. I don't see those stubs being expanded in the foreseeable future either. Equendil 10:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what little is here to the "Recreation" section of Jamestown, North Dakota. Articles on golf courses are as justified as articles on parks, and an 18-hole course is pretty big. But without anymore content I don't think that a separate article is justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I know little about golf, but I do not see anything in this article to make this particular golf course notable above others. Markb 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as above keep notes. Xyrael ^T 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or merge) WP can't have pages on every golf course Trebor 18:00, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubert Meyer

I put prod tag on article but that was removed without any discussion. From what I can see he was just an officer in the SS. I don't see any notability here. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep He was an important military figure and a COMMANDER of the 12 SS division during WWII!! A Lieutenant Colonel mentioned in the entry 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. Also, he is mentioned in Waffen SS Commanders Vol.2 - Mark C. Yerger Pgs.104-106 and he is the author of the definitive history of the 12.SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend", called 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend" - (in German). ----Bolekpolivka 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Division. Karl Meyer was commanding officer. (Although Hubert did have operational field command after Karl was captured, per 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend). Nevertheless he is notable because of his high rank in this division, which is notable for two things: (i) first German division drawn from the Hitler Youth and (ii) was in Normandy on D-day. 12th division was under personal command of Hitler, who was in Germany and did not order it into battle to contest the Allied landings until it was too late (for him, anyway). This was one of the classic military blunders of all time. --JChap 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. --Terence Ong 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think his military rank was high enough to make him notable by itself, and he doesn't get even a one-liner in the 1,200+ pages of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. However, he did write a multi-volume book in German about the history of the 12th SS division (Kriegsgeschichte der 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend", ISBN 3921242517 and also reprinted in 1996 [3]), which someone found notable enough to translate into English and publish in two separate editions with different publishers (The 12th SS : the history of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, 1994 ISBN 0921991185, 2005 ISBN 0811731987). WorldCat finds 22 copies of the first German version (all in libraries from English-speaking countries) and 42 of the 2005 English version. Amazon has the 2005 reprint ranked at ~90k, which isn't horrible. s such, Keep for apparently meeting published author guidelines. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The fact that someone took the trouble to translate his non-trivial book from German to English should be adequate proof of notability. Paddles ^T_C 07:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems a little notable to me, besides it was a red link before. Equendil 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - At least marginally notable SS officer and commander (thought not for any prominent atrocities), mentioned in historical chronicles and also as a military historian. Military rank does not mean everything - note that, for example, Otto Skorzeny had the same rank - Skysmith 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets author guidelines. Vizjim 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded. Xyrael ^T 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the position and the book combined probably qualify him as notable Trebor 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, An article of good historical value. People who nominate articles , such as this one, for deletion seem to be more and more ridiculous. This officer was an important persona and did win the German Cross - one of the elite German decorations!! By the way, looking at the article's history; Dismas nominated the article for deletion while it was still beeing edited. Maybe next time, he/she should read it more carefully before taking such actions!! 162.84.165.231 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the editor wanted to they could easily have put the {{inuse}} tag on it to show that they were still working on it. Otherwise there is no way of knowing that they are still sitting at their computer working on another edit of the article. Also, one of the biggest arguments thus far for keeping this article is Mr. Meyer's work as an author which was not in the article when I nominated it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:56, 5 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 snowy delete (and BJAODN). Sango123 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Players of 3D Space Cadet Pinball Who Can't Get It Up To Satisfy Their Wives

nn reference to only part of a blog on Angelfire about stupid erectile dysfunctionality conspiracy theory - come on SM247 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yanksox 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and per the article, which admits that the subject blog is "obscure." 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (comment by Cfred)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 23skidoo 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the title's enough. CP/M 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Relevant to pop culture. Similar to Chuck Norris Facts, another nonsensical website that enjoys Wikipedia status. Seanlynch44 05:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not similar to Chuck Norris' array of facts, a well known and notable phenomenon. This is obscure and not notable. That is why the former 'enjoys Wikipedia status' and the latter should not. SM247 05:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with SM247. The "Chuck Norris facts" turn up all over the place. This one doesn't, and WP isn't the place to help it along. Paddles ^T_C 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment These are very valid points. Very funny though... BJAODN Seanlynch44 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable blog. If a one-line comment about the impotence theory appeared in the hypothetical Space Cadet (pinball) article, I expect it would get deleted as hoax/vandalism. Paddles ^T_C 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Trash, not notable/spam.--Andeh 10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Molerat 10:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• What the ... Delete for the love of all things good and holy BigDT 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hysterically funny...BJADON (That's the wrong spelling, isn't it?). And Delete'. Vizjim 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, non-funny. - CNichols 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Absurd. Xyrael ^T 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above Trebor 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Copy to BJAODN then Delete. Not encylopedia-worthy, but definitely funny enough to be kept. ^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Borderline libel if intended seriously, lame joke if not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. 8 comments on the entire blog. Even I have more than that... BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All I have to say is, "Wow..." --Dakart 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Supremely lame and non-notable. Grandmasterka 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. All you nerds are just afraid you won't be able to get it up anymore since you've most likely played 3DSCP. User:Pinballer4life 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment NPA, thanks. But, in my defense and all, I have no issues in that arena, and I *have* played the game. ^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Viagra (jk). — RJH (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hilarious, but not true (obviously). This should be put into BJAODN. --FlyingPenguins 20:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Copy to BJAODN then Delete. People are saying it's funny. --mboverload@ 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN (noting that it was created by User:Seanlynch44, for GFDL purposes). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 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. Sango123 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam O'Donnell; Spikything.com

Nn website and developer of that website; delete--Peta 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:WEB, nn. --Terence Ong 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Website has alexa rank of 139,017. bikeable (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm unsure of the website, as "Kickball" was duplicated on several websites back at one time, among things. A definate delete to the author, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The website's Alexa ranking is about 140,000, and it does not meet WP:WEB. The creator is not notable outside of his site, so he doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Rory096 07:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. The website might even qualify for speedy A7, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Paddles ^T_C 07:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on both, per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:50, 1 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, was blanked by author. —Xezbeth 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Principality Of Rabillia

I had initially prodded this, but the page creator removed the prod. Equendil then re-prodded it, but as this is not allowed, I thought it best to take the matter to AFD. The page in question describes an alleged micronation, housed in the apartment of this micronation's ruler (the article's creator). On the article's talk page, he states, "Rabillia is a micronation that was not fully declared publicly before. This is the first time the principality is being publicly listed anywhere." As such, it is original research, and should be deleted. It also fails WP:V, in that there are no sources cited and I was unable to locate any references to it, on either Google or various news article searches (in light of the creator's comments, this is not surprising, but I thought I should check anyway). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete obviously. Fan1967 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet another micronation wasting our time, WP:VANITY. Morgan Wick 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Morgan Wick. Paddles ^T_C 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deleticide per above. SoLando (Talk) 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• whoops, I did not notice it had already been prodded. Author has blanked the page stating (comment: "Blanked by page creator: The page apparently does not conform to Wikipedia rules and was posted for deletion by several users so i will blank it myself."), so make this a Speedy delete. Equendil 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Guinnog 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (I think you need to say it three times) Vizjim 13:10, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's Cinemas

Non-notable minor chain that is now defunct. Lack of notability compounded by the fact that half of the article details exploits of certain employees. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• King's Cinemas was an important part of a declining North area of historical Smyrna during the late 90's. The facts represented are historically accurate and it is important to mark the theater's history which is linked to Cobb Center Mall, the first mall built in Smyrna Ga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorschachpro (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2006.
  • Comment. Is it necessary to have its own article, though? If its notability is that it was part of the mall, then this could be a section of the mall's article? I don't see where King's Cinemas stands on its own to deserve an article, in light of WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Contains less claim of notability than Rorschachpro's comment above. Paddles ^T_C 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with mall's article as above. Xyrael ^T 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Trebor 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Clean/merge/delete Stripe out the small section related to the mall and merge, delete the article. Two closed cinemas aren't notable. CP/M 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge a paragraph to Cobb Center Mall and delete the rest. --Cedders^tk 17:42, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mennengasia

Neologism. Non-notable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Vaguely funny, but doesn't belong here. Delete. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it has a place in internet humour and culture, rather popular. Tyciol 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable hoax. -- Kjkolb 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if the source is a "self-proclaimed expert" then that suggests either non-notable, hoax, unverifyable/unencyclopedic, or all of the above. Paddles ^T_C 08:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This fits well in the Fictional Diseases category. The condition is well known among the world wide listening audience of the Farpoint Media podcasts. The condition is well documented in podcasts. Perhaps a link to the specific show notes would resolve this matter. Ultimate ed 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: this user has less than 20 edits ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Again with the Ad hominem, I'm seeing a pattern here. Let's try and keep this discussion to the merits of the article, shall we? You do a disservice to Wikipedia with your behavior. Ultimate ed 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Apparently, the Farpoint Media podcast is such a world wide phenomenon that "Farpoint Media" gets only 48 unique Google hits, and its web site, farpointmedia.net, has an Alexa ranking of 4,772,307. -- Kicking222 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, isn't that some deep research you done. Farpoint Media isn't A podcast, but an affilation of podcasts. I'm curious to know what your settings were, my Google of the phrase Farpoint Media returns 630 hits. The more popular individual podcasts are Slice of SciFi, Dragon Page Cover to Cover, and Wingin' It, which all have higher rankings than the umbrella site. I found the show notes to the first reference and I'm adding the link to the main article. By the way, just becuase you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What's the point of an encyclopedia if it only contains common knowledge? Ultimate ed 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a hoax/neologism/whatever, and a completely non-notable one. -- Kicking222 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless sourced. Xyrael ^T 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Definitely this has a place in internet humour and culture, as an example of viral marketing. This is the same principle as the "Snakes On a Plane" internet phenomenom. The buzzwords became so well used, the movie's producers actually went back and filmed extra scenes that used the narration that originated in many podcasts, Michael and Evo's Wingin It being one.Vfrgurrl 012:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)|'

note: this user has only edited this article and this AfD' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nothing like a little Ad hominem to really make your case Ultimate ed 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We are a community of editors; that someone has recently arrived and is likely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works is relevant. It doesn't mean we ignore what they have to say, but knowing that they may have a personal interest in the article helps us understand their point of view. --William Pietri 01:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I apparently didn't save my comment last time, so I'll try it again - I find your comment confusing. Doesn't the fact that someone takes the time to contribute to an article indicate a personal interest (excluding simple vandals, perhaps)? Obviously, a person can't keep every article on their watchlist. While my list continues to grow, it is ultimately going to be limited to articles that I have an interest in and feel that I can make a contribution to. Jossi's notes about how many edits a poster as made come across as flippant efforts to dimiss the poster out of hand, which is the essential definition of Ad Homenim (which has a nice writetup here, btw.) Now, maybe that is not the intent, but that is how it comes across, particularly since jossi has not responded to the points that have been raised. Ultimate ed 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. And a frown at the author Hvanbrug putting a hoax article in Wikipedia. Word gets a dozen significant hits in Google. The first one is Wikipedia, and the second is the coiner being shocked that it's in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, there are nearly forty hits in google for the term, and the hit to the show notes for episode 52 (the source of the word) ranks higher than the wikipedia entry. It's pretty dissapointing to see the herd mentality at work here dogpiling on this article. Does Joe Blow on the street know this word? Probably not. But, part of the power of podcasting is that you can connect with a worldwide audience of people with a common interest. Can I tell you how big the Farpoint audiences are? No, I'm just a subscriber so I do't have that info, but I can tell from fan comments on the blogs and forums that there is a significant listership that is aware of this. Is it enough to warrant inclusion here? I think it is. Ultimate ed 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment In fact I thought this symptom was totally fallacious until I observed a corresponding "Men in gay Asia" sympathetic response. After doing further research we were able to determine that indeed it was a cultural/linguistic failing. We then asked the original claimants here again to tell us what happened and they said, they indeed do listen to the Wingin It podcast with Michael and Evo and consequently caught "mennengasia" by mp3 file osmosis. In conclusion,in this web 2.0 world we live in we must learn to embrace the longtail, wikis and mennengasian epiphanies, lest life become unbearably dull and overly-serious. Bbluesman

• Delete as a very non-notable product of an obscure podcast. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment While Wingin' It doesn't currently have a Podcast Alley listing (it was part of the Dragon Page Mondo Feed that has since been discontinued in favor of separate feeds) most of the other Farpoint shows that have been around for a bit are ranked in the top 1,000 on Podcast Alley out of over 20,000 podcasts in the directory. Even the defunct Mondo feed is still ranked 545 for last month. We can debate non-notable, but to call the podcast obscure is simply a display of ignorance. When it really comes down to it, Podcasting in general is an obscure concept that a relatively small portion of the population is aware of, so awareness of any given podcast is going to be a subset of this. Should we nominate Podcasting as an article for deletion for being obscure? Ultimate ed 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant how ? Podcasting is significant, this isn't (and neither is the podcast that spawned it, hosted as it is by a series of redlinks). If it helps, I see the deletion of irrelevant podcasts and websites as systemic bias, and deleting them and their insignicant sub-fifteen minutes of fame "memes" as a Good Thing, my gesture towards WP:CSB. The 545th best rated podcast is obscurity personified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense or Uncyclopedia. This only works as a parody, whatever its source, and nothing serious is going to be written about fictitious diseases as a sociological phenomenon as a result of keeping it. --Cedders^tk 17:36, 7 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. Sango123 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergent literacy

Seems to violate WP:OR. Also doesn't pass WP:CITE. While there are new forms of teaching taking place, I'm not sure if this is notable enough, so I'll throw in NN as well. If notability / verification of sources can be established, then this may be important enough to keep (I know my school is using a new teaching method, so the idea isn't totally foreign, just that this particular one is not notable) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article appears to just be Elizabeth Sulzby's work, making it a violation of WP:OR. --Rory096 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, style, CITE. Pavel Vozenilek 01:53, 2 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. Sango123 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence So

Doesn't seem like a hoax initially, but a google search gives no relevant results & Also the creator has the same name as the article. Probably non-notable, vanity & unverifiable. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A Chinese guy from 280 BC whose first name is Lawrence? Opabinia regalis 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. --Vsion 04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly BJAODN or userfy as WP:HOAX and WP:VANITY Morgan Wick 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and seal into a jade tomb per nom and Opabinia. RGTraynor 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Opabinia R., who wrote exactly what I planned to. Paddles ^T_C 08:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Molerat 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, Chinese didn't had English first names until the 1920s. --Terence Ong 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN per above. Xyrael ^T 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and it's not particularly funny Trebor 18:03, 1 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 BJAODN & delete. Sango123 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taco bell monster

Elaborately constructed hoax. Excellent BJAODN material. Enjoy Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)</finsup> 04:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)}

• Strong Keep BJAODN Several minutes of good laugh. Worth keeping as an example of a hoax, with appropriate notice. (I meant BJAODN) CP/M 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and I didn't find it funny either Bwithh 04:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN per nom and CP\M. Morgan Wick 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep BJAODN I agree, this is a good example of a hoax, as long as it remains labled as such. It appears as it has moved to BJAODN status. Bobmario2 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN Possibly as a policy example of a hoax. I have to say I normally would give this a quick delete, but it is so obviously a hoax, and a funny one at that, so lets keep it. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Have I traveled into the twilight zone? Aren't we normally supposed to delete hoaxes? Even if we were to keep it as an example of a hoax, it should go in Wikipedia namespace. If it attained notability in the real world, then I would keep it as an article about the hoax. Put in Wikipedia namespace, userfy, BJAODN, transwiki to Uncyclopedia, just plain delete, anything but keep it in article namespace. Morgan Wick 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologize Morgan Wick, I did not mean keep the article where it is, but to move it so it can be used as an example of a hoax. Sorry about that, Thetruthbelow^(talk) 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The recommendation for this position is BJAODN. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most haoxes don't belong in the main namespace--Peta 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Yep, it's funny, and I'm sure there are lots of blogs or web pages out there where it'd belong. Wikipedia, last time I checked, is an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable hoax. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete per nom and others. If it was an article about a hoax that had achieved notability elsewhere, then you could argue for keeping it in the main namespace. But since it doesn't, BJAODN is the only place for it. Paddles ^T_C 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no BJAODN unless nonsense itself is a qualifier - I'd prefer the J to be the standard for BJADON. MLA 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and not funny enough for BJAODN StuartF 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Belongs on Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Not notable fictional monster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andypandy.UK (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Not even funny. -- GWO
• Move to Uncyclopedia. Does not belong here. The Halo (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as an unfunny joke --Guinnog 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, bad joke, moving to Uncyclopedia is a good idea. --Terence Ong 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Uncyclopedia, then Delete. - CNichols 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN--DCAnderson 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Go to worth1000.com to see much funnier Photoshopping. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:26, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Grahn

extremly non-notableThetruthbelow^(talk) 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep after considerable expansion and improvement was made on the article. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment not an attack page; she really is an openly lesbian poet. Not overly notable but not blatantly nonnotable either. No vote. Opabinia regalis 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• She seems to be notable, as there's an award named after her. --Rory096 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd say she probably meets WP:BIO. --Rory096 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article has been around for a long time and still doesn't assert notability or contain any significant content. Being an openly lesbian poet doesn't imply notability. Paddles ^T_C 08:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Rewrite addresses my concerns. Paddles ^T_C 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely having an award named after you, being recognized as "the literary founder of lesbian feminism" and writing 13 non-self published books does, though? --Rory096 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Marketers/publicists of events have been known to indulge in hyperbole. Besides, having an award named after you doesn't automatically confer notability; one of my uni friends (RIP David) has an award named after him and was incredibly talented, but I don't think he's quite WP-worthy. If it's enough to establish notability, then why hasn't anyone put it in the article itself? Establish notability, and I'll change my vote. Paddles ^T_C 09:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh come on, now you're not listening to evidence because it's not in the article? That's silly. And AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable poet. I don't see how mentioning her as openly lesbian constitutes an attack, assuming she really is openly lesbian. I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of her. JIP | Talk 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article at present is barely a stub; I'd prefer that it were expanded. Grahn was pretty big in lesbian and feminist circles in the 70's. She's currently co-director of the Women's Spirituality MA program and Program Director of the MFA in Creative Inquiry at New College of California [4]. I can work on adding info and references if others think it worthwhile. BuckRose 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand - external links on this page clearly show that she is notable and an important figure in lesbian literary circles, though I agree that the current WP article is highly inadequate. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - 41,000 Google hits, including impressive pages at University of Illinois at Urbana, GLBTQ, and her own page at Serpentina includes an impressive list of "Awards Notices and Grants". As OpenToppedBus says, the current article is inadequate, but can be easily expanded. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is that apparently BuckRose volunteered first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and expand - very prolific writer and her impact is certainly visible from a simple Google search. This article is badly in need of expansion to assert her notability without needing to look elsewhere Barneyboo (Talk) 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded. Xyrael ^T 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I've begun to expand the article. I welcome contributions and suggestions for others. BuckRose 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AnonEMouse. Lots of good Google hits. ScottW 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, obviously satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirement. Amazinglarry 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- she seems notable. bogdan 19:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- according to the links cited, she seems a published poet of sufficient notability for interest. There's a risk of preferentially deleting minority artists. Espresso Addict 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The expansion removed any doubt of notability. --Fastfission 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Appears notable now. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Sarge Baldy 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep scholarly articles on her work at University of Illinois is enough for me. Thanks for expansion. --Cedders^tk 17:30, 7 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. Royboycrashfan 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timucin Leflef

"Timucin Leflef does not really exist." The first line says it all Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• No Vote. May have potential if sources are given and the information is expanded upon. At the current moment, the article is mostly useless. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; "potential" for what, exactly? There are nine G-hits for the name, all for a director at a place called Lightfilms.com. RGTraynor 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • When I'm on the Wikipedia when I should be sleeping, my writing remains coherent whilst my ideas do not. Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete not notable and no claims thereof. Morgan Wick 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolute crap, unless he is the fellow involved in films who is the only person found via Google. SM247 06:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and Morgan Wick. Paddles ^T_C 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete as hoax. --Aleph-4 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7' Terence Ong 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, author requests deletion. Morgan Wick 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dipreco

Delete as yet another constructed language someone made up in their spare time. No notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I know the person who created this language, and I am wondering why the article is being deleted.
  

It has citations and everything.
Ucryc wasn't deleted.
-- Ninfreak08 | Talk | 4:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete So NN it isn't even funny. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Ninfreak08 for pointing me to that article. I shall now nominate it for AfD as well. As for the deletion, the language is not notable in any way, shape, or form. That's about it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry all for creating these articles. I am the creator of the Dipreco article and the Ucryc article. I would like to ask that they both be deleted.
  

Thank you and sorry. -- Ninfreak08 | Talk | 04:28, 1 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. Sango123 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of areia branca

Hoax country. Someone seems to want to make a small town a nation by itself. No relevant google hits. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE Per Danny Lilithborne's comments below, I have added the following articles into this AfD vote for the same reasons as original nominated article. Paddles ^T_C 08:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Areia branca
• Paimogo
• Al Raia
• Fortress of Paimogo

• Delete Burninate it with the garbage - Areia branca, Paimogo, Al Raia and Fortress of Paimogo. Danny Lilithborne 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

comment All added by the same author, Jmdeus (talk • contribs). --Aleph-4 12:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Either it's a hoax or the author's been hitting the Arkansas Polio Weed something fierce. RGTraynor 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SM247 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom and Danny Lilithborne. I'll link in the other articles mentioned with this AfD, if that's procedurally incorrect then we can have them as a separate group AfD. Paddles ^T_C 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not prominent even as micronations - Skysmith 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Guinnog 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as hoaxes. Sandstein 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, hoax. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:27, 2 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. Sango123 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ucryc

Delete, as it violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, and is entirely non-notable besides that. The creator of the "language" is also the one who made the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure about crystal ball, but it violates a lot of other policies (WP:RS, WP:NFT, the list goes on and on) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The language is not yet complete, hence the crystal ball. But yes, those all work too :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--Peta 06:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Vidim Delete Muc ... hey, it's not a completely useless language. RGTraynor 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Trebor 11:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as 76 g.hits for a language with website is extremely low. CP/M 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:27, 2 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. Sango123 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heartbreak Club

Delete. Author has not provided reasoning that the band meets WP:Music's criteria. Appears to be yet another Myspace band. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Getupkid 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)To be honest we may not be able to provide sufficient information regarding this band for the time being. Although my contribution is dubious as I do know the band through professional relationship, I feel that in a matter of months this band will have significant profile and interest to justify such an article.

Although I cannot substantiate this through web resources yet, the band has been commissioned to write and record a 40 second theme song for cable TV show called 'Scattered', produced independently by the presenter of The Punk Rock Show (on 2NUR FM). The program will be shown on Channel V Australia. I am assistant music director of the show.

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia contribution, and I feel this will be a topic that is expandable in the coming months. Is it possible to leave a stub, such as that of Rubix Cuba, whom Teddy was a former member of? Getupkid 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Getupkid 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)p.s. if it means dropping the external link to myspace, by all means delete that. it wasn't a "whoring" articleGetupkid 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per notability and crystal ball.--Peta 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as NN. I'm afraid that the way things work here is a group first becomes notable before qualifying for an article. I recommend WP:CHILL. RGTraynor 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There have been some mentions of this band in the Newcastle Herald mainly in gig guides. However, their notability doesn't seemed to have gone beyond Newcastle, New South Wales at this stage indicating that they don't meet our musical notability guidelines at this stage. Capitalistroadster 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn. - Longhair 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone noticed that in the band photo, one of the band members is wearing a T-shirt that says "The Get Up Kids"? I suspect that Getupkid is a little too close to the band, making this vanity or advertising. Paddles ^T_C 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Trebor 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, currently fails WP:MUSIC Barneyboo (Talk) 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Roisterer 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above and per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as author request. Only two actual contributors both requested deletion; AfD was a snowball. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWAC-TV

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Possibly a hoax, but plausible enough to avoid a prod - page links to a real web site that references the same group (Jersey Shore Communications) listed as the owner, which really does exist but whose web site is being re-built, rendering it impossible to substantiate or disprove the claims made on the company's article. User:Mrschimpf wrote on my talk page: "I think this guy (User:UncleFloyd) is trying to pull our chain with a hoax here, he added the affilate to the CW list, but the second result in Google leads to WMCN, a home shopping-infomercial channel with no spare UPN/WB/Fox subchannels, at least looking at the TitanTV schedule page. Jersey Shore Communications also leads to a website with no navigation at all, and the article seems to make claims that are outrageous, a Google search with commas only leads to listings involving a burglar alarm company of the same name. The WWAC article copies the new Fox O&O logo and makes claims about WMGM that seem to be very unsubstanciated. I also suspect that WWACArtist would be one of his sockpuppets. ETA: It looks like UncleFloyd isn't really heavily involved, he just adjusted articles for readability, but still looking at things, there are a couple of new users trying to create trouble by creating fake TV stations for fun and to delude people into thinking that WWAC is real." User:WWACArtist is the creator of this page. Morgan Wick 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am a media professional in the New York/New Jersey area and I have interviewed with the station. Hell, I even managed to Google WWAC and got relevant hits. I know they exist, hell I have even talked to them on the phone. WMCN has no relation, other than having had the same calls at one time. (WMCN was a new digital flash cut operation that was never broadcast in NTSC.) I can give you the phone number if you want it. I would not waste my time sending a demo tape and driving down to South Jersey for an interview at a non-existant station. The station is near Atlantic City, although that may have changed as I they had some sort of ownership change recently. As a media professional I love to see how non-professionals on Wikipedia have no idea even how to do proper research. It is grade school research you are doing not j-school. 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by UncleFloyd (talk • contribs).

• You must not have the same Google I have. The only two results I see on the first two Google pages for WWAC that have anything to do with TV refer to WMCN. A search for WWAC-TV, as far as I can tell, only gets results for WMCN on the first page (there are references to WWAC, but these appear to be old references to the now-WMCN). I find it hard to believe that a station that formerly used the calls could get results over a station that currently uses them. Can you link me to one of these "relevant hits"? PS: [5] does not show this station as a Fox affiliate, contrary to the claims in the article. Morgan Wick 05:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep I have seen some graphic work for the station on a design group's web portfolio for them and I am kicking myself now for not bookmarking it, but that was a year or two ago and I cannot recall the company. When the weather is right I can get Fox 53, albiet rather fuzzy here in northern Monmouth County. TV is one of the things I know about and there is a WWAC! I suppose that you are going to say that WYDC-TV diesn't exist either as its website on the Fox page you mention [6] says it is under development. I have also noticed that there are some errors and ommissions on the Fox site as well with regard to affilaites. You should also go call for some NBC affiliates deletion as there are some pages on their local stations page [7] that have outdated and/or inaccurate information. I can go there and find the errors and say the respective Wikipedia pages for the stations with the inaccurate information and call for there deletion because they aren't on NBC's list. TVXPert 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the username is TVXPert, that must mean the user is a professional expert on the TV industry. Bwithh 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Possible sockpuppet of UncleFloyd or WWACArtist. You still haven't given us anything other than your own word that this station exists as claimed in the article. At least WYDC is listed on Fox's web site, it has that much going for it. Morgan Wick 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• WYDC does have a website [8], they just didn't link the main page to the index file. Nate 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete My research doesn't have the resources of a media professional, but the articles for both the station and Jersey Shore Communications popped up only tonight, and from my experience a Fox affiliate established for three years would've been listed on Wikipedia by now. The logo shown for WWAC resembles the Fox Television Stations Group's new logo for their O&O stations, and I doubt at this point they would give permission to an affiliate station to use it before all their other stations established the logo.

A Google search under the parent company name leads to the company's website on top, however, there are more results in the 17 hits for Jersey Shore Communications & Alarm Systems than this company. The Channel 53 frequency went dark in 2003 as a power saving/cable carriage move and WWAC moved to digital 44, then changed calls to WMCN shortly thereafter. It is highly doubtful at this point that the FCC would allow a new channel to take over 53 as they're going to clear out all the spectrum above 51 after the full conversion for HD and sell it for mobile phone services. Atlantic City is also part of the Philadephia DMA and has WPSG already as their CW affiliate, it's a known fact that Philly signals are imported into Atlantic City via cable/dish.

Finally, the fact I cannot find any references to the station in B&C, TVWeek, (community name) Business Journal or CW/Fox PR announcements lead me to believe that this in addition to Jersey Shore Communications are fictional entities and this article should be pulled. Nate 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• How do you explain the website then? Also, quit emphasizing CW, the claim is that it's going to be on a digital subchannel. Don't cite WPSG, cite WTXF. Morgan Wick 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should've cited WTXF more, sorry. My apologies. Checked whois for [9], and it leads me to GoDaddy as registrar, same with JSC. Don't most media companies use something more substantial than GoDaddy to register their domains? Nate 06:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom unless we can get some serious sourcing. For one thing, if Mr. Floyd's interviewed at the station, how about an address or telephone number? The FCC's own website has no information for this station as given. RGTraynor 06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Query the FCC's TV station database for WWAC. The most damning piece of evidence yet. One entry, and it doesn't involve 53 or 9, the two channels referred to in the article. Morgan Wick 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The hoaxer identified - Strong Delete WWAC-TV and Jersey Shore Communications
  • The Jersey Shore Communications website is registered to Millennia Broadcast Group (type in the number to access record) (Millennia has non-functional websites http://www.mbg1.net http://www.millenniabroadcast.com, just like Jersey Shore).
  • Google cache shows profile pages for founder of Millennia Broadcast which do not read like a professional corporate page
  • The founder mentioned on the cached page has a myspace page (claims Millennia Broadcast Group as his company near the bottom of the left hand column - scroll down).
• The founder of the company is 19 years old. He genuinely seems interested in the TV industry, as shown by his posts on TVnewstalk.net (where he claims to be a Weekend News Anchor for Millennia in his user profile). Millennia Broadcast Group may have done some real work for a teenage/high school local news program. But the WWAC/Jersey Shore hoax sites appear to be fantasies/attempts to pad his and his friends' resumes. Bwithh 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if poss, as hoax. -- GWO
• Delete as unreferenced hoax. Molerat 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Until more convincing proof of a hoax exists it should remain. Otherwise this is just another Wikijihad by some powermad assholes. FunkyChicken! 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Your bar for believing something to be a hoax seems extraordinarily high (assuming you actually examined the evidence given above). Also, please read WP:CIVIL. Bwithh 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Allow me to quote from WP:V, which is official policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." We do not need to supply any more convincing proof than already has been done. It is now up to those wishing to keep this article to supply proof that this station exists. RGTraynor 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. ConeyCyclone 15:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on Jersey Shore Communications Looking at its edit history, this article was created by User:Ngsantia. This Username is remarkably similar to the real name and myspace name of the person I suggest above to be the hoaxer Bwithh 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this line makes no sense: "Jersey Shore Communications owns subsidiary television station groups Empire Media Holdings, LLC and Keystone Media Holdings, LLC, both of which are joint ventures with Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble Co.". Two Holding companies which are also joint ventures simply for small scale TV station assets? The idea of Kraft and P&G investing in TV stations is also dubious. btw, I work in the financial industry and have carried out research projects on TV station acquisitions in the US. Bwithh 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless sourced more. Xyrael ^T 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Beyond which, try Googling the reporters this channel claims to have. Edris Jenkins has one Google hit (the aforementioned TVnewstalk.net [10], there are eight hits for their traffic reporter, five for their co-anchor (the lead hit of which is a Myspace page putting this 18-year-old in Oregon), and their alleged flagship show has a single unique hit from someone claiming to be interviewed on it. You would think that someone would have heard of this channel if it actually existed. RGTraynor 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - And for the piece de resistance (it's a slow day at work), the only "Jersey Shore Communications" in New Jersey (according to the state Commerce and Recording Services department) is a burglar alarm and telephone hookup outfit in Oceanport. Don't take my word for it; give them a call at (732) 542-5777 and ask whether they own a TV station. I've no doubt FunkyChicken! will apologize handsomely to us powermad types. RGTraynor 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced, unverified article about a supposed television station. The evidence above overwhelmingly indicates there is no FOX affiliate by this name. I can't find any evidence this station even exists other than as a memory fo what WMCN-TV once was. If someone can post verifiable reliably sourced information that this station in fact exists, I will reconsider... right now the burden of proof is on the originator though. Oh and WWAC-DT redirect should be deleted as part of this, if in fact deletion is the consensus.--Isotope23 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's a lot to sort through here. No one's disputing WWAC-TV exists, right? From what I can tell the station is verifiable enough [11] [12]. There does appear to be false information in the article though--all credible sources I found indicate that this is an independent station, not a FOX affiliate. Should the article be deleted if the problem is with the content and not the subject itself? I'm not so sure. ScottW 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To clear the air here, I am the creative services director for the station group Jersey Shore Communications, LLC. As such, I am also in charge of creating awareness for the group and its individual stations. We are currently overhauling the station group as a whole in lieu of the major network changes coming this fall season which includes rebuilding the website. Later on today we plan on putting out a press release reguarding these changes. And to reply to RGTraynor, you are reffering and incorporated business not an LLC. So I think you people need to cease this unfounded witch hunt. WWACArtist 18:31 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick - is this really the best way to advance your career? Bwithh 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to say that I am friends with three individuals who work for the station. They started off as interns there. I am often subjected to listening to the music they come up with for the station, to give my opinion. They work hard and personally I think you have issues if you are going to delete them just because the web page is under construction. The web is the highway of communication but even the highway has roadwork being done on it. Also if you go to www.msn.com and search for Jersey Shore Communications, their main site which is currently under construction comes up as link 2/3 depending if you count the sub link under the first hit that comes up. Google doesn't rule the world you know. Jessica or Jes 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here come reinforcements from Nick's Myspace friends. hooray. Bwithh 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hello I'm Harvey Cox, News Director and Station President of WWAC-TV/DT. I'm here as requested by a few of my employees to get you to stop bothering them about the validity of our business' entry on this site. If you chose not to stop interfering, our legal department will take the nessicary actions to stop it for you. We here at Jersey Shore Communications are not going to tolerate being slandered by a colletion of twelve year olds that have no life whatsoever and whose sole purpose in life is to troll sites such as these and cause trouble. I hope you all will take this warning as serious as we are, because the consequences will be grave.

Thank you for your time.

Harvey M. Cox News Director/Executive President Jersey Shore Communications, LLC

53ND 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, now you've decided to escalate the hoax by posing as other real people, and also to threaten to sue 12 year olds while in this new pose. The real Harvey Cox is News Director at NBC-40, The South Jersey New Channel (click on the Contact drop down menu) - you know a real website for a real TV station. I'm sure Nick & co have tried or will try to apply for jobs with Mr. Cox. Impersonating Mr. Cox to threaten litigation on undeletable internet forum discussions is not to way to go if you want to impress him. Bwithh 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - User:WWACArtist is repeatedly blanking this page. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ok folks here's the deal. Me and friends of mine got caught up in a hoax and it went too far. On behalf of said individuals and myself, I appolgize for our actions and the trouble they have caused. Feel free to delete any all a references to "Jersey Shore Communications" and "WWAC-TV and DT" from this site.

20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)WWACArtist

• Comment The above comment by User:WWACArtist was deleted without reason by User:Nlu. No idea why. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nevertheless just delete everything. 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)WWACArtist

• Delete per admission of hoax. Can this be speedied? ScottW 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor et al. -Big Smooth 21:01, 1 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 under a7. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 06:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush, John Alexander

This page definitely is not useful or pertinent information for anybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sthakkar (talk • contribs) . (completing the nom) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. It does assert notability, so I think speedy is out. RGTraynor 06:08, 1 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. Royboycrashfan 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New foundation christian fellowship

De-proded by author w/o addressing concerns of style, notability and tone. Text is a POV mess that reads like a religious brochure. No assertion of notability and a format eyesore. Delete. -- Scientizzle 05:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete CSD A7. Morgan Wick 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Zero Alexa rank for the church's website, one Google hit (the said website); this is just a local Phoenix church. Retro me, ecclesia. RGTraynor 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy--Peta 06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.--Andeh 10:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement without prejudice, thought I'm not sure that speedy is appropriate other than as WP:SNOW. BigDT 12:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per all above.--Jersey Devil 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It usually happens much faster when someone actually tags the article. I have now. Grandmasterka 02:27, 2 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. Sango123 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Roll-Pickering

• Delete Minor UK student/blogger who fails WP:WEB notability test. Article claims the blog http://timrollpickering.blogspot.com is one of the most popular political blogs in the UK without any supporting evidence (external reference link is just to the blog itself). Large majority of the 14,900 google hits for "Tim Roll-Pickering" are blog/bulletin board/newspaper forum comment posts by subject himself or student union websites or amateur political blogs connecting to his amateur political blog. Just 116 hits including 43 hits from his own blog for the google search term "timrollpickering" +blogspot. Cannot find material to support passing WP:WEB. FYI, the article subject is a Wikipedian - see User:Timrollpickering (12,100 google hits for "timrollpickering" but 11,600 of those hits originate from the en.wikipedia.org domain. 1,100 hits if you search for "timrollpickering" -wikipedia" - mainly forum posts by the subject) but a different user appears to have created the article. Bwithh 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and bury under a crossroads with a stake through the heart. A two-sentence article that cites the number of Google hits the fellow has? Sheesh. RGTraynor 06:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per outstanding nom.--Peta 06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I sense deception here.--Andeh 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Amalas =^_^= 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Query Is he User:Timrollpickering? Saga City 00:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mention this in the nominationabove . But I don't think he created this article and he may not even be aware of this article. The user which did appears to have totally opposite political views from Timrollpickering and I think the user created the article in good faith Bwithh 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does User:Timrollpickering want this as a user subpage ? LOL. --64.229.225.229 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No thanks! LOL! Timrollpickering 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In no way am I notable. Timrollpickering 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough .....yet Matthewfelgate 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree as per TRP. Matthew Platts 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree as per TRP. not currently notable enough - yet! alexmanchester

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasrullah Warren

Delete No indication of meeting WP:PROFTEST. VfD from March 2005 was keep b/c some thought that his having been a convert in turn of the century England may have made him notable. Well, I didn't find anything notable, so my position is, unless we can dig some notability about this guy, he's a NN prof. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per CrazyRussian. -- Kjkolb 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article has not become more than a substub since 2004. (Wikipedia had speedy deletion then of course, right??) I can't imagine anyone will ever find anything he actually did that is notable, even though it seems like converting to Islam in turn-of-the-century England is a little unusual. I would say speedy delete if he was alive today. Grandmasterka 02:41, 2 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. Sango123 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car Desktop

Utterly not notable, filled with ads, it sucks, and is probably for-profit. The article itself is an ad. Snarius 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Delete ad. SM247 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nice site - but alas it doesn't belong on wikipedia. THE KING 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom StuartF 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom, reads like an addy and probably is one.--Andeh 10:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: unfortunately, there is no speedy delete criterion for advertisements, despite moderate-spread beliefs to the contrary. :-) -- Kjkolb 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Guinnog 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn ad. CP/M 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not a speedy, but delete this spamtastic load of crap. Grandmasterka 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Haakon 15:15, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor

Delete - dicdef Mais oui! 06:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep very notable, talks about roles in literature etc.- more than just a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs more information, but it is worthwhile. --Dakart 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dakart. Kalani ^[talk] 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article isn't very good... but, think of the possibilities... the use of the internet and the spread of rumors? History, etc... gren グレン 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs work but there is more on the subject than simply definition. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - dicdef. More definitions doesn't make it an encyclopedia entry, or change that it belongs in a dictionary. Tychocat 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The concept of rumors is absolutely a valid subject for an encyclopedia; the fact that right now the article is not in a very good point is no reason to delete the article itself. -- Captain Disdain 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...er, good shape, even. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs improvement, but definitely worth keeping. - CNichols 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with expansion. Xyrael ^T 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete So it is the subject of literature, but so what? It is not nearly as notable as some other themes of lit, such as Death or the Afterlife or a bildungsroman etc. The fact is, anyone can make literature out of any theme, and merely the fact that something has a rumor in it does not make it notable. This is a dicdef that is not nearly as notable as a real literary technique. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, especially in Roman and Greek literature, Rumour is personified as a god like being (for example, read the Aeneid). I agree if it were simply on the theme of rumour the article would not be notable. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd say the literature angle is actually of secondary importance -- rumors are a pretty important concept, and to not have an article about it simply makes no sense -- I mean, see gossip, for an example of what I mean. (Gossiping often happens by repetation of rumors, but it's not quite the same thing -- still, it's a comparable phenomenon.) I just expanded the article a little in that direction. -- Captain Disdain 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• obvious keepper duhAdambiswanger1 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A very notable subject, with many pages of text to be written about different rumors, their spawning and spreading, their role, and so on. CP/M 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--999 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect misspelling to Rumour. Clearly a typo. -- GWO
  • Erm, yes, I agree, in principle, but that *was* a joke, right? Anyways, I just took off the transwiki tag. The dicdef part of that article is already on Wikt as wikt:rumor. TheProject 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — Article can be much more than a dict.-def. It discusses psychology of term, &c. — RJH (talk) 20:18, 2 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 07:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CGSociety and Cgtalk

Web site and non-notable web forum, seems to be a part of a Ballistic Media astroturfing effort by User:Ericmachmer, delete.--Peta 06:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The CGWebcrap and their CGManifesto should be CGDeleted. Opabinia regalis 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for not immediately deleting the page. For what it is worth I don't work for Ballistic Media and this article isn't astroturfing. As a digital artist I appreciate the CGSociety and would like to encourage the work they have done to promote digital artists. The CGTalk article has been up for quite a long time. (I did not start the entry.) Why would either be an inappropriate?? There are articles on Yahoo! and many other websites and publishing houses, as well as of course art movements. The CGSociety is an important institution for digital artists. This article is most definitely not an advertisement. If you find advertising text within it, please remove it -- not the entire article. The CGSociety to my mind is a modern online version of the Salon des Refuses or similar forum for artists. It has a very real impact upon the art world today and deserves notice in Wikipedia. Please do not delete this article. Thank you. User:Ericmachmer

• No, why don't you remove the advertising material, instead of leaving it up to someone else to clean up after you. You can start with "It's fun. It's cool. It's who we are." Delete unless several external references are provided, and the advertising content is removed. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising and not notable michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And then delete again. -- GWO

• Okay the section previously marked "Manifesto" has been deleted and I've toned down "enthusiasm" for the CGScociety. This is the first article I've posted, sorry to have asked you to clean it up...just had thought that in a section marked "Manifesto" it would be okay for less objective statements. By external references, what do you mean? Ericmachmer 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By external references I mean independent, third-party citations from newspapers or other major media. If this is truly notable then someone, somewhere must have written an article about it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. When this becomes more talked about, perhaps recreate. Xyrael ^T 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Xyrael

• Hey thanks a lot Xyrael for not immediately trashing my first attempt at writing a Wiki article. Really appreciate it that you took the time to send me the useful info on how to improve this...if I just work on the /Temp page would that be okay? It would be great to be able to refer other cg artists to a page they would be also able to enhance. Thanks again for not just refering to my efforts as "CGCrap" or "Delete. And then delete again." Sheesh, give some people authority and it goes right to their heads. You exemplify what makes Wikipedia a friendly welcoming online community. Sorry to have taken your time -- thanks so much again! Ericmachmer 18:15, 1 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel J. Riposta (Magic Man Sam)

NN and this is a vanity page (check the creator) Dakart 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article doesn't assert much notability. --Rory096 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN/vanity/possibly advertising. Paddles ^T_C 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, username that created it is very suspicious. Unverifiable.--Andeh 10:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn, vanity, advertising NawlinWiki 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, -- I@n ≡ talk 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this vanity page please! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 1 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. Sango123 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Lashley

Vanity page created by Mlashley. Google gets 381 hits, most of which are unrelated. No mention in newspapers or other major media. This guy is just another real estate agent. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 381 hits (now 382) is not sufficient enough to call the person in question "significant". Kalani ^[talk] 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 08:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete self-promotion, not notable and advertising. --Andeh 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above, and also very short. Xyrael ^T 16:24, 1 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spime (theory)

seems to be utter rubbish Johnpaulb 07:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense, vanity, hoax, crackpot theory, unverifiable, whatever. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lukas.--Andeh 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also a hoax, Wordspy credits an SF writer with the earliest citation of the word (which he apparently coined) in 2004. See http://www.wordspy.com/words/spime.asp Tychocat 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in a form which simply records the details about the theory together with the fact that Kayatta invented it (nonsense though it is).--Alex Selby 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to only exist in this article and mirrors [13]. Only George Kayatta I can find is a musician. Fan1967 16:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I find what appears to be a vanity entry by this guy (the only entry I can find not about the musician) in an alumni journal for Case Western, where he claims this title of foremost “Renaissance Man in America,” but I can find nothing anywhere else on the web to justify it, and absolutely nothing connected with "Spime". (Dr. Kayatta's doctorate is in French Literature.) The only actual uses of that word are connected to science fiction author Bruce Sterling, as documented in the article at Spime. - Fan1967 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep to give a chance for expansion, if not then delete. Xyrael ^T 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Trebor 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 1 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. Sango123 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamish Tildesley

I deleted this article because it was tagged as a speedy delete but I was asked to reconsider so I restored it and now I am putting it here. No opinion from me. --Tone 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN, suspect vanity, large parts are unverifiable ("Hamish plans to..."). Paddles ^T_C 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, could have been speedied NawlinWiki 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (I don't think it could have been speedied, as it does assert some notability -- but not enough.) -- Captain Disdain 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per notability. Xyrael ^T 16:23, 1 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. Sango123 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outback with Jack: Bush Remedies

Spammy --KJ 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as blatant advertising StuartF 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement, and probably is.--Andeh 10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. --Roisterer 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search for this gets 84 Google hits see [14] about half of which relate to a show called Outback Jack unrelated to this book. A search of verifiable Australian searches came up with no mentions of this book either in the media elsewhere. This appears to be an attempt to create notability via Wikipedia rather than an article on something made notable by appearances in reliable sources elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:06, 2 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. Sango123 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCW Tuesday Night

A google search shows the only mention of "Red Class Wrestling" to be wikipedia itself, and for itself to be listed as a TV show with no listings anywhere on the internet makes these claims highly dubious. Even if it exists it isn't notable. Is also the only mention of Seth Amaurazan, another wrestler of highly dubious existance which i've also recommended for deletion. Lid 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable article --Scot^t 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete*-is there evey any question?JB196 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Delete it already!JB196 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Delete delete delete.JB196 01:59, 6 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. Sango123 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gashmaster

Neologism, deprodded. Accurizer 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• This should not be deleted as the term is becoming more and more widely used throughout the country. Many people are curious as to what the term means, and would look to Wikipedia for assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshdean84 (talk • contribs).
• delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 10:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Guinnog 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Swpmre 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More and more widely used... yeah, right. "OH NOES I DROPPED MY HAMMER WHAT A GASHMASTER FIDDY!" "I crashed my car and am now scarred for life. I must say -- GASHMASTER ONE HUNRED THOUSAND!" Yeah... that's very catchy. -- Captain Disdain 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Xyrael ^T 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nonsense neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:37, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save Me (Remy Zero song)

Not only is the subject covered in The Golden Hum article, I believe that the use of lyrics is in violation of GFDL The Halo 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with The Golden Hum. Dismas|^(talk) 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge simply not notable enough.--Andeh 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If a song that charts and acts as a theme song for a popular television show isn't notable enough, what is? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean the copyvio out. It's the theme song to Smallville, was a notable single for the band as well, reaching #27 on the Modern Rock charts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per bdj - the song is arguably more notable than the album it appears on! But the copyvio needs removing and some more info about the song adding to make it a worthwhile article. Seb Patrick 11:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - article rewritten w/infobox, tracklisting, no copyvio. If an admin can clean the history out, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure if I am allowed to do this as nom Keep In light of the recent changes by Badlydrawnjeff, this article should now be kept. *Slightly Red Face For Not Knowing All The Facts Before Nominating* The Halo (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Make your mind up The Halo.--Andeh 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Pretty sure you can do a Speedy keep under the rationale Nominator withdraws or something like that. I've seen it done before. Not sure if it applies when there are some delete votes in the discussion, though. Seb Patrick 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment As I have said on badlydrawnjeff's talk page, I was not aware that the song was so big in the US, and the recent changes were after I nominated it for deletion. At least the AfD made the artucle a lot better than it was. BTW, thanks Seb Patrick, I'll look into the speedy keep. The Halo (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  Nah, the speedy keep is no good as there as already been delete votes. However, I think that since the copyvio has been removed and the article has recived attention, it is now a worthwhile article. The Halo (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, quite noteworthy Timb0h 13:59, 5 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. Sango123 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Countries

Probably original research as well as {{Eastern Countries}} --Yakudza 10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete by all means. Absurd propaganda favoring many non-existent entities. 10:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Trebor 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Content-free and could never be improved. --Guinnog 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The box arbitrarily selects only some countries to qualify and randomly adds in only two "regions". Vox Populi (TSO)
• Delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: original research and patent non-sense.AlexPU 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Irpen 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom abakharev 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete heqs 21:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —DDima ^(talk) 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. —Nightstallion (?) 15:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - original research, no information. Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:36, 4 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 Stadium Arcadium. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)

It's just a song whose article could be merged with Stadium Arcadium. If it's released as a single, then sure. But until then it's not notable enough for it's own article. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• You can always boldly merge and redirect; no AFD required. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge as above. -- cds^(talk) 11:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above Trebor 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge and Redirect per above. Accurizer 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. There are several similar articles about other songs in the album. -- Kjkolb 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above, be bold! Xyrael ^T 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Against just leave it alone, it's not doing any harm, and it might turn out to be a single. Plus it is a beuatiful song about Anthony's thoughts. - Bagel7 08:23, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazza

No reliable evidence of notablity supplied. Quotes from blogs and personal websites.WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Quite a large article, and isn't blatent advertising. His flash animations appear to be quite popular on newgrounds. Here.--Andeh 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Jazza is the name of a prominent character in the long-running BBC radio soap The Archers. Not sure what should be done here? The character's name is Jazzer Markb 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep on expansion and clearer expression of notability. Xyrael ^T 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on this. It started as a vanity article, but I put in some negative reviews and they stayed in, so now it's less of a puff piece. Editing out some of the unsourced autobiographical stuff might be a good idea. It's a adequately-written article. If this were a musician of equal notability, though, this article would have been speedily deleted days ago. --John Nagle 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I came very close to speedying it, but instead gave it a notability tag and let it sit for a while before AFDing it. The article is essentially "some guy on the internet who makes flash animations and got started drawing during his lunch breaks at school." As you say, a musician bio of this notabilty would have been speedied almost immediately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Motor (talk • contribs).
• Delete. No reliable source provided for this flash artist's notability and I could not find any through a quick search. Jazza is a common nickname and there is no evidence that this particular Jazza meets our notability standards. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Josiah Brooks, delete if his controversy was not covered by any sources, and if he is less popular than David Firth--Rayc 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebecca 09:31, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headso

Uncommon protologism. - Liberatore(T) 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a website forum manifested term via fark.com and looks like it's promoting it. The user who created it is the only thing that user has done. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Andeh 11:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Xyrael ^T 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.
• Delete, per nom. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:01, 7 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. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Via Paxton

Fails to meet WP:PORN BIO guidelines and it doesn't appear as if they will be fulfilled, since she is clearly non-notable. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Notable and prolific within her genre niche. WP:PORN BIO is still under development and a consensus on what qualifies as yet to be worked out. 23skidoo 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, here is my reasoning with additions from the last nomination. She has appeared 14 times in Score magazine and Voluptuous magazine and once in Mamazon. She has also appeared on the websites of Score and Voluptuous. Score is one of the largest big bust magazines and Voluptuous is one of the largest natural big bust magazines (one or both may be the largest). She has had parts in at least two pornographic movies and has had one movie that is just about her, with her name in the title. Usually only performers with a fair amount of notability and significant name recognition with fans have such movies, at least when the movie is produced by a major studio. If she was not a porn actress and the films and magazines had the same audience in terms of numbers, I suspect that the article would be easily kept. -- Kjkolb 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems reasonable, but how do we know what the numbers for the audience of the films and magazines are? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kjkolb arguable one of the biggest (no pun intended) stars in the big bust niche. I assume anyone into that sort of thing would probably deep her fairly recognizable and perhaps even iconic in that niche.... and I suspect it is a very big niche.--Isotope23 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. --Haham hanuka 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An obvious standout per Kjkolb. Would benefit from a better photo. --JJay 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per all the convincing arguments above. I withdraw the nomination. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - could people who participated in this nomination join us in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#The_.22Via_Paxton.22_rule and discuss which of these arguments should be added as additional criteria in WP:PORN BIO? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:01, 5 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. Mailer Diablo 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual apartheid

Yes, it's Another Apartheid Afd. However, unlike Israeli apartheid, this one doesn't look at all like a widespread term. It says "Sexual Apartheid is a term used by some same-sex rights advocates", but the references don't back this up, as the three external links all refer to Peter Tatchell. So if this article was rewritten to fit its sources, it would say "Sexual Apartheid is a term that Peter Tatchell used a couple of times", and having articles on every political catchphrase under the sun would be unnecessary forking. Delete. Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid

• Delete - this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia. The only reason for this and several "apartheid" articles created by Homeontherange (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was to have the Dismabiguation page [15] in which Homeontherange (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) can highlight the term "Israeli aparthide" in bold and hide the south africa era. All is part of an elborate scheme to make a WP:Point (while disrupting wkipedia) and turn wikipedia to what it is not. Zeq 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable term. It is interesting to observe that contrary to Homeontherange's view that "sexual apartheid" refers to LGBT issues, while "gender apartheid" refers to discrimination of women, the sources do not support it. For example, this Washington Post article[16] refers to discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia as "sexual apartheid". Pecher ^Talk 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic neologism. -- Heptor _talk 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Term coined by Paul Hoch in 1972. According to Google Books it is in fairly wide use in academic and other circles. Google shows 17,100 results. --Ian Pitchford 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad Googlum is the weakest argument possible. In fact, Google Books search does not establish the notability of the term or its meaning; extensive research using reliable sources is required to do either. The books where this phrase is found may use in various meaning, and Google search certainly says nothing as to how widely the term is accepted or whether there is any agreement regarding its meaning. Pecher ^Talk 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Google says nothing about whether there is any agreement regarding its meaning. The only hit I found for "Paul Hoch" "Sexual apartheid" speaks volumes: "Sports transcends social divisions and brings diverse people together --- with one important exception: routinely sport separates women from men. Paul Hoch coined the term "sexual apartheid" to describe this near-universal phenomenon." [17]. So right now Google is saying "this is a phrase people sometimes use to get a point across, and that point changes every single time someone different says it". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a term with many uses and an interesting history. Ideal for Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. Just someone trying to prove a WP:POINT. -- Kicking222 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Homeontherange obviously created this term so that he could justify creating a obviously pov disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ian Pitchford. Homey 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic RenyD 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was today.[18]
• Keep in widespread use in LGBT advocacy circles. Gerry Lynch 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it would seem that the point of these unencyclopedic articles, which blatantly violates WP:NOR, is to justify the disambiguation page, so that WP readers will see right away that the Afrikaaner "Apartheid" can refer equally to Israel or South Africa, which just isn't true. Wikipedia is being disrupted to make a partisan political point.Timothy Usher 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete not in common use Eluchil404 22:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is being disrupted to make a partisan political point. True -- by not in the way you are suggesting, and not by whom you are suggesting. Google Scholar gives 95 hits -- including journal-article titles -- and Google Books gives 77 books that use the term. Hell, Google News right now gives 4 hits. Obvious keep. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Just because someone makes an analogy to the real Apartheid doesn't make their analogy notable. BigDT 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to sexism sounds good to me. Wikt is where dictdefs go. Kotepho 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be legitimate scholarly use (per Calton above). Don't see any harm in keeping it. To vote delete it should be shown to be causing harm. The disambiguation page does not seem relevant. "having articles on every political catchphrase under the sun" that explains where the term came from, how it is used, whether it is in common use or just used by a few people, seems to be exactly what Wikipedia is good for. -- Samuel Wantman 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WLD 07:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. This WP:POINT is getting silly. Armon 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to homophobia or sexualism or somesuch, practically a synonym --Coroebus 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reluctantly For reasons stated by Zeq and Moshe, the obvious motivation behind the creation of this article (i.e. as part of the overall attack on Israel) persuades me that this article should not be kept at this time. "Reluctantly" (or "weakly" if you prefer) because I do not believe the phrase "sexual apartheid" (which to me, would mean a policy to keep gay etc. people separate from straight people) presents nearly the degree of difficulties that "Israeli apartheid" does. For one thing, "Israeli apartheid" is a specific, direct attack on Israel; it says right in the title that "apartheid" is being practiced by Israel. "Sexual apartheid" does not name a culprit. It implies that someone practices "sexual apartheid" but does not say who. Some might believe that "sexual apartheid" is practiced by all those who practice discrimination based on sexuality or those who express anomosity toward others based on their sexuality, though I think a strong argument could be made that they are not synonymous. All this is by way of saying that I do not think "sexual apartheid" is a hateful term, as "Israeli apartheid" obviously is. Sorry for the length of the comment, I just think this one is slightly more complicated. 6SJ7 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You should be judging based on the merits or demerits of the article in question itself, not on what you think of other articles or what you think the motivation in creating the article is. Homey 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure I don't need you to be telling me what I should be doing, especially when you are the one who created these articles (gender/sexual/global apartheid) just so you could justify keeping a "disambiguation" page referring to "Israeli apartheid" and giving the latter equal billing with actual apartheid. 6SJ7 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Given that you've admitted you're not calling for deletion based on anything in the article itself but based on external factors I thought it prudent to advise you that you are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not because you're opposed to a completely different article. Israeli apartheid and apartheid (disambiguation) will stand or fall on their own merits, what happens to this article will have no bearing on that - so why take out your anger at Israeli apartheid on an innocent little article on a completely different topic? Homey 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Homey, let me ask you a question. Given that I was, by my count, at least the sixth person to refer to your reasons or motives for creating this article (including those who cited WP:POINT)while voting to delete, why I am the first one you choose to "advise" in this manner? I did not think of the argument myself, I am just agreeing with others. Am I being singled out for attention because I made the foolish mistake of acknowledging that I have reservations about my vote? Maybe the next time I won't be so foolish, but I would think that the expression of second thoughts is something Wikipedia would want to encourage in other to have a full and open discussion. I don't feel very encouraged right now. I probably should have just said "Delete per Zeq and Moshe," and then you wouldn't be bothering me. 6SJ7 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Why? Because you express moral qualms about doing the wrong thing and were right to do so. Do you actually have any reason to vote delete based on the content of the article itself? Homey 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Homey, I asked you a question about why you are treating me differently from other editors. Are you going to answer that question? 6SJ7 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I just did. Because you expressed moral qualms about doing the wrong thing by voting against the article. Homey 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - reasons cited by users Ian Pitchford and Calton -- TheMightyQuill 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge - I could see sexual apartheid being merged with gender apartheid. --Ben Houston 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Heptor. gidonb 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep — agitprop term, but apparently widely-used per ghits. — RJH (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigDT. Demonstrating that a phrase is commonly used and demonstrating that the phrase is notable are different things. Su-laine.yeo 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Apartheid(Modern Uses) or some such. I'd hate to see a bunch of minimally notable terms each having their own page. Ted 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this phrase is increasingly used particularly in light of the debate on Same Sex Marriage, gay rights and legal homophobia. fullsome prison 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable term. --Ezeu 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These afds are beginning to seem a tad vexacious. CJCurrie 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It is indeed relevant. Pleas see WP:Point. Bertilvidet 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tewfik^Talk 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitonary, if it's a phase that needs defining and not a concept, move it to the dictionary--Rayc 04:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Carlton. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough to me.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:14, 8 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. Sango123 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olpere

I deleted this article because it seemed an OR to me, at least the naming part. The author contacted me and stated notability reasons: 1. Used constantly, just not NAMED 2. Somebody has to do it 3. Industrial context 4. Keep reading trade magazines 5. Respect the license and monitor patents issued

So I am putting it here to generate a clearer consensus. The naming part is problematic, the rest seems quite ok. So I suggest move somewhere. --Tone 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day while working for an Electronic Load manufacturer! As I'm not a scientist, I don't know how sound the science behind it is - but the article is written by the person who coined the term. Two days ago. There is absolutely no assertion of the term's notability within its field - just one citation of a noted scientific publication would be enough, I think. If such a thing can't be found, verifiability can't be established, so it has to be a delete. Otherwise, I could just create an article calling the exact same thing a "Spledgekoff", and who could say which of us was right and which one wrong? Seb Patrick 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Seb Partrick. (I am a scientist.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A term coined 29 May 2006 by an Electrical Engineer is an example of absolute non-notability. CP/M 23:05, 1 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, re-created deleted content. -- Longhair 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balga bogans cricket club

Does not explain notability, a local club maybe? Google knows nothing of it. Possible repost, different capitalization Balga Bogans Cricket Club deleted three times, I don't know if it is the same article. Weregerbil 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a recreation of an already deleted article -- I see no reason to assume that this is not the same one, if the other one has already been repeatedly deleted and recreated. -- Captain Disdain 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Captain Disdain.--Andeh 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. Xyrael ^T 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy. A Google search for "Balga Bogans" to distinguish it from bogans from Balga came up with references outside a Wikipedia mirror that uploaded the previous article see [19]. A search of verifiable sources came up with absolutely nothing on them. No evidence available that shows that they are a notable part of West Australian cricket. Indeed, their name indicates that they are a social club. A Bogan is a derogatory term in Australia similar to a chav in the UK. Capitalistroadster 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:14, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global apartheid

POV Fork used in an effort to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:Point Zeq 12:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia. The only reason for this and several "apartheid" articles created by Homeontherange (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was to have the Dismabiguation page [20] in which Homeontherange (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) can highlight the term "Israeli apartheid" in bold and hide the South Africa era. All is part of an elborate scheme to make a WP:Point (while disrupting wkipedia) and turn wikipedia to what it is not. Zeq 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • double vote Zeq is also the nominator, his "vote" should only be counted once. Homey 19:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • question "this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia." Zeq, please tell us *which* articles Global apartheid is a POV fork for?Homey 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many: Ethnocentrism, systemic bias, Third World, Eurocentrism, Ugly American, Ethnocentrism,Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World Neocolonialism and more. Zeq 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, two of the articles you claim this to be a POV fork of don't even exist. Makes me wonder whether you've even read the rest let alone whether you have any serious evidence that this article is a POV fork of the others. Homey 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• They all exist (some via indiection) check again. Zeq 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• They all exist - after you *deleted* one[21]. Homey 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure about the motives of the article's author, but the spurious creation of several articles with "apartheid" in their title does smack of WP:POINT. The article does not provide any sources discussing the notability of the term; therefore, it will be original research to conclude that the term is notable based on several sources using it. Pecher ^Talk 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Term coined by Gernot Köhler in the 1970s and subject of an OUP book Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism and the New World Order by Anthony H. Richmond (ISBN 0195410130). According to Google Books the term is used widely in academic circles and Google shows 79,500 results. --Ian Pitchford 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a "global apartheid(book)" in the =see also= section of apartheid.... Zeq 15:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad Googlum is the weakest argument possible. In fact, Google Books search does not establish the notability of the term or its meaning; extensive research is required to do either. The book where this phrase is found may: a) use this phrase in the meaning described in the article, b) use to refer to the global phenomenon of racial discrimination, c) use it in some other meaning, d) reference the book above, e) do something else with this phrase. All the possibilities are open here, and Google search certainly says nothing as to how widely the term is accepted. Pecher ^Talk 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

These are good arguments for an article discussing the use of the term. It will certainly be a new low for Wikipedia if an article is deleted simply because some object to the way related terms are used elsewhere, which we all know is the real motivation here. --Ian Pitchford 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss each and every two-word combination, as well as all the thousands of possible uses of such a combination. Pecher ^Talk 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. In an encyclopedia containing thousands of articles on porn stars, comic book, video game and cartoon characters we can afford to have a few articles on terms used by academics and others working in international development. --Ian Pitchford 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Porn stars, comic book, video game and cartoon characters are at least identifiable people or objects and are thus suitable for an encyclopedia, but random two-word combinations are not, even if used by some academics. Try searching Google Scholar for a completely innocuous phrase, like teaching experience; it gets 33,800 hits among scholarly papers. So, why not start an article on teaching experience? Because it is not useful in political advocacy, I'm afraid. Pecher ^Talk 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Zeq and Pecher. -- Kicking222 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Homeontherange obviously created this term so that he could justify creating a obviously pov disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per MCHAS and Zeq. -- Heptor _talk 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep. This article is not more silly than those other Apartheid articles that were kept due to lack of consensus to delete them. -- Heptor _talk 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete due to sudden creation of all these apartheid articles. Xyrael ^T 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep phrase recieves many hits and is being used by activists and academics. Mover doesn't like term "Israeli apartheid" so has decided to attack other articles to prove a point. Homey 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no value RenyD 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was today.[22]
• Keep per Ian Pitchford. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per WP:NOR.Timothy Usher 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Cited article, verifiable research. I'm beginning to suspect a bad faith nom and a violation of WP:POINT but I hope that this is not the case. --Strothra 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuastion is laughable. Creating this article was part of several realted articls all created to make a WP:Point about Israel. Zeq 20:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems Zeq is one of those people who laughs when he's nervous about being caught being naughty.:) Homey 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not nurvous at all. Amused. My girl friend is calling me so have a good night. Zeq 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So nervous you can't even spell the word correctly on your second attempt. Homey 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, this was two brilliant kindergarden level insults! -- Heptor _talk 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I may retaliate on behalf of Zeq: "Zeq's got a girlfriend and you don't! Nah nah nah!". The latter statement of course presumes that you are not currently engaged in any adequatly advanced romantic relationships. -- Heptor _talk 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And that that my adequately advanced romantic relationship isn't with Zeq's girlfriend! Ok, I think we've exausted the school age banter now:)Homey 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may want to wait for anyone else on the planet to request that immature insults cease, but then again you have seemed to mind looking like a hypocrite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to spell check when my girl friend is calling ? No way. BTW, good morning, seesm like you never sleep. Zeq 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. You are on different continents, so your relationship with Zeq's girlfriend would be limited to your imagination. -- Heptor _talk 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's why you nominated a well cited article. Besides, this article doesn't comment on Israel at all. --Strothra 02:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Well-sourced. Eluchil404 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Just because someone makes an analogy to the real Apartheid doesn't make their analogy notable. BigDT 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Isarig 04:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WLD 07:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Can't understand why should it be deleted. --Pokipsy76 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seeming attempt at a wp:point, and definite NPOV violation. Also, overusing apartheid in reference to these non-apartheids cheapens the real one. --tjstrf 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think some are looking at this in terms of the writer's intentions. Looking at the article in isolation, I think this somewhat notable term should be retained, but perhaps some NPOV tweaks to its wording would be handy. Barneyboo (Talk) 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above and per Zeq and BigDT. Armon 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to neocolonialism or somesuch, if there really isn't anything else specifically addressing questions of structural biases in favour of the West then I'm gonna have to vote keep --Coroebus 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)