Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.T.A.B.

Delete. - No reason for such an article. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 11:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete (the article now contains an assertion of notability, but still not likely worth keeping). — TKD::Talk 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Speedily delete for lack of an assertion of notability (WP:CSD guideline A7). — TKD::Talk 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable. Alba 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Recon0. (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Article adds nothing to the Wikipedia project. --Wisden17 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Is this fiction or real or ??? -- Oarias 03:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete a problem-packed article. ProhibitOnions 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosper (web site)

Non notable web site (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable and spamvertisement. Alexa search for www.prosper.com brings back results for Normanrockwell.com. [1]Royboy crashfan 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Hohohob 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and improve. This article may currently be vanity/advertising, but the web site has gotten non-trivial coverage in Business Week and New York Times. That satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (websites). dbtfz ^talk 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per dbtfz MadCow257 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and improve. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep; clean it up and perhaps some extra research into the significance entry would be good. Deckiller 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up.--Vercalos 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, needs wikified but seems just about wikiworthy Deiz 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn promo. mikka (t) 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Cited in NYT, hence wiki-notable. Ethereal 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per dbtfz Wh e re ^(talk) 14:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep needs cleanup, but notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Clean-up -- Alpha269 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless cleaned up and made to look less like an advert. It's all well and good to say "keep and cleanup", but who's going to do it? Stifle 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Cleanup. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I've cleaned up the article a bit and added references. dbtfz ^talk 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Cleanup, well known. --Masssiveego 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:WEB with the NYT and other mention. kotepho 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:WEB Criterion 1. ---Marcus- 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It has good references and is an interesting concept. SilkTork 12:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep has mainstream media coverage, decent Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Important wesbite as it is a very novel and ingenious idea. Certainly could do with a bit of editing, but deletion is really not a serious proposal.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Cuppett

Delete - No reason given for notability, rank not given, details of service limited to vague job description and list of medals earned. Internet search turns up individual who is a New World Order conspiracy theorist Nobunaga24 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, insufficient context to determine if this person is actually notable. Royboy crashfan 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep google search identifies him as notable crackpot. Eivind 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Google search [2] returns ~50 hits outside of wp, which makes him a pretty minor crackpot. Fan1967 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete- just not notable enough. Reyk 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Reyk. Crackppot or not, he just isn't notable.Montco 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep semi famous. --Masssiveego 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete A little bit interesting, but non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Interesting, but I think that thousands of vets will have got those medals.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete notability not established in article -- Samir ∙ T C 08:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not establish notability for position (action officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff; not a high ranking position.), nor for the following non-notable awards:

"The Defense Meritorious Service Medal is the third highest award..."

"The Purple Heart...to those who have been wounded or killed..."

"Bronze Star Medal... is the fourth highest award..."

"'The Commendation Medal is a mid-level..."

"The Vietnam Service Medal...is issued to recognize military service..."

"Joint Meritorious Unit Award... It is awarded to joint units or activities..."---Marcus- 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article needs to be redone, quite simply. The military awards are pretty superfluous to the article, and the guy is famous (to a degree) for his conspiracy theories etc.. I think with a good re-edit this article should eb a worthwile contribution to Wikipedia. --Wisden17 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not-notable. Military service is not noteworthy, and Google results don't establish any real notability. —LrdChaos 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain - Needs more information, not particularly notable. - Original editor, give us more... Oarias 03:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - there's presently nothing worthwhile in the article, and is possibly vanity, listing all of his minor medals, but possibly borderline notable as a conspiracy theorist (though this is not mentioned). ProhibitOnions 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funnly

Blog with "over 3,000" visitors. Apparently known for posting stick figure pictures. Does not come close to WP:WEB, but {{prod}} was removed. Delete. bikeable (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wiki is not infinite.SilkTork 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't imagine what it'd be like if we cataloged every non-notable blog out there. -Dawson 00:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no notability asserted. Royboy crashfan 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete agree, nn -- Samir ∙ T C 08:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I can't believe this wasn't deleted outright. Completely non-notable. ---Marcus- 09:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
DeleteVery poor article, which serves absoluetly no purpose, and has no place on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedilly deleted per a7 nn group. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedCell

Delete--Here's another vanity page for a MMO game clan, not the sort of thing we need on Wikipedia. ikiroid | (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRUFT. Royboy crashfan 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as {{db-club}} ... "NOTE** Please only edit if you were authorized by Plazma to do so." -- nervy bunch. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Adrian. Turnstep 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brushogun

Fictional character from a movie yet to be released (that still has some time before it comes out). Delete as original research (read: speculation). --InShaneee 21:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: "Little is known about him." Fagstein 09:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep but redirect: Upcoming character in the Teen Titans movie - SGCommand

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moink 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR. Royboy crashfan 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Mike _{(T C)} 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Teen Titans -- Samir ∙ T C 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're right Marcus (see below). Delete -- Samir ∙ T C 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There no salvagable information in the article for merging. It is speculation and original research based on watching the Trouble in Tokyo episode. The only available source that I could find is www.bcdb.com, and that information is already in List of Teen Titans episodes.---Marcus- 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete obviously. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete Mozzerati 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
DELETE -- Not existant yet Cruft. -- Oarias 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete', NN and because WP is not a crystal ball. ProhibitOnions 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Instance

It seems to be some kind of instruction page of somesort, not very clear, definitely not encyclopedic. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Royboy crashfan 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --djrobgordon 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. kotepho 05:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete oh wow. I think it's WP:NOR -- Samir ∙ T C 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Goes under WP:NOT Section 1.7, instruction manual.---Marcus- 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 13:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
DeleteAgree with all the sentiments expresseda bove.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 three - Liberatore(T) 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And also Lucky design, which appears to be a copy of Lucky Design. - Liberatore(T) 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky Design

Delete Vanity page. I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same user with essentially the same content.

Nicky Miller
I've also added Nicholas Miller -- Samir ∙ T C 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RossPatterson 01:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete both per WP:VAIN. Royboy crashfan 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Both Vanity, ad. Basically duplicates the information on their web page, though not closely enough to be copyvio. Fan1967 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as nn vanity,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and I've added Nicholas Miller as well. Vanity. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all three. Nicky Miller and Nicholas Miller go under WP:VANITY, while Lucky Design goes under both WP:VANITY and does not comply with criteria in WP:WEB.---Marcus- 10:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
DeleteAbsolutely no value in this article. --Wisden17 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as spam. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and all associated SPAM. -- Oarias 03:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles Real Person Fic

This article does not do a good job of establishing notability of the topic, and the sources do not seem verifiable. It has no incoming links other than its classification in WP:Beatles (where User:Kingboyk and I decided that it may be a candidate for removal during the course of classifying articles... shameless plug, if you're a Beatles fan, we'd love to have you! Ahem, commercial announcement over). The article has a lot of jargon (which is not defined) which suggests a very specialised or limited interest audience. (it is true that Google does turn up some references to the term, but enough to be notable? Are they from notable sites? I don't think so but could be convinced otherwise) ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, I recommend Delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Further info: zero incoming links from mainspace, no non-bot/janitorial edits since creation on 27 February 2006. --kingboyk 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, and WP:VAIN. Royboy crashfan 01:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Beatlescruft, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to call it "fanfictioncruft" if you don't mind, Mr Ong :) --kingboyk 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and I'm a beatlemaniac. Agree this is crufty. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge if sources can be found. The author PurplePopple has created multiple similar articles in Category:Real Person Fic, including Star Trek Real Person Fic, ActorFic, Star Trek Real Person Fic, Lord of the Rings Real Person Fic. She appears to be an expert on the subject of fan fiction, but unfortunately with a taste for original research. My suggestion would be to delete that which cannot be sourced, and then merge the relevant parts of the whole category as subtopics or mentions into the article Real person fiction. I have contacted the author about this debate taking place, since she could, as an expert on the subject, possibly find sources quickly. It's going to be tedious, but not irrelevant to the topic of real person fiction. ---Marcus- 11:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge, and yes I am another Beatles fan, but one article for Real person fiction is quite sufficient unless the notability is at some future time enhanced by independent reporting and kudos. Darcyj 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete'. Complete cruft about some kind of disbute involving LiveJournal users or whatever. If there was a real phenomena, and this article documented that, that would another thing. But not this. Herostratus 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn Beatlecruft the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- kingboyk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milwaukee Brewers: All-Time Team

Appears to be original research. Googling "Milwaukee Brewers" "all-time team" returns nothing that would indicate either the Brewers or a media outlet named such a team. Also, the members of the All-Time Team appear to change depending on who's editing the article. A Brewers Walk of Fame exists [3], but the membership isn't consistent. If I come across any similar pages for other teams, I'll be listing those as well. djrobgordon 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no encyclopedic content. Royboy crashfan 01:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic, just a personal favorites list. Baseball fancruft. Fan1967 02:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless there is some reason to believe that it is more than one fan's personal opinion. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalist Roadster.Montco 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalistroadster as unverifiable. -- Andy Saunders 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's WP:NOR. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT.---Marcus- 11:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per all of the above. Darcyj 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, needs an external source. Herostratus 20:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, serious WP:NOR violation. Deizio 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Imaginary baseball Dream teams are not encyclopedic. --Oarias 03:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Sue Anne 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomax7

nn company, reads like an advert RJFJR 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, or a vanity page for Tom McLaughlin. Delete. Kafziel 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:NOT the yellow pages. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Whoops! VanityCruft. Needs the über-patronising "mistaken user page" tag Deizio 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- NN business, WP:VSCA, though possibly minus the C. But I wouldn't argue the point. Haikupoet 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable advertising. —GrantNeufeld 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. {{db-bio}}; check this version. ~ PseudoSudo 07:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the original version, not the same IP as the creator...it could easily be vandalism. I don't think we can assume it's about a person even though it says it's about a company just because that means we can speedy it. NickelShoe 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Read it. It is about a person. The first two sentences make vague mention of a company. The remaining paragraphs are about nothing but Tom McLaughlin. Kafziel 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, and agree that it focuses on the person. I do not think that that is sufficient grounds to speedy it, since it claims to be about a company and then gets off track. NickelShoe 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So I can write an article about myself, as long as I title it "Kafziel 1.0" and nobody can speedy it? That's ridiculous. It doesn't "get off track", it's never about any company. Look at the talk page. The guy admits to having created this as a vanity page. Kafziel 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Cyde Weys 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production work

I can't believe this article has been around for a year, written by a frequent nonsense contributor (see User talk:Pagingmrherman) Eivind 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete hopefully an admin will come by and speedy it. --djrobgordon 01:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a (not very funny) joke. dcandeto 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fast. --CrypticBacon 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above or redirect to Production. dbtfz ^talk 06:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, consider this the green button. No information -- Samir ∙ T C 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Gave me a good laugh though! :D ---Marcus- 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, w/o prejudice because the subject is worthwhile. I'm pressing the red button. Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. BrendanH 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I feel for those who come here by random. Remy B 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meeli Mulari

After Googling this "model" it is clear that she doesn't have a modeling career so much as she "wants" to have a modeling career. Rklawton 01:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement, although I may download that photo. --djrobgordon 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a résumé. dcandeto 02:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn wannabe, though I agree with Djrob. Fan1967 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert, not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs) .
Keep. She's signed with "NEXT"[4], (currently) ranked 5th [5] in New York. She's not aspiring, but are models notable? And in case you want to download some more pictures:[6]. --Grocer 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would guess models can be notable, but not one who garners 6 Ghits [7].

Her name is Mullari [8]. The article has a typo.--Grocer 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

She may be signed with this agency but they don't seem to be promoting her. Fan1967 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, I don't think she's notable yet. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Next has atleast 400 models (as listed on their homepage [9]), and most of them don't have the extensive media coverage needed to be considered notable. ---Marcus- 13:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete 48 unique Googles? Come back when there are five or six zeros on that. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete HotChickCruft. One more reason to spend all day at AfD... Deizio 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
DELETE Non notable - Wikipedia is not for articles about models you want to bang. --Oarias 03:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Very weak move to Meeli Mullari. This only gets 600-700 google hits, but some appear to be from Vogue. --Karnesky 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT to bootlegging. — brighterorange (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boot-legged

It's a dictionary definition copied from the American Heritage Dictionary, so it's not the proper kind of thing to have here AND it's a possible copyvio. dcandeto 01:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as (signed) dicdef, perhaps Speedy A8 per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with observation. The definition does not appear to be copied from the American Heritage Dictionary, though it cites that dictionary as a source. The section of translations seems to come from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/bootleg. That said, I don't think this is an especially good definition, a much better one appears on the bootleg disambiguation page. And what's up with the big Pokemon picture? Crypticfirefly 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WINAD Шизомби 06:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete agree, with nom. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WINAD. Nothing usable in that article.---Marcus- 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef at best. Turnstep 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artbox

Closer's notes
As there was no clear consensus about Deric Williams, which was added into the nomination later on a different basis than the primary nomination, I have listed that page for deletion separately, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deric Williams.
As to the primary nomination, although a numerical majority of editors were in favour of deletion, the argument put foward was that the article did not satisfy the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Other editors rebutted that argument, by citing sources showing the article did indeed satisfy the criteria. As such, there is no basis for deletion. This is a deletion debate, not a vote.

Delete Non-notable band Fnarf999 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN. Royboy crashfan 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating Deric Williams, member of this band, as being also non-notable by the standards of WP:BIOFnarf999 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also delete for same reason. Royboy crashfan 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, barely meets WP:MUSIC with their album Crush charting on the CMJ Radio 200. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn band. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think it meets WP:MUSIC, single album, indie label, no national music chart appearances -- Samir ∙ T C 09:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- When did CMJ stop being a national music chart? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I think WP:MUSIC says a single from the album. -- Samir ∙ T C 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - With these jokesters I would like to see some confirmation that Crush really charted at CMJ.Fnarf999 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - WP:MUSIC says "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      - Agreed. I interpreted "hit" as a single, probably mistakenly. Do you have the reference of Crush on CMJ? -- Samir ∙ T C 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's on the Amazon entry. I can't find any CMJ chart archives, though.
        
        CMJ charges beaucoup bucks for chart data. Fnarf999 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

keep they did chart, after all. Perle 02:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Note:User's 9th edit to Wikipedia, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk --kingboyk 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete One hit on an airplay top 200 does not equate to "a charted hit on any national music chart" imho. --kingboyk 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- So why have the guideline? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Wikipedia is not for listing albums made in your parent's garage. -- Oarias 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- I find this charting claim suspicious at best. Oarias 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- I dunno, it's possible - to pop up for a single week on the CMJ 200 means probably three radio stations with a total of a hundred listeners played it. Fnarf999 04:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as returning hoax. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Carlow Crab episodes

The author put up a list of episodes of an apparently fake TV show. Carlow Crab and The Carlow Crab have already been deleted. Delete DMG413 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnicode

Delete: Appears to be spam for a small, one product, software company Kickstart70 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disclamer: I am the creator of OmniCode, though not the creator of the Wikipedia page for it (though since it exists I'll improve the OmniCode page. My suggestion that Omnicode (small c) be deleted has nothing to do with OmniCode (large C) --Kickstart70 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP kotepho 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, appreciate the explanation Kickstart70. Hasn't met WP:CORP quite yet. -- Samir ∙ T C 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP, not to mention it's so content-free as to border on nonsense. Haikupoet 04:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and Mr. Poet's summary. Kuru ^talk 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Gotta delete em' all! =D - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route 105 (Pokémon)

Non-encylopedia-notable videogame info ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated into this as a bundle:
Route 101 (Pokémon)
Route 102 (Pokémon)
Route 103 (Pokémon)
Route 104 (Pokémon)
Route 106 (Pokémon)
Route 107 (Pokémon)
Route 108 (Pokémon)
Route 109 (Pokémon)
Route 110 (Pokémon)

Delete or merge as they are not worthy of their own articles. Royboy crashfan 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep, recurring pokemon locations. Could probably be merged. Kappa 02:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ten articles on recurring locations within the same videogame. What's next, a separate article for each streetcorner in Grand Theft Auto? ("On 5th and Main you can mug a pimp and steal his bling." "On Broad and 9th you can either buy drugs or shoot the drug dealer.") Thatcher131 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

<Taking notes> --Calton | Talk 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete The individual routes are not notable (enough to warrant seperate articles), and as for the rest, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual per WP:NOT. --CrypticBacon 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into one, all encompassing article on Pokemon universe highways. Bayberrylane 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Pokemon. Good grief. The only thing about merging these is, each article has a section called "Obtainable Pokémon" with a bunch of entries of what I suppose must be pokemon characters and their "obtainability", whatever that is. If this information is significant and if it pertains somehow to the different 'routes' (whatever those are), no way you can merge it unless you made a huge table or something. Herostratus 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah but what purpose does that serve an encyclopedia (and I say this as a believer in video games as the future of entertainment, and a member of the the video game industry....it's just not something that belongs in an encyclopedia). ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That I cannot say. To be honest, the articles made about as much sense to me as an article on neuroscience. But I wouldn't say to scrunch and merge a bunch of neuroscience articles because I don't know what they mean. For all I know these 'routes' are a great literary achievement, keys to unlock the secrets of the human heart, a stage for exposing the human condition in all its triumph and sorrow, a new Shakespeare Folio for our times, the glory of the age, which future generations will pore over in wonderment and awe, seeking ever-more detail in their quest to understand the minds of those who created such transcendant art, a quest which, alas, will be ever in vain, for the legendary Wikipedia articles that are said to form the keystone, then nexus, they key, the map, that brings together the raveled threads and claims Truth from the shadows... these are forever lost. Herostratus 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That brought a tear to my eye! ;-) --Oarias 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

At best merge. It looks like something that would be more at home on Wikibooks. Gerard Foley 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No salvagable information worth noting. Nifboy 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete or at best merge into one article. kotepho 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as pokécruft, per all above. Sandstein 05:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unless, as per Thatcher, we want to invite articles on every building in Max Payne 2 or every AmmuNation in Grand Theft Auto. FCYTravis 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as Pokemoncruft, and because keeping would invite a whole new level of cruft that we can't imagine yet... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as Pokemoncruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There are places to put game guides (wikibooks?), an encyclopedia isn't one of them. Average Earthman 08:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Too crufty for my blood -- Samir ∙ T C 09:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete or at best merge into a simple table on a single article. (Most of the content is the same anyway) - Tangotango 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into a larger article. Turnstep 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, sounds like the info in these already exists elsewhere. These articles are mostly all the same anyway. Ned Wilbury 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Oh dear god, gamecruft that is cruftier than cruft. And if THAT'S not convincing: Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom.--Isotope23 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete since Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com. Pepsidrinka 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into one all-encompassing article. Notability is not a problem. Pokemon has a rather large following, and the list could prove somewhat useful to this crowd. I have seen far less notable things slip by AfD on a regular basis. There is no reason to have separate articles. There is very little information in each article. Cdcon 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, precedent has already been set. Consider the World of Warcraft area maps. Cdcon 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't seen that. Thatcher131 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete appallingly crufty. Really. Absolutely no encyclopaedic merit whatsoever. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per JzG and others. --kingboyk 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete but merge any appearance relevant to the specific pokémon article. F e tofs ^Hello! 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Serious PokéCruft. Advise interested parties to incorporate useful info into an existing article before it gets flushed. Shouldn't take long... Deizio 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. There isn't enough significant information concerning the individual routes in Pokemon, aside from strategy guide-type info, to warrant articles for each. WarpstarRider 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This belongs in a strategy guide or at Gamefaqs. Wikipedia is neither of these. -- Saberwyn 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
STRONG Delete This is worse than cruft. I'd almost call it vandalism. Flooding WikiPedia with useless trivia. -- Oarias 04:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Let's not get too comprehansive on the Pokemon subject, shall we. --O bli (Talk)^? 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into List of locations in Pokemon or something. --Rory096 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- The best merge target would be List of locations in Hoenn. These routes connect the locations described. Note, this is not support for a merge. -- Saberwyn 09:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice, because this is just ridiculous. Pokécruft, and completely un-encyclopedic. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nerk

Fuhghettaboutit originally tagged it for PROD, but I think it should be kept. A Google Test result of 104,000 Googles seems notable to me. King of Hearts | (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. Royboy crashfan 02:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete... just delete. --CrypticBacon 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no transwiki. non-notable unstable protoneologism -- I sincerely doubt more than a few of those Google hits relate to the term as described in this entry. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete (or is it inappropriate for me to vote since I originally prodded?). In the event that it is not, my 2¢: Google results are actually very telling. After finding and excluding those things with a lot of hits that are obviously unrelated (fred nerk, newark, etc.) you'll find that nerk only returns 769 unique google hits [10], and none that I scanned bore any relationship with the word as defined in the article. While google is not the end-all, be-all notability test for many subjects, I think it is with respect to testing widespread dissemination of a word. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: And thank you Adrian Lamo ·· for teaching me about unique google hits a few weeks ago. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and do not transwiki. Agree with Adrian and Fuhghettaboutit; this is a neologism -- Samir ∙ T C 09:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a dictionary. This definition is incorrect as the word was first coined for use in Porridge (TV) in order for the programme to be shown on the BBC without including swearwords. Reference in programme article. (aeropagitica) 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn neologism. dbtfz ^talk 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as slang definition - and an incorrect one at that. Definitely not a neologism - as AP points out, it's been around since at least Porridge in the 1970s, and ISTR that the term was used in Polari before that, though I could be wrong. In any case the definition given on this page isn't correct. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Grutness --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Megre with appropiate list (whatever that might be). If not Delete -- Oarias 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sherries

Seems like a Hoax. And yes, I am BBIH BBIH the Almighty 02:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. History shows this was originally moved from The Carlow Crab. Fan1967 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hoax. --DMG413 02:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaoslab

Seems to be non-notable software. Website has no alexa ranking. However, there are hundreds of google hits on the term chaoslab. I'm unsure what percentage of them are referring to this product Xyzzyplugh 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete- No asserion of notability. Reyk 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not even sure what the product really is, or if it is even in release. From a random sampling of the ghits, there are several other products with the same name. nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. kotepho 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable software, possibly vaporware. Now if it was being developed by Professor Chaos... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn software (loo loo loo, I've got some apples) -- Samir ∙ T C 09:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splash conception

This page was nominated for deletion on July 2005. Most of the keep votes were based on the fact that this page had potential to be larger article. It is now March 06 and it is still nothing more then a dictionaty definition which should be moved to Wiktionary. Gerard Foley 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Dicdef. Move to wiktionary and be done with it. Fan1967 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, continues to be an encylopedic topic with potential to become a large article. Kappa 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete A Google search doesn't show this term appearing on too many "authoritative" (i.e. medical/health) sites, from what I can tell. Non-notable neologism. --CrypticBacon 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Goolging it brings up a ton of information relateing to this, seems plausable. Mike _{(T C)} 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For what it's worth, I strongly dispute that a Google search turns up a "ton" of information. Many of the articles listed are talking about a band somewhere named "Splash conception", the Wikipedia article is 1st or 2nd (depending on if you search w/ or w/o quotation marks), and there are several Wikipedia mirrors. I fail to see any reputable web sites in the mix showing that this is something more than simply a non-notable neologism. However, if you (or anyone else) disagree please respond. --CrypticBacon 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On the first page, the top 7 hits for this on goolge are related to this. 1 is wikipedia, and 2-3 are for a band. Mike _{(T C)}

05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any Ghits which Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. - Rynne 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, perfectly encyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I have been unable to find any verifiable sources for this in a search of sources including Academic Search Premier, eLibrary Science, the Health and Wellness Centre, the Marshall Cavendish Science Reference Centre or two newspaper databases. For that reason I concur with Cryptic Bacon's assessment. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment People, this is nothing more then a dictionary definition. It's one and only sentence has a citation needed note. It's had 6 months to turn into an encyclopedia entry and has failed to do so. Gerard Foley 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary. This has been around a while but hasn't evolved. It survived a VfD in 2005. I don't think it's a neologism -- I've heard the term used, and was surprised there weren't more references -- but I agree that it probably won't evolve to more than a dicdef. Samir ∙ T C 09:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. If there's something verifiable on this topic (and we haven't found it in months), put relevant details into conception or somewhere else appropriate. Ned Wilbury 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As important as it is to know about Ass babies, I completely agree with Gerard Foley. This seemed to pass its first AfD largely on the caveat that the article be cleaned-up and made encyclopedic. Since the article has essentially remained unchanged in the 8 months since then, I see no reason to believe such encyclopedic content will ever be forthcoming. - Rynne 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the sentiments of Rynne and Gerald Foley. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge per nom. --mm e inhart 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Orgasm denial. Done. Ifnord 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female orgasm denial

~~Unverified neologism, possible original research.~~ CrypticBacon 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per comments by MLA, below. --CrypticBacon 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism, as noted above SailorfromNH 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Royboy crashfan 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Um, did y'all check Google? 12,700 hits on that exact phrase seems a bit high for an "unverified neologism". It's obviously an extremely extant term, granted that's it appears to be primarily a porn term. How common it is in the actual BDSM community I don't know. But it sure ain't an unverified neologism. Herostratus 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It was unverified in the article. As for the Google search, well, what can I say? Not a lot of help in establishing this as a "real" term. Mostly porn ads.--CrypticBacon 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete A search of online verifiable sources as outlined above for "Splash conception" came up with no sources verifying this at all. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is probably obvious, but I'm going to state it anyways. This vote was most likely meant to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splash conception. kotepho 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment See Orgasm denial, it does actually exist. I would suggest a redirect kotepho 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Erotic sexual denial per kotepho. bikeable (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Kotepho. -- Andy Saunders 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Kotepho, though Orgasm denial needs sourcing as well. Шизомби 06:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Per Kotepho. Cnwb 07:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Erotic sexual denial, not to the redirect Orgasm denial. I suggest merge as the Erotic sexual denial article is purely from a male denial perspective and that isn't what this article covers. I appreciate that this article is so poorly written that it may be difficult to merge. This term is definitely not a neologism but I can't verify that from a work connection. MLA 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Kotepho. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Kotepho. --Oarias 04:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Kotepho. Do not merge, because this article doesn't actually say anything specific to the female case. Melchoir 05:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect, as nom has withdrawn his delete vote. Perhaps this would be under WP:SNOW, as there are a few delete votes. But note they all predate kotepho's comment which led to a lot of votes for redirect.--Karnesky 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. -- King of Hearts ^talk 05:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James A. Hawken

nn school founder. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Expand. The page is probably too short but should be explanded. Axiomm 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Explanding a non-notable article doesn't make it more notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep if someone is willing to expand. Royboy crashfan 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Keep if it can be expanded; otherwise make it a redirect to the school page. Bayberrylane 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Hawken School . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Adrian.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above -- Samir ∙ T C 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Adrian. Conscious 12:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Adrian. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge or Delete. No other notability cited except founded a school. Already mentioned in Hawken School, only information to merge is year of birth&death which have little notability. Weregerbil 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Hawken School, as the information in this article is already included and there's nothing to merge. Sliggy 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Redirected. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete at request of author. I will however be polite and userfy it. kingboyk 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth J. Dillon

This was speedied with the notation "nn bio by user KennethJDillon". If any of this this true no way is it a speedy -- the article at least claims that he's written five books - seems true enough, he's on Amazon, although "Scientia Press" might be in his mom's basement. The other claims seem a bit over the top... but he is (apparently) president of Spectrum Bioscience Inc. (whatever that is), he was a intellgence analyst did write some paper about that al Queda guy. I dunno, is he notable? I can't really tell, and I'm not gonna vote, I'm just switching this from speedy to AfD. 453 Goggle hits on "Kenneth J. Dillon" Herostratus 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, although there may be initial vanity issues. He's notable enough to be interviewed on Voice of America [11], and Scientia Press, while a publishing arm of the Spectrum Bioscience group he's President of, doesn't appear to be a vanity press in the strictest sense of the word. I'll note that his anthrax theory was notable enough to get its own subheading under the 2001 anthrax attacks article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep per above, but needs better citations. Also, exactly why is a history Ph.D duing all this science related stuff? That and the summary makes me have a slight feeling of this being cranky self-promotion. JoshuaZ 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Is a self promoting crank. Delete per Fan1967, and we may want to look into taking that section out of the 2001 anthrax article. JoshuaZ 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I was just looking through the history on that article to see if I could find any source other than anonymous IP. Haven't found the original source yet. It also shows very recent edits. Fan1967 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent edit of his section there came from IP 151.200.12.109. The contrib history from that IP (Contribs) sure looks like him, as it includes: an update on the Al Qaeda guy, Abderraouf Jdey to add Dillon's name; an update to Photoluminescence to add Biophotonics, with an extrenal link that resolves to Spectrum Bioscience; and, finally, an update to Radioactive waste to include his disposal plans, complete with external links to, you guessed it, Scientia Press. Fan1967 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, they should probaly get edited out also then. JoshuaZ 04:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Everything looks wrong on this guy. It appears he is Scientia Press, or is at least its only author. All the external links in the article point to Scientia Press' web site. He identified an Al Qaeda operative as responsible for the anthrax mailings, but I can't find any claim of this that doesn't trace back to Dillon or Scientia Press. The FBI posting for the guy makes no mention of the anthrax episode at all, nor can I find any mainstream news organizations reporting the claim. Dillon has a PhD in history, but claims to have made major medical breakthroughs in areas of, uh, alternative treatments like "Biophotonic Therapy". His book, "Close to Nature Medecine," has an Amazon rank of #2,146,676. He's developed a cognitive cure for depression. Oh, and apparently he can solve our nuclear waste disposal problems. How do we know these things are true? Why, because he told us so himself. Either this guy deserves the Nobel prize in everything, or he's a total crackpot. Fan1967 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan1967 Eivind 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Man of considerable creative talents but limited notability. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Whether he's a crank or not, whether he publishes a pile of vanity books, there's still sufficient evidence of notability. [12] Monicasdude 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. One the one hand, the AIDS book review journal (which you cited), which is compiled by a general librarian and is not peer-reviewed, recommends Dillon's self-published book as "A recommended book for medical libraries for its historical content and possible basis for future research." On the other hand, the library at the major research institution/teaching hospital I work at doesn't have either of his books on healing, Dillon is not published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, and his only exposure in the mainstream press is three letters to the editor. Does notability outweigh verifiability? Thatcher131 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep he does seem to be a published author. kotepho 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment He's a published author because he owns the publisher. Fan1967 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Can anyone find any books published by this publisher that don't have him as the author? JoshuaZ 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. The website lists three books, all by him. It also lists Scientia Press' contact address as "c/o Kenneth J. Dillon" at an address that appears to be his apartment. Fan1967 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRACKPOT and backtrack the links. Biophotonics is real but doesn't do what he claims. Books in Print lists Spectrum Bioscience as publisher of 3 books by Dillon, has no other authors. Only Lexis/Nexis hits in the past 5 years are three letters to the editor of the Washington Post. Thatcher131 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan1967. -- Andy Saunders 05:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan1967. What's WP:CRACKPOT? We should have it, though... Sandstein 05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, crackpots are allowed. See David Icke who says Queen Elizabeth and Kris Kristofferson are alien shapeshifting reptiles. The problem is this guy's a not very notable crackpot. There's precious little indication that anyone pays any attention to him. Fan1967 06:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If somone writes WP:CRACKPOT I'm sure we can take notable crackpots into account. Thatcher131 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, excellent argument by Fan1967. To summarize as above: (1) He is Scientia, (2) All his notability is based on Scientia as the source (3) He is president of C4AT where a whack of the Ghits come from and (4) Please do not irradiate your blood as I'm on call tonight -- Samir ∙ T C 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm Kenneth J. Dillon. Six comments.
1. Slow down.
2. Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before. Historian turns scientist? Doing scientific detective work is right up my alley. Get used to it.
3. Many of the responses are relying on indicators that may not be as useful in this case as in others--e.g., self-publishing, which I assure you works a lot better than trying to get really novel ideas past editorial gatekeepers. Eventually, I hope to turn Scientia Press into a normal science publishing house, with books by many authors, and spin it off. If prestige conveys credibility, then the fact that one of my books was published by Smithsonian Institution Press is relevant.
4. The Wikipedia article does not make a claim of "major medical breakthroughs", nor does it claim that my cognitive therapy of depression is a cure.
5. It would not be reasonable to expect you to read much of what I have written, but you might find at least the article identifying the likely Anthrax Mailer[13] worth reading. The evidence cited there suggests that FBI takes it dead seriously. It very much looks that, more likely than not, Abderraouf Jdey was indeed the Mailer. And my credentials for being the kind of person who could identify the Mailer in this manner are impeccable.
6. Read several of my items. You will see that I'm not a "total crackpot", and that what I have been working on is not unimportant.

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

I formated your comment a little, I hope you don't mind. No one is citing your theories' validity as a reason for deletion. If you can cite mentions of your work or yourself in primary or secondary sources your biography would be worth including. Until it does meet WP:BIO however, it does not belong. Even if you had cured cancer we would not include your biography until it was verifiable and published in reliable sources. This deletion is not an attack on your character or your importance, just that a biography on you should not be included in an encyclopedia. kotepho 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconding Kotepho. Wikipedia's goal is verifiability. One of the consequences of this is that autobiography is discouraged, per WP:AUTO, as inherently unverifiable. As noted above, you do not seem to have been covered in any of the traditional media sources that would tend to show you had achieved notariety. Regarding your sepecific claims, they can be included in the appropriate articles, provided they are verifiable. Thatcher131 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To bring up a specific issue on the verifiability, the article suggests that the FBI takes these theories on the anthrax mailings seriously. Can you offer any external source (like the FBI themselves) to confirm this? Everything I can see seems to indicate that you have self-published many interesting things, which very few people seem to pay any attention to. Fan1967 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable eccentric, for reasons stated above, unless it can be shown that the FBI takes seriously his identification of the anthrax operative. I know a bit about linguistics, not a great deal, but enough to say that I've gone to the trouble of reading his article on the Latin language and it's pure garbage. Mustafa Bevi 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before Actually we have, generally several times a week, which is why we have WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, and WP:Verifiability as policies and guidelines. Self-published self-promoters -- with earnest arguments as to why they're somehow different from all the others -- are a dime a dozen around here. Sorry, you're not special: delete per Fan1967. --Calton | Talk 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan1967.--Isotope23 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per excellent arguments above by Fan1967, Kotepho, and Thatcher. Slowmover 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)'
Comment FBI has been badly burned by the Hatfill case, so it is understandably reluctant to identify a suspect in the anthrax mailings unless it has actually apprehended him and obtained a confession or rock-solid confirmation. Not likely with Jdey. However, there is quite a bit of evidence, cited in my Mailer article, that FBI takes him very seriously. As I note, evidence and logic suggest that, more likely than not, he was indeed the Mailer. As for my article on "The Trojan Origin of Roman Civilization", you would do well to read it yourselves rather than to accept someone's dismissive opinion. But I certainly understand what you are talking about in terms of verifiability. It is undoubtedly true that my work has not been covered in the traditional media. According to that criterion, my bio article does not belong in Wikipedia. So I will delete the article myself. Best wishes. Kenneth J. Dillon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethJDillon (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkeye vodka

Unremarkable and unverified. Googled this and found about 200 references, most of which were reminiscing about drinking this while at college in Iowa. I reviewed the history and found that the entire article has been back and forth with a bunch of opinions and unverified silliness about whether this vodka is an inexpensive locally produced masterpiece or lighter fluid. Montco 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Eivind 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn alcohol phenomenon,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This page (and the number of Ghits) suggest it's the most purchased vodka in Iowa. Confirmed according to the liquor board of Iowa for Jan 2006: [14]. I think it makes local interest, despite silliness in the page's history -- Samir ∙ T C 10:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ -- it's listed on List of vodkas, and other kinds of vodkas are listed there. Maybe Hawkeye vodka would go well with a Spanjo. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you had checked, you would see that it was added to the List of vodkas by the same anon who created the article. Delete. Slowmover 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Actually, I didn't go that far back to check. Given that it was created by the same anon who created the article, and they have only one other edit, it's not notable -- and it would go especially well with a Spanjo. I'm changing my vote to delete. --E lkman - ^(talk) 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. According to the Des Moines Resister (see [15]), it's the most popular (and cheapest) vodka in Iowa. That makes it notable enough, in my opinion. dbtfz^talk 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. No denying it exists, so keep it on the List of vodkas, but there is no verifiable or significant content to this article except the fact of popularity in Iowa. That doesn't rate a whole page. Slowmover 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- rotgutcruft. Haikupoet 04:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as member of non-notable band with no other assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camille Evans

The article seems more like a vanity page than anything and not really encyclopedic. Except for the very general 'indie', there isn't a single valid link to anything that the page refers to. I've Googled this person and come up with zero relevant hits. Bayberrylane 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn member of nn band Eivind 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn band, no releases, no attempt to establish other notability. Kuru ^talk 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Eivind kotepho 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-bio}}, being in a redlink band isn't notable. loads of kids are in random noname bands. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep/merge adding merge tags. W.marsh 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liza Powell

Somebody tried to nom this here, but appearantly didn't know how. The wife of that tall Irish fella on the tv, nn except for marriage. "This article is like a harlequin novel" according to a post on the talk page. Eivind 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Conan O'Brien. Well referenced article but doesn't establish notability outside her marriage to O'Brien. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Might as well Keep The article is written by someone not good enough to write for People; it's pretty bad. That being said, the spouse of a celebrity tends to become notable by proxy even if they're pretty much nobody otherwise. For examples, see Melania Trump or, God help us, Kevin Federline. Fan1967 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Liza Powell to Liza Powel. wait a minutte, I was bold and did it. Eivind 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold, but read the AfD notices first. "You must not rename the article unless you make sure the page still links to the discussion page. This is most easily done by creating a redirect from "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New page name" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old page name". It's usually best to do so immediately before moving the article page, since this ensures no links are broken, even if somebody visits a page in the middle of the changes.

You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.". In the spirit of the AfD process, I have asked a admin to fix the redirect, sorry! cc to talk page. Mike _{(T C)} 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't need an admin for it to be undone (just click here). Secondly, a redirect is not the same as a merge and there's no problem with being bold and doing a redirect if consensus is leaning that way. Ordinarily removing the AFD tag is vandalism and it should at least be moved to the talk page. In this case, the nominator did the redirect, is he withdrawing the nomination? --kingboyk 06:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the problems, but it was ment as a withdrawal of the nomination, since Liza Powell isn't the page we should be considering since the article's subject's name is Liza Powel, and there is a Liza Powel article The content of the articles are almost identical, i didn't think it would be a problem. I was unaware of the fork when I did the nomination. Again I apologise, but I'm now uncertain which article we're discusing. Eivind 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Conan O'Brien as Capitalistroadster kotepho 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Capitalistroadster. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Sliggy 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Smerge (just found that on WP:GD, neat word). Not just merge, but shorten, shorten, shorten greatly, from its current Harlequin Novel status. If no one will shorten, delete. She carried a matching purse and red roses. O’Brien wore a dark tuxedo, white shirt, and cream tie. According to Eonline, the minister described the bride to the local news (KING-TV), "She’s a beautiful, beautiful, wonderful person in all ways." Aaaargh! GRuban 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uptech Computer

Was originally Prod'ed by EricR as "does not meet notability criteria in WP:CORP". Oarias moved to AfD.

Obvious Keep Company has been around for almost 20 years and has many branches in USA and Canada. Oarias 03:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete 717 Google hits ... you don't become encyclopedic just by being around for a while. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete same reason as prod. EricR 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 16 years of sellin' boxes, hm, notable??? --MaNeMeBasat 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment-- I really don't get Wikipedia sometimes... A minor character from Pokemon (Perappu) gets its OWN page, but a company with probably several hundred employees doesn't?? Oarias 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep per above Perle 02:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete; seems like a loosely knit group of franchisees that doesn't collectively meet WP:CORP. (I mean, they all don't even use the same logo...) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- I believe the logo I put in the article itself IS the actual logo (not sure about the tagline in the graphic however) Oarias 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the company has been around for 20 years and sounds encyclopedic enough to be on here. Had this been some company founded yesterday, and given an article, we might have to reconsider that. - XX55XX 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Week Keep or Merge to PC Warehouse. However, I wasn't able to find a single news article. ---J.Smith 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per XX55XX. --Snargle 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the external links are to the various stores. Is this chain really more notable then the parent company? Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Causes Of The Boom In The USA

Nice essay, but clearly OR. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a C+ high school essay Eivind 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as OR. I think Eivind tagged it right. Fan1967 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and I think a C+ is being generous. kotepho 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as OR.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and letter grade as per kotepho. MCB 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and automatic F for lack of bibliography. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per other comments (OR). —LrdChaos 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Blatant OR from title. Night Gyr 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and I would give it a C- as an essay, as it doesn't explore such a deep topic. If someone can write a decent, wikified, encyclopedic article to replace this, then go right ahead. Bayberrylane 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I only wish a 2-paragraph essay like this could have got me a C+ in high school. - dharm a bum 22:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Original research essay rubbish. Oscar Arias 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dogballs

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]}}

It's a dictdef of a slang term. Not encyclopedic. Since it's slang wiktionary won't want it, just delete. RJFJR 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Eivind 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "Dogballs is a slang term used in the game of golf." Really? By whom? Oh wait, nobody that would make this WP:V and not WP:NFT or WP:NEO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and feel free to insert your own WP:DOGBALLS joke here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not just slang, but slang that I, as a golfer, have never heard. For the record, this is precisely the kind of slang I'd use if it were in common use ;) --Deville (Talk) 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WINAD WP:NEO WP:V Шизомби 06:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This deserves, at best, a mention in an article on golf, not its own articleAyreon 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete. It's a term I've used many times. I'm a golfer.

Surprise, user's only other contribution is removing the AfD from the article. (Restored.) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another surprise...those that are commenting are self-rightous in their comments and aren't avid golfers. Sorry to take down the last message...it was an error. :(

Delete unable to verify usage in this context, does not google. Neologism. Accurizer 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is valid. I work at a golf company. Often used. Request to NOT delete. --User:Snappper08:11, 10 March 2006

Valid slang - I'm an avid golfer. Golf is riddled with cliches and euphemisms, don't deprive the world of this legitimate entry.

Delete. At the very least, the 'source' is not a verifiable one. Remy B 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable cliché.--Ezeu 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary, or a golf or slang wiki, if there is one that wants it. It seems to be legitimate slang, just not encyclopedic. Bayberrylane 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
don't delete : I also found an instance of dog balls here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands#Texas_Hold_.27Em_Slang
Merge to a combined list of golfing slang and terms, on the sole condition that externally verifiable information is provided to the community (both here and within the article) from reputable sources. Private testimonials are not going to cut it; I'm talking about news articles, golfing magazines, pro players using the term in interviews... in other words, widely distributed hard copies of the information that can be accessed and reviewed by both non-American non-golfers and the people who use this term, proving that the term is in widespread use. Closing admin, if this has not happened by the time-end for the discussion, count this as a delete. -- Saberwyn 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A golfer uses the word in a story at this site: http://www.hamegg.org/main/article.php?sid=280

Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 03:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olga Peters

Subject is Non notable. Being the granddaughter or daughter of someone doesn't assert notability. Ragib 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: NN. --Ragib 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. kotepho 05:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Extremely non-notable. Herostratus 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete extremely nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete - I was interested! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.58.82 (talk • contribs).

Note: Users first edit. --Ragib 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete — yeah, you're right, not notable. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete or Merge in to Svetlana Alliluyeva. Deletion depends on how you interpret WP:BIO "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". From the links provided it the article, she is the subject of two short news reports. The question is how much or at what level dose involvement in media coverage assert notability. In this case the involvement might not be enough to assert notability.--Blue520 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. The article says she's a student. Big deal. Thoroughly, utterly non-notable whatever WP:BIO says. --kingboyk 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've just read Svetlana Alliluyeva, which was fascinating, but her daughter is not independently notable. --kingboyk 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Call me goofy, but I think Stalin's kin are notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Call me pluto, but I agree with Adrian. I agree that being Stalin's grandaughter is notable -- Samir ∙ T C 01:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not genetic trait. Pavel Vozenilek 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As Kingboyk said, she's not independently notable. Bhumiya/Talk 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirected to Educational technology Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Educational Technologist

I know, I know - it sounds like it could be a real article. But it's three sentences of... unsalvagability. Herostratus 05:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Deville (Talk) 05:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Educational Technology. Sandstein 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Educational Technology. kotepho 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've been WP:BOLD and redirected to Educational Technology. If you guys are happy with that I'll close the debate - otherwise just rv. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse the redirect. The topic of "-ogist" (beyond what is implied by "someone involved with "-ogy" ") could get encyclopedic expansion by experts familiar with current developments in the field, but until we have that, the redirection is better than a garbage-stub. Barno 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Educational Technology. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Educational Technologist is now a double redirect, it should be redirected to Educational technology not Educational Technology, but I don't how. Eivind 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Double-redirect fixed. Thanks for letting me know Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW since it's hard to find a policy it doesn't contravene in some way. Just zis Guy you know? 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nourhaghighi

Speedy contested, PROD contested without reason; brought here as a formality, I would hope. Vanity and possibly copyright violating text dump from his autobiography. Subject may be notable (despite his Tripod-hosted website, gets a modest number of Google hits), but this article is useless in this form, and I doubt the user will allow its cleanup into a useful one without creating vanity edits (a la James W. Walter?). Reads more like a soapbox than a biography anyway; already exists on this user's page (and his talk page?!) as well, so no point in a userfy. On that basis, delete. Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, if not speedy. -- Andy Saunders 05:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Vanity, OR and NPOV are obvious. Two chapters of an autobiography? If there's not a speedy rule to cover this, there certainly should be. Fan1967 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you can Speedy as R2. The fact that his user and talk page are filled with different rants doesn't change the fact that this stuff belongs there. Fan1967 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

R2 means the article should be deleted because it is a redirect to user space doesn't it? --kingboyk 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

R2 is unintelligible. I speedied it as C3PO. Just zis Guy you know? 23:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, POV, vanity and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Ezeu 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonnotable club per A7. Angr/talk 09:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mississauga Football League

Non-notable municipal football league. PROD tag removal by article's creator forces me to bring it to AFD. My vote: Delete. Andy Saunders 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Joe 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a nn youth suburban league.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. kotepho 07:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Textbook non-notable club with no assertion of notability, CSD/A7 . — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep as someone with more mad skilz than I figured out that they do have some coverage. Nomination withdrawn. FCYTravis 20:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viva (band)

Non-notable made-for-TV band with one album and nothing beyond that. Google returns nothing relevant. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ unless more and better evidence of notability is provided. dbtfz^talk 07:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Change to keep, as Viva appears to be the Spice Girls of India. (Nobody cares about them anymore either, but they still get an article.) dbtfz ^talk 11:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete India TV pop band that apparently no one has cared about since 2003 [16][17][18][19] [20] [21] [22] [23] kotepho 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep If you are able to find eight articles from seperate publications about the same band, well then they are notable enough for inclusion.--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Id say nobody cares about them any more but keep as India's first all-girl pop band Defunkier 13:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the equivalent of "American Idol" winners in a much larger market. Monicasdude 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I think being "made for TV" in a major market nearly automatically makes them notable, since it fits the major media coverage aspect. Night Gyr 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margarita Movers

"Margarita Movers LLC is the preeminent frozen drink machine rental and sales business in the greater Washington, DC metro area." Great. Still fails WP:CORP. 33 Google hits for "Margarita Movers"+drink. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable company. If it can be shown that Margarita Movers passes WP:CORP I would be happy to change my vote. Isopropyl 06:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as WP:CORP failure, but not before I've gotten some free samples... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as above. Sounds like a porn star (no thats not a good enuf reason to keep) Defunkier 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as much as it pains me to vote down a company with such a noble cause; bringing margaritas to the masses. nn per above. Kuru ^talk 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Military Tradition

Unsourced original research which purports that if it wasn't for the South the US would be a bunch of weak-kneed Godless Commie Yankees. Perhaps we should have an article here, but nothing at all is preferable to this pile of POV piffle. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as OR. Fan1967 06:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced OR. Fightindaman 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless it is extremely cleaned up. kotepho 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as origninal research. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN in combo with the "weak-kneed...Yankees" comment in the nom MLA 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but point the article's author to the pitiful stub at military history of the Confederate States. We do not yet, as far as I have found, have an article that deals in depth with the Confederacy's advantages in military leadership. The author of this essay might be interested in taking on that worthwhile project. Smerdis of Tlön 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as essay. The word "tradition" in the title seems a bit POV, too. --Allen 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and notify per Smerdis of Tlön. Alba 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek 14:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nn-bio. Angr/talk 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Kenneth Jones

nn Elvis impersonator, possible vanity. His official site is on freewebs and it consists of four pictures, two very unremarkable looking "upcoming events" - and a statement that he is an "award-winning" impersontaor without specifying what they are. Also, he says "call this number" (his mobile) - doesn't he have an agent if he's so notable?? Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete in a tossup between {{db-empty}} and {{db-bio}}, he gets the {{db-bio}}. non-notable in a trivial field. — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete totally nn and I'm certainly not drinking any of his koolaid. kotepho 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tahrirolvasyleh

This article is about a book with a tentative existence. The fourth volume (specifically) of the Tahrirolvasyleh (or Tahrir al-vasilah) shows little proof of existence. What we have is:

the link to the book on a Greek Nationalist site.
A few mentions on anti-Islamic websites and the most notable source I saw was Islam Exposed which apparently quotes it per an Amazon review. I could not find it for sale.
There doesn't appear to be an English translation.
I can't find commentaries on the book in English from any reliable source.

Pretty much it seems like trying to demonize Khomeini. So, do I know if it really exists or not? Well, I'm not fully convinced either way... but right now it's an attack page and we have no evidence to believe it definitively exists. So, it really needs to be deleted unless we can get definitive and neutral references to it. I've searched my library's databases, the internet, etc. and I get very little. This delete/remake/delete has gone on for a while and this will hoepfully clear things up maybe the wider community knows more about this. gren グレン 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Keep (still need something more credible) if we can't get any real neutral sources. gren グレン 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep, but clean up and mention that it is probably not really written by him. --Khoikhoi 07:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is going to be very difficult. Is the book a terrible Anti-Khomeni slur and falsehood, or is the AFD an attempt to supress the truth by pro-Khomeni editors? I have absolutely no idea. (That was a rhetorical question by the way, please don't reply on my talk page as it's unlikely I will vote either way on this one, and I'm not challenging anyone's good faith - I'm sure those of you in the know will appreciate and understand that the dilemna is exactly as I have posted it). How to verify the article if many relevant sources are not in English? Again, no idea. No vote from me because it's a subject I know nothing about. --kingboyk 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I had a similar dilemma at the beginning. My answer was: if it's a page and information is being contested then we need strong sources. If there are none it should be gone. If some surface it should be recreated. gren グレン 07:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I'd mostly agree, provided this AFD were not used as grounds for deleting future recreations if the evidence has changed. Very fair comment you make though. --kingboyk 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep; ~~scurrilous attack page. I don't like Khomeini, but fair is fair.~~ Zora 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lukas changed my mind! Now that the page is cleaned up (though it could use some more work), its existence is a useful refutation to the rumors re the content of the book. Would be nice if some editor who can read Persian would add more content. Also, publisher should probably be Dar ul Ulum, or something like that. Zora 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I believe that Khomeini wrote a book; I'd wager that the picture and the download ARE that book. I also believe that the Iranian revolutionaries lowered the age of marriage to nine, based on hadith purporting to come from Aisha claiming that she was only nine when she married Muhammad. Apparently it was believed that having a minimum age of marriage for girls that was greater than nine was a slur upon the prophet. Given that the hadith are sourced to Aisha, whom the Shi'a detest, giving them credence seems pointless to me. But ... whoever wrote the text claiming that Khomeini endorsed pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and gosh-knows-what-else was extrapolating from that one fact and saying, "Well, if he endorses sex with nine year old girls, he must endorse sex with anything and everything!" Which there is no reason to believe. Clear fabrication. Otherwise the revolutionaries would not have been killing homosexuals and stoning adulterers. Zora 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Keep, not a significant book, but we can keep it if we have neutral sources.--Mitso Bel10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, in the NPOV-tidied-up version made since this poll started. I don't understand the doubts about the "existence" of this book (the nominator speaks of a disputed "fourth volume" but the article doesn't even mention it has more than one in the first place. Another person on the talk page who advocates deletion says that it's a "very ordinary book" - so if he's actually read it, it must exist?!) And as for notability, Khomeini is himself so notable that I'd assume just about anything he wrote would qualify. The very fact that people here on Wikipedia get hot-headed about it shows me that there's something to it. A very cursory Google search yields these among dozens of pages apparently quoting the book (I assume that the title transliterated as "Tahrir al-wasilah" is the same work; correct me if I'm wrong): [24] [25] [26] [27] Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lukas, There is a tradition in Shia clerical system: Any cleric who reaches to the highest level will write a book in which he will narrate the basic rules of Islam that are used for every day life of Muslims. Any cleric like Khomeini, would sit down and rewrite what his teachers wrote previously. If you look at these books throughout the history you will see that even the style of these books and wording are conserved. These are not philosophical books and there is no novelty in it. They have to write such book when they recieve the title of Marja. In summary this is a very routine work by any marja, very basic islamic rules, copied from previous sources and contains no novelty. If the issues are controversial, it has nothing to do with Khomeini. All other Marja have the same issues in their book. If you want to see what I am trying to say, take a look at the sources that you yourself provided. You see that Ayatollah Lankarani is rewriting this book. This is a knwon tradition. However Khomeini has some books that are very novel and very controverisial. These books are his personal ideas. He did not copy these books from previous works. For example, Khomeini is known for his novel and controversial works on velayate faqih. His main books are listed at the end of his page. User:CltFn who is insisting to have this article, would like to take one paragraph of this book (out of several volumes) and say that Khomeini was advertising sex with animals !!! If there exist such a thing in this book or similar books, it is not the author's problem. These are islamic rules. And khomeini is just narrating them. They can not change it or add or delete it. --Mitso Bel11:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - that actually sounds like a great piece of information to be added to the article. It doesn't change the fact that (a) some followers of Shi'a Islam apparently quote this book routinely as an authority on Islamic life, and (b) some detractors of Khomeini have made the book a target of criticism. Both combined make it notable for me. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lukas, here is very good link that talks about Khomeini's books including this one.[28] My problem is that the guy who started the page, want to introduce the book as a book on sexulaity! I doubt there exist more than two pages or even two paragraphs in the book about this issue. One can not say the subject of the book or even a very surprising issue in the book is sex with animals ! First of all the subject of the book is fiqh. Second, Khomeini's point on sex is not specific to him. People are surprised because they have never seen Islamic books or they have some political interets. Anyway, why people are surprized about writing two sentence about animal sex. Just search in google. You will find milions of pages about animal sex all by non muslims. I have no problem with having a page on this book. There are lots of pages in wikipedia that are not very significant. But I am worried about political attacks. Why don't they attack other ayatollahs who wrote such things ? Khomeini is neither the first one nor the last one who writes a fiqh book. If we can find an original research work on this book that criticises the issues and khomeini's ideas, we can have a useful page. However all pages provided by User:CltFn are anti-khomeini propaganda. Take care.--Mitso Bel12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made a quick stab at actually incorporating some of your comments in the article. Needs to be checked. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, my reasoning was... we have anti-Islamic sites quoting volume four of this book as saying things about sex with animals, etc. No scholarly source that I could find mentioned it. There was scant information about the book besides on a Shia forum I found "the fourth volume doesn't exist". Here's where I completely disagree with you: "The very fact that people here on Wikipedia get hot-headed about it shows me that there's something to it. A very cursory Google search yields these among dozens of pages apparently quoting the book". It's really not to hard to get fabricated quotes to be thrown around the internet... I mean, we have past examples such as the protocols... so, if we are really going to claim that all of those quotes are from Khomeini we need to see that some qualified source has translated them from this book. This just wreaks of verifiability problems. The fact that there is corroborating evidence from Shia and anti-Shia sites talking about the book's existence gives me more faith the book exists... but what's in it and can anyone who reads Arabic verify the integrity of the text that is linked to? It'd be good to have someone like User:Mustafaa take a look into the text I think. gren グレン 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(Just one more comment:) The pages I found on the net were of people quoting it in an approving fashion, just as a standard reference for Islam morality. Nothing of the polemic sex-with-animals kind. Why doubt that those are correct? Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The links I found were mostly of the sensationalist kind; however, if the book exists yet the web coverage is unbalanced, Wikipedia has an opportunity here to rectify that. As always, we will try to present both sides of the debate - in a neutral, well rounded way - which would make the article a keeper indeed. The article is much better now, for sure. --kingboyk 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep This is a real book which is highly reflective of Khomeini's character , views and philosophy and is thus very notable. The full version of the book is downloadable in the link at the bottom of the article for those who claim it does not exists--CltFn 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The book does NOT reflect Khomeini's character. It is just a collection of islamic traditional rules. It reflects Islam not Khomeini. The book is by no means an islamic philosophy book. I think you are not familiar with the difference between Islamic philosophy and fiqh. --Sina Kardar13:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep --Terence Ong 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- AfD isn't a vote, it's a discussion. If you're not going to say why it should be kept, there's not much point commenting. Average Earthman 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Improve Verifiability or Delete. There is no citation. Cdcon 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep (in)famous author, should warrant an article. Eivind 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Im not voting. The topic doesnt interest me. But the book exists. I positively assert this. I'll leave quoting it in or out of context to y'all erudites.

The LOC website provides the following info about the book:

LC Control Number: 81216590 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Brief Description: Khomeini, Ruhollah.

Taḥrīr al-wasīlah / li-Rūḥ Allāh al-Mūsawī al-Khumaynī. 
al-Ṭabʻah 3. 
[Tehran?] : al-Thawrah al-Thaqāfīyah al-Islāmīyah ; Bayrūt, Lubnān : Tawzīʻ Dār al-Taʻāruf lil-Maṭbūʻāt, 1981. 
2 v. ; 25 cm.

CALL NUMBER: LAW ISLAM 7 Khom 1981

Copy 1

-- Request in: Law Library Reading Room (Madison, LM201)

-- Status: Not Charged

Note:

The book has no ISBN number (as far as I know).
No translations either (again as far as I know).
And as a sidenote, last I recall, the Majles raised the female age back up to 13 during Khatami's administration.--Zereshk 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I agree with Zereshk. I also want to raise another related issue: The point is that, the book has become a target for attacks not only in wikipedia but also throughout the web. The book is not a significant book. And I also doubt that Khomeini wrote the book personally. The tradition is like this: A Marja has a group of students. They will go and collect and write the book and even they will publish it and then they will bring one copy to the Marja for his signature. He will go through the book and will sign it and then the book will be distributed. The reason is that the content of the book is not new. Any Marja has to have such a book and that is more of a formality. In these books there are many thing that are not practiced like eating insects. Neither khomeini nor any other Iranian eat insects. But these issues are usually in such books because 1400 years ago prophet talked about these things. The same is true for sex. But some anti-khomeini guys want to abuse it and say that khomeini was himself such a guy. If you do not believe in me see this wikipedia page which is initiated by User:CtlFn who also initiated Tahrirolvasyleh. The person in the picture is NOT khomeini ! But he is insisting that he is khomeini ! For any Iranian this is clear that the guy in the picture is not khomeini. It is so obvious. This is the story. But CltFn neither proves his claim that the guy in the picture is Khomeini , nor accepts what Iranian wikipedians are saying. If one brings this picture to iran and shows it to a random Iranian and insists that this is a picture of khomeini, people may think the guy is an idiot. --Mitso Bel10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

...which is really quite a strong argument for keeping this article, and keeping this stuff out of the Khomeini article (with just a brief mention and a link) whilst it's still in dispute. I've had a word with that user today as he approached 3RR, and the existence of this article was one reason I gave to him for laying off Khomeini. --kingboyk 10:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Whenever goes CltFn goes the controversy. I've never been against the articles in which she/he introduces her/his very extremist views which most of the time produce a good deal of resistance from most wikipedians. However, the article as it is now is encyclopaedic and POV free. Keep up the good work guys. -- Szvest 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Me have extremist views? Not really , try informed views. --CltFn 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep As even the nominator says keep, and most people who know about the subject are saying the book does exist, I'm saying keep too. Clearly it's going to need some colloborative work to get it to NPOV (should such colloboration between polar opposites of opinion be possible). The article's changing in tone every time I see it, it started out as sensationalist, now if anything it seems neutered :) I'm impressed by the way that this debate has so far not devolved into a slanging match, which to be honest I thought it would, so let's keep it that way. --kingboyk 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:JesseW — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wedge Crew

Non-notable school club. Was speedied, members of the group contested it, so I'm sending it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Speedy delete - reposted stuff. It is just a bunch of kids messing around.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: G4 and A7, and protect as repost and non-notable/made up in school one day club. "May the Wedge go down in history books"... well, not Wikipedia though. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Speedied, and protected from re-creation. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

left on talk page of AfD:"Actually we aren't a bunch of kids messing around, we go to a small college preperatory school of about 500 students, and literally are known as the Wedge. We are a serious group at our school and we would like to have this article on here, we are not making this as a joke or to fool around." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatcircles (talk • contribs) .

... and maybe BJAODN that rant above? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Letter Christian Movement

202 google hits, some of which are not unique. It appears to be a new neologism describing some new breed of christian thought. It may be notable but not particularly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete [29] shows usage back to 1997 but certainly not widespread. Not many results on google, most of which are repeats of the same articles [30] [31]. kotepho 08:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and merge with Progressive Christianity. This phrase has been given some publicity in Christian circles as a description of politically liberal U.S. Christians. Not sure it merits a separate article. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better redirect would be to Evangelical left, which seems to be similar. Or Consistent Life Ethic. KHM03 ^(talk) 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable special interest group. Not quite a "movement". --Ezeu 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it seems to be unclear where to redirect to. Dlyons493 Talk 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and Merge with Progressive Christianity. From ProgressiveLiberal I made the page. I wish for the issues that I talk about to be on one of the sites. Thank You for your time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.125.255 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

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

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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness

Sorry but this, to me, is utter crap. found on User:Ashibaka/Hoaxes Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Can you be more specific than 'utter crap'? Did you even look at the sources in the article? Or the many comments on the talk page? This is definitely not a hoax. Remy B 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment It's a repost though. There's a reason why this is a second nomination. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The content is certainly not the same as the last time it was deleted. Doesnt this line assert the notability of the topic: ""Truthiness" was selected by the American Dialect Society as the 2005 Word of the Year, and by the The New York Times as one of nine words that captured the spirit of 2005. "Truthiness" has also been discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, MSNBC, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, and Chicago Reader, on ABC's Nightline, and on The Oprah Winfrey Show (see below). In January 2006, "truthiness" was featured as a Word of the Week by the website of the Macmillan English Dictionary."?
Keep. WHY? Why does this need to be deleted? Stephen Colbert often refers to this word in his show and MANY OTHER NEWSCASTORS have used this word as well. This article is more about the current event revolving the word than the actual definition. --DragonWR12LB 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hmm.. the last 5 minutes of activity has convinced me that this is NOT a hoax, and certainly notable - much more so than it was after the last AfD. I'm delisting the nomination and removing it from the hoax list. My apologies for wasting your time. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and Cleanup psch e mp | talk 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Family Guy

Uncited, unverified POV fork. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Theres no reason to delete it as it has gone where no other show has gone in many ways.
Keep This looks like it is just an expansion of a legitimate section of the bloated Family Guy article. It does cite sources, and it's not inherently POV. dbtfz ^talk 09:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per dbtfz MLA 10:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't look POV to me and Family Guy is a notably controversial series. 23skidoo 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Only a couple citations are missing, otherwise it seems covered. I'm not sure why it would be labeled a WP:POVFORK, that doesn't seem to fit - criticism of FG is noted in the main article, and the Criticism article is not WP editors' opinions, but notables that are sourced. Definitely not an important article to me though. Esquizombi 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I just did some additonal cleanup and moved the original research template the middle section, which does kind of look like "simpsons vs family guy" original research. The top section is quite good and the bottom section just needs some citations. Thatcher131 18:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I believe that people that want this article deleted just want anything negative about "Family Guy" censored.GuruAskew 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep plenty of other "Criticism of" articles out there. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep If we can find space dedicated to individual epiosdes of Family Guy, then we can find space for valid criticisms.Schrodinger82 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep (I know this is a belated response) This is a relevant article, due to there being a large amount of negative criticism towards the show, and a lot of the entries for this are informative. It is much too long to be summed into a small piece to be a subcategory in an article, and has much informative that could be useful. Black Kat 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Clemens

Delete. Seems like a vanity page ... notability is not clearly established. Same user added a reference to Clemens' book in the article Sonnet and some misspelt nonsense on the page of the genuinely notable John Forbes, which amounted to vandalism (which is how I ended up here) and is clearly not a good sign in terms of the article under discussion here. Stumps 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. [32] & [33]. PJM 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable poet, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nn poet. -- No Guru 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] MechZ

nn game - created by a main developer Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Expand or delete: Sorry, it looks interesting and passes the Google test, but at this point doesn't seem to pass WP:SOFTWARE Alba 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The Google test threshold for software, especially browser-based applications should be set high. MechZ fails. --Ezeu 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Cubbage

Probable hoax about fictional piece of furniture. Borders on nonsense. 'Cubbage' gets many Google hits, but only as a surname. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Gazpacho 10:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nom is too generous. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Шизомби 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "A certain someone" doesn't make a case for notability. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per above; neologism, too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per all above. PJM 13:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Steve Slaunwhite

Non-notable, vanity page, linkspam. Jokestress 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment If he did write it himself, as a copywriter he should be embarrassed by it, particularly "Scholastic Canada foot the bill"? Amazon.com Sales Rank: #49,145 in Books and apparently a favorable Wall Street Journal review. Possibly notable. Only 864 ghits though. Шизомби 11:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN self promotion. --Ezeu 18:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I came across his name in the copywriter article, which said, "Giants in the copywriting field include David Ogilvy, William Bernbach, Steve Slaunwhite, Robert W. Bly and Leo Burnett." Mr. Slaunwhite is certainly not in the league of the others listed, all of whom have written best-sellers and/or founded multibillion-dollar worldwide advertising conglomerates. Jokestress 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Jokestress Slowmover 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] "Campaign For Real Music"

WP:NOT a soapbox. The image says it all, really. Sandstein 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom (WP is not advertising) and Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Alexa Internet traffic ranking of: No Data. Whoa. Oh - also meant to mention there's a history of prods being removed from the page, as well as this AfD being removed! Шизомби 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Шизомби: this is vanity adspam. Alba 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sorry, Leo. PJM 12:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above Defunkier 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are all overreacting and need to take a reality check.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Langers1970 (talk • contribs).

BZZT...performing reality check...please wait...DING! Delete...no notability detected. - Randwicked Alex B 08:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was It's listed on WP:CP now, nothing left to discuss here. - Bobet 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese property bubble

Blatant plagiarism

Delete This page is clearly plagiarized, as a simple google search will show. --Sludge 10:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio of a LA Times article. Alba 12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinidadian slang

Violates WP:WINAD. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep per London slang, Helsinki slang, Irish slang, Canadian slang, Boston slang, et al. Hopefully expand beyond a simple list, but keep. --Grocer 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep not a dictionary entry. Should be reworked tho. Crzrussian 12:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Grocer, although it should at least be in alphabetical order! Keresaspa 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Grocer. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary... which is what should also be done with all the lists Grocer mentioned as well.--Isotope23 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The topics and lists are of linguistic interest when grouped together --Grocer 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - This is just my personal opinion, but I don't agree with having any slang def lists on wikipedia... I think they are better served at wiktionary or wikisource. That's just my opinion though; I expect to be strongly over-ruled on this one. --Isotope23 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - I agree. It's just a way to get around WINAD. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, It's always a hard call to see when lists of definitions provide enough context to be encyclopedic. I think this list makes it. But that's just my loonie's worth, and it may just be that I'm distracted by the noise from the Vomit Comet coming in cause the peelers have closed. Such is life in the T-dot -- Samir ∙ T C 06:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- You've probably made the best case for keeping I can think of just above! :) (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 12:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Obeah --MaNeMeBasat 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I wrote this before I had a wiki account, how dare you consider this for deletion! --Stookie

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosmix

Advert tag removed without cleanup or rewrite. Gets a few Google hits, but they look like spam. Created by a user whose only other edits seem to be adding links to this; {{advert}} tag removed by user in same netrange as creator. ergot 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Kosmix is not a spam site. There was a pretty extensive article about them in the Merc that you can read here: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13791484.htm. They also won a DEMO god award (http://www.demo.com/demoletter/011116.html#more) and power the search on the Healthcentral network. Article should not be deleted.
Delete. I originally got involved with this when somebody mentioned it on AfD, asking why this apparant spam was let stand while their article was being proposed for deletion. It does get a few Google news hits, but they seem to all be press releases from Kosmix (and I didn't see any being picked up by any major outlets). Listing here following removal of {{advert}} tag, which indicated to me that if kept, this would always look like spam. Search engine seems to still be in alpha. But, they do have an Alexa ranking of 43,539 (not unusual for spam, and well short of WP:WEB). If this gets kept, it will need a rewrite, and ideally by someone whose IP is not in the 66.253.xxx.xxx range. ergot 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. -- Krash (Talk) 18:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monash Berwick Buddhist Society

Non-notable student club, as with a few in Category:Australian student societies, and a good deal in Category:Student societies. Dangherous 11:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [

Delete per nom. --Ezeu 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not asserted in article so potential A7 speedy candidate. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --James 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Non Notable Film. Has not progressed beyond a stub. Film has not been distributed and has only ever had one showing. No reason to keep. Irishpunktom\^talk 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that this article has been through AfD before, found here. Pepsidrinka 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Per my nomination. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Pepsidrinka 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to be a simple video recording of a conference, one of many thousands that are done every year. Unless there's some clear indication of notability it should be deleted. --Lee Hunter 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Why would you want to delete an article which provides information on a controlversial film? Notice who the 3 editors above all voted within the same 30 minutes of each other.--CltFn 13:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Would you mind explaining what that (i.e., the 3 editors voting within 30 minutes) has to do with anything? I for one did not get any message telling me to vote. I don't need to justify myself, but here goes. The article is on my watchlist. I looked at the difference link. I saw this. Wow, there must be some sort of conspiracy going on. You better watch out for the cabal. Pepsidrinka 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You said it , I didn't, why would you suggest such an outrageous possibility?.--CltFn 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you implying, kindly be explicit with your accusations. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we're tracking meaningless information, note that the three editors who voted to keep also did so within about 30 minutes. Spooky. ;) . --Lee Hunter 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And if ";) .", "15:04", "10", "2006", and "(UTC)" are each counted as words, then there were exactly 30 words in your post! {shiver} Шизомби 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to be more explicit to CltFn and any other editor who didn't catch my sarcasm. The link I provided to cabal goes to WP:TINC, where if you go to TINC, you will see what that means. There is no cabal. Pepsidrinka 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and 51.3 editors voted within 139.271 square weeks, get real. Defunkier 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- What are you saying? I'm Confused --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Im saying some random number of people voting in some random unit means nothing. Editors should vote based on the articles merit, not on their levels of paranoia (and no Im not accusing anyone of being paranoid) Defunkier 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I'm getting the impression from looking at the edit history that this article is listed for deletion because of "personal" reasons rather than "non-notable" reasons (especially since it's been listed for deletion by the same user twice - I do find it odd that after the first time it was listed for deletion the same user added a significant chunk of text about the synopsis two days later. Why would you add to an article you're proposing to delete?). It's certainly not an Internet hoax or Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch was duped into, not only providing commentary for the film, but also placing an article on his website [34]. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- An entry on the Jihad watch blog does not make th film notable. The fact is the film has only been shown once and has no distributor. How is it possibly Notable? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I didn't say it made it notable. I said "it's certainly not an Internet hoax..." There was a comment on the Talk page of the article (near the bottom) suggesting that it may be. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "personal" reasons. This film is not even close to being notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Show me an example of any other movie on Wikipedia that has only been shown once? Kaldari 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia has non-stub articles on four commentators (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Walid Shoebat, and Srđa Trifković) from the film, yet an article about a film they have appeared in is not notable? ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Correct. No one has the Magic Touch of Notability. Melchoir 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I followed the links and watched the premiere video, and it seems like a smear job by the Religious Reich, for the Religious Reich. That alone doesn't disqualify it from inclusion on WP however. But I'm not sure what the notability criteria for film is? It did, verifiably, have a film festival showing. However, it doesn't appear to be scheduled for further showings or release, and the official site hasn't been updated since January, and Alexa Internet's traffic ranking for the official site is: No Data. I'm in the middle on this one, and need a pointer to film notability policies. Шизомби 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the "film festival" at which this video had its first and last showing is not in itself notable. It was more of an obscure political PR event than an actual film festival --Lee Hunter 14:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - If that's true that would explain why the movie is not on the IMDb, since that would not qualify it for inclusion there AFAIK (and indeed it is not there). I reserve judgment still. Шизомби 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as NN. I believe the religious Reich commentary by the cutely-named Шизомби is a personal attack of the type disallowed under WP:NPA. I am not experienced in these things, but somebody tell me - can we spank him? What's the contemplated punishment here? Crzrussian 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - but only with some form of wet fish. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, by "by" I meant the filmmakers, and by "for" I meant the audience - I thought that was clear by my mentioning that right after having said I followed the links and watched the video. I didn't mean people on WP. Шизомби 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment only WP:NPA if you are part of the "Religious Reich". Kidding aside, WP:NPA only applies to personal attacks against another Wipedia user. Шизомби's comments were not overly WP:CIVIL so feel free to spank him with said wet fish...--Isotope23 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment So how much distribution has this film gotten? Any wide audience screenings or just the ex tempore one at a film festival (film makers walked up and demanded to show it)? "Original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, Islamic artwork, computer-animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic TV broadcasts" sounds like a guy with a camcorder and old TV clippings. Weregerbil 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as is only a video recording of a conference. Discussion on a blog doesn't make the film notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's noteable enough. Also the article is npov and gives the reader some genuine information re it's topic. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- That you Karl? - How is the film "noteable enough"?--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - It has recieved some media attention and has been screened at a major film festival. That's good enough for me. -- Karl Meier 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Can you source those claims? I don't see any evidence that is the case.--Isotope23 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - I think you mean "it has received some attention from bloggers and was shown at one obscure film festival". Kaldari 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Michnews.com is the opposite of media attention. They don't list their editorial staff, so presumably they don't have any; they're just a blog written by several people. And the film festival doesn't even have a Wikipedia page itself; how major can it be? Melchoir 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Per Karl Meier. Pecher ^Talk 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, documentary with no evidence of notability... "press coverage" appears to be largely relgated to conservative bloggers and it screened at a non-notable conservative film festival with no apparent plans to screen anywhere else.--Isotope23 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Ezeu 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. If the film gets wider distribution I'll reconsider. Kaldari 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete . Not notable enough . Discission on blogs....not a criterion for notability . Additionaly ,its a pool for POV edit warrings by people who created this article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. Discussion on a couple of blogs - there are thousands of blogs out there. Needs to have some evidence of significant box office reach (significant for a documentary I mean) or wider importance. Average Earthman 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Khoikhoi 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is not a problem. It has been reviewed by several independent sources. However, More citations would be heplful in establishing this fact. Cdcon 21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- It has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. If you think it has, can you name one? Melchoir 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notabil. The contraversy makes it notable. ---J.Smith 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- What controversy? You mean every single comment anybody on the plant makes about the West and Islam is notable? Or has this film itself created controversy, in which case can we have a cite for that? Average Earthman 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kaldari. Palmiro | Talk 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep it does look like its notable in some regards, and there's no reason not to keep it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think WP:V is a pretty good reason. Melchoir 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Minor production that appears to be shown once to an audience of undetermined size. Is there a controversy surrounding this film? Not mentioned in article, can't find with google. Weregerbil 12:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Per Karl Meier Zeq 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Jason ^(talk) 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. --James 08:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No reliable sources providing independent secondary coverage = non-notable. Melchoir 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I used to think that this film should be considered notable, however, the fact that it only had one showing and there appears to be no way for anyone to ever see it again makes it non-notable. The film festival it was shown at appears to just be some right-wing event that is so out of the main-stream that it hardly qualifies as a real film festival. There are no truly critical reviews of this film because it was only seen by a few conservatives. Nortonew 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Per Bill Levinson User:Bill Levinson 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this vote. How can you keep (or delete something) per someone, and that someone be yourself? Second of all, your timestamp is complete off. [35] That is the diff link, and it clearly shows he voted on March 13, 2006 at 17:34 (UTC). Pepsidrinka 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly there is no point in deleting films that have been shown at film festivals, particularly if they get talked about on the net. -- JJay 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One "Film Festival"... that only happened once.--Isotope23 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Once is good enough for me. Think of how many films get made every year and how few get shown at film festivals. I'm in awe that these auteurs could take on a difficult subject like Islam and get it shown in a festival. When it happens again, wikipeida will be there as a source of encyclopedic coverage of this documentary. -- JJay 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it crystal balling to keep an article on a presently non-notable subject because it might resurface someday? Melchoir 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit POV to throw around adjectives like non-notable in a discussion like this? Is it non notable because you say so? Maybe it's notable because I say so. Maybe what matters and what underpinned my vote is that it was verifiably shown at a film festival. Now I'll hand the soapbox back to you -- JJay 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with POV on AfD, thank you. It is non-notable because there are no reliable sources that discuss the film, and therefore any commentary on it is unverifiable. The only borderline source is the worldnetdaily.com website, which mentions the film only in passing and provides no analysis. Finally, the phrase "film festival" means nothing to me. For all I know, in Hollywood all you need to do is play a few tapes in your parents' basement, and it's a film festival. The only way we can decide whether these things are worth covering is if other sources have already covered them, and they haven't. Now, let me ask: if we assume that the film is never screened again, and never mentioned again even on the Internet, would you still want to keep the article? Melchoir 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering they were just showing a few tapes in my parents' basement (not that my parents live in Hollywood but why quibble) they sure put a lot of money into the festival website. [36] And they do of course prominently list the film in the screening schedule [37]. Since you have already pointed to other sources I'll not search further. I will say I didn't know our role was to analyze films, in that case there are 195 flicks at Category:Television films that could use some attention, perhaps we should start with Scooby-Doo_in_Arabian_Nights. However, to answer your question that I previously answered (i.e. Once is good enough for me): Yes, if the film is never shown again, if all prints are burned in a giant auto-da-fe on Hollywood Boulevard, I would still want to keep the article. -- JJay 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Then that is where we differ. I believe it is not our job to reward with a permastub nonarticle every brave group that promotes themselves on their own website and gets written about on one blog, and I hope the community agrees with that. Melchoir 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as per JJay -- Aldux 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. -Huldra 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Ingersoll 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Lion

Delete no assertion of notability. the Talmud is 1000's of pages long. this is one incredibly tiny piece. It's not clear why the author has chosen it for inclusion into wikipedia. I attempted to contact the author for an explanation of significance, but got no answer. Disclosure: I am very familiar with the Talmud and therefore my opinion is well-informed. Crzrussian 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Ezeu 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Jewish mythological characters are valuable and encyclopedic. JRP 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Even incredibly minor ones? Crzrussian 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is arguing against the fact that "Jewish mythological characters are valuable and encyclopedic." JRP, please read Crzrussian's reasoning and vote accordingly.--Ezeu 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On further review, I agree. Delete and merge with Divei Ilai. JRP 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete minor ones aren't. --James 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - already speedied once before Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sokker

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]}}

Delete. An advertisement. Darcyj 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

D and violates WP:WEB Crzrussian 12:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert. PJM 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete re-creation of previously speedy-deleted content (no, that's not a speedy for this one). Profoundly non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep because for www.hattrick.org there is also an article (Hattrick) - both or nothing!--Tyriats (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is no defence. Compare the two articles and it is clear that Hattrick is notable and has external verifiability. Darcyj 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - ok, this article should be reworked, it's the first try :o) ... or must in Wiki be all perfect in the first try?--Tyriats 14:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete this isn't Hattrick and a comparison of the two doesn't do much good for the Sokker cause and nor does the current write-up of the article which is not at all wikified. Also I can't verify the forum size as it requires a membership link but the claim of 20,000 users for a web browser game isn't bad. I'd like to see it redrafted to look like a wikipedia article, sourced, and verifiable and then I'd suggest a Keep. MLA 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - currently being worked on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.12.170 (talk • contribs) 15:07, March 10, 2006.

Oh yes, it now says it sets out to be different from other browser games by using Flash. I'm sure Macromedia will be delighted at this new departure in the online games market, I hope you have let them know :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what kind of comment is that? Look at the entry for this game! It looks like someone forgot to be picky about it! It mentions Java Applets, browser names, etc. etc. 194.88.4.146 15:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's a section on that page called "Awards"... enough said. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. 194.88.4.146 15:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. 213.119.186.97 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep why should the article be deleted when Hattrick, Ogame and even minor games like Planetarion, Ninjawars or Cantr II have one? I can't see the point. It just wouldn't be fair. ArnauDuran 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. 81.107.12.170 Look at the popomundo article, this is far better than that one! 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per WP:WEB/vanity. Anonymous visitors are reminded that this is not a vote. — brighterorange (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and cue the socks. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see why this one should be deleted when a lot of these games are represented with similar or worst prepared pages. So I think it should stay. And furthermore, please be kind enough to point out the differences with this accepted page so that the community can learn about the so-obvious to-dos and not-to-dos. Dirty leo 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, leo. gonna nominate that baby for AfD as well. Crzrussian 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Here she is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popomundo Crzrussian 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote was Dirty leo's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... We should all start from somewhere, right Craig? ;). Dirty leo 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Being new doesn't mean you can't participate here. Well-reasoned discussion is always welcome. But it's important to understand that this is not a vote and the closing admin is likely to ignore new users who don't say anything other than keep. Note also that Wikipedia has many articles which are arguably non-notable (and probably should be deleted) so if you want to argue for the notability of this article you should argue for the notability of the subject rather than saying that other articles are scarcely any better. --Craig Stuntz 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as merely an advertisement.--Ezeu 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has been since updated a lot since the delete request was made, would appreciate any reconsidered verdicts on what is here so far Mr gibbage 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just before you do any more here or there could I just point out that multiple new users all saying the same thing in the same language and all linking with weblinks instead of wikilinks is begging for a block on all of them for sockpuppetry. You have said your piece, the closing admin will read the comments and weight of evidence, this is not a vote and if anything multiple responses apparently form the same source will result in less weight being given to your opinion, not more. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Slowmover 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppetery going on here. The link to this is posted on the sokker website to encourage some of the other users to update, and many of whom have not used wikipedia in the past. Mr gibbage 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That type of activity is also outlined at the bottom of WP:SOCK... perhaps that's worth a look. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and sockpuppets. :) ---J.Smith 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete non notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ why should the article be deleted when Hattrick, Ogame and even minor games like Planetarion, Ninjawars or Cantr II have one? I can't see the point. It just wouldn't be fair. ArnauDuran 17:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't add two keeps from one account. For those not following the history closely, ArnauDuran (talk • contribs) added a keep higher up, then today it (along with my reply noting that the keep was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia) was removed by 213.98.129.17 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), then ArnauDuran added another keep down here, which I have struck as a duplicate. Regarding the substance of your comments, see my reply to Dirty leo. --Craig Stuntz 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nikai 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per [[WP:WEB]. If ArnauDuran feels that other pages should be deleted, he can feel free to nominate them. Stifle 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new in the Wikipedia world and don't know all the terms: what means [[WP:WEB], what nom? About sockpuppets I read and I think this concerns only the discussion here - so some of the entries (deletes and keeps) could be deleted. So there is this ad left - I think it means advertisment? For me advertisment has to do something with selling, but sokker is a onlinegame and there are no costs. There are more and more onlinegames and I think it's a good idea to give people some information about these games. For me this information is not advertisment.--Tyriats 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[[WP:WEB] is a typo from someone who intended to write WP:WEB. It contains guidelines for which web sites are and are not "notable" — where notability is the guideline for what should and should not have an article in Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 of [[WP:WEB] says: 'The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' Mr gibbage, who wrote the article, is one of the sokker moderators and players, but not one of the programmers or creators of this site, so I think he is independent of the site itself. And there are other players, who help him and there is a discussion in the sokker forum, but there is no help from any sokker site official.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The Wikipedia article itself which is up for deletion cannot be considered as a published work establishing notability. That's circular. --Craig Stuntz 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the first line be editted? Doesn't seem to be an edit box for that section Mr gibbage

If you're referring to the article, you can edit the first line by clicking on the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

this must be sockpuppetry, isn't it? This is still no vote - it should be a discussion.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily verifiable. Let's compare. Your edit count: 5, account created three days ago. Brookie's edit count: 10309, account created over a year ago, and is a SysOp. I wouldn't be the one throwing around accusations of sock puppetry. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

is this a discusion or a vote???? Or have SysOps other rights here then normal users and just can vote?--Tyriats 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Article has been referenced where I think it is needed, wiki linked at relevant points. Is there anything that stands out now as not being up to the standards of wikipedia? Mr gibbage 09:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All that's missing is any evidence that it is anything other than "just another game". WP:NOT a directory of online games. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr gibbage, can you please write something about the tactic-editor? I think this is very special to sokker and makes it anything other than "just another game". --Tyriats 10:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, not to feed the socks, but is this true? [38] It says there are 23000 users? Seems like a lot. -- Samir (the scope) 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

comment That part has been referenced with the [1] part, where it shows how many users there are. It doesn't count "bots", and the number regularly changes as inactives are booted and new users sign up. 23000 is a relatively small number when you consider how many hattrick has (700k+ IIRC) Mr gibbage 10:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

comment Could someone knowledgable please assess whether the state the article is currently in meets the requirements of wikipedia. Please actually read it and compare it to similar entries rather than just stating delete because everyone else has, and consider the improvements made since the entry was first written. Mr gibbage 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good, but could you give an independent reference that can verify Sokker's notability, i.e. from a notable website or news source? .--Ezeu 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This appears to be legitimate and reasonably well-known.—This unsigned comment is by Cfortunato (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Rewrite 15 March

I have personally rewritten the article, removing repetition and promotion. Darcyj 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we supposed to revote now? It still violates WP:WEB, no matter how you rewrite this article. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, well, I have no personal stake in the article, so if it still violates policies then it is doomed. I only rewrote it to conform with WP:NPOV and to de-advertisement the thing, because the people pushing the article were unable or unwilling to do so. Darcyj 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, appreciate the rewrite, but I haven't been convinced this is notable by the socks -- Samir (the scope) 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say you've completely ruined a legitimate article. Not impressed. Mr gibbage 13:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Let's give a chance to those 23k people who wants to share their passion with others. --Janpm 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the first edit from Janpm (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nollij.com

Delete. Not notable. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 12:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete no assertion of notability Crzrussian 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladeeni

Non-notable website for Arabic freethinkers. 240 google hits for "Ladeeni" and an Alexa rank of 40.099.

Delete Non-notable Celcius 12:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above Crzrussian 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you copy and paste the arabic on the page into the Google search box (I didn't know this was possible until recently) there's 13,700 hits, which admittedly is still not a lot. That Alexa rank doesn't seem terrible, where's the cutoff point? It's hard to judge the site without knowing arabic (and I don't) Шизомби 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hits in other languages might make this appropriate for a Wikipedia of another language. Kukini 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Five Crowns

Delete - The article appears to be blatant advertising. Jonathan Evans 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this is a joke page. Note the "Roots" reference near the end. And the URL goes to a diet-food company.Bjones 14:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete probably copyvio from [39]. kotepho 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a copyvio, I've listed it on WP:CP. I'm leaving this open as it could be deleted faster this way. Stifle 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headless monsters

Neologism; no citations, possibly original research. Search results lead to particular headless monsters, not to the term used as the page describes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any evidence, via a google search, that this term actually exists (other than when talking about literal monsters without heads). --Xyzzyplugh 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete protologism that is not WP:V.--Isotope23 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - reads like original research --Spring Rubber 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete neologism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
delete - neologism. --jmak 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - might be used occasionally, but not something that deserves an article. DreamGuy 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linga sarira

Unsourced and smells like original research (what does Kirlian photography have to do with a Sanskrit word for some theosophical concept? Besides, it states the extremely doubtful existence of astral projections as fact). Any salvageable content can be merged elsewhere. - Sikon 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's a yogic concept that has some references out there. It appears this article is more based on new age fluff (i.e. theosophy) than any historical content about yoga {Pranayama, etc). I've no strong feelings either way on this, but if it gets kept I would urge verify, and sourcing tags be added and it be listed for cleanup somewhere that an editor with a greater knowledge of yoga than I could give it the attention it needs.--Isotope23 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Important concept in several religious and neo-religious traditions (Hinduism, Esotericism ....). Needs some rewriting/expanding. I might try to expand it more in a few days. --Mallarme 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep but include more references to Samkhya, Vedanta, Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, etc. I agree that at present it reads like original research (but it is not, as a simple google search will reveal), and that the article should definitely be cleaned up with more references, including references to the original Indian meaning (i'll try to add some material on the Samkhyan use of the term when i have time), and less unsourced statements.
- Comment: Not meaning to criticise anyone's views, but surely whether you believe or don't believe in astral projection, or consider Theosophy to be new age fluff or an authentic tradition of contemporary esotericism, is irrelevant to whether this article (and other such articles) should be kept. e.g. I believe Creationism is a load of crud, but I still strongly support having articles on Creationism in Wikipedia. I have noticed lately several articles of non-materialistic subjects have been marked POV and/or nominated for deletion. As someone who values a diverse Wikipedia, this is of some concern. Wikipedia is not a hobby horse for particular opinions, it is an encyclopaedia. The Linga Sarira is a concept that was originally developed in Samkhya and Yoga and was adapted from there by Vedanta, and finally (in the late 19th century) by the Blavatskyian Theosophy, from which it was adopted by the Post-Theosophical (e.g. Alice Bailey) tradition. Therefore it is a notable subject, and the page should be kept. M Alan Kazlev 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, what I believe in is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that there are a lot of people who don't believe in it, and this article states it as fact. I just thought that this article is redundant. (However, the rewritten article is much more acceptable than the original one.) - Sikon 06:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    - And likewise what I believe is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or not :-) Anyway I added some new material, and improved the material that is already there, so hopefully it's of a higher standard now! M Alan Kazlev 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Important concept. I find User:Sikon's dismissive attitude in his nomination towards historical concepts troubling. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FDT Industries

Not convinced this company is notable. Seeming hint of vanity. Bjones 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Blue520's speedy delete.Bjones 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Note I can not work out if this is a company, or a group/club, or a small forum (http://s6.invisionfree.com/FDT_INDUSTRIES/) with "190 registered members".--Blue520 14:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. as {{db-club}}. It looks like a group/club with a small forum, not a company. --Blue520 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Vanity page for small, trivial group.--SpacemanAfrica 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletion A7 Alba 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not-notable, small # of google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antonia Bance (second nomination)

This page really does need to be deleted. Certain wannabe young people from Oxford who want to be politicians have created pages for themselves despite the fact they are not notable - i.e. they are only known to a limited number of people in Oxford (and sometimes one other part of the country) due to their grass roots political activity. These people may well become notable, at which point maybe someone else will create a page for them and they won't have to do it themselves. Other pages, such as that for Neil Mahapatra and Alex Deane, other young people from Oxbridge who consider themselves people who will one day be famous, have done the same thing (created vanity articles) and have had them deleted. Lets do the same here. The discussion above ludicrous - only two people came forward to vote to "keep" and both were personal friends of the Antonia Bance. --213.121.207.34 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would consider this a vote for deletion - I picked it up from the main discussion page on the article...

It's not self-promotion / vanity as Antonia didn't even know about it (cf comments on her website). However, Antonia is not, by the criteria of WP, notable so it should be deleted. Hopefully she will be one day though! Paulleake 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unsuccessful candidate at the 2005 general election, with no other claim to significance presented in the article. Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Sliggy 18:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Previos afd was in July 2005 Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antonia_Bance and was an unconvincing keep. Dlyons493 Talk 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reason above Paulleake 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
weak delete per nom Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC).
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn RicDod 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Antonia Bance is prominent in the NUS and comments like 'wannabe young people from Oxford' strike me as sour grapes and a small degree of jealousy. I am also suspicious of the motives of anyone wanting to see the deletion of an article of a member of a mainstream political party. On that basis I think the article should stay for the time being!

Keep She is a politician, not a wannabe. Major party candidates for national legislatures are notable, certainly moreso than minor Pokemon characters. - Jaysus Chris 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge seems to be what consensus calls for. W.marsh 02:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HEX-rays

"HEX-rays" is not a term used in the X-ray on synchrotron radiation science. The contents of this article should be merged to the article synchrotron light.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge this and High energy X-rays to X-ray.--Ezeu 15:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge to synchrotron light, as HEX-rays is about an application of this particular type of photon; further mergers should be considered per Ezeu, but probably should be proposed on their own pages.Alba 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trenway Textiles Inc

Non-notable company Ezeu 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, appears to be notable enough business in niche market. What, is Wikipedia supposed to be a tool for keeping big businesses visible and smaller ones invisible? Monicasdude 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't meet WP:CORP. kotepho 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep: But move notability assertion to the top. It has a fair amount of Google juice and a neat little claim as "one of the few" of something but it's hidden too far down. Starting the article with "a family-owned" anything is begging to be Afd'ed. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kotepho. --mm e inhart 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy & Edie

n Off-Broadway play that ran for less than two weeks nearly two years ago. No awards, nobody famous involved. Was Prod'ed, but the tag removed with the summary object to deletion; professional production with notable cast members: since the "notable cast members" are Misha Sedgwick and Thomas Blake (not the tennis player), this means either someone is unclear on the meaning of the word "notable" -- and probably "professional", too -- or someone is violating WP:POINT. Calton | Talk 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Keep. Well, today's peak display of aggressive ignorance has apparently arrived early. "Off-Broadway" typically indicates notability itself; you're generally talking major-market, highly visible, professional productions. Misha Sedgwick, aside from clearly meeting notability requirements on her IMDB entry alone, is also notable (and widely reported in the NY press) as a scam artiste who managed to pass herself off as Edie Sedgwick's niece, even fooling the New York Times, as I recall. The play itself was widely publicized before its opening, even touted in Vanity Fair at one point as a major event. The director stages professional work regularly in NYC. And so on. Not to mention the playwright's independent notoriety. That the play was neither a commercial nor artistic success hardly contradicts notability; any number of cinematic debacles have (quite properly) their own entries. Given that the nominator spends much more time displaying pique that his judgment should be questioned than in explaining his reasons for supporting deletion, this probably should be a Speedy Keep as not nominated in good faith. Monicasdude 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL... at least try to read & follow kids.--Isotope23 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Off-broadway is notable. Although I think I shall be revising Misha's article once I can pull some verifiable newspaper stories out of the archives :) Thatcher131 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as referenced and notable. Nothing's obvious. That's why we have AfD. -- Krash (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons cited above. I've seen less notable stay and don't see a reason to remove it. Plus, it would be a shame to undo the work put into expanding the stub. Santress 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkwebz

This website/internet forum has no alexa ranking, and as the article states, it's "a self-supporting community of over fifty people". Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a rule that only sites with Alexa rankings are allowed? Alexa takes its logs from the results of a toolbar installed on select users PC's is that correct? Much the same way that TV statistics are logged. It says on the Alexa Internet page that "It should be noted that Alexa does not collect information on users of Mozilla Firefox, Opera, or other minority web browsers." As 80% of the users use Opera and FF I do not belive that to be a valid base as representation of the site. Mercifull 15:12, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

delete of course. Alexa or not, "over 50 people" is not nearly notable enough. — brighterorange (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:WEB aside, 50 people is non-notable by common sense standards. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn Wh e re ^(talk) 19:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Will it get deleted again if I repost with the real-world business section? Another week and I'll have this business deal wrapped up and be able to edit in relevant information. The only reason there is nothing much else is because I can't disclose anything to do with the corporate side of DarkWebz untill it is legally confirmed. If anyone has a problem with that, mail me: rickATdarkwebzDOTcom rick` 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A deleted article can be recreated. If darkwebz reaches the point where it meets the criteria of WP:WEB, make it again and it will stick. --Xyzzyplugh 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woop

One of the stupidest entries I've ever seen. It's tagged as "send to Wiktionary", but Wiktionary can't make anything useful of this entry. A possible nonce word this Dangherous 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ezeu 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete it. Delete it with fire. --Stlemur 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete... with gusto. Remy B 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Esquizombi 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 18:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If there were an article on "Whoop", I would say redirect, but there isn't. (BTW, I love "delete with fire".) --Allen 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete absurd. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stlemur. I'll bring some gasoline, or maybe a bottle of rubbing alcohol from the medicine cabinet. Haikupoet 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete infantile, ambiguous, useless. Moe Aboulkheir 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tala (Beyblade characters)

prodded after deprodding so moved here. Original prodder states non-notable character on a non-notable show, plus article totally in violation of WP:ENC; Does a character on a cartoon series made for the purpose of selling toys deserve a longer article than the series itself? Looks very crufty. Thatcher131 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete super-duper crufty. Wikipedia deletion process flusters me. This article has had a db and 2 prod's before this. Crzrussian 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete The show passes WP:NN, but this doesn't. Alba 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete The show (or group of shows) is notable, but this character is not. kotepho 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Galante

Seems to be duplicate of Vincent Gigante, possible hoax (discovered from comments on Category talk:Italian-American mobsters). Arniep 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Looking at the history of the page, this is a later copy with an incorrect title. Google suggests that Gigante is the correct spelling, so I think that this can be deleted. (aeropagitica) 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Don't see a good reason to redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per aero. Edgar181 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article was just a renamed version of the Vincent Gigante article. Possibly the creator got the name from Carmine Galante, another mobster. This article holds absolutely no purpose whatsoever. BTW, Gigante is the correct spelling. --Alexbonaro 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmine Gigante

Seems to be duplicate of Carmine Galante, possible hoax (discovered from comments on Category talk:Italian-American mobsters). Arniep 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Looking at the history of the page, this is a later copy with an incorrect title. Google suggests that Galante is the correct spelling, so I think that this can be deleted. (aeropagitica) 16:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete; wrong spelling Wh e re ^(talk) 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Don't see a good reason to redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Helms

Delete - soldier who received minor awards, no rank given, no reason for notability given. Thousands won purple hearts and bronze stars Nobunaga24 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nobunaga24 Wh e re ^(talk) 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless notable for other achievments as well. No Guru 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not famous enough for encyclopedia. Iloveparis 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nobody is going to come looking for information about this guy Moe Aboulkheir 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect - Liberatore(T) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Pacific Transporation

Delete. Original creator of page made a misspelling. I have moved the page to the correct spelling, however this creates a double redirect as the page itself orignally served only as a redirect. Super Ted 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion and let them deal with it. --Ezeu 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedily redirected to Texas Pacific Group, as has should have been done in the first place (people do typo). This can be closed now.--み使い Mitsukai 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicider

Dictionary entry Stlemur 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

delete protologisms. — brighterorange (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Bushism. The importance of this neologism as a separate article is misunderestimated. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Elkman. By merging this article into the correct place, editors make quality of life a better place.--み使い Mitsukai

16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge per Elkman. Adding extra stubs of Bushisms will not put food on our families. Alba 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Elkman. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Elkman if and only if sourced. Esquizombi 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Reference it. Then merge per Elkman. ~~Otherwise, delete.~~ -- Krash (Talk) 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference. Wh e re ^(talk) 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Groovy. -- Krash (Talk) 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge per Elkman. Wh e re ^(talk) 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Bushism. Suicider has been added to List of Bushisms there. --Ezeu 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, so we can more better do our job. David Sneek 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge as we should keep on asking ourselves, is our children learning? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 22:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've just been reminded of Scumble. Make a disambig page pointing to Bushisms and Minor Discworld concepts? --Stlemur 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm! Scumble? disambig what, why? I sure is lost. Could ya'll explain.--Ezeu 02:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RTFA ;) "Suicider" is, in that sense, a minor Discworld concept subordinate to another minor one -- in this case a pun on "cider". --Stlemur 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twat_Waffles

Delete Google search shows them to be virtually non-existent, so they fail WP:MUSIC. The term exists, but google references aren't to them. Xyzzyplugh 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Signed" to "an underground label run by friends of theirs". The article also proves they haven't been on tour, or a notable radio program. Fails WP:MUSIC in every way. --Grocer 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly a vanity page, definitely not notable. Kafziel 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. Somewhere, WP:MUSIC is crying. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Very not notable. Vanity too, no doubt. Looks like Angelfire and MySpace pulled their pages. Seems like Wikipedia needs to catch up. -- Krash (Talk) 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per WP:MUSIC Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
delete Poledancer 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete ineptandobscureshockrockercruft. Haikupoet 04:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete braindead vanity. has nothing going for it. Moe Aboulkheir 05:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep/merge adding merge discussion tags. W.marsh 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Sith trivia

deprodded by anon IP. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Thatcher131 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge whatever useful (and verifiable) trivia there is into Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, then delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment A lot of these trivia points are identical to those found on the IMDb.com entry for the film. This article could be construed as a copyvio. (aeropagitica) 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Mitsuaki. If the IMDb confirms this material, that's fine; and this is not a copyvio if it's being used in a fair use manner to illuminate a larger article. Alba 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Mitsukai. PJM 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, flat out. There's more than enough unsourced Star Wars trivia on here already. Kafziel 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This was forked off from the main article on March 9. Fair Use would not apply to wholesale copying of all or most of the IMDB trivia to WP even in the context of a larger article. Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted. from WP:CV. Fair use does not allow wikipedia to act as a substitute for the original copyright holder. Thatcher131 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If copyvio, it would not seem to be fair use since there is no larger body of original work surrounding that which is taken. Esquizombi 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge, but most of this should be removed in the process since it is not encyclopediatic. Wh e re ^(talk) 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge, but shorten it considerably. Most of this stuff is really obscure and unneeded, but some of it, like the part about it being the only SW film not nominated for a visual effects Oscar, might be useful if it's verifiable. BryanG 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge, most of this information is just a copy of the trivia on the Revenge of the Sith page. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I am the creator of the article. This trivia was taken from the original Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith article. The article has gotten extremely long, so I branched off the trivia and the references to the original trilogy. If you find some of this to be too biased toward rumors and speculation, I suggest a cleanup. If you wish to merge it back with the original article (which is currently at 43KB down from around 82KB) then I will not stand in your way. But to delete it is ridiculous since most of the information CAN be sourced (it just hasn't been). The Filmaker 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems the biggest problem most have found is not that it can't be sourced, but that it's so sourced that it verges on copyright violation. Kafziel 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge, no article is ever too long, lad. All of this is noteworthy, and I hate to see this hard work deleted. - XX55XX 23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
~~Source~~, cull, and merge back to ROTS. -- Saberwyn 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- This needs a serious trim down. There's the mention that a sound effect may be shared between this movie and the Holiday Special. There are coincidences (two different SW actors winning the same Razzie in two seperate years for portraying two totally different characters), allusions to other fictiona universes (I saw a similar scene in Harry Potter, so it has to be mentioned here). There's trival. There's subtrivial. Then there's some of the entries in this list. -- Saberwyn 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed out the copyvios from IMDB and the more cruftier elements. (Although apparently the Harry Potter allusion was noticed by John Williams who wrote it into the score--that's one of the imdb items that I removed.) It's maybe still a little long, but I'm not in the mood to trim any more. Ready to merge back if that is the consensus. Thatcher131 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge significant information. Deckiller 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge after filtering out duplicate/insignificant info and rewriting to avoid copyvio if necessary. --BinaryTed 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
MergeTutmosis 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge - Those information can be all put on their respective articles—but only the truly important details and such. —Mirlen 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Cranford Teague

Delete Vanity page per WP:VAIN. See [40] for Jcranfordteague's suggestion about why to create articles like this. RossPatterson 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Yes, the article reads "blowhard", but: website rates Alexa #213,254. Latest book is in Amazon's Top 100K (#92,418), fairly notable for a non-fiction book. Tapped as an expert by Tech TV, and his clientele (though I suspect it's a bit glossed over) does also imply notability.--み使い Mitsukai 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable Wh e re ^(talk) 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete a 213,254 alexa rating, and a book in Amazon top 100 000, does not point to notability, but WP:HOLE. Eivind 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep some signs of notability demonstrate that the article should be kept, even if not all areas qualify. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep; apparently meets notability standard for published authors. Monicasdude 04:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Go

Contested PROD. As I mentioned before, nn band, unverified claim of notability, possible hoax. Name is Googleproof in search: "The Go" 70s band, "The Go", "The Go" CBGBs and Arlene's Grocery come up with nothing; most references brought up are The Go-Gos, The Go!Team and The Go Station, none of which are related to this band. Furthermore, only Icedogs49 (talk • contribs), 64.241.49.193 (talk • contribs), 24.39.136.154 (talk • contribs) and 24.14.81.204 (talk • contribs) have worked on the article; in all cases, their only contributions to WP are edits to this article. み使い Mitsukai 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Alba 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn Wh e re ^(talk) 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens

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

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

The result of the debate was send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Tax on Advertising

This is a direct copy from a blog post http://adssalestax.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_adssalestax_archive.html doesn't link to anything - recommend deletion Bill Kempthorne 16:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as copyvio Wh e re ^(talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy per copyvio. Fan1967 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyvios are not in general speedyable. In particular, this was not created within the past 48 hours, and blogs are in no way, shape, manner, or form commercial content providers. Please don't call for speedies unless you read and understand WP:CSD. I've sent this to WP:CP, though. —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gatecrash ragga terror-i-s-t-s

Formerly nominated at WP:PROD (RobertG's reason was "Unverifiable, doesn't Google"). Creator removed the tag with no explanation. No evidence of notability or of meeting WP:MUSIC - delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7. -- Krash (Talk) 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be verified. RJFJR 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No Google hits whatsoever. Inability to "see eye-to-eye" with Island Records and then Jive Records, hmmmm. Learn to play your instruments, make some real noise, then come back and write your article.Herostratus 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per WP:MUSIC Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN, self-promotion. Moe Aboulkheir 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 02:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis taxon

There seems to be doubt as to whether this is a neologism, but a google search brings up only 400 hits, almost all of which (all but 4, according to one editor on the talk page) are Wikipedia pages, mirrors of this page, or articles using this page as a reference. Despite the number of editors who have touched it, it remains an uncited stub, and it doesn't seem notable or even credible. Delete. Kafziel 17:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems to be real. I've found some references to the term on University sites [41] [42]

[43]. I'll leave it up to editors who know something about science to determine whether this term is notable enough for Wikipedia, but apparently it's being discussed in college courses. --djrobgordon 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It looks like google and other search engines bring up enough instances of "Elvis taxon" and "Elvis species" to make a point that this is a credible though arcane term for instances of convergent evolution. Maybe add "Elvis species" as a second direct to this page, as it seems at least as used if not maybe more used than "Elvis taxon". Ramdrake 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. "Elvis species" only has 75 hits. Granted, those 75 hits include a lot fewer Wikipedia mirrors, but is 75 hits on Google really enough to call a term "notable"? Aside from student tem papers and state college lecturers, are there references to the term being used by a notable number of people? Otherwise, it fails the very definition of Wikipedia:Notability: A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. This is obviously a very narrowly used phrase, and I don't see its "importance or impact" outside that community. Kafziel 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep content but merge nto Lazarus taxon as suggested by other editors. As for failing WP:Notability, one might argue that there are vastly more fancruft articles than sciencecruft articles. Cheers! -- Miwa 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose merging this into Lazarus taxon.

I also agree with you about the scifi fancruft, and if you want to nominate something, I'll be the first to vote "delete". :) Kafziel 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think this needs citations / references / expansion before this is resolved. "Consensus" points to a keep, but this article still needs some help from an expert. Flag as such? -- Miwa 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The term is used in a variety of articles in Wikipedia and a Yahoo search shows that many university professors use the term in their class notes online so if they're teaching it I think it's valid. Also, merging with Lazarus taxon would be an incorrect course of action since the two concepts are not related. One involves a species being rediscovered the other involves a species that acts the same as an extinct one. - DNewhall
Comment. It seems people aren't really getting the whole "notability" thing. The notability guidelines specifically say, in the very first sentence, that a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency. So even though professors in the very scientific states of Missouri and Kentucky use it, it still isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Kafziel 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You missed the bit where it says ..., or should be because of its particular importance or impact. :-) — Timwi 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't know, seeing as there are a lot of articles that are left to stay in WP that are likely to be far more obscure than this term. Seeing as it seems used as a legitimate term in at least two universities, is taught as part of a curriculum (as both teacher and student notes attest to), I'd leave it in. And if I happened to come across the term and not know what it is, I'd be more inclined to look it up than, say " Naughty Karate" (people, this is just an example, I DO NOT want to start a flam war; if anybody feels an apology is needed, here it is in advance) Ramdrake 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This term does get used and is referenced from other articles.

Watson Ladd 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly, at least the concept is valid and notable (you might want to call it something other than Elvis taxon/species, but that's irrelevant). If other scientists use other terms for the same thing, those terms should be added to this article. — Timwi 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep as has been established, not a neologism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep a search using my local college library periodical database pulled up over 50 printed references to "Elvis taxonomy" ALKIVAR™ 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Keep". The term isn't nearly as esoteric as some of the stubs we have floating around. If you really want to include it in the spring cleaning, merge it into the convergent evolution article.
Keep as a separate article. The concept is distinct from Lazarus taxon. Durova 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mentioning Google again, Elvis taxa gets about 88,100 results, many from universities, an it's a cool term =) 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Joaobonzao
Keep Have heard this elsewhere, is real--and cool! --68.173.39.59 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, hopefully with a few cited instances in the literature? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, you goddamn AFD dorkasses. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't know enough about this area to say if it's a real term or not, but I think people should realise there is more to the world than just what google has indexed! MyNameIsClare talk 13:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Love the comment--Keep, you goddamn AFD dorkasses--I vote *Keep too. Too colorful a term to deny; previous google hits be damned. If it doesn't stand on its own now, it will in a few years!Doovinator 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
KEEP I was reading about the newly rediscovered laotian rock rat, and thanks to this article and the related ones, I now know the difference between the multiple forms of discovery. Please keep articles like this, they're rather valuable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Mar. 15, '06 [20:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Lgbt living & weddings

~~Delete~~ since is one of multiple pages used to promote new magazine. Other example is Lgbt living Wuzzy 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is part of a linkfarm of three articles that were created or damaged [44] to promote the website. I do not object to, and did not redirect, the LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine article as that article is arguably keepable. However, the website merits one article at most, and only if it is notable. Wuzzy 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine since that would likely be the intent of a searcher who types "lgbt living & weddings" and does not know that "lgbt living & weddings" will not find "LGBT Living & Weddings" since wiki is case-sensitive. Wuzzy 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete looks like an improperly coded redirect page to me. --djrobgordon 17:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Esquizombi 17:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
i agree with wuzzy i don't know how it got redirected, but i agree with the one article part -- that all i believe is needed at this point. how can we start over. help?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalles (talk • contribs).

I recreated the article LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine. I expect that the others will de deleted in due course. Wuzzy 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
so whenb will it work -- when users type in lgbt living & weddings -- and shouldn't it come up for lgbt living as well?? and what does delete per nom. mean?? [[user: jvalles]

"delete per nom" means "delete this article for reasons given by person who nominated article for deletion" Wuzzy 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and redirect psch e mp | talk 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lgbt living

~~Delete~~ since is one of multiple articles to promote new magazine. Other example is Lgbt living & weddings Wuzzy 17:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine since that would likely be the intent of a searcher who types "lgbt living" and does not know that "lgbt living" will not find "LGBT Living & Weddings" since wiki is case-sensitive. Wuzzy 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Esquizombi 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to LGBT, which Getcrunk has already done. Not a likely search term, but is remotely plausible. --Allen 22:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: how can we make LGBT Living stand out if someone enters search term alluding to the magazine lgbtliving.com -- your right not likely. most likely wanting lgbt living if typing in lgbt livng. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalles (talk • contribs) .

I recreated the article LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine. So that typing "lgbt living" brings up that article, it would be better to ~~delete the article lgbt living rather than redirect it to LGBT. Wuzzy 04:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)~~ redirect to LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine Wuzzy 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malice (model)

Was tagged as speedy but I don't think that's appropriate. Bringing it here~~, no vote~~. Cyde Weys 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Malice has her own website, but has no notable credits outside of that. Article was written by a person close to her. Ckessler

Delete nn, vanity, self-promotion. Fan1967 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, WP:BIO. PJM 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep In addition to her broad presence on MySpace, LiveJournal, and her own website Malice has been involved in a controversy about her existence as "Faarwolf" in the video game development world & numerous game fan sites have posted long articles pro & con about her relating to this issue. She's also been cited on a few national sites, including Susie Bright's, for her recent material on hepres. The article needs to be expanded to reflect attention given to her outside the material posted by those who created the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs).
- Having a MySpace and LiveJournal account do not make one notable. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the broad number of links to her blogs from other sites across multiple platforms of interest, not simply her having them. It's been enough to earn her mentions in other wikis.

keep no inherent problems with the article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It does need some cleanup & removal of POV by someone less involved than the creator of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs).

Delete self-promotion. Moe Aboulkheir 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not self-promotion as was not done by the model herself. Recent changes show notable controversy. The Watchman
Delete, non-notable. No idea what this "Faarwolf" business is about but it's still entirely non-notable. If I get into a big spat with one of my friends that's a big deal for us but that doesn't make it encyclopedic content notable across the globe. --Cyde Weys 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Faarwolf business is noteable, it set off broad controversy across the online gaming world. If you Google Malice Faarwolf you get several hundred hits to pages in at least 3 countries with her identity being "unmasked" and its ramifications to the gaming world. Faarwold as a single search term returns well over 1000 hits.

Hate to break it to, but the online gaming world is itself pretty non-notable. Just because it's numerous doesn't make it notable. If she had set off a broad controversy in (say) the high-energy-particle-physics world, or the Shakespearean-scholar world, or the nanotech-engineering world, or whatever, then I'd feel differently about her. Herostratus 15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete -changed my mind. --Phil 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to delete this article, as long as it is written NPOV. She does seem to have a large internet following. --Brand Eks 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)brandeks
Delete -
Weak delete, I don't really see any notability here. Stifle 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --MaNeMeBasat 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn, vanity and self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, vanity and self promotion Scranchuse 14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If proven self-prom, delete, otherwise, based on its content, this appears wiki-worthy IMHO therefore keep -- Simon Cursitor 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable webcam sexpot. Brian G. Crawford 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, she's not that. She's got some exposure as a fetish and gothic model with an amount of magazine and catalog work, but insufficient to keep the article in my opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Brian G. Crawford Golfcam 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - she's under the bar, IMO. I've heard of her, known of her a long time, I have friends who know her, but really it's not enough for an encyclopedia article, I don't think. And the Everquest stuff is just lame - buncha geeks getting all worked up about finding that an ex Sony Online Entertainment employee / forum moderator who quit had a goth soft-porn sideline. She's a somewhat well-known fetish and gothic magazine/catalog model, but I don't feel it's enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, likely vanity, promotional. There's nothing to warrant inclusion in an encylopedia here. WP:NOT for web models who moderate RPG forums. To those who would keep, ever heard of systemic bias? Just because WP is on the web does not make web-related stuff more suitable, indeed we should subject it to even more intense scrutiny to ensure quality. Deizio 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Focoe 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, quite nn. Andrew Levine 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] throttleable

Wiktionary don't want it. Pedia doesn't either. Meh, I dunno, maybe you do. Discuss Dangherous 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:WINAD Esquizombi 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as dictdef Wh e re ^(talk) 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete dicdef. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popomundo

Delete NN site, WP:WEB, and hints of vanity Crzrussian 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

delete non notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Game with no notability. Stifle 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable, fails WP:WEB, likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space cadet (slang)

Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: WP:WINAD
Delete or transwiki if it's not already there. Edgar181 20:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Added as leaf for Space Cadet novel. Pavel Vozenilek 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippe Joly, SIMchronise Ltd.

Was originally tagged with prod, but that was removed by the author, so I'm bringing it to AFD for potential evisceration. Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete SIMchronise Ltd. too.[45] -- Krash (Talk) 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete both. -- Krash (Talk) 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete both Created by jolypip (Contribs). Probably want to do a cleanup on his other entries. Fan1967 23:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, 900 mentions in google, not otherwise notable. Poledancer 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete both per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete both per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as n-n.--Jerzy•t 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slim Jim (cocktail)

it's a recipe for a 2 component cocktail. WP:NOT a bartender's guide. (was de-prodded with comment not a recipe, it looks like one to me) RJFJR 18:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete That was me that prodded it; looks like that process doesn't work very well. As per nom WP:NOT recipes, as I had noted in my prod. Esquizombi 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 18:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: a combination of a dictdef and a recipee Wh e re ^(talk) 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, discounting Bichufo's comment. Flower party■ 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of sexual behavior

Consensus on the article's talk page is that this article is very, very bad. Currently, it almost entirely a pro-homosexuality soapbox article - it doesn't even describe the criticisms of homosexual and bisexual behavior before it starts "debunking" them, but it doesn't "debunk" any of the criticisms of heterosexual behavior listed. Many comments have been made about this on the talk page and the article has not improved. I have considered improving it myself, but when I tried to fashion a plan for improvement, I came up with the following (posted on the article talk page):

"Also, the gender of one's sexual partner(s) is far from the only basis on which one's sexual behavior can be criticized. To have a complete article on this topic requires that we include documentable criticisms of behaviors such as premarital sex, non-reproductive sex, casual sex, adultery, masturbation, prostitution, oral sex, anal sex, BDSM, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, other age-disparate relationships, exhibitionism, voyeurism, rape, polygamy, polyamory, swinging, sex toy use, sexual fetishism... and the list goes on, I'm sure. Now that I've put together this list, I am becoming increasingly doubtful that this is a useful article title for Wikipedia. Maybe it could work if we divided it up into sections according to the grounds of the criticism (religious doctrine, physicial harm... I don't know what the categories would be exactly) rather than the behavior being criticized. As it stands, I'd rather that the sections currently in the article be subsumed back into homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, or human sexual behavior as appropriate. I'm almost thinking this should be nominated for deletion, as I'm not sure whether the article could ever be more than an incoherent assemblage of POVs. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so maybe someone will come along and edit it and prove me wrong."

As it hasn't been improved, I am nominating it for deletion in the hopes that it will either get fixed up or die. AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom WP:NOT, though I don't see it as pro-homosexual or pro-anything - it's too much of a mess. You perhaps could have tried an RFC, don't know if there's reason to make one while there's an AfD now. But it is very unsourced, and has not been attracting editors making the necessary changes. Nom doesn't mention criticisms of abstinence, monogamy, reproductive, marital, and "vanilla sex" and who knows what else besides (everybody's a critic). It would have to be all or nothing, and it's got to be cited responsibly, and that would be a practically Kinseyian undertaking. I don't see any content worth merging into other articles, though the topics could possibly be addressed in other articles—starting from scratch (though I suspect most of them already contain criticisms). Esquizombi 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't see how it's fixable. Inherently OR and POV, unless expanded to book length to cover all viewpoints. And quite frankly, it's so badly written that you'd have to blank the whole thing and start from scratch. Fan1967 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Riddled with POV. Unsourced. And is there any reason to have a separate article on criticisms? Better placed under discussions of each type of behaviour. Slowmover 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NPOV violation. Unencyclopædic in tone and content. If sexual practises require criticism it would be better to source such opinions, provide citations for follow-up research and place content on the respective articles' pages. (aeropagitica) 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I did consider nominating this for AfD myself, but was waiting to see if it could be improved- it hasn't been. I suspect it will always be hopelessly POV. Much more chance of NPOV by discussing any relevant criticisms on relevant article pages (per aeropagitica). Petros471 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep it may look like this article is irreparable, but it has enough content and enough potential to not merit deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree that it is unsourced (one of the few articles here still unsourced, probably) and that it needs more work, but I fail to see why it is "inherently POV". Because it covers statements that themselves are obviously pov? I hope that is not what you mean. It may be that the title needs changing - the original idea was that it would cover criticisms of the three major orientations, and then it seemed appropriate to mentions criticisms that were more general. I could see including criticisms of autosexuality, etc. It is extremely valuable to see what kind of criticisms have been leveled at sexual behavior over the ages, because it contextualizes the ones in use now. Why would you want to get rid of this kind of coverage??? And the thing about being pro-gay. What?! What's pro or anti anything about it, unless some stuff has been put in since last I looked at it, and then it can be taken out. This whole effort to get rid of this material makes no sense to me. Haiduc 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm just not buying that this is the way to organize this type of information. We have articles on homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc. Collating into one article what should be the "criticisms" section of each of those seems somehow wanton. It seems like begging for a POV minefield, frankly. Calling this an encyclopedia article is like calling Crossfire a documentary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 14:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Don't share analysis of nominator, but whatever this is, it's not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 14:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. But only the general section, which should be divided according to the post sited at the top of this page. Usually a phenomenon and the its criticism are dealt with in the same article, but if that would be too long than you can break it up (like pornography and anti-pornography movement). This page would generally contain the criticism to most of the things discussed at human sexual behavior. —This unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Shafer (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Definitely these criticisms exist. It makes sense to have a central article about them. horseboy 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ENC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep All of it. If you delete this then also delete all pro-gay articles, of which there is an abundance here. 2006.03.14. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bichufo (talk • contribs).
Delete. WP should not be used as a soapbox San Saba 18:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fc buglione

nn fictional soccer club. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn Wh e re ^(talk) 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete G1 patent nonsense. Thatcher131 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edgar181 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete urgh. Moe Aboulkheir 04:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, not encyclopedic at all. Nach0king 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian GNU/Linux

Doesn't seem very encyclopedic or useful. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Only seems notable to a small part of the Debian world, and not encyclopedic. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Many people use Debian, and everybody heard about Lesbian, even outside of the Debian community. And Wikipedia has other paradoies. -- Frap 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have never heard of lesbian in this sense before, only in the "homosexual female" or "person that lives in Lesbos" senses. And I use debian. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Is that an extreme lesbian delete vote? ;) — brighterorange (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Debian GNU/Linux, under "Distributions based on Debian" with a sentence mentioning its parody nature. -Dawson 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

After a few Google searches, and visiting the actual page involved, I have seen the error of my ways. Delete. -Dawson 05:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to go with the "merge" option, per Dawson above, but the Debian list of distributions based on Debian doesn't mention Lesbian GNU/Linux. So, it doesn't look notable. Delete. --E lkman - ^(talk) 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Debian GNU/Linux. Delete --Ezeu 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN. The Linux community is fairly small. The Debian community is a smaller subset of that. This is a joke apparently known to a subset of that subset. Kind of an extreme inside joke. Fan1967 21:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, lame joke with little notability per Google and per Debian project's child-distro list. I'm a Linux user and never heard of this; if I had I would have dismissed it as insignificant. Frap, WP has other parodies only where there was substantial media coverage establishing notability (or where somebody added one and other editors haven't cleaned it up yet). Barno 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Osomec 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge, as everyone's heard of Lesbian. --Snargle 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- i haven't. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable software. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Debian is notable, Ubuntu is notable, this is not. I don't think it even merits merging into the Debian article. kotepho 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable software --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascent Media

Delete: I believe that this page should be deleted as it appears to be a vanity corporate advertising article with little distinct information that has not been taken from the companies website. Tyhopho 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious corporate ad. Slowmover 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I think it's premature to delete as it may be notable. However, I looked on the Academy Awards Sci-Tech website for a mention of Ascent Media, here [46], but couldn't find one. It may be that the awards were won by employees of the company, which might not make the company itself notable. Unverifiable at this point, IMO, but I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. Thanks for the info, Adrian. Slowmover 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I believe the awards were won primarily by the Todd-AO company which was one of the companies which combined to form Ascent Media in 1999. For instance, according to [[47]] "Todd-AO, and the Ascent Media Creative Sound Services family of companies, numerous nominations and most recently, Academy Awards for Best Sound on such films as Chicago, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, and Saving Private Ryan."Jvandyke 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

* Delete. Non-notable company. Danaman5 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Keep and Rewrite. The new information has convinced me of the company's notability, but it needs to be added into the article. I will do so if it is not done soon. --Danaman5 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, notable achievements within a non-trivial field: "The company, formerly Liberty Livewire, has brought home the gold about 15 times, winning Academy Awards for best sound and technical achievement."[48]. — Adrian Lamo ·· 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep see below:

Hello. I created the Ascent Media entry. I apologize for the "corporate ad" feel and apparent 'lack of distinct information', it wasn't my intent for the entry.

My decision to give Ascent Media an entry was driven by my interest in the parent company, Discovery Holding Company, and by Ascent Media's large size of roughtly $600M in yearly revenue (largest in post production work as far as I can tell). Further, I noticed that there were other post-production firms listed on Wikipedia: list of post-production companies.

My approach in creating the page, was to initially use the SEC filings as a starting point [49]. However, I am not an expert in the media space, so I didn't understand what, for instance, "Creative Services" meant.

Given my lack of knowledge, I did some google searches on the company and I found some of the news articles listed in "History" - including the Business Week article which discussed the deal with Sony for media conversion.

My next step - and perhaps where you feel it is a corporate ad - is that I created subsections for "Creative Services", "Media Management Services" and "Network Services" and I referenced the Ascent Media corporate page - which gave a long list of words I'd never heard of.. So, I took the keywords from the corporate webpage, and I searched wikipedia for them - and I added links where appropriate.

So - net of this was that I began to understand (roughly) what Ascent Media does: And I began (sorta) to understand. I now know that "Creative Services" is video and audio manipulation - everything from 'scoring' (adding a soundtrack) to editting (linear *and* non-linear - apparently some old analog difference). Similar level of understanding for Media Management Servcies (basically transfers between different media types) and Network Services (apparently you need to be able to distribute shows using satellites, etc.)

But - I feel far from enough of an expert to try and summarize this on the page by deleting stuff..

Net: I gave a very valid attempt (and many hours - check the history) to trying to make an appropriate Ascent Media page. My hope was that it was a good starting point for someone knowledgeable to improve... And, yes, I recognize that the entry isn't perfect, but I expected (hoped?) for some help.

I would obviously be disappointed to have the work deleted simply because I wasn't knowledgable enough to get to the encyclopediac 'essence' of Ascent Media.. Any suggestions (or edits) are welcomed.

Jvandyke 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

keep needs to be cleaned up, as it currently reads like an advert. but, as per above the article seems notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Business Week article and winning oscars is notable, but the article needs major clean up. kotepho 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as an attack page. --InShaneee 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halliburton shill

Nonsense. 111 Google hits Oldak Quill 19:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete A6 attack page. Thatcher131 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Slowmover 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete No purpose but to disparage Dick Cheney. Edgar181 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete An attack on the character of Dick Cheney. (aeropagitica) 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete POV attack page against Bush and Cheney. There are plenty of places on the web to post this kind of thing. WP isn't one of them. Fan1967 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as POV personal attack. dbtfz ^talk 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, A6. Tagged. PJM 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment For what it's worth, User:Halliburton Shill has a copy of this article as his user page. I don't know whether that's acceptable practice or not. Deli nk 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete mentioning him on Lindsay Lohan can, of course, be discussed on that talkpage. --W.marsh 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lohan II

Notability: By all accounts, he is intentionally staying out of show business following his lone role in The Parent Trap Radio Kirk talk to me 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why he is listed as that having his only film role! But he is an actor and was in a movie. People have been asking about him over at IMDb on Lindsay's discussion boards, so I think a small article about him that is linked to Lindsay's page is nice. It also has a link to his IMDb page. Stephe1987 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but I agree with Average Earthman, who echoes my reasons for the AfD. I'm going to read over Lindsay Lohan and see if a short line can be worked into the text there, but he doesn't merit an article, IMHO. (I have not put up an AfD for Aliana Lohan—though someone else might—because she has received press of her intentions to follow her sister into the biz. Whether she deserves an article now is debatable, but she almost certainly will in the very near future.) Radio Kirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Brief adds to sibling info now at Lindsay Lohan. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete One role in a notable film, but it's an unnamed role and probably not very important to the movie. Unless he's done other things of note besides playing "lost boy at camp", I'd say delete, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Lindsay Lohan after cleaning up the text. One sentence to note his existence and appearance as a bit-part player in one film will be enough to cover it. (aeropagitica) 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Done—sort of. The Parent Trap role is his only notability, and there should be nothing more than a very short "here's where you may have heard of him" in his sister's article. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I added his article in the first place is because I get asked questions about him all the time at IMDb. And when I tried to add information about him to Lindsay's page, the editors deleted it because it "wasn't relevant". They told me I was free to make my own page about him. And then I made a page for him and people are allowed to petition for deletion? That makes no sense to me. Either let Mike's info be put into Lindsay's article or let Michael have his own article. But not having any information on him at all makes no sense because people ask about him all the time at IMDb Message Boards, and they come here looking for information and can't find anything. So what does everyone suggest should be done? Keep in mind that Michael Lohan has his own page at IMDb and is going to need a link to that page if people decide to merge with Lindsay Lohan. Stephe1987 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lindsay Lohan article already says Like most celebrities, Lohan and her family have endured public scrutiny of their private lives. It was revealed in 2004 that Michael Lohan had spent much of Lindsay's preteen years in prison for securities fraud. In 2005, he was sent back to prison for "aggravated unlicensed driving" and attempted assault. It seems relatively simple to say that also had a minor role in Parent Trap, and then blank his article as a redirect page. I think the editors on the LL article on wrong on this point. However, maybe some people attract so much attention that their family need articles even if it bends WP:BIO. Tentative merge and redirect but I remain open to persuasion either way. Thatcher131 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh - I rather suspect the Michael Lohan in prison was Michael Lohan I, not Michael Lohan II, who appears to be her younger brother. Who has had one uncredited role in one film, and therefore doesn't need an article, or even an IMDB link (if someone wants to find him on IMDB - try searching IMDB) Average Earthman 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct re the two Michaels. Radio Kirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that we should merge the articles, too. But Wikipedia didn't seem to like it when I added in the stuff about Michael Jr.-- they told me to make a page for him and deleted all the stuff I wrote without notice or asking me about it. It seems rude that they just delete your stuff without telling you first. Or they leave a note in your discussion telling you what they did without asking first why you did it. And you can only write like two sentences in your edit summary, so there is no way to explain what's going on *rolls eyes*! The two Michaels, like you said, were mixed up, but you are wrong about Michael not being credited for the Parent Trap. He is credited for the Parent Trap. The uncredited roles were from the late 1990's to early 2000's when he and his little brother and sister would go around with their mom and be uncredited extras in Lindsay's films, remember? Stephe1987 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added brief detail on all three siblings to Lindsay Lohan; anything more than that doesn't belong in that article and, unless the younger Michael gets back into show business (unlikely at this point), he does not merit his own page—IMHO. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to Michael's IMDb page from his name and the birth years of the Lohan siblings (so people who come on here know how old they are because people are always asking how old they are), as well as the fact that they have uncredited roles as extras in the films sometimes-- two sentences! If the editors don't revert again, I (the person who wrote the article) also agree that this article should be deleted. I don't know why they didn't just let me add in a little bit of information on him in the first place-- it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Oh well. Stephe1987

I'm sorry but, as I explained on your talk page, that can't stay. An external link to someone other than the article's subject is a no-no. Also, you've added information that is absolutely unencyclopedic—her parents' birthdates could be considered irrelevant to Lindsay's article, never mind her siblings'. Their uncredited cameos in her films are not relevant, either. Any one of the changes you made would be sufficient for WP:FA status to be revoked due to irrelevance to the subject. With all possible respect to Michael, specifically, one film appearance eight years ago is insufficient notability for an encyclopedia, and barely enough for the briefest of all possible references in Lindsay's article. Among the things Wikipedia is not, it is not a complete list of everything. Meantime, if people ask about her brother, answer them within the group. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no other solution than to put the information and link back in. There is less that one sentence about each of the siblings-- not nearly enough to say that there is too much information on someone other than Lindsay Lohan. In fact, all the information was in the same sentence! The fact that they travel with her and their mother, who is Lindsay's agent, is also VERY relevant because they have uncredited roles in almost all of her movies (also one sentence). Also, the reason why I put the link to Michael's IMDb page (if you read his talk/deletion article) is because people want to delete his page, so I think it's best to just link his page to the IMDb article about him if he doesn't get his own page. Please tell me what you think makes the most sense to do: either give the Lohan kids each their own page (which seems silly because there is only part of a sentence about each of them), or add in their birth years to say how old they are, (and a lot of articles have birth years for siblings, so it's not too much info or irrelevant) and say they're extras in her movies (which they are). Also, what about the link to Michael's IMDb page-- why not just link it to his name? Perhaps we should put a number by it and have the link as an external link? User_talk:Stephe1987

This is not nearly as simple as you are making it seem. First, a lot of articles may indeed have peripheral information about siblings and the like; you will find that is not the case in featured articles (seriously, and please, go read some). Indeed, articles that do have such listings should be cleaned up to remove most (if not all) of them; bad habits in articles are not excuses to spread them to other articles. The external link for Michael absolutely cannot go back; as for her siblings' uncredited exploits in her films, I would be more than happy to file a Request for comment; however, since we once again are talking about the possible delisting of a Featured article due to the relevance (or lack thereof) of the information, I wouldn't hold up hope that your suggestions will survive. Do you wish me to request comment from admins and other users? Radio Kirk talk to me 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge to his sis. I'm sorry, but "Lost Boy at Camp" isn't notable enough for a mention. And being dragged hither, thither, and yon for his sister's career, if anything, seems to be a rather painful implication of his non-notability. JDoorj a m Talk 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
very weak delete. if his position in the movie were more notable, this page wouldn't be an issue. as it is it seems non notable. it shouldnt be necessary to merge to Lindsay Lohan at all since none of the information on the page qualifies for notability standards.
Delete unless it's appropriate to have an article for every extra in every movie. oh wait, thats what IMDB is for. Moe Aboulkheir 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, why don't you all just delete it already?! "Discussing it" like this is ridiculous and a waste of time. Stephe1987 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the process inequitable? I always thought deletions without process was worse... Radio Kirk talk to me 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how it is being done. Admins deleting it without first talking to the person who wrote it is bad; having a group of people come on and discuss it is a waste of time. Stephe1987 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, you've lost me. What's the third option? Radio Kirk talk to me 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe speed it up a bit. Having a whole page with a bunch of people posting pretty much the same thing over and over again gets a bit tiring. Why not just let the person who created the article delete it if there is a consensus to doso? How many weeks will this take? How many people will come on here and post the same thing over and over again? I think that the creator should be able to delete it if people can convince him/her that the article is not needed. If the creator cannot be convinced, then continue the discussions and let the admins deal with it. Stephe1987 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it, thanks. I have no argument with that. Edit: Actually, if memory serves, anyone can "blank" a page but only an admin can delete it. Radio Kirk talk to me 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nooooo! Page-blanking is prohibited. Herostratus 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Extremely non-notable. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Herostratus 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone who voted Delete JackO'Lantern 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science

Delete not notable debate, not even any external links or references to mark its notablility. Another page created by User:Striver--Jersey Devil 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN, V. No documentation of any notability, or when this happened, or where, or what was said. One of the supposed participants, William Campbell, just links to a DAB page of two dozen William Campbells, none of whom appear to the one mentioned here. Fan1967 21:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --TM 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete. does not assert notability of subject. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Was it really neccessary to mention who the original creator of the article was? Debate seems fairly notable as many Islamic online carry the video of the debate, or debates as their seems to be several parts. I have added in several generic details (date, location, event). Article was created on the ninth and AfD went up on the tenth. While I generally don't enjoy Striver creating articles and waiting for an AfD to come up before expanding them, I'm going to once-again assume good faith and hope he does, though I can understand why others will not given Striver's history. Nonetheless, this is about the article not the user. Seems fairly notable. Pepsidrinka 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Pecher ^Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable debate. Also Pecher you can't vote twice so please remove one of the votes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep bad faith nom, see Betty Kelen and Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), he is stalking me and afd'is anyting i touch. This should establish notability: full transcript, On the Answering Islam page, examinethetruth.com, full video download, over 1000 google hits on exact search, buy it, debates on forums, faithfreedom.org mentions it and i found some analysis of the debated by some atheist guy, but i cant find it now... --Striver 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to be encyclopedic. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Smerge to Zakir Naik, despite the lack of evidence of notability of this debate. Esquizombi 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this non-notable compared to Rolfes Robert Reginald Dhlomo, or compared to Sesame Street, Season 35? Maybe its nn compared to Sand River (Ontario)? Oh, now i got it, it must be nn compared to Gamaliel (Qliphoth)! Lets not forget Galactic Pinball. --Striver 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Striver, yes - and please remember even you didn't bother to write a proper article about it. Esquizombi 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, bad faith nom or not, this single debate does not seem notable enough for a page, even if expanded with references to Christian evaluation of the debate. JGF Wilks 12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, the Sand River is notable, lovely, and has great fishing. -- Samir (the scope) 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was YA RLY delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of O'Reilly books

Unencyclopedic list, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability of O'Reilly Media does not imply notability for a list of their product line; this list is best left to oreilly.com's catalog page. List of O'Reilly books currently contains 12 bluelinks and 769 redlinks, and all working links are easily available through Category:O'Reilly books.

I discovered this red-link farm while researching the similar AfD/List of ...For Dummies books. - Rynne 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as AfD nominator. - Rynne 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. RLF. The "Books" section in O'Reilly Media can be expanded, if necessary. PJM 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some books from a popular publishing company. Some more of these books will surely be created in the future, so why trash this list now?. --Snargle 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: All new articles can be added to Category:O'Reilly books, where they'll be much easier to find than by searching through the 780+ lines of this list. - Rynne 22:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  - One reason for lists to exist is to point out missing articles. Categories only list existing articles. --Snargle 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a reminder of what articles are not in Wikipedia. - Rynne 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Such a list confers special status on O'Reilly books, which is POV. Slowmover 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Special status? I don't think so. --Snargle 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a useful list. Alot of those redlinks are notable books that could be expanded and this is a notable list. If the length is an issue, perhaps it can be broken up? ---J.Smith 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete possibly the largest collection of redlinks ever seen on AfD. Redundant per category and listcruft of the first water. Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Would anyone miss this if it were gone? Hardly anything links to it, hardly anyone edits it ... this isn't a way of saying "delete", I'm genuinely curious re. whether this actually gets used. — Adrian Lamo ·· 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I admit that i'm biased, being the creator and all, but I'm pretty sure that lists of books organized by publisher deserve a place on wikipedia. This type of list can be considered complete, easy to maintain, and for people researching O'Reilly books for whatever reason, it can be useful. Also, this list pointed to a couple uncategorized books. --Snargle 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per JzG. --kingboyk 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the publisher maintains this list better than we can; we should just link to them. FreplySpang (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. How is the list easily maintainable? Is someone going to update it every time O'Reilly releases a new book? How can we guarantee that? · rodii · 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep per snargle. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I see no reason for signalling which O'Reilly books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not mirror of O'Reilly's website. The time spent on the list would be better to devote on articles about most important books about SW. For example no book by W. Richard Stevens is covered although they are classic. Pavel Vozenilek 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, redlink farm. A category is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a mirror of O'Reilly's website. Wikipedia is not a reminder of what articles are not in Wikipedia. Listcruft is suboptimal. Stifle 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As much as I love O'Reilly Media, this list is useless as a category will do. Also, red color hurts on Wikipedia, now doesn't it? ;-) --Misza 13 ^{T C} 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Donkey

Non-notable variant of Ghost. Google search finds no apparent references. phh 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Delete per nom. PJM 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
merge. This is the British equivalent of Ghost and should have some mention in the Ghost article. I think it is also refered to as just "Donkey". Kernow 13:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- mm e inhart 23:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clump

Prev. prodded, but prod was removed. Simple Dict-def. Redundant to Wikiary. --- ---J.Smith 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's already in Wiktionary. ---J.Smith 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Can this be speedied as a dictdef already extant in Wiktionary? I'd think so. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dicdef. F e tofs ^Hello! 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
delete. definition. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Dicdef. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fabulous Entourage

While I find it impressive that this band has "played to sold-out crowds at Joe's Pub", I fear it does not meet WP:MUSIC, having not yet released an album. Delete. Ashenai 21:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete If someone can find the mentions in the NYT and such and they aren't tiny reviews I'll probably change my mind. They seem to be at least notable in the NY music scene. [50][51][52]. kotepho 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Stephenson

Delete Delightful as Ms. Stephenson no doubt is, her life so far does not meet the notability critertion for a Wikipedia entry Gwernol 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete No brainer Rklawton 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Maybe in this case, a PROD tag would have been easier? Sandstein 21:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete clearly {{db-bio}} and tagged thusly. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tran Tran Koirala Garo

Delete. Fancruft --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN website. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

delete per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not quite something you made up in school one day but certainly nn. kotepho 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Steaming pile of bullshit. Moe Aboulkheir 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3606 (number)

Delete. Utter nonsense. A lengthy page notable primarily for containing virtually no information relevant to its title. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I mean Delete as nonsense. I can't believe someone wasted this much time. Fan1967 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete obvious nonsense Gwernol 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete did you remember to celebrate March 6? It's more important than Valentine's Day! (Translation: nonsense) F e tofs ^Hello! 23:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- obviously a prank. MFago
delete. absurd. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as pn Wh e re ^(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD1 kotepho 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD1, request for deletion by page creator on Talk:3606 (number): - Rynne 04:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to thank the Wikipedia Community for allowing this page to remain online until now. I created this page on 3-6-06 as a special present for my girlfriend and I had expected to delete it earlier. She enjoyed the gift immensely and so this page has served its purpose. Thank you again"
Delete as nonsnese. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to 3000 (number) which covers the numbers 3000-3999 more than adequately in most cases. — RJH 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This can't be speedily deleted. Criterion G7 (author request) can't be applied as the page was not created by mistake, and there have been multiple contributors, and G1 is for random meaningless words or characters. However, delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete since on the discussion page the author asks us to do so! (Wouldn't this have been better as prod?) JGF Wilks 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archmolds

Reads like an advertisement, 8 Ghits, non notable product and company, fails WP:CORP. Prod'd but prod removed. Delete -- Samir ∙ T C 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, blatant advertisement. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. User:Archmolds has been spamming numerous pages with the same awful advertisement; I've told him to stop this. Sandstein 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He's still spamming. Could an admin keep an eye on him and block him if necessary? Sandstein 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Gwernol 22:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advert Wh e re ^(talk) 00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam. Moe Aboulkheir 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion as {{copyvio}} by User:Flcelloguy — Adrian Lamo ·· 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Studios Orlando CityWalk

Delete This article appears to be blatant advertising. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan LaVey

Non notable biography. Just being the sun of a notable person doesn't make you notable yourself. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability; I agree with Pegasus that being his father's son isn't enough. --Allen 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Like Stalin's granddaughter, I think this bears writing about. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN. What is there of value to say about a 12-year-old child? That he likes to skateboard? That his best subject in school is math? Fan1967 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Poledancer 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Suggest not notable enough. Iloveparis 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge I think this is a good case for a merger into the relevant article. ---J.Smith 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's already there. There's a line that says LaVey's wife had a son with that name on that date. Fan1967 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete This article does not contain any information that is not already contained in the article for his father, Anton LaVey. Does not assert notability in his own right. Accurizer 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
keep no reason to delete. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Should be make bios for the brothers, sisters, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren of every person we have a bio on? No. kotepho 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete The information should be in Anton's article, not two. Perhaps make it a redirect to Anton's page. King-of-no-pants 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Absolutely no reason to keep. Perspective 03:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Slight merge and redirect to Anton LaVey. WP:BIO is quite clear that non-notable relatives of notable people are mentioned in the notable person's article, and don't get their own. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Add info to Anton's page. JackO'Lantern 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment we have numerous pages on otherwise nn people who happen to be the great (x4/5/6) grandchild of Queen Victoria; their only (minor) claim to notability being that geneology. Does the same standard apply? Carlossuarez46 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, because the Europeans were clever enough to formalize their caste system with titles, and by convention Viscounts and the other inbred riff-raff of the old word are 'notable' because of their titles (not, strictly speaking, their ancestry alone). Nice deal for them, but at least we won't have to put up with Marquess Gates, 11th Viscount of Microsoft. Herostratus
Delete unless he grows up to be the Antichrist or something. When he begins to channel demons and move between dimensions or kill people by looking at them or whatnot, then he can get an article. Herostratus 15:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, discounting votes by Ocin (user's first edit) and Fastnaturedude (who has no edits). Flower party■ 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic the Hedgehog (Revolution game)

There is no verifiable info here at all, these are just rumors.. We have no way of knowing whether or not Sega is making an exclusive Revolution game. A Clown in the Dark 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Crystal Ball squared: "Sonic The Hedgehog Revolution is a rumored Sonic the Hedgehog game for the future Nintendo console..." 'Nuff said. Fan1967 23:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a crystal ball Wh e re ^(talk) 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Expand If yew delete this article, yew will have to delete the article on the 'rumoured' 2006 Sonic game for Xbox 360/Playstation 2. Ley Shade 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- That game isn't rumored, Sega has released a video of the game and have completely confirmed that it's coming. Sega has yet to even acknowledge the existence of this game. And by the way, it's spelled you. A Clown in the Dark 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its also a deliberate misspell. Give the originator of the article time to cite his sources, which means someone contacting them and letting them know to do so. If they dont within a given period of time, then to delete the article. Fair is Fair, dont 'yew' think. Ley Shade 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete until the game is confirmed by SEGA. Doug teh H-Nut 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Expand It may be a good idea to keep it up to inform people of the rumor, but it should be perfectly clear that it is un-confirmed and no information supports it as of yet. It could also help people if it is kept, as some unlucky person might stumble upon the rumor and think it is real. So then they could use this article to show it is merely a rumor, and by what we know, nothing more. Ocin

Comment Wikipedia is NOT a rumor mill. Let's stick to things that actually are, not things that might be. Fan1967 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless verified, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a guessing game. No prejudice to recreation once we have a couple reliable sources. Stifle 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article should be deleted. I mean, SEGA hasn't confirmed it at all! It was just rumoured, and IGN isn't a very reliable source. Delete! Delete! DELETE! Shadoman 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well I dunno about that, IGN isn't that bad... A Clown in the Dark 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Because, although it is only rumored, it seems pretty likely as Sega has given support to the rev numorous times.--Ac1983fan 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Expand Yes, SEGA has confirmed this game for the Nintendo Revolution. It is on sonicteam.com. Fastnaturedude

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as vandalism by Curps -SCEhard T 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindlewood

Hoax, with a reference to the deleted "Carlow Crab". I am BBIH, by the way. BBIH the All-powerful 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio -SCEhard T 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazaarbuilder

Currently an ad - propose deletion unless notable company -SCEhard T 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Blatant ad and a copyvio. It's basically a straight copy of their website at [53] - Fan1967 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I couldn't find that earlier -SCEhard T 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port_Lylindail

Delete. This is clearly a vanity page. EvilOverlordX 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a NN-game mod. The article doesnt show the importance of the subject. ---J.Smith 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn; also note that it fails the google test. Wh e re ^(talk) 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Were this an actual part in the Forgotten Realms setting I would feel differently, but these seems like a made up, made up place. kotepho 03:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article is the work of the artist and author Manuel Pineiro III. Notice that is HIS art on the article. Also this is an article of a place in the NN community that once was but is no more, hence the google test. DragonWR12LB 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep I used to play on that! It was real! It was on Bioware's website tooo!!!! Keep derf —This unsigned comment was added by 70.119.235.138 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per J.Smith and Kotepho. Also, the external link is "often down due to inactivity" as further proof of nn. Cursive 18:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neta

del a neologism attempt. From the article text it follows that the word means simply topic. mikka (t) 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki It's an interesting word, a reversal of the syllables of tane. The article will make a valuable addition to Wiktionary. Fg2 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it current in English usage so that it can go to wiktionary? Wiktionary seems to collect lots of garbage lately. An occasional looker (mainly when creating disambig pages with wiktionary link) I am, yet have already fixed several errors and outright hoaxes there. mikka (t) 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep This has widespread usage and it certainly isn't an attempt to coin the term. I think it would be better served to be merged with some other Japanese terms such as DQN instead of seperate articles though. Maybe List of Internet slang? kotepho 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide reputable references for the origin and "widespreadness" of the term. Google gives tousands of hits, but for wrong "neta", at least in the first 300 hits (way beyond my usual diligence level). If it is spread wide, it must have been done quite thinly. Anyway, googlisms for "neta" are quite amusing. mikka (t) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother googling for ネタ[54]? kotepho 03:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a hard time[pdf] finding links. Not to mention all of the ones that talk about neta in relation to sushi. kotepho 03:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that this is English wikipedia, and Japanese words, unless they are in normal English circulation, are not for this place? We don't have articles for hajime, watashi, konnichi wa, denki kikai, kiri, and the remaining hundreds of thousands of other Japanese words expressions, some of them are occasionally known even to americans and other gaijin. mikka (t) 04:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice how I said it probably does not deserve its own article but we might find a place for it? kotepho 04:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Japanese Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, or Japanese Wiktionary. I'm not seeing a place for this material here. Stifle 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. I have included it in my Glossary of owarai terms, which I will move to the namespace soon, where it describes the use in Japanese comedy. I concurr with Fg2, a little bit weak for its own article. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardinig your owarai list: are these words in English language usage? mikka (t) 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they are simply Japanese words that are very common when discussion certain Japanese things (in this case owarai) and it's much easier to refer to a glossary each time instead of explaining. neta's claim of English use is completely bogus. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki as per Freshgavin and others. Neier 13:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanakorn Praiwan

Unable to verify, does not google, appears to be student at d'Overbroeck's College, likely hoax. Prod removed by anonymous editor without editing or comment. Accurizer 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Aside from the verifiability problems, I'm curious about the gender. Either this person's a hermaphrodite, or the author has limited English and considers the words "his" and "her" interchangeable. Fan1967 00:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Many foreign languages require pronouns to agree in gender with the object. Probably just a bad translation. Stifle 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. unverifiable and/or hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, likely someone's vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 13:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 10

[edit] S.T.A.B.

[edit] Prosper (web site)

[edit] Alex Cuppett

[edit] Funnly

[edit] RedCell

[edit] Brushogun

[edit] Media Instance

[edit] Lucky Design

[edit] Beatles Real Person Fic

[edit] Milwaukee Brewers: All-Time Team

[edit] Tomax7

[edit] Production work

[edit] Meeli Mulari

[edit] Boot-legged

[edit] Artbox

[edit] List of The Carlow Crab episodes

[edit] Omnicode

[edit] Route 105 (Pokémon)

[edit] Nerk

[edit] The Sherries

[edit] Chaoslab

[edit] Splash conception

[edit] Female orgasm denial

[edit] James A. Hawken

[edit] Kenneth J. Dillon

[edit] Hawkeye vodka

[edit] Camille Evans

[edit] Liza Powell

[edit] Uptech Computer

[edit] The Causes Of The Boom In The USA

[edit] Dogballs

[edit] Olga Peters

[edit] Educational Technologist

[edit] Nourhaghighi

[edit] Mississauga Football League

[edit] Viva (band)

[edit] Margarita Movers

[edit] Southern Military Tradition

[edit] James Kenneth Jones

[edit] Tahrirolvasyleh

[edit] Wedge Crew

[edit] Red Letter Christian Movement

[edit] Truthiness

[edit] Criticism of Family Guy

[edit] Justin Clemens

[edit] MechZ

[edit] Cubbage

[edit] Steve Slaunwhite

[edit] "Campaign For Real Music"

[edit] Chinese property bubble

[edit] Trinidadian slang

[edit] Kosmix

[edit] Monash Berwick Buddhist Society

[edit] Islam: What the West Needs to Know

[edit] Giant Lion

[edit] Sokker

[edit] Rewrite 15 March

[edit] Nollij.com

[edit] Ladeeni

[edit] The Five Crowns

[edit] Headless monsters

[edit] Linga sarira

[edit] FDT Industries

[edit] Antonia Bance (second nomination)

[edit] HEX-rays

[edit] Trenway Textiles Inc

[edit] Andy & Edie

[edit] Darkwebz

[edit] Woop

[edit] Tala (Beyblade characters)

[edit] Vincent Galante

[edit] Carmine Gigante

[edit] James Helms

[edit] Texas Pacific Transporation

[edit] Suicider

[edit] Twat_Waffles