Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 15

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor SSBM characters

I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):

• Giga Bowser
• Fighting Wire Frames
• Crazy Hand
• Master Hand
• Sandbag (Smash Bros.)
• Female Wire Frames
• Fighting Polygons

All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect all, optionally speedily, and discourage recreation. I've added Female Wire Frames to the list. Nifboy 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit: and Fighting Polygons, from SSB. Nifboy 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect all of them. Since the Fighting Polygons only exist in SSB, maybe we should change the list to List of Super Smash Bros. characters? BryanG 06:00, 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 REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. -Splash^talk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self fashioning

Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.--Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with Self-fashioning on the basis that it appears to be an actual Renaissance-era practice.[1] There need to be more citations, however, but the term appears notable and historical. Aplomado - UTC 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (edit conflict) It needs work and references, but I find a number of references that seem to verify what the article says (one in King Lear even). – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the other article. They both need a major rewrite. This was apparently an actual practice, but I know little more about it after reading the article. Carlo 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The most obvious merge and redirect I've seen in a while. Alba 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was unaware of the other article. Both are poorly written but at least Self-fashioning is referenced. I think merge and redirect is the best solution.--Porturology 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Aplomado - Oscar Arias 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect since it is almost exactly the same article -- Astrokey44|talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect almost a duplicate. --Terence Ong 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and comment per above with merge, and just because there has been no major edits for 11 months isn't criteria for deletion Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Terence Ong. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as above. ProhibitOnions 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --AaronS 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Pileon merge/redirect... but definitely do not count this as a straight delete, the article has sources and it's an encyclopedic concept. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 22 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. Harro5 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iq content

Non-notable company. Prod removed seemingly due to misunderstanding of process. Hynca-Hooley 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this shoddy brochure. Aplomado - UTC 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, don't need to vote on this one... – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, nn-company. Not sure what Speedy criteria it would fall under for speedy, since advertising isn't a CSD criteria, but delete nontheless. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:29, 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 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Above Board

NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. --Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GOOG so hard my bum hurts. Not a single hit outside their own site. Needless to say, fails WP:CORP. Alba 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought my browser had redirected me to their website for a second or two. Per above. Colonel Tom 12:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oscar Arias 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this brochure. Aplomado - UTC 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --CrypticBacon 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - but I wonder if some of the above analysis could be slightly more polite to obvious new starters - seems like a genuine attempt even if it is a vanity advertisement? VirtualSteve 08:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable school team.  (aeropagitica)  15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What everyone's already said. dcandeto 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Mikker ^... 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. However, as it seems to be a good-faith newbie article (although it's vanity advertising), I've left a welcome message on the page of User:Adav, who created it. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom but AGF Funky Monkey 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Good idea, Funky Monkey. --AaronS 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. James 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Cool3 19:12, 19 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 delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foglerhymez

Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Man says delete. Alba 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't establish its notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absurd article. Turns up no Google hits and there's no way to verify it assuming it is "undaground" like the author insists. It's probably a hoax. Aplomado - UTC 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - HoaxCruft -Oscar Arias 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alba. Awesome. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:03, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOS.MASTER

A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• "This is a significant utility due to the fact that it enabled previously ProDOS incompatible programs to be run under ProDOS." I'm blown away. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless people more versed in Apple II stuff chime in . -Oscar Arias 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This Google search gives only 109 results, and not all of those are even related to this program. Non-notable. -- Mithent 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ghesh guys, give me a chance to build this up. --PZ 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You guys sound like a bunch of deletionists. --Monton 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is the only thing ever posted by Monton -- Fan1967 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN software. deletionist ^{vent here} 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GHits not relevant to something that was obsolete before the web was invented (when the card catalog was a file system and the search engine was your fingers). Based on the article, notable as part of computer history. Needs more encyclopedic style, maybe some comments and refs from old Apple magazines. Thatcher131 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification If it can be expanded a bit more, keep as a separate article linked to the relevant Apple II articles. However, I would also support merging into Apple DOS. Thatcher131 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Thatcher.--ragesoss 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thatcher. Or, at the least, merge it into the Apple DOS article. I don't know if it's all that notable, but those who find out about DOS.MASTER from the Apple DOS article can probably find documentation from the external links as needed. (And back in the day when I had an Apple II, hard drives were hideously expensive and limited in capacity to 20 MB or so. Ah, the days.) --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Apple DOS. I guess WP:SOFTWARE is useful here, eve if it's not official yet, and nothing in the article or this discussion convinces me its criteria are met. Sandstein 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thatcher or else merge with Apple Dos. --Terence Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into ProDOS, or weak keep; it's much more relevant to ProDOS than to Apple DOS. --moof 08:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep and update - in that order as per Thatcher and others of that view. VirtualSteve 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thatcher. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thatcher and Elkman. Seems significant in the context of the history of personal computing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks OK. JIP | Talk 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Wackymacs 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mirror Vax 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Snargle 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as AIR it was important to the ][ community at the time. ProhibitOnions 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. --AaronS 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please important for apple computers Yuckfoo 04:00, 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. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nowhere nowhere land

DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally

• weak keep - actual published material, a number of google hits, interesting is subjective. -Oscar Arias 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable publication. Aplomado - UTC 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No amazon book rank, no non wikipedia or mirror site hits, nn MadCow257 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn book. --Terence Ong 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agree no hits and not-notable. VirtualSteve 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Oscar Arias. It has a number og google hits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity press publishing, NN. ProhibitOnions 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Oscar Arias and Siva1979. --AaronS 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, [2]. -- infinity0 15:49, 19 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 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayraktar Mini UAV

Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ad. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a keep folks. I note that AFD tag has either been removed or not placed (which may not be appropriate) - but article has been rewritten to remove advertising. 47 specific google hits (not including 2 wiki hits) VirtualSteve 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per *Keep. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per original prod reason: "Advertisement submitted by the inventor on a device that no sources has ever heard about. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. Please remove image and vanity edits to Unmanned aerial vehicle as well." --Perfecto 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. As per talk page, submitter/inventor denies he is the noted executive, so Georgewilliamherbert's unprodding turns out wrong as well.
• Keep per VirtualSteve. Moe Aboulkheir 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Steve, Siva1979, Moe Aboulkheir, remove wikipedia mirrors and baykarmakina.com pages from the 47 hits -- guess how many are left? --Perfecto 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, while the rewrite did help it to appear more legit (which still doesn't address some of the problems), the second paragraph is a word for word copy from the company website. Tijuana Brass 16:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We should delete every other UAV description by the same token since all are advertisements!! take a look at [3] or all other UAV entries.Poor 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: This newly-created user has no other edits.)
• Delete 47 google hits pretty much defines 'non-notable'.-AKMask 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dear commentators, I have looked to the other uav examples [4] and changed the article content. I am trying to make the necessary changes according to the comments. --Haluk 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at this uav [5] as well in which there is not any single reference. I did put references inside. --Haluk 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a point here, you do not 'own' the article, you have released the text you contributed under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which gives everyone the expressed right to take, modify, use, distribute and even sell the text, so long as they also give those same rights to whoever ends up with it. -AKMask 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, AKMask, wrong expression, i erased that part.--Haluk 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries at all :) Although it is considered good form not to delete things from these kinds of pages and strike them out instead. I know, I know, steep learning curve, but your adjusting remarkably well :) -AKMask 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aladin's existence is verified by this Herald Tribune article. Several news outlets confirm that the German army bought 115 of them last year. This is what Wikipedia:Verifiability means. --Perfecto 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I consider aircraft in production, even UAVs, to be inherently notable. moink 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per VirtualSteve/Poor/moink. Lambiam 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, but probably could be merged into a "list of UAVs" article or something. -- infinity0 15:51, 19 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 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Southland (band)

Band at the boundaries of WP:MUSIC notability. Article is a little promotional of the band also. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely weak keep - Only if it can be proved that any of their music was on the TV show mentioned --Oscar Arias 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than alot of bands proposed here MadCow257 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have tidied the article up. Cnwb 02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per above. I added a stub tag. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks better now. --Terence Ong 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, current version looks inclusion worthy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I cannot see any reason for the removal of this article, especially since their music is on regular rotation on public radio (Though I see where you could argue the "major radio network" statement). -Hoekenheef 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is a notable band Yuckfoo 04:00, 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 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Alert: A Path Beyond

This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 and Command and Conquer: Red Alert articles without having its own page.--Zxcvbnm 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - pretty crufty though -Oscar Arias 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete CrUfT the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge only if absolutely necessary. --CrypticBacon 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. --Terence Ong 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, minor inproduction mod. Night Gyr 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Oarias. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the main game article or the "list of battlefield mods" if there is such an article already. -- infinity0 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Don't merge, just get rid of it. - Hahnchen 06:21, 22 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 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Sexton

Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep - definately clean up needed --Oscar Arias 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep per Oscar. Bucketsofg 02:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic Delete. The man is not individually notable in any way. A mention of his name in the Lion's Gate article is more than enough. He's a VP and not the main man at his company. Note that we do not have any articles for his superiors, nor should we, unless they were individually notable for some reason. Oscar and Buckets, what is your rationale? the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, mostly gut feeling. I've seen much less notable people in wikipedia articles. At least he's a VP in the entertainment industry. -Oscar Arias 09:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar, gut feeling is not a criterion, thank God, in WP:N. If even you see a less notable person, do us all a favor, propose him for deletion. Let's get WP up to standard of citability in scholarly works and judicial opinions. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, nontrivial industry figure, slash text heavily. Monicasdude 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crzrussian. Moe Aboulkheir 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Crazy argues. ProhibitOnions 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Russian Funky Monkey 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Russian --Ardenn 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Russian. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Russian Cursive 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Russian. Reyk 19:45, 20 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, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel processor confusion

This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this article falls under the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Aplomado - UTC 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it's poorly named and the individual processors have their own lists. (But, yes, Intel processor names are too confusing!) -- Mithent 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (to the appropriate pages). I don't see lists for individual Intel microprocessor families (List of Intel microprocessors is higher-level than this page, and doesn't have all the detailed information that this page has), but, by analogy to List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, etc.; if the information, the information on this page should go into pages listing Pentium 4 or Netburst microprocessors, Pentium M microprocessors, Intel Core microprocessors, etc.. The "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" pages appear to use marketing names for "XXX", so, by analogy, I'd use marketing terms, so Xeons would be separate from Pentium 4's, although that then raises the question of whether a Pentium 4 is the same as a Pentium D (the D being a two-cores-on-a-package 4), whether a Yonah Intel Core is the same as a Pentium M, etc.. I wouldn't hold up the nuking of Intel processor confusion for a decision on that, though. "Intel processor confusion" is a bit of a bizarre and "un-encyclopedic" name, even if the information is useful. Guy Harris 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the information is useful, and its the name that is un-encyclopedic, perhaps a rename and cleanup will do. I am starting to doubt this AfD nomination. --Ezeu 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's more than just the name; I assume the "confusion" is that there's a metric crapload of processors with "Pentium" in the name that have different characteristics and, sometimes, different microarchitectures (NetBurst in Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium EE, and some Xeon processors; Pentium M in some other processors, including the Yonah Intel Core microprocessors). If the goal is to clear up confusion about processors with "Pentium" in the name, it could list any such processors - perhaps we could start by renaming the page "List of Intel Pentium processors", and allow classic Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. to be added to it by those sufficiently anal-retentive to care. :-) It wouldn't list the current Intel Core processors, though, as they're not Pentiums, nor would it list Celeron or Xeon processors - they'd have their own "list of" pages.

We might want to add a column for the microarchitecture, given that Intel's used the same marketing name for processors with different microarchitectures (more so than AMD, who've used Athlon and Duron only for K7 processors, and have used Athlon 64, Opteron, and Turion only for K8 processors, although they've apparently used Sempron for both K7's and K8's). Guy Harris 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if people think this page should simply be deleted (as opposed to renamed), would they say the same for the various "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" page? (I wouldn't argue if they said "yes", but if they said "no", I'd ask why a list of Pentiums is different from a list of Athlons.) Guy Harris 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Xeon page has a list of Xeon processors; by analogy to that, I'd merge the stuff about Pentium 4/D/EE from Intel processor confusion with the table on the Pentium 4 page, and move the stuff about Pentium M to a table on the Intel Core page (because it's only about Yonah). If the merging doesn't result in any change to the pages in question (because all the information from Intel processor confusion is already there), that amounts to Delete. Guy Harris 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not ... well ... this. Bucketsofg 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Some kind of article that disambiguates the variety of different chips a customer might encounter in a "Pentium" PC might be useful, but not this. Maybe divide into groups by characteristics that actually affect the consumer. Thatcher131 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I like List of Intel microprocessors, but it's missing some info, that perhaps might not be of interest to the average consumer, but that will definitely interest the more advanced enthusiast. Thank you for reminding me how much I loathe Intel for naming four different processors "Celeron" and moving the Pentium 4 series to an all-digit nomenclature that doesn't mean a thing. ;) Usonophile 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate processor family pages if not present. -- Mithent 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename to "List of Intel Pentium processors" per above and tag with for expansion. Seems a shame to just toss this info away. As for merging into various articles, that breaks up the information so completely is as to constitute (unlikes most merges) an effective deletion. The whole point of this article is to collect info from various articles into one easy-to-access table. I'm assuming that people exist who would find this info useful. Herostratus 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Herostratus. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Intel microprocessors. There it may have chance to be maintained, which obviously didn;t happne with current text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Info is useful in the proper context. ProhibitOnions 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Pavel. Eivind^speak! 23:51, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Bernacchi

Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He was a party member of a pretty notable expedition. Aplomado - UTC 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. JoshuaZ 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable explorer. The Australian Dictionary of Biography has an article on him which I intend to use to expand this.Capitalistroadster 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Article has been duly expanded. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep per aplomado. Bucketsofg 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Cnwb 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An important early explorer. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Look forward to Capitalistroadster's additions -- Samir (the scope) 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --CrypticBacon 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as expanded by Capitalistroadster, looks good. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Funky Monkey 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please imporant to australian history erasing makes no sense Yuckfoo 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable, why would anyone think otherwise? There are plenty of references to him. --Ishel99 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep. recipients of the Order of the British Empire and the Légion d'honneur are inherently notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:10, 19 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 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Texan Tavern

Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Robert Trimbole.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Binguyen Bucketsofg 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Robert Trimbole. Its notability such as it is relates to him. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything worth merging into Robert Trimbole is already there. --Bduke 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Robert Trimbole. --Terence Ong 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Enough information about Robert Trimbole in article, do we need this tavern? Tha's his wife tavern! --MaNeMeBasat 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If anyone is interested enough they can include it the Robert Trimbole article. --Roisterer 08:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Binguyen. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- Ian ≡ talk 10:08, 22 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. Harro5 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shondes

Band; does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, perhaps cultural importance can be argued; but only 66 Google hits suggest probably not. Hynca-Hooley 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No discography, no notability asserted, no reason to keep this article. Aplomado - UTC 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Bucketsofg 02:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as article does not assert notability. Capitalistroadster 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• And is now tagged as such. Speedy Delete the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:41, 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 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kids Eat Free

Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The speediest of speedy deletes for this absurd article. Aplomado - UTC 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Fg2 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Delete, don't even put it on wikitionary. Explains itself MadCow257 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Unlikely to grow past substub status. — TKD::Talk 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Bucketsofg 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't imagine how anyone would find this useful. Cnwb 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete -- I'm sure someone somewhere could write a well-sourced dissertation on the business use of this concept. This will not help them, however. Grandmasterka 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Can't we find something -- Restauraunt, maybe -- to merge this to? It feels like a minor section of an article, not an article itself. Alba 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quite obviously. Mustafa Bevi 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and note that its definition is absurd: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat for free" (obviously, this is circular). However: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat [...] at a reduced price, or to receive some other special item." Um, that would be Kids Don't Eat Free, otherwise better known as false advertising. Esquizombi 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nearly everything about this is discernable from the phrase itself. ---Dana 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 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 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Stodghill

Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results.[6] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.

• Delete per nomination JackO'Lantern 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. She was probably an extra in the shows which is why she gets no credit. 51 Google hits and half of those were a different Alexis Stodghill. Montco 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable. Fan1967 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless having the world's most injudicious stage parents qualifies you as notable. Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. Monicasdude 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and per nom. --Terence Ong 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• First 1. Fact is is that television actors are not put onto IMDB unless they have appeared in a movie as well. Read IMDB's acrticle on submission, MANY television actors are not on IMDB.

Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.

Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?

Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.

The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.

I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.

Vanity that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).

• • For the record, if you wrote that Ahston Kutcher was the worst actor in the world, it would turn up on a google search.... Oh, and Dakota Fanning is not exactly an extra.... JackO'Lantern 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding your opinion: "If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little." Wikipedia has a clearly stated policy (WP:V) that is exactly the opposite. If you cannot prove (or PROOVE) notability, there's no reason to assume it's true. All sorts of wannabe musicians, models, actors want articles here to promote themselves. An actor not listed in IMDB is suspect to say the least. Fan1967 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)

I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.

The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.

The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justadding (talk • contribs).

• I offer no opinion except that the person I've nominated for deletion has no IMDB entry and next to no Google results. It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject). Of course, at some point in time, Dakota Fanning would not have been notable enough to list. But that changed circa 2000. JackO'Lantern 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."

That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).

• I would like to remind Justadding (talk • contribs) that he/she remember to sign in before posting, and sign all posts with 4 tildes. Posting from multiple accounts in an AfD debate is frowned upon. Thatcher131 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luvcraft 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable. Even if notable, not verifiable. Thatcher131 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Vanity Funky Monkey 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Vanity User:Birdflu2006 User 65.184.17.216 claims to be both the CD that cast Alexis Stodghill AND her father, per comments above.
• Delete per nom, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Scardina

Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged possible vanity biographies of a living person. Here there is assertion of notability (appearances on Tonight Show). {{nn-bio}} and {{prod}} tags both removed. Personally vote weak keep, but something of a revamping of the article is needed if that is the outcome of the debate. Hynca-Hooley 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I removed the prod, but I agree that the article could use some NPOV work and she does scrape notability. IMDB lists eight appearances on the Tonight Show and three on Rosie O'Donnell, plus one more appearance elsewhere. (And that may not be a complete list, of course.) Google has 786 hits with her name in quotes. JRP 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Appears over and over on California-based TV talk shows, particularly Tonight/Leno as ringmaster for animal acts. Monicasdude 03:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone on Tonight Show is notable, so if I appear on a guest show, then am I notable?? --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A single appearance on a guest show, perhaps not, but this person has many appearances and on different shows, which seems to me indicates notability, so keep.Bondegezou 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a search engine for occasional TV personalties. Brian G. Crawford 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete she was on the tv shows because of the animals rather than her being notable herself (im assuming) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Shes notable, appears on many TV shows as a special guest. Mike _{(T C)} 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If everyone that appears on guest shows, then we will have more articles. They must assert some notability. --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep borderline notability, but not vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appearing on talk shows implies being interesting, not notable. Kuzaar 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Those appearances put her in the public eye. -- JJay 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; not vanity, certainly notable per her Leno appearances (after all, they don't just have anyone on The Tonight Show); perhaps not as well known as Jack Hanna but definitely in the same vein. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 733 Google hits is not notable. -- infinity0 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She has been on a number of shows. However Astrokey44 makes a good point. Nigelthefish 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As an aside, from a random sampling, I'm noting that a majority of the delete votes are coming from non-American editors, and the keeps are likewise coming from American editors. Just an observation, and I'm not sure of the pervasiveness or popularity of The Tonight Show in other countries, but systemic bias might need to be taken into account here, as it might be akin to me voting to delete someone who appears on a UK talk show that I don't watch regularly, about whose notability I might not have a full grasp. (Not an accusation toward anyone, of course, but simply an observation.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 20 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 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zukak

Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Either unnotable or a hoax. Carlo 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. At the very least, don't add stubs for characters in a game if we don't even have an article for the game, and this looks like a nn game. Fan1967 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. This should be a CSD criterion for all types of articles, not just the people and bands covered under A7. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Duvessa

nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! —ERcheck @ 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. Palnu 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. I predict it will never amount to anything. Fan1967 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke immediately. A very poorly written ad that hurts my eyes. Grandmasterka 06:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, company hasn't yet started, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOT. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 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 Delete (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obidike

I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike Eze" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can assure you that my ethnicity has nothing to do with my nomination. I did not even notice anything from "yellow fever", and I can assure you that I am not in any way offended by the posting of the article. I check the Newpages for articles which are not encyclopedic as per WP:AFD, and in this case, WP:BIO. I do this regularly, and use AfD a lot, please see User:Blnguyen/AfD, which is a log of my activity on AfD. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. A story about some local character who read a lot of comic books and is really good with a playstation controller? Oh, please. If it's "one of the least well known folk legends of recent history" I think it can stay that way. Fan1967 02:50, 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 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phantasm's End

A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete so non-notable, my notes are in danger of spontaneous combustion. Alba 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Proposed film already mentioned in Phantasm page. Doesn't merit a seperate page. --Ricaud 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:32, 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 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comics@MaiNada.Net

Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crystal Ball. WP is not to promote start-ups that haven't done anything yet. Fan1967 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a start-up. It was merly a project to test some technologies. Open Laszlo intereacting with Ruby On Rails. And instead of doing something meanless. I decided to create something nice, that could give some new contribute. It was done with good intentions, not to make money. And don't think that every web2.0 has to be from a startup. People do enjoy doing things their are paissoned about. keep it Tiago.Cardoso 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Call it a start-up or new project, doesn't matter. Neither does your passion or your intentions. It is not a judgement on the value of your project. The point is (a) you're new (b) basically nobody's ever heard of you. Wikipedia is not to promote unknowns, it is to document people or things that have already established notability. Fan1967 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think you should go and check List of webcomics, every single webcomics there as a dedicated article and I can assure you that there are some webcomics there that aren't in the scope of "things that have already established notability.". Think of this as another webcomics on that list. But with an innovation added. Tiago.Cardoso 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The road to Hell is paved with...never mind. Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian G. Crawford (talk • contribs).

hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to Comics@MaiNada.Net. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso

Response Feel free to nominate Arbit_Choudhury for deletion. Still won't make your site notable. Fan1967 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso

• Delete as nn. -- King of Hearts ^talk 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't comics, this is Oekaki. NN either way, though. Nifboy 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nifboy. -- Dragonfiend 05:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nifboy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nifboy. Tiago, instead of arguing about things that are irrelevant to this discussion, please acquaint yourself with WP:WEB, which is what we go by here. Even if the site were notable enough to have an article, this article would need a complete rewrite, as it is blatant advertisement. -- Zaron 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• PS- Zaron, you are right and some of your comments were the most accurate. I real do thing that the article isn't good as it is. I see some problems with it. My intention wasn't to make an AD, but I come like one.. Probably because I copy-paste some of the info in the site.. and that info is supposed to be not that impartial ;) I just didn't like the initial comments. Too much of pretentious and non-constructive comments. But that's just my opinion. I offered myself to re-write the article with help, like that link you shown. I'll take care of that later. This isn't that much of an important thing for now. Thanks anyway and sorry some more hard comments. :) Tiago.Cardoso

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] INpax

INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google.[7] Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.

• Delete per nom. JackO'Lantern 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as totally nn. An 11-year-old wannabe rapper. Fan1967 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly nn, borderline BJAODN material. dbtfz^talk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This probably should have been speedy deleted as a non-notable band. I put a db-band template up for his brother, Sloarhandler. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. Bucketsofg 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, article is about a real person but does not assert importance or significance of the subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity nn Funky Monkey 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Has supposedly made two tapes. Dr. Dre supposedly thought about signing him but hasn't as yet. As yet, he doesn't meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Poorly written vanity Nigelthefish 19:21, 20 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. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borderlands rpg

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.--PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spamming. They even put their banner in, so it's obviously an ad. Brian G. Crawford 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant ad for nn RPG. Fan1967 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, adv. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, ad. --Terence Ong 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wait a second. I went online and found a group that split off from us in the same category, called "Quadrant Delta" So I thought, oh, we'll that's cool, if they have a home here, then we should too..... Now why the heck are they okay, and we're not? There are also sites like UCIP up under Star Trek role-playing games that have been there for years. —This unsigned comment is by Truemper (talk • contribs) .

You'd get a much better reception if the page wasn't blatant advertising, I expect, and made notability clearer (eg, noting the number of users, noting any media attention, more history, etc). --Fuzzie (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a Star Trek -related article. No, wait, I meant to say delete, advertisement for an RPG group. JIP | Talk 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Delta MLA 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well it's going back up if you delete it. I'll change the content to be more wiki-friendly, but there is no reason at all why we shouldn't have a place here. If you look at categories like: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction, they are ALL personal games. If there is something wrong with posting these kind of sites up then you may as well delete those entire categories, because that's exactly what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs).
• Delete nn Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, blatant advertising/spam. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've been warned now that I had better not re-add my article, because admin can delete it on sight... but I will be re-adding it........ I'll fix up the content so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement, and instead gives more of a historical look at Trek based Role playing on the Internet, but I KNOW that Borderlands has a place here. If you look at the debate around Bravo-Fleet being on the Wiki, then that's all you need to hear to know that Borderlands belongs also. Bravo-Fleet is unique because of it's size, but Borderlands is more notable because of age. We started in 1993 - a full 5 years before Bravo Fleet, and well before any other documented Trek RPG out there. We have a history that is more relevant to gaming than Bravo Fleet, and if I get deleted after highlighting that history then I'm going to demand that every other RPG documented on Wikipedia be removed as well. I admit that the current article content isn't anything special, it was a cut and paste job from our homepage just to have something up, but we do have relevance, and I will be putting Borderlands back up again when I compile that information, despite threats......... Would it kill you to offer suggestions to FIX content? - Rather than just acting like freaking Wiki-Nazis. —This unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Wikipedia. --Rory096 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So tell me, what makes the fan club notable?... Are you telling me that being the longest standing game on the Internet isn't notable enough?........ What is it about Bravo Fleet that makes it more notable, other than size? We intentionally chose a different niche than Bravo Fleet, we want quality, not quantity, so that disqualifies us? How about games like UCIP that have NO notability, but didn't get hammered by this crap?... Like I said before, the categories: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction are all full of less notable clubs than Borderlands..... That's all those categories have at all! I know I'm not supposed to be offended by the delete request, but how can I *not* be when so much clearly non-notable crap is all over the place, and a club that built itself off of our history in gaming gets put up for deletion, but isn't deleted because of popular support. We are the ancestry of these categories, we deserve a place here, but somehow we're the ones that get singled out for deletion and threatened not to try posting up better information.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 27 Club

This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. --CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP very intriguing and good idea, funny list, well done - actually it is rather a candidate for "featured articles". Kurt.
• KEEP it - as a fan of music I've always been strangely intrigued by the fact that so many of my favorite musicians died at 27. The fact that many other groups of people share this intrigue is reason enough to keep it. Obviously, not everyone will care, or find this article interesting, but that is not a reason to delete it.
• Keep as it is a popular concept. page bottom lists it as a "curse" and for the MTV generations it has just as much historical significance as Tecumseh's Curse, Kennedy Curse, Rebel Without a Cause Curse and the Superman Curse. If 27 Club is deleted, then the aforementioned should be deleted as well.
• KEEP -- 27 Club is a well-known phenomenon in American pop culture. The fact that the 'Big 4' 27 club members weren't just famous ... they were huuuuge; at the peak of their success. And now each is a rock icon. Heck, Wikipedia has an article about the myth of eating Pop Rocks while drinking soda pop as well as articles on Coprophilia (sexual arousal through feces) and Anal bleaching. KEEP THE 27 CLUB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Delete as it's a pointless list of musicians who died at age 27. Totally unnecessary. Aplomado - UTC 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I think a list of musicians who died young (whatever that is) would be quite interesting. We have List of deaths through alcohol, why not List of musicians who died young? It seems pointless to focus on a single age (that and the title smell slightly of OR) but a general list might be useful. Thatcher131 03:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, to be fair, shortly after Cobain killed himself his mother was quoted as saying "I told him not to join that stupid club"[8], referring to (we presume) other notable musicians who died at 27, so the term does have somewhat of a historical basis, though weak. Through a Google search on "27 club"; I was able to find the term used in one reputable source, and then only as the title to the story. --CrypticBacon 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a recreated article that has already been deleted once. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. the BBC article where they mentioned "27 club" was just a catchy title rather than saying that such a club existed. not many relevant google hits [9]. Plus its already mentioned at 27 (number) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's actually a popular concept. Not many popular musicians die under 30, and the fact that most of their deaths happened at the same age is notable. Forever 27 is another known name for this. Manmonk 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I should point out that Forever 27 gets around 85,000 hits through google. Manmonk 06:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to Delete upon discovery of Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s. Manmonk 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Manmonk, your recent change of heart still does not negate the fact that (according to you) "Forever 27" receives 85,000 Google hits. I would be open to rename the article Forever 27 Club, but most definitely not a delete.
    • It would be better off as Category:Musicians who died at 27. There's no reason for us to have an article that gives us no information other than that they died at 27. Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. --Terence Ong 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 50,700 hits for "27 club" [10] indicates some interest and the BBC article is a verifiable source. There is also an Asahi article [11]. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Only 511 Google hits for ("27 club" (hendrix | joplin | cobain | morrison)) [12] which eliminates many of the unrelated hits. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, merging if necessary to 27 (number). It's mentioned there already and doesn't need another article. Night Gyr 10:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. Alba 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the entire article into a seperate section of 27 (number) and redirect. Herostratus 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As noted above, it's a popular concept. I had heard it discussed several times before stumbling upon the wikipedia page. —thames 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a rather fascinating phenomenon, in my opinion, I've always been aware of the strange fact that these artists all died at 27 before wikipedia came along. It's nice to have an entry for it for those who aren't already aware.
• Keep or Merge It's not pointless. I believe one of Wiki's goals is to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia around. Thus, we should all want it to contain as much information as possible, no matter how insignificant it might be to some. A small amount of google hits shouldn't be reason for deletion. Wikipedia would be that much more popular having something that isn't found on a major search engine. Most importantly, it does have a following within the music community, and anyone looking for it won't go to 27 (number) as their first thought. So, per Herostratus' comment, at the very least give it it's own section on 27 (number) with a redirect. --Wilhelm Screamer 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. incog 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terrance, Brian and nom. Cursive 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• A merge into 27 (number), seems a bit odd as this article isn't really about the number 27. it is after all not math but music and most music fans wouldn't look at 27. The information in the article is certainly interesting trivia, the above mentioned articles do indicate a certain degree of use. Perhaps the term itself is somewhat obscure, so I propose recreating this article at Musicians who died at age 27 with redirects from 27 Club, Forever 27, etc. Then mention those as names for the "phenomenon" in the new article. So, I guess that constitutes a keep and rename vote. Cool3 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - cannot find notable examples of usage in this manner. -- infinity0 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a concept of the fact that 3 (Kurt Cobain not included) of the most popular musical icons died in a timeframe so close together and at the same age. If you are going to delete this becuase it's "nonsense", go ahead and delete the articles for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and UFOs.
• Delete Pointless list. Nigelthefish 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ... The BBC, Salon.com [13] and Yahoo Music [14] have all used this terminology, in addition to Kurt Cobains own mother (and by some accounts, Cobain himself).
  • This is another vote from User:206.208.110.32 Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!

This vote is User:Hilarie5000's only edit. --CrypticBacon 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's 4 more votes at the very top of the page by possible sockpuppets with few, if any, edits at all. User:206.208.110.32 has made 2 votes. It should be known that AfD, and Wikipedia, is not a democracy and majority rule is not the deciding factor. Manmonk 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Comment -- Wikipedia may not be a "majority rule" or "democracy." But Wikipedia is most definitely a microcosm of pure socialism much like an Amish community (not to be confused with Communism, Fascism or totalitarianism). People contribute their thoughts and ideas for public consumption, but just because someone may not care for the ideas of another that does not warrant the article as meaningless. For example, right now you probably have about 55% of the people that 'don't care for' George W. Bush, but does that mean his article on Wikipedia should be deleted? Should articles about God and Jesus be deleted because someone is an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu? Wikipedia is a marketplace of ideas, but this article deletion policy is just a mere step away from censorship and book burning. Every article with a purpose -- no matter how ridiculous (Ape Escape 3 anyone?) -- deserves to be part of that free market exchange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I still don't see how this article could go past anything other than the paragraph that states they died at 27. Manmonk 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've already voted, but I feel that if this poster is available at Art.com [15] and is being mass produced, that indicates sufficient interest in the topic. 206.208.110.32

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Abrahams

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. "TalkSPORT is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. 17 March 2006
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. "TalkSPORT is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 1 in 35 is hardly notable. JoshuaZ 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography. Politepunk 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria. Monicasdude 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Funky Monkey 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fuhghettaboutit. Jcuk 01:08, 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 that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This unsigned comment is by The Epopt (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Scot Young Research

PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Bucketsofg 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ace hardware has two products. Wesclean has one. Campus facility maintenance has one. That's not much. Non notable. There's no use crying over spilt milk, mop this article up. delete ++Lar: t/c

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traveling Ham Agency

Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Why was our time wasted with this tripe again? Fan1967 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Terence Ong 05:59, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pick up lines

Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete not encyclopedic Bucketsofg 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep with cleanup tags, maybe delete all the examples unless they are referenced. surely pickup lines are notable, it even gets 79 google scholar and 589 google book search results -- Astrokey44|talk 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep and clean up per Astrokey. JoshuaZ 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A culturally very notable phenomenon. Grandmasterka 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We definitely should have an article on this topic, but the long list of examples was not very useful—so I boldly removed it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, move to Pick up line, as per WP:NAME. David Sneek 10:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Pick up line, well known phenomenon, looks like an article now that the long list of examples is gone (bound to be a never-ending fight to keep it gone too). Weregerbil 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrokey. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, move to "Pick up line", and tag for cleanup. Cultural phenomena, albeit minor. Herostratus 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a part of culture, and should definitely be considered a definition if other words like "google" can be called definitions.
• Keep. It's as legitimate as many other things that get entries. Carlo 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrokey. Don't understand how it would not be considered notable. --SecondSight 02:39, 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 speedy-ly delete. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helga Wanglie

nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete a7 and tagged as such. --Rory096 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. — Mar. 15, '06 [03:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Speedy Delete non-notable bio AdamJacobMuller 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The whole thing is copied word-for-word from the Bioethics article on Wikiversity: [16] Fan1967 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. --Terence Ong 06:01, 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 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K.A. Maroufi-Collé

Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No sources are cited, and just 34 Google hits for "Maroufi-Collé". Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN, created by her 14-year-old son, Arthur Collé Necrypsys, who also created one on Dad, Ronald Collé. Sheeesh. Fan1967 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment In checking his user page, I find he had also put up an autobigraphy of himself, mostly nonsense, which was userfied. Dad, originally User:Colle1, had also created an autobigraphy, which was userfied. When Arthur recreated that biography, Dad, now User:Profcolle helped out. Modest family. Fan1967 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious vanity, but I do think it's nice that a 14 year old took the time to write this about his mother. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, vanoty, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic Engineering

Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Same results as you using google, but I would note that excluding wikipedia, only 94 unique hits are found. So even if the term was accurate, it would appear non-notable. With these results, not a candidate for transwiki. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not notable or accurate; wikipedia is not the place for this misinformation. 68.32.34.152 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 06:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inaccurate dictdef, pointless to redirect to prostitute as the neologism is not specific.  (aeropagitica)  07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Also, you don't need a four-year college degree to practice it, unlike mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and software engineering. There isn't even any calculus involved. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism misusing the term engineering. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need another word for Prostitute. Somebody, maybe someone who has sex for money and doesn't like being called a "whore," seems to be throwing stuff at Wikipedia to see what sticks to create standing for a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:SMOKINGCRACK. No? Okay, just get rid of it as original research or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Haikupoet 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Neologism completely divorced from the legal meaning of engineering. Seems to be just a definition of something like "sex worker advocacy". Peter Grey 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism stretching the meaning of "engineering". Herostratus 03:48, 19 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 reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic Engineering

neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Withdraw, I've changed to Speedy delete, repost ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marlon Abalos

Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). ConDem^Talk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, just not notable enough yet, would work better as a user page -- Samir (the scope) 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I hadn't realised that was an option. If the user agrees to do this, then maybe that would be a good idea. I'll leave a message on his talk page. ConDem^Talk 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:Marlon Abalos redirects to this page, so userfication would seem quite appropriate. dbtfz^talk 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI've noticed that too now, and have left a message saying this on his userpage. ConDem^Talk 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, benefit of the doubt.Bjones 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Wolf530 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy—nn, vanity. —GrantNeufeld 16:40, 17 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

[edit] WikiSonnet

No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfz^talk 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace or a subpage of User:HiveMind: this is the WikiSonnet, not an article about the WikiSonnet. TimBentley 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedied, not an article. FreplySpang (talk) 04:34, 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 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASP Examples

Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.[17] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.[18] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it violates a plethora of Wikipedia rules. The article does not explain itself in any way. Aplomado - UTC 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource or WikiBooks. If the author has some helpful hints, then one of those projects would be more appropriate than Wikipedia. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• It's pretty crappy even so, but transwiki to wikibooks and see if they can make heads or tails of it. Alba 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The content at ASP Examples is such garbage that "transwiki"-ing is of minimal value. Just skimming through it, I found a few outright incorrect statements and blatant original research. I strongly encourage votes to delete. Nova SS 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT and instruction manual. And do not Transwiki, the amount of material here is such the overhead cost of doing that is not worth it. Herostratus 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. --Ricaud 16:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not transwiki. There isn't enough worthwhile content for Wikibooks to do much with, and Wikibooks already has too many false starts like this one. Zetawoof 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. incog 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, could become worthy of a transwiki but is not as currently written. Cool3 02:20, 19 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 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aderack

Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Sandstein 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Ricaud 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably could have been speedied under A1 or A7. Basically just a link to someone's personal website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:27, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Stealth

either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If this article has any validity, the content belongs in Transgender, but as the Epopt says, it doesn't look that way. Fan1967 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 06:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's use as a term doesn't seem important at all, much less the material that is in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified and lack of citations or references that are required to show that this phrase is in common usage and not a neologism.  (aeropagitica)  07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs as a sentence in another article, and inaccurate anyway (contrary to the above comments, however, it is a term in wide usage within the TS community (Google shows this to an extent), although I'm not going to bother trying to source it). --Fuzzie (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Transsexuality article contains an entire section labeled "Stealth" which includes a discussion of "deep stealth." It looks like that section is better written and clearer in meaning than this article. Maybe a redirect? Fan1967 17:16, 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 Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatle Barkers

This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague from the UK but I think this nom is at best a few days early. We slapped some tags on this one in hopes someone would turn up... also a google search turns up a fair number of references to this (most not very complimentary to be sure) from diverse places. I think it needs to be merged to some parody album collection point, with a redirect left, rather than deleted outright. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep if the album exists in real life, i think it should stay; just because it is bad or not linked is no reason to delete it. Perle 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User's 8th edit to Wikipedia, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: The mere existance of an album or CD (since it is relatively easy to do low copy count production runs for not a lot of money, I could produce an album of my musings on the stylistic failings of dog music for 400 USD or so I think...) is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. There has to be some evidence of sales through established outlets, or evidence of impact on others, or evidence via reviews, etc... In this case I think some of that evidence does exist (but is enough to make it barely notable, at best) which is why I suggested a merge. Colin's point that there is no article to merge TO is valid... so maybe this should be moved and other dog music articles then merged with this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: isn't the point of this item more that it is Beatles-related rather than dog-music related? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• MERGE per User:Lar - Oarias 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Real album, prominent novelty record, pretty strong web presence for a bunch of dogs, and you can still buy their music (on compilations) at Barnes and Noble[19] and Amazon [20] and such. I'd go for a merge to an article about recorded animal performances, but I couldn't find one after a bit of looking, and it's not really helpful to suggest a merge without a destination in mind. It may not strictly meet WP:MUSIC, but I think this is one of those letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law things. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a genuine item with a real connection to The Beatles' music, and therefore of potential interest to anyone researching The Beatles. Comment: This is what I don't understand about deletionists - they frequently advocate removal of material which is potentially of genuine interest to researchers on a topic, which is based on real and genuine sources, but may be a little obscure. Is there some merit in keeping Wikipedia to the bare minimum? If so, why are these huge bloated articles tolerated which deal with all sorts of subjects of fan-dom of little interest to anyone but the most obsessive fans of various print and electronic media? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• If it's so interesting, why is nobody linking to it?! 0 links. This has nothing to do with being a "deletionist" or not, it was an article that was found in Category:The Beatles as part of our cleanup drive and which, with zero links and no context, didn't seem to belong there. I felt it didn't belong at all, but that seems to be a minority opinion at the moment, which is cool. Removing excessive fandom is one thing we are trying to do, but if you look at our project you'll see it's quite a task. --kingboyk 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of interesting things here are orphaned, largely because we're a work in progress. -Colin Kimbrell 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is SO much fandom stuff in Wikipedia, especially in things like Japanese manga and suchlike. No-one seems to do much about it, but if complaints about some much more encyclopedic articles are upheld, I guess I support moves to reduce clear fandom as being not NPOV... though I have to be careful - I am an inclusionist by inclination, heh heh! --SilverWings 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Keep. It's real, and reasonably notable (around 250 unique Google hits). dbtfz^talk 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Beatles. Herostratus 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of interest Funky Monkey 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- valid music release. I have the item on cassette myself (somewhere, it was a long time ago). - Longhair 22:55, 19 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Collé

Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep With all due respect, Terence Ong, the fact as to whether or not "spouse" was marked was irrelevent. There are multiple papers published by R Colle over the internet, all having sources. Go look, eh? Laura Bush? Ahhh, yes, notable for murder, no?--Necrypsys
• Delete, spouses are non-notable unless they are Laura Bush or Hilary Rodham Clinton. --Terence Ong 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Characterization as "spouse" was facetious action by nominator, choosing to list the one more likely to be considered non-notable first. We need to give scientists a fair shake with respect to Pokemon fictional characters, Bangladeshi cricketers, and Japanese actresses. It doesn't matter who listed, numerous publications in professional journals evident from Google search even without bio removed as copyvio, plus editor of scientific journal, NIST Journal of Research. Gene Nygaard 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per the professor test. Most of his papers have citation counts in the single digits to mid-teens, which is very respectable but not evidence that he is more highly regarded than the average professor in his field; however a couple of his articles have very high citation counts (unless there is more than one R Colle in the field of physics). Also journal editor. There should be enough to allow somone to do a better job of explaining importance. Thatcher131 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Question Is there any way you can test for citation in standards published by standards organizations? Google obviously gave a hit on a citation in an IEEE standard, but the website is a members site. Gene Nygaard 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Can you post the search url or explain more (on the article's talk page I guess). Thatcher131 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, appears to meet notability criteria for published work by significant margin. Monicasdude 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, but needs a lot of help. Moe ε 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The person who writes an article should write it in such a way that makes it clear why the subject should be in an article. Although sometimes people commenting on AfD do independent research to try and help problem articles, this is not a responsibility, it is a gift of our time and energy to the author and the project. Thatcher131 05:23, 19 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 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocritical paradox

This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore original research. The page also fails to describe a paradox. By saying this, I do not mean that one of the apparently true possibilities is obviously false. In fact, there is only one possibility: The speaker hates himself. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is not a paradox, not does it have any connection with philosophy. It's just an incongruity. I think it's fine if it's included in Wikipedia, but I'd want to verify whether 'hypocritical paradox' is actually the name comedians use for it. Peter Grey 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'. Looks to be original research. Herostratus 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Googling didn't shed any light. I too think it's original research. --Ricaud 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Nigelthefish 19:18, 20 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 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ...For Dummies books

This list is better maintained by IDG Press. John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom- So long as to be infeasible, and not of much value in any case.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:05Z
• Keep Well known books. --Masssiveego 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note - this is not a proposal to delete ...For Dummies, the summary article about this series of books. FreplySpang (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Eivind 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. -- Andy Saunders 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Do we need to have Wikipedia for Dummies before it will be notable enough for you? -- Andy Saunders 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a publisher's list: let them maintain it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful and well known Ozone 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is well known? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Шизомби 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom & Sean Black. Lambiam 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The main article can link to the publisher's list; WP lists are useful when the information isn't more reliably collected elsewhere on the open web. Deborah-jl _Talk 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No real reason to remove, save a dislike for lists. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean other than it's duplicative of an external link, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no, I guess not. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The For Dummies series is pretty famous, and I can see that this list can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is pretty famous? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That isn't what the comment directly above says MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have list pages for many things that also have summary articles. Why not this, unarguably notable, book series? Darcyj 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is unarguably notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any good reason for being listcruft. --Terence Ong 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability of ...For Dummies doesn't directly translate to notability for a list of their products. This list is over-long and contains no encyclopedic content—unless you consider it encyclopedic to merely know that a book exists and has a title. If these books were notable in their own right, I might consider keeping it, but I can't really see the notability of Quicken 2000 for Windows For Dummies, etc. - Rynne 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've become aware of The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran stub, if anyone wants to use that as a specific rebuttal to me. That being said, I think that stub is pretty NN in itself, and I refer to the lack of a List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books. - Rynne 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Useful in wat way exactly? This is a partial list of unknown currency and unproven accuracy, a mirror of a list fomr the publisher's website, it contains no links and no additional information. Linking to the identical list on the publisher's website gives links to synopses. We do not have articles on more than a handful of these books, so that won't happen here. It's functionally indistinguishable form the Yellow Pages, which WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some popular books. Someone should linkify every entry. --Snargle 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Linkifying every entry will result in 1390 redlinks and 2 blue links to one-line stubs (JavaScript for Dummies, Java 2 for Dummies. - Rynne 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Snargle said linkify, not wikify. -- Andy Saunders 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. D'oh! Apologies, my mistake. A linkified list already exists on dummies.com, where this list was cut-and-pasted from. - Rynne 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• A linkified list would be speedily delinkified per WP:SPAM and WP:EL, I reckon. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like encyclopedic info to me, so we should have it even if it is a duplicate of the publisher's list. --Allen 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of course! Wikipedia is not a mirror of the publisher's catalogue, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, WP:NPOVUW - few if any other publishers or series have an entire cataloigue mirrored on Wikipedia, nor should they. There are new titles coming out all the time, and no more than a tiny fraction of those listed have articles. Anybody who wants the list of Dummies books can get it trivially easily from dummies.com or Wiley's website, authoritative and up-to-date sources, with no more effort and with considerably more useful results since they will be able to click through and read a synopsis. Honestly, there is no encyclopaedic content here at all! Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rename List of Dummies' and Idiot's books or something similar and add titles by competing publishers, e.g. The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... The series is noteworthy and the lists are encyclopedic. They provide valuable references for people who want information. Fg2 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, we could have the "complete idiot's guide to Wikipedia" - it could start with "copy and paste the content of your favourite web page into an article on Wikipedia!" Oh, wait , that must already exist, judging by the existence this article ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reason for signalling which O'Reilly insert variable here books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• O'Reilly is down the hall, it's For Dummies in here. · rodii · 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just come from there and it was late! Dlyons493 Talk 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This is just an inferior copy of the entire dummies.com website. It's hopelessly unmaintainable, and honestly, not really that useful. Dummies is a huge organization and I think they can keep tabs on their books better than we ever could. I think a simple link to the book catalog from the main Dummies article would be good enough. Cyde Weys 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. Melchoir 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be helpful if this became a list of topics covered by ...For Dummies books, as opposed to a list of the books? Andy Saunders 06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea, but I don't think so. Such a list would really be an inferior version of Wikipedia:Browse, while still being unmaintainable and an advertisement. Melchoir 06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advercruftlistspam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Useless list that links to nothing. --Hetar 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Equivalent of List of books that have XYZ in their name. No encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not at all equivalent to "List of books that have XYZ in their name". This is a well-known series. StarryEyes 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On which we have an article. Melchoir 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as lists should contain significant and substantive information that would not otherwise be held in a category. It is a slightly more useful list than "List of books that have XYZ in their name" but not by much and not nearly enough to be Wikipedia material. Deizio 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm down with the notion that "...For Dummies books" is an important and notable publishing concept worthy of an article, and it has one, but a list like this is inherently unmaintainable. Delete per Freply, Sean, JzG, Kingboyk, Schizombie, Calton... and the usual cast of deletionist scum.... who happen to be right in this case! ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It was pointed out to me that "Deletionist scum" may be a bit too much of an inside joke... it's used in good fun, not pejoratively, and is about people I respect and like very much, but probably nevertheless isn't appropriate here since it gives the appearance of incivility and even, of an inner circle. Redacted. No change in my comment though. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Damn those rouge admins! Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of John Wiley & Sons website. A category is more than sufficient for this. Stifle 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or trim and merge, as it is now because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this could be made a more encyclopedic list or a category, that would be much better. --Christopherlin 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Or else delete every single article on wikipedia and close the site down. EVERYTHING we have on wikipedia is SOMEWHERE on the internet (or else why would we bother about how many google hits something has), so to say this is just a copy of xyz is ridiculous. This is a list of well known and verifiable books which are in and of themselves useful. Jcuk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Spammers come in more than one size? What sizes do they span? ouch! Stop kicking me. Oh, you said spanners! Never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Two lists? You jest! Metric, imperial a/f (SAE?), British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Pipe, British Standard Fine, BA, then there's six-point, twelve-point, open ended, ring, combi, surface drive. And that's just the cantilever toolbox, I have four more toolboxes... :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - [[21]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG and most others. Sandstein 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per JzG and others. Wikipedia is not an inventory list for a publisher. (I wouldn't object to a category however). JoshuaZ 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless list. No Guru 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is yet another pointless list. --BWD ^(talk) 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG and all others, obviously listcruft. --Terence Ong 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Just zis Guy you know?, but as a second choice/compromise, redirect to ...For Dummies, where readers will find a link to the publisher's web site and thus be able to find the equivalent of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason to keep this list; the ...For Dummies article and the company's own website do a much better job, and we'll never have articles (I hope!) for all of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio (the categorization and order of books is identical to that of the publisher and as listcruft (as eloquently described by JzG. --Karnesky 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agathoclea 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm convinced by Users: Rynne and JzG and I'm keen to strike a minor blow against listcruft. Politepunk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a smaller list showing the more notable ones at ...For Dummies might be useful, but this is just a catalogue -- Astrokey44|talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the list is already maintained by the publishers. It's not a copyright violation, but it's not encyclopaedic; WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Proto||type 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you think it is copyvio? If organized lists are copyrightable (there is some debate that they are), this is DEFINITELY (and verifiably) copy vio. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as slightly not indiscriminate, strong categorize if deleted. youngamerican (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per listcruft/copyvio arguments stated by so many users above. IMHO does not add encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Zunaid 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a list of notable books. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete If there's an official list by the publisher or from verifiable sources and is kept up-to-date, then delete and make a link in the For Dummies main article.--Janarius 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not replacement for company website. Pavel Vozenilek 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Keep only if Wikified. This series of books is notable, and just as commercial as the List of Ford vehicles --PZ 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Category: ...For Dummies books would be a more user-friendly way to find individual books' articles than a list of over 1300 redlinks. - Rynne 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have more inane lists that this; it's certainly verifiable and could be useful for some dummies, I suppose. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Carioca 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's pretty useful to know what "for dummy" books have been published, especially as the series is a bit of a cultural phenomenon. On a side note, I don't see why this was extended. No consensus= no consensus. It does not equal: keep voting for eternity until a pseudo consensus emerges. -- JJay 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it sure is useful. There's a complete list on the publishers' website, which is up to date - and if you click the titles you get a synopsis. Our mirror is distinctly inferior in these respects. No doubt that's why they wrote WP:NOT a directory. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual JzG makes some good points. However, I don't think we should delete articles because someone else out on the internet has produced a better version. If that's the case many, many articles here would have to go. The advantage is that we can be an impartial source that has no pecuniary interest in the material covered. Getting back to the Dummy series, I know that people really admire and love these books, kind of like Harry Potter. As such, I see little difference between this list and any of our many book lists that people can begin to peruse at List of lists of books. -- JJay 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't just "someone out on the Internet" with a better version - more like, the publisher's list is a source, and our list is completely derivative of their list. I understand that we can be impartial in the article that describes the series, and that the publisher can't. But how can we be any more impartial than the publisher in producing a bare list of titles? FreplySpang (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious how we can be more impartial since we can draw from any source we want to compile the list. Also why do you think this list is condemned to remain "a bare list"? Why does Harry Potter have a list of Harry potter books? Couldn't the publisher do that better? Or for that matter, why don't we just leave it for a fan site? We can not allow our POVs to say one series of books merits a list and another one doesn't. -- JJay 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

• Are you arguing that the publisher's listing of its own products is biased? I'd say that it's verifiable.
• Harry Potter is a completely different case, because each individual book is notable—each has topped best-seller lists, garnered critical praise in mass-media outlets, etc. The list of Harry Potter books (note: which is not on List of Harry Potter books), links to articles on notable subjects. With very rare exceptions, the only claim to notability most ...For Dummies books have is being a ...For Dummies book.
• Following, this is condemned to remain a bare list, for all intents, because the vast majority of its subjects of the list aren't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It will be more useful to put any articles which may be created in a Category:...For Dummies books, rather than bury wikilinks between hundreds of list entries.

I am unconvinced that this article will ever contain useful content in addition to the basic list of titles. And if it's just a list of titles, it serves Wikipedia better to link to the publishers site instead of maintaining them ourselves. - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not arguing anything. I have been responding to questions that were addressed to me. If I wanted to argue, which I most assuredly do not, I would be leaving comments for other people, as you have done. Furthermore, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about what books should be listed here based on any criteria you wish to apply. I have expressed my opinion on the matter and I strive not to let my POV influence my thinking. For the record, I have never read Harry Potter or a dummy book. As far as I know, they are both highly profitable, longstanding book series. They both probably sell a lot of copies and are widely read. In short, for me they are the same and as far as I am concerned we should have articles on every one of those dummy books, just like we do for Harry Potter or any other book series that people choose to add to the site. Going further, I would see no problem with having articles on every book ever published in every language since Gutenberg. That to me would be truly encyclopedic, and I apologize for using that truly meaningless word.-- JJay 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with JJay. The list is useful but long enough that it would clutter the main article, and the series is highly notable. ProhibitOnions 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of people have said this is "useful". I am really struggling to visualise this. Coiuld you give me an example of how it is useful please? Who would use it and for what purpose? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone who was interested in the series of books? For the purpose of gaining information?....Isnt that what an encyclopædia is for? Jcuk 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But why is that any more useful than the snazzy categorized list that the publisher provides? FreplySpang (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG Funky Monkey 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Imacomp 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep noteable books... dont' know if a list is necessarily necessary pm_shef 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as tertiary sources Dummies books are not individually notable (except for the occasional screwup, like a dangerous misformula in Soapmaking for Dummies, or a major early title such as DOS for Dummies). I don't think Martin Yan considers Chinese Cooking for Dummies his magnum opus. Haikupoet 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As much as I dislike the concept of these books (and am disturbed/disgusted by the percent of the populace willing to self-identify as "dummies"), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that this huge series of bestselling books isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is claiming that ...For Dummies isn't notable as a series. But a list of every title in that series isn't notable, barring any notability received by a user thinking,"Wow, there sure are a lot of ...For Dummies books." - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful reference. Bhoeble 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and well reasoned arguments above. For those that say we should keep because we have even worse lists, one bad article does not justify another. We have an article on the series of books, and this isn't it. Friday (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Let the publisher maintain it on their website. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per above. ...For Dummies has a link to the publisher's website which "includes categorized lists of all titles", no good reason to try to maintain our own destined-to-become-quickly-out-of-date list. --Stormie 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay and others. Existence of information elsewhere on the Web is not a good reason to remove it from Wikipedia. The "...For Dummies" books are a very widely-known, widely-parodied series that I could certainly imagine people wondering if there is a "xxx for Dummies" or even just wanting to see what titles already exist. Certainly no more harmful than some of the Star Wars trivia we have here. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also, I strongly object to another "relisting for better consensus" in other words "relist and hope we can get enough delete votes this time." No consensus = keep. Relisting is for when there are a small number of votes cast, no for when no specific supermajority is reached. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I've changed my vote from delete. Some of the keep arguments on here are persuasive. And they make a good point: just because something is already somewhere else on the web doesn't mean it shouldn't also be on Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would have no content at all, because original research is explicitly frowned upon. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This has to be a joke, right? Let people go to the publisher for this. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question - If this list was created by copying the list on the publisher's website, then isn't this a copyright violation? If not, then how do we furnish verifiable proof that this list is accurate? (After all, there might have been a title Starting a Life of Crime for Dummies, which was quickly suppressed -- but copies sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars.) -- llywrch 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're swallowing the propaganda put out by the media conglomerates. Lots of things they're trying to make you think are copyright violations really aren't. How could a list of books possibly be a copyright violation?! That would pretty much make all library catalog systems illegal. It's in the publisher's best interests for lists of their books to be available, fer godssakes. Also, prior court findings on matters like these have been that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. A mere list of what some corporation has published, which is a fact, can't be a copyright violation. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not legal advice. But: Some think that specially ordered and categorized information is copyrightable. If this is the case, this IS a copyvio. Library catalog systems aren't copyvio, as they don't follow the same ordering/categorization as other lists. Also, they don't include/exclude the same things. IF such organized lists are copyrightable, this is definitely copyvio. There IS caselaw for copyrighting fairly mundane things. It is really grey. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete don't understand the purpose of the list. Why would anyone need a list of this type of series? WP:NOT FloNight ^talk 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the list is useless as is. If it included ISDN numbers, I might change my vote to "Weak Keep." -- MisterHand 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and link to the up-to-date offsite list, where appropriate. — Mar. 17, '06 [01:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete - we are not an indiscriminate gathering of information. The books don't even have articles yet, signaling that this list isn't needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm generally pretty apathetic when it comes to deletions, but there is really little point to having a list such as this in an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable series of books . Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have heard people on a number of occasions wonder out loud, "Is there a 'For Dummies' book about that?" That's sufficient to tell me that this list is something that has a place in an encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify: each entry should at least be linked to an appropriate article and have an ISBN. The list should also be re-sorted to avoid simply duplicating the lists from the publisher. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Forgive me, but I really blanch at the idea of creating articles to justify the existance of a list; particularly creating 1300+ articles which will end up looking like the Java 2 for Dummies page. - Rynne 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - hmmm, maybe Phil was suggesting something less blanchworthy - linking to the related main topic. I.e., Java 2 for Dummies. FreplySpang (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes, I would blanch significantly less at that. - Rynne 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress Card Catalog. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that an article of this size contains no wikilinks (blue or red) would alone strongly urge its deletion. If any substantial number of these books ever get their own articles, they would make an appropriate category, but a list is just... dumb. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately. Unfortunately, because it is duplication of a list maintained by the publisher, and it is a long and ugly list, and it really should have at least ISBNs, and links to what articles already exist per Phil Boswell (don't create new ones, per Rynne, but there are a couple of them that are notable in their own right). But after thinking about it a couple of days --- is it a notable series? Yes, it certainly is, mentioned in hundreds if not thousands of sources. Do we keep lists of notable series? Yes, we certainly do. And what if the publisher decides, one day, to take the ones that have gone out of publication off their list? Or what if the publisher decides to sell the series to someone who won't maintain the list? Or if the publisher goes out of business? Will the series stop being notable? No. So, again, unfortunately, we should keep this list. GRuban 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm worried about slippery-slope policies: what are the guidelines for determining when a series is notable enough to warrant having a list of every single book it's contained? Should Wikipedia also maintain List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books? List of Cliffs Notes? List of Dover Publication books? List of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying books? List of Fodor's Travel Guides? Each of those, as a series, is arguably as notable as ...For Dummies. - Rynne 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To me, the easiest solution there is to generally avoid "List of..." and instead make encyclopedia articles. Looking at the appropriate categories will show you the list of relevant articles. Friday (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hear hear. · rodii · 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Heh - funny that you should mention List of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying books - I'm a proud (card-carrying!) member of WP:RPG, and while not particularly a D&D specialist, I do try to make a list of supplements in the role-playing game articles I make. See James Bond 007 (role-playing game), Boot Hill (role-playing game), Justice, Inc. (role-playing game)... I find them a very valuable part of the article on the game itself. And yes, if there were a complete list of D&D books, that would absolutely be a very useful article, that I'd argue hard to keep. GRuban 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice towards any categories created in the future like this. As of right now, with only 2 articles on books, a category wouldn't be feasible, but in the future it may. As for this list, yes, ...For Dummies is notable, but that doesn't mean we need an unreadable list on every book in the series. Linking to the publisher's list from the main article is more than enough. --Rory096 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 23:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and per nom and basically all the other arguments as well Cursive 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No interesting information, no possibility of creating articles on all of them, useless list. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Continue to keep and clean it up by wikilinking to the appropriate topics (not create individual book articles), as well as a recommendation not to relist a 3rd time right away if there is still no consensus. Andy Saunders 12:02, 20 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, but I will Transwiki just in case. I am not sure that the redirect suggestion is a great idea given the generic title, as pointed out, and a redirect does discard the content. The merge isn't necessary either. The author's keep is not borne out by Special:Whatlinkshere/Federal recognition, leaving only one editor supporting retention of the content. -Splash^talk 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal recognition

Delete. This article's title is very ambiguous and it does nothing but directly quote legislation which has nothing to do with federal recognition of Indian tribes. This topic is given a more thorough treatment at Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Please see talk page for further explanation. --BWD ^(talk) 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Terence Ong 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Native_Americans_in_the_United_States --Hetar 09:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: It already is merged. The article you cite gives it much more detail. --BWD ^(talk) 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Doesn't belong in Native_Americans_in_the_United_States either. Feezo (Talk) 10:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisourcce or delete: It's rather irrelevant there even so, but it is a source material (United States Code). If they don't want it, trash it; per the talk page, this is not what it is asserted on its face. Either way it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Alba 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just a copy of some laws, basically. Sending to Wikisource would cause more work than its worth, probably, as its so short. Herostratus 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Native_Americans_in_the_United_States per above. ProhibitOnions 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it wise to redirect such an ambiguous and generic article title? --BWD ^(talk) 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Most of the pages in the Indigineous project link to this page. This is the only concise and well defined reference for the requirements and definitions for "Federal Recognition". Pointing to a listing of tribes , some of which are not Federally recognized is ill advised. Also, bad faith nomination by an editor who is stalking all of my articles and either tagging to flagging them or vandalizing them User:BWD. If you remove the content, it will collapse a large number of articles. Waya sahoni 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, title too vague, content lacking, despite above claim, only 4 pages link to this. Rmhermen 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Suggest move to Federal recognition of Native Americans. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:47, 24 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 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Literature of J

Clearly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. Wouldn't seem to meet verifiability standards - just about some website no one's really written anything about. W.marsh 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. dbtfz^talk 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 06:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Agathoclea 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Ricaud 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete V NN. ProhibitOnions 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Funky Monkey 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:28, 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. --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Dare

Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio, smells like vanity to me. --Terence Ong 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom.--Cúchullain t / c 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It does rather quack like vanity, but it also seems that Mr Dare might have some claim to notability. He has off-wiki news articles mentioning his role in the regeneration of Jacksonville and the theatre company he founded has a wiki article. I'd like to see the article cleaned up, wikified and with cited sources to establish the notability of Mr Dare - then I'd probably be happy to keep. Politepunk 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I lived in Jacksonville; believe me, he has not singlehandedly regenerated the 12th largest city in the country. Please reconsider your vote. Mike H. That's hot 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I currently live in Jacksonville and no one has ever claimed that he regenerated a city. I lived in Atlanta as well, but i wouldn't be able to comment authoritatively about anyone there either....point is the Jacksonville newspapers seems to think otherwise about the importance of his contribution. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) .
    • One interview in a business daily does not "importance" make. I've been in my hometown's mainstream newspaper many times; I don't deserve a Wikipedia entry. Mike H. That's hot 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be true, but Jacksonville has five daily newspapers. The largest (the Times Union) lists 29 articles on Stephen Dare alone. None of those hits are included on the hundred or so google search hits. Also, the Times Union only includes articles written after '97, 10 years after his first article in that publication. (I looked it up) The second largest (The Jacksonville Business Journal) has 18 hits over the past three years, also not included in the gooogle search. The third largest, The Financial Daily Record has listed 10 articles either about or mentioning Dare over the past year. The Jacksonville Star, an African American daily newspaper has four articles about Mr. Dare.....the list goes on. I notice that the new links at the bottom of the page list Cincinatti as well. An assistant director at the theatre mentioned articles in the scrap book from Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta and Indiana.---- which is even more widespread than the Pensacola News Journal.
• Keep Stephen Dare has multiple pages of reference when doing a simple google search. He doesn't own a coffeehouse, nor is he a restaurantuer by trade, although he owns and directs a dinner theatre. When I called him to inquire about the other individuals, he was unsure what the entry was about, and had never heard of 'syncretism'. Mr. Dare's page has been serially vandalized by a group of individuals who have bragged about their vandalism on their myspace pages. reference: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=887943. (scroll about midway down) When I asked about the individual, it turns out he was a disgruntled band promoter. I last updated his wiki article to flesh out his accomplishments, of which there are a number.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs).

Look at this edit comparison [22], courtesy of 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) Thatcher131 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Should this AfD be split? The articles for the three (apparently quite non-notable) poets don't have AfD notices, and bundling them with Stephen Dare is somewhat random. Weregerbil 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, disregard previous, somehow I failed to notice the poet trio reference at the bottom of the article. Weregerbil 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Stephen Dare runs the Boomtown Theatre page, which was created by Stephendare (talk • contribs) last year. FWIW, Dare did not create a page for himself. The current page is probably 90% pure cowpies and you have to go back to very early edits to find a version that even comes close to looking like a verifiable article. The alternatives are to stub the article back to an early edit, verify it, then babysit it; or delete it. I'm leaning toward delete. Thatcher131 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lexis/Nexis has several mentions in Jacksonville newspapers. Now who will babysit? Thatcher131 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Monicasdude 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close as completely spoiled. This is a mess. Three WP:SNOW poets bundled with a train wreck of a possible vanity biography; a technically invalid AfD (as the co-nominated pages have not been approrpriately tagged per policy). Suggest re-list the principal target of AfD and the "poets" separately, speedily close this train wreck. Weregerbil 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • They're from the same part of Florida, supposedly follow the same "movement," yes, it is all related, and have a bit more civility, huh? Mike H. That's hot 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please accept my apologies for any perceived incivility. It just seems to me this is an AfD for three nn poets, weakly coupled with a person of unproven notability. WP:AFD suggests not bundling AfD's if not obviously connected; I humbly suggest no such obviousneess exists. No incivility meant, beg your pardon if some observed. Please assume good faith. Weregerbil 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Kind of hard to assume good faith when you put an inline image of a trainwreck on this AFD. Practice what you preach. Mike H. That's hot 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Technically invalid AfD"? Oh dear god, the process wonks have won over again. You want a stupid little tag on each page? Fine, I'll go do that now. Of course, instead of moping about it, you could have done it yourself. We don't close AfDs for improper "filing" of a clerical nature, so don't be so picky. Don't bother opening whole new slanging matches for the things, just tag it and let this one run its course. Rob Church 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Took me 30 seconds. Rob Church 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you interpreted that as some kind of hostility. It just seemed to me it would be best to list clearly nn articles separately from one that just might not be not nn (though I have my reservations). And yes, the pages listed for AfD were not tagged as such. Sorry for the inconvenience, no hostility towards anyone intended! Is this something one is not allowed to mention? Weregerbil 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. entirely non notable person and an obvious vanity article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is full of non-notable babbling trying to justify itself as notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • • sorry! that would be my fault! I tend to babble. How could I edit this more succinctly? suggestions would be very welcome!
• Delete - per nom --rogerd 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Roisterer 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Perhaps split into three sections, or two: theater and urban development. Many references off wiki. Delete nn poets, but w/multiple off wiki refs., no reason to delete subject. Carstenboswell 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell

Note that User:Carstenboswell's only edits appear to have been this AfD at the time of writing. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

? Haven't had anything to contribute authoritatively about---thanks!--I remember enjoying the Fireflies series when I lived in the Bay Area. This is a fascinating process though. Since it is my first time, I thought I would look up the rules, and found this: Also, please see this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy regarding notability. Does this have a bearing? Carstenboswell 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell

• • comment As a side note, I checked out the other profiles. One of them is the editor of an Orson Scott Card publication, *Strong Verse Poetry Magazine which would justify notability as well. I dont think that the fact that two of them are from Florida implies non notability. Reading the history, this AfD seems unfounded. Carstenboswell 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
• Delete all per nom Cursive 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keepnotable, witty writer.ZornArmand 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
  • Note: This is the user's sixth edit, all of which have been to AFD pages. Mike H. That's hot 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Can someone please tell me why previous posts are an issue? This seems to be limiting whether or not new people should post or vote at all. If the only votes that count are from long standing wikipedians, then why bother having any new people at all? Carstenboswell 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.
    • • ahh...nevermind I just read the rules on articles for deletion....explained the whole thing.Carstenboswell 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asra Jabeen Syed

De-prodded by article creator. Well, this guy is an "Assistant Producer and co-host of the Texas Music Matters radio program on KUT 90.5 FM in Austin, TX at the University of Texas at Austin." Wikipedia is not a place to write about random radio hosts. Punkmorten 06:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 09:20, 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 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-Nip

De-prodded by article creator. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Punkmorten 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as slang. --Terence Ong 06:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a dictionary. Non-notable slang term.  (aeropagitica)  11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WINAD, WP:NFT. Alba 12:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not dictionary Funky Monkey 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gainesville Iguana

Delete Thoroughly non-notable political news pamphlet handed out in Gainesville, Florida. Cúchullain t / c 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 07:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Source or delete I'm not so certain it's non-notable if it's twenty years old. But it needs to be sourced or it's toast. Alba 12:51, 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 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mechastrike

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechZ. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn software. --Terence Ong 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — website seems to be offline as well. Feezo (Talk) 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:29, 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 MERGE to Sydney Boys High School. Personally, I think merging some of the lead section is more than adequate, so that's what I'll do. -Splash^talk 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Society of Sydney Boys High

The society has had only one mention outside of the school and is not that greatly known within the school AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In addition, much of the information in the article is unverifiable, with only a small amount of information from transcript of the 7:30 Report. In addition, there would be less than 10 people who would know about the society and are not directly connected to the school. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable extracurricular club. --Ezeu 07:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, school clubs are nn. --Terence Ong 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Islamic Society" is codeword for a mosque, ladies and gentlemen. Nonetheless Wikipedia would explode if we tried to list every single church, mosque, temple, etc. in the world. Delete as nn Actually, before saying "nn", maybe we should look at the referenced news reports? Most of the content may be unverifiable but a stub might survive. Alba 12:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school group. Mentions on 7:30 report and Miranda Devine do not necessarily make notable--Porturology 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school group; nn religious local chapter/parish/whatever. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN and advocacy ("Both speakers impressed the audience present, despite campaigns run by senior students in the school to question the validity of Islamic law as a useful means by which to guide mankind's affairs."). ProhibitOnions 22:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn..Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Sydney Boys High School given that it has received some attention. There is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Excellent suggestion. --Bduke 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge small verifiable parts, delete article JSIN 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• merge to Sydney Boys High School or keep please do not erase it Yuckfoo 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as I would think the media coverage might have been in response to the 2005 Sydney race riots, thus saying Sydney's people are not racist. I don't think the group itself has any notability, and it will open the main school article up for loads of vandalism/cruft from students. Harro5 10:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Capitalistroadster -- Ian ≡ talk 10:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Bahn Mi 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to merge. Doesn't seem to merit more than a reference to its title. See WP:NFT. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:48, 24 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 keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Johnson (author)

Not notable; vanity/advertising page for someone who wrote a book, with article written by his publisher. Joejamboree 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep author has written books with some notabily. Found on Amazon and Biblio.com. I do not beleve it is vanity, it was started by a user with good track history on wikipedia, and who often votes on AfDs. This is probably a bad faith nomination. --Ezeu 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Terence Ong 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezeu. note that this afd is nominators only edit -- Astrokey44|talk 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep no indication this is vanity or advertising; as Ezeu has stated, article author has a good track record here and by all indications this is a good faith attempt at starting a stub about William Johnson. I'm not completely convinced Mr. Johnson or his work are notable, but nom didn't really lay out an adequate argument for deletion.--Isotope23 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --PZ 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Monicasdude 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Funky Monkey 23:00, 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: Speedily deleted as band vanity. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japlaster

• Delete Never released an album, no sign of breakout notoriety. They got to the round of 16 in the Wolverhampton Battle of the Bands, but WP:MUSIC states you should at least "show" (that's second place, right?) No indication of out of the area touring or radio play. Richfife 07:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Ezeu 07:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BAND violation - albums & singles released, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Uncontroversial delete for me.Politepunk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject fails to meet established WP:BAND guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 13:56, 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 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Createthe solutions

Advertisement, no notability established (WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE). Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. Article was created by Createthegroup. Feezo (Talk) 10:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another company that thinks Wikipedia is an advertising medium instead of an encyclopedia. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn company, ad. --Terence Ong 14:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad Funky Monkey 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as stated above. porges 06:39, 17 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 closed. This way please. :) Mailer Diablo 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fjords of Vestland

No articles in category. Mefjord was incorrectly placed in category, which might be the reason for the creation of the category. Nordby73 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The category may be related to Category:Fjords of Norway, but there seems to be other possibly more relevant and "sharp" sub-categories in there. --Nordby73 09:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong in Categories for deletion? David Sneek 13:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this belongs to CFD, not AFD. --Terence Ong 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Oops. Sorry. Anyhow, it would be nice if someone cold help move this to CFD, or simply to remove it. Author explains in the category edit summary. --Nordby73 16:55, 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 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writers bloc

Delete: Non-notable student magazine. It's website is under development, and it just barely started being published. --Hetar 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article's quality has come some way since I originally tagged it for speedy. But still: "The first issue was published on Wednesday 1st March, 2006." My crystal ball is cloudy. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- you simply cannot consider a student magazine to be encyclopediaic two weeks after it was first published. Compare Redbrick, the student newspaper of Birmingham University, which has been running for 70 years and only got an article on March 1. Also, the value of the article's content is dubious at best: "A police woman and a man dressed up as a Subway sandwich have been spotted reading the magazine also." I rest my case -- Gurch 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --BWD ^(talk) 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 18:21, 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 but suggest continued discussion for a rename/merge be furtherd in the article talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π

Wikipedia is not the place for something that's just a proof. A proof originally written by someone else and available freely belongs in wikisource, math articles can (and probably should) contain proofs, but a proof on its own isn't an encyclopedia article, and the article isn't about the proof, it is the proof and little more. This is an old article, around since 2003 at least, and I think our standards have tightened since then in a way that it wouldn't pass muster if created today. Either merge into something, transwiki to somewhere more appropriate (though I can't think of one) or just delete. Night Gyr 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Transfer to wikisource. --Hetar 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks obviously. Alba 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with π. 22/7 is a very common ersatz π, so it wouldn't be out of place there. And it's not very long. David Sneek 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, as per others below. David Sneek 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pi is a very long article, and this is a reasonable subarticle. Septentrionalis 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete. why stop there? if we need a page to prove that 3.1429 is bigger than 3.1416 then why not Proof that four is bigger than three? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The notability lies in the proof, not in what is being proven. After all, isn't that what the article is about, the proof? -- 127.*.*.1 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• strong delete per bl -- pm_shef 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep – The article is well-written and gives historical background. Obiously there are many numbers exceeding π, but 22/7 is perhaps the most-common approximation of π. —BenFrantzDale 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not just "the most common approximation"; it's an early convergent in the continued fraction expansion of π. Michael Hardy 01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of topics related to pi?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Wikipedia's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Wikipedia mathematics articles? Michael Hardy 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Our mathematics articles contain proofs to enlighten and back up statements, not just to be a collection of proofs. The first line of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is "This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of math texts." The fact that there's a particular proof out there may be mathematically interesting, but the proof alone does not constitute an encyclopedia article. There are other places for such raw texts, and I listed several above. Night Gyr 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To enlighten is exactly what this article is obviously for! It's not merely proving a brute fact; the unusual simplicity and elegance of the integral and the startling result are enlightening and charming. It's really hard for me to see how anyone could have thought otherwise. Michael Hardy 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • And now someone who voted for deletion tells me that he never heard of a mathematical equation, theorem, proof, or the like being called "elegant"! Never! Is it too much to ask that people on Wikipedia who've hardly even heard of mathematics at all might realize that mathematicians on Wikipedia know something about the subject? Michael Hardy 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see nothing in WP:NOT that says it doesn't belong. It's not original research since it is verifiable. It is not in the list of indiscriminate information list (nowhere close actually). I see no policy or guideline that applies. Policies & guidelines aside, I think it should stay. Otherwise, there's a long list of articles to delete. Cburnett 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Move/Merge into a larger article on the fraction 22/7 - the proof should probably exist in Wikipedia somewhere, but I'm not sure if it deserves its own article. --AySz88^-^ 02:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Do not merge into Pi. As a last resort, merge as AySz88 suggested into 22/7. Fg2 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Dysprosia 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after Michael Hardy. Ryan Reich 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; possibly merge to 22/7, but this is an interesting, elementary and elegant result in diophantine approximation. If people don't understand why this holds more interest than a "proof that 4 exceeds 3" would, then they have failed to understand the article. Remember there was a time when people hadn't worked out the value of pi. Knowing that it's close to 22/7, but not exactly, might lead one to wonder whether 22/7 is an over-approximation or an under-approximation. This proof makes it clear that 22/7 is high, so the true value of pi is somewhere below it. Sure, we know now that pi=3.14159, approximately, but people had to work that out somehow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If that topic is the reason it's notable, why does neither article make reference to the other? Night Gyr 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This article now links to Diophantine approximation, but I wouldn't say "that topic is the reason why it's notable". It's notable because pi is one of the most important numbers in mathematics, and methods of calculating it are therefore notable. There's not much sense linking from Diophantine approximation unless that article grows significantly and acquires a list of particluar methods of approximation, of which this is a kind of ad hoc one, as far as that goes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article does not violate any WP:NOT criteria IMHO. Might need a title change though and some more text to explain what is going on. --Midnighttonight 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: π is not just any number, and many of the proofs connected with it often involve interesting mathematics. I'm not sure every such proof would justify a separate article, though. In particular the fact that π > 22/7 is not as significant as the fact that π is really, really close to 22/7. Peter Grey 07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: does not violate WP:NOT; important and interesting derivation; merits its own article. Gandalf61 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mathematical proofs can be notable and encyclopaedic. David | Talk 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Kompik 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. --Saned 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep — only, I suggest renaming it "22/7 (number)". Lambiam 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add GTBacchus' relevant comments to the article.Kwagle 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree that Pi is long, and this is a reasonable subarticle. If an article Approximations of π were to be created, it might be merged into that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Not all proofs are notable but this one certainly is. -- 127.*.*.1 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — an elegant proof of an elegant statement. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with any renaming, this article has the right name I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- I hardly need to say it now, but I consider this to be encyclopediaic, and the fact that it was created over two years ago and nobody has had a problem with it before suggests that it is unlikely to be suitable for deletion. Our 'standards', if we have any, are things like neutrality, verifiability, accuracy and so forth, none of which are violated by this article -- Gurch 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable proof is notable, obviously. Charles Matthews 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for me. Doesn't need renaming. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above.--David.Mestel 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add an overview of Archimedes proof. If the article were about that I don't think there would be a question of notability. Gazpacho 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason for deleting this article --CheSudaka 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In the February 2006 issue of the American Mathematical Monthly on pages 156-151 we find "A Sequence of Polynomials for Approximating Arctangent" by Herbert A. Medina. Near the end of that article is says (verbatim):

The results herein were stumbled upon after the author became intrigued by and curious about the fact that

.....

This fact is just the sort of thing one would expect people to find intriguing and curiosity-provoking. That's why it's notable. Michael Hardy 17:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. Reflect on the statement "intriguing and curiosity-provoking facts are notable" for a while, and now imagine the articles this policy could defend. It's not a pretty sight.

Off hand, I cannot think of any hypothetical articles that could be "intriguing and curiosity-provoking" but "not a pretty sight". By all means, tell me what you have in mind, if you can. Perhaps I should add to "intriguing and curiosity-provoking", that this article could lead to insights that in turn lead to further discoveries. People who see this argument often wonder if this is the first in a long sequence of integrals with a neat pattern, that correspond to the successive convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π, just as this corresponds to 22/7. Michael Hardy 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that the fact that 22/7 is really close to π should be included in Wikipedia. Whether a property of an integral cast in proof form qualifies is another matter. And whether the dozens if not hundreds of equally intriguing mathematical curios should have articles is yet another.

Then again, notability has never been a useful criterion on Wikipedia, and the "cui malo?" argument seems to apply aptly here. This proof is probably not any less notable than, say, any of the invalid proofs we have on record. 82.92.119.11 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The key problem here is that despite all the claims to elegance and such, there's no objective criteria for inclusion that we're using to justify this article. The other articles in category:proofs are either about methods used in proofs or specific proofs that are well known and specifically named. This proof doesn't have any historical importance attached to it in the way that a proof of a major problem in math is—mathematicians have known pi<22/7 far longer than they've been doing calculus. "indiscriminate collection of information" applies because this proof becomes the equivalent of an "interesting fact" about a person--worthy of inclusion in the article on the person, but not worth its own article. On its own, it's unencyclopedic. Night Gyr 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we can conceivably expand the article to include other proofs of π<22/7 that may have been used in antiquity (If my memory serves me correctly, I do believe there is a geometric demonstration of that inequality). Just because the article as it stands only includes one method of proof does not mean that it can never have more than one method of proof. Dysprosia 08:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "have known pi<22/7 far longer than" But what's important here is the method of proof, rather than just the fact being proved. Michael Hardy 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't have any really precise criterion (please don't use "criteria" in the singular!!!) for what proofs should be allowed, but this is a really pretty proof, with a verified and interesting story behind it. I don't think I'd really like to see the door opened to textbook-style routine proofs in general; certainly techniques can be outlined, but people who want the details probably should get the textbook. But I don't see why we can't have a few articles on proofs that are interesting in themselves (as distinct from the results they prove). --Trovatore 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though merging would also be OK. R.e.b. 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge, per Michael Hardy. linas 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, no question about it. --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge (I agree with Michael Hardy). --Pokipsy76 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per BenFrantzDale: "The article is well-written and gives historical background." Moreover, it is notable for being short and elementary, while still not trivial. --Aleph4 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Pi is very important. This article, well, I would merge if Pi weren't so long.
• keep, obviously William M. Connolley 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep - but I am somewhat concerned by some of the lack of WP:CIVIL in this debate. Please try to refrain from personal attacks here folks - questioning other wikipedians' knowledge is hardly helpful. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone accused me of questioning his knowledge of mathematics. In fact, I was seeking information about his knowledge of Wikipedia customs. Michael Hardy 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep Not a POV/OR fork of Pi, obviously notable enough, etc. JeffBurdges 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a fine addition to the mathematical content of Wikipedia. I find the argument that a proof can't be an article unconvincing. As long as it's not crap, OR, etc., I see no reason why a proof can't be an article. I think the reason this article is not part of another is that it serves some purpose to have these standalone articles. I can easily envision other articles about famous theorems that would require separate articles on different proofs. I can even imagine that in the near future (a project I'm pondering), one would even need separate articles for parts of of an immense outline of a proof in addition to separate articles just for historical background (and motivation) about the theorem and proof. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to correct an inaccuracy above, I'm not at all convinced one can flatly state that this result was around before calculus. Archimedes and his peers certainly knew versions of at least the integral calculus and some geometric versions of special cases of the fundamental theorem. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, see how Archimedes used infinitesimals. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was known before Archimedes. Michael Hardy 00:07, 20 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 (as non-notable) to Swastika. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swastik

Non-notable website (WP:WEB) with no Alexa data. ReDe-PRODded, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 11:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Swastika. --Nlu (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Self-publicising, doesn't meet WP:WEB, delete or redirect to Swastika (latter is probably desirable as a typo catcher anyway). Fourohfour 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I originally proposed this for deletion with {{prod}}, doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Nlu. Proto||type 12:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Nlu. --Terence Ong 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. It would have been easier if you just redirected it without going through AfD. --BWD ^(talk) 15:49, 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 delete as nn-bio. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kareem Ryan

Non-notable biography, can't find anything that seems related on google. Speedy deletion contested, see Talk:Kareem Ryan. Weregerbil 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Should be a speedy delete - incomprehensible drivel about nn--Porturology 11:36, 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 redirected to Robert Howard. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Howard

delete no verifiable claim to notability. no imdb entry--Porturology 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the disambiguation page at Robert Howard. Proto||type 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect as nn. --Terence Ong 14:51, 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. JIP | Talk 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VASILIS KOSMOPOULOS

Greek TV director. Non-notable per WP:BIO, no pertinent Google hits. WP:PROD tag was re-added after being contested, which is not permissible, so it goes to AfD. Sandstein 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It has many Google hits if searched with Greek Spelling ("Βασίλης Κοσμόπουλος" or "Βασίλειος Κοσμόπουλος") Skag 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

548 and 24 google hits are not that many, considering the claim that '[a]lmost all the top level managers of the Greek Tv Stations are well-known to the public and they are enjoying a "star" status'. David Sneek 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit that David Sneek's comment is fair... If the Wikipedia community believes that this is a non-notable BIO , I stand corrected and waiting for deletion. My intention was to add wikipedia entries for many "behind-the-camera" TV persons , but it seems that there is no need for this.... Skag 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Even though it is noted on Google, Vasilis appears to be an unnotable person as per Google information. - Enzo Aquarius 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:10, 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. JIP | Talk 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden Thomas

Non-notable artist/musician. Most notable claim is having published an album in 2004. Not much on google - a search for "wooden thomas" is pretty much all about the Tank Engine. Article is also POV. It has been around since July 2005 which is why I didn't just prod it. The articles that link to here are Casandra Stark which is tagged for cleanup and verification, and Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey) which only references in regard to how to format the Pine Barrens page. MLA 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn crankcruft, although he has a (cranky) website. Sandstein 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE --User: Waken 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) This artist/musician is indeed relevant. He has produced a number of albums. The most recent was a live album, Dressed to Spill in 2006 at VIP in Garwood, NJ. Also, WFMU radio dj, William Berger has recent posts regarding this artist in his blog. Wooden Thomas's folk music falls into the Outsider genre, along with the likes of psychedelic folk pioneer, Syd Barrett, founding member of Pink Floyd and Jandek. At the least, the author should be notified of the votes for deletion so that the article could be updated. The Pine Barrens reference has been corrected.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamau

This person is not noteworthy. He is a member of the RPG Maker community, but even in this very small world, he is not really of great significance, even though he made some well-received games. I don't think any author of games from this community should have an article on Wikipedia because the only people who care or could have benefit from it are the fans of that person's games or the person himself. Michiel Sikma 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Non-notable, like all RPG maker designs and all but maybe two example RPG maker games...Deckiller 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the other two should be deleted, as well. Deckiller 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete which other two, Dec? the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as per above. --Bhadani 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, just as most other amatuer game makers.M2K 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as M2K Funky Monkey 23:03, 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 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indinera Falls

This person created a few RPG Maker games which some people have played. This is not an official game designer, merely a person who used a game program to make some games. In that way, it falls in the same category as fanfiction writers. Delete. Deckiller 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn game. --Terence Ong 15:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Indinera Falls is the alias of an RPG Maker 2000 user" and that does it for WP:BIO. also possible attack page for allegations of piracy. Sandstein 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just like the articles on the games have been deleted.Mackan 03:40, 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 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honda engine swaps

Currently a list of links to HOWTOs. Is there a way to make this into an article? Don't know myself so no vote. Weregerbil 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems like it's too specialized for Wikipedia -- it would make a better subject for a Honda owners' forum. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this is a fourm and Hondacruft. --Terence Ong 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Attempt to build a how-to forum.--Isotope23 18:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete This article is very useful, plase keep it there._{unsigned comment by 150.140.211.15}
• Delete A list of links is not encyclopedic. Nigelthefish 19:02, 20 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. Sango123 (e) 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Spy

Article is looking more and more like an ad, and is being consistently vandalised, filled with more and more untruths about the site and its owner and administration - DELETE BigDan 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has come to my attention that members are using this Free Encylopedia to advertise Media Spy but to also use it as an outlet for their disapproval of certain aspects of our site. I believe this isn't what Wikipedia was designed for as this page has little to no information contained in it. Most information is wrong and if not, members are changing the info so that is wrong, so I'd like to see this page deleted! DELETE Lepatron 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; advert. PJM 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Various people are making it sound like an ad/being vandalised. Kennethjwebb 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Its an advertisment...this article should not be in a free encycolpedia.--GorillazFanAdam 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Modify. The thing looks legit, and only a bit promotional.

• Delete Advert and constantly attracting vandals Slj 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete I'd like to keep most of the content. The 'Criticisms' section is awfully harsh, too, and I had to correct a mistake there (reflex action). The thing is that the vandals are really spoiling it. Such a pity. Cyvros/Marlett 22:13, 19 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 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Trendy

appears NN. been prodded before. notability asserted via the Anna Nicole Show, but if that is it, does not belong on WP. Abstain Delete. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful & Redirect to the The Anna Nicole Show. youngamerican (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment...I mean, you can bring it here if you want, but why would you prod it and then after the prod is removed bring it to AfD if you don't have an opinion on its deletion? NickelShoe 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, cuz you're supposed to be all impartial sounding in nominating stuff... you're right. I changed it. Thanks. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect. This strikes me as the kind of information people do actually look for. I could be convinced we don't need an article on him, but we should at the least retain the redirect to The Anna Nicole Show. NickelShoe 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets and exceeds the standard for notability MadCow257 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks notable. --Terence Ong 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep definitely notable. Moe Aboulkheir 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Anna Nicole Show.--Isotope23 16:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep under the Air Force Amy standard, which he quite clearly meets. Monicasdude 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• As I stated previously, MD, two wrongs don't make a right. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like the guy, but he's notable enough to Keep. With prejudice, because I don't think he's as "fabulous" as he thinks he is. *fingersnap* Mike H. That's hot 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect The Anna Nicole Show Funky Monkey 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not only is he important to information regarding the Anna Nicole Smith Show, he also is a furniture designer and so information regarding that should be considered instead of just redirecting to the Anna Nicole Smith Show article. VarunRajendran.

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

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

The result was renominated; for some reason, this nomination was considered closed as "no consensus", while in fact it was never closed. The article was later renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercetti's Comrades 2 and deleted. I am closing this one because it is shown up as unclosed by a script of mine (Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fail to see the noatability.Dlohcierekim 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Low Keep. I see there are slight notability issues, as I haven't heard of them, but here I was on wiki as I am a lot (without an account usually), and my brother told me to click here, and he said he's heard of them. Now I have no idea how he's heard of them as he's rarely out much, although he has done 'laserforce' (a laser game) quite a lot in the past year. This is a fellow Australian group, which has notability issues in America, Europe etc, but I feel this would make a good reference for Aussies and I've been a fan of social groups ever since high school. PeterKay, 17th 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 DELETE ALL. -Splash^talk 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of UK members of parliament who support drug law reform

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:

• List of UK Peers who support drug law reform
• List of Members of the European Parliament who support drug law reform

--Fuzzie (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As this article stands, it is political campaign material, and not anything approaching an encyclopedia article, or even a press article. Look at the emotive wording here: "This represents just some of pubic figure and instiutions from around the world who support reform of the pesent drug laws."!!! I'd prefer to outright delete this, because of problems with the inherent subjectivity involved, but even if kept it certainly should be totally reformatted. Will we see List of UK members of parliament who support euthanasia and List of UK members of parliament who oppose gay marriage? Morwen - Talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Emphatic Delete what if they change their mind tomorrow? lol! encyclopedia should be about facts, not beliefs subject to the whim of the holder. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Morwen. JGF Wilks 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morwen. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• neutral As written it is riddled with POV but there is the germ of a good article in there, in that several British MPs are well known to be in favour of legalisation. others are not. So it probably needs to be moved to a different title and the prominantly anti-legalisation ones listed as well. OK, yes, wrong article at the wrong title, that's usually a delete from me, but I do think this has potential. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morwen. --Terence Ong 15:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another 'ever changing list.' --BWD ^(talk) 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research, highly suscepitble to POV. Concur with Morwen on scope as there is potential for many more repititious articles by MP vote - theyworkforyou.com has voting records for foundation hospitals, top-up fees, anti-terrorism, Iraq, ID Cards, fox hunting, and gay marriage on the main page for each MP which illustrates the number of articles that should appear if this one stays. Note that theyworkforyou does not have drug law reform and I can't think of anywhere else that would have the verifiable NPOV resourcing that would allow this article to not be OR. MLA 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Changing vote to Strong Delete as the good faith that I had assumed regarding ill-informed soapboxing appears to have been misplaced. MLA 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on some of the comments so far:
Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help. The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways? Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things. =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/List_of As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from?
As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change.
These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once? Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says:
These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--Aspro 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not political journal or soapbox. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Problems include soapboxing, mistaking Wikipedia for one's webserver, indiscriminately accumulating information and WP:POV. Sandstein 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all no criteria for inclusion or exclusion -- one may be hard pressed to find any politician to say that drug law is perfect as is; reform could mean anything from legalization to execution for possessors: both reform the current law British/European laws. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 23:06, 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 — xaosflux ^Talk 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kvlt Promo Grrrl

346 Googles for a netlabel does not argue notability. The only external source is the website. Almost all the links are red, and probably best if they stayed that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. [23]. PJM 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable net label. JIP | Talk 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn netlabel. --Terence Ong 15:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Internet record label.  (aeropagitica)  15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Grímsson. PJM 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:06, 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crab Smasher

I think this might be a hoax. Hpuppet 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• not a hoax, but notable band. --Terence Ong 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• First Google hit says "Crab Smasher is an unsigned indie band from Rock City, Australia." Unsigned bands should stay at Myspace, delete from Wikipedia. Punkmorten 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Punkmorten. Sandstein 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. I also rather doubt that Nicholas French is currently a member of this band. Feezo (Talk) 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete NN Nigelthefish 16:01, 20 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. -Splash^talk 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ThinkTanks players, List of TT Armies and Player Alias Index

Non-notable gamecruft vanity, etc. I reckon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players gives authority to speedy these but I will take a second opinion. -- RHaworth 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: I am also adding ThinkTanks (game)/List of ThinkTanks players to this, a recreation of the original article. Grandmasterka 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've been a TT player for over 2 years and just about EVERYONE who plays the game thinks we need this index listing of past and current players. We usually keep the list on another personal website but believe it makes more sense to keep it on wikipedia where the players can update the list themselves. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia and one of its primary beauties? Self-sustenance? The same goes for the player alias list that links to this list.

It reveals/shares all of the psuedonyms used by players and the meanings behind their names. Paisano® 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. -- RHaworth 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sorry this is gamecruft. --Terence Ong 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's all -cruft! Of course! Sheesh. The majority of entries in wikipedia could be labeled cruft. These pages are important to the players of the game. Paisano® 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are only allowed one vote and have you looked at my talk page? -- RHaworth 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete You can get your own wiki if you like, Wikipedia is something else. Thatcher131 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic lists of people playing a game. Weregerbil 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well is there another way to include this information with our wikipedia entry without going back to external links? What about using stubs? Paisano® 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of players? Not really... There are free web site providers, those welcome your information, and they often have chat sites etc. Much better than Wikipedia for organizing a gaming clan. Google should find you such sites, or ask for opinions in gaming chat sites. Weregerbil 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Textbook vanispamcruft, incredible gall to put up such a load of junk. Get your own webpage, please. Sandstein 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per my earlier vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players. I thought this looked familiar... suggest authors explore (free) web hosting and set up their own TT Wiki.--Isotope23 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as Wikipedia is not a game community. While I wish the members of said community luck in establishing a similar list elsewhere, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all delete votes, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Grandmasterka 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: If I may quote List of TT Armies, "there is no order". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:52, 24 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memoirs of a Daydreamer Jonesboria Discordia

Delete vanity press publications, not for sale on Amazon. Deprodded without reason--Porturology 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VSCA refers, non-notable poet and poetry.  (aeropagitica)  16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn/vanity. DenisMoskowitz 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Nigelthefish 20:23, 20 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 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnar Grímsson

Based on what I find, this band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG [24] & [25]. PJM 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like a viable article. Kukini 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks nn. --Terence Ong 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Just shy of nn. --Ricaud 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article should definitely share the same fate as their record label. Punkmorten 17:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All of their "records" were "released" in 2005 by their own netlabel, itself headed for deletion as noted by Punkmorten. So just some musicians with a webserver, zero evidence of any impact. Sandstein 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the last two callers. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet minimal standards for notability, though not by all that much. Monicasdude 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - they don't meet WP:BAND - they haven't released anything on any of the major record labels or a major indie label, only by their own netlabel (this is as close as the band gets to meeting the notability guidelines). Cursive 23:23, 17 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Willmar, Minnesota Raid

Although a notable figure seems to have been involved in Machine Gun Kelly, this seems a non-notable event. To quote from the original version of the article: "...few people know much about it, if anything at all. And Willmar doesn’t celebrate the event or even talk about it." Obviously it needs a massive clean up but I think there's nothing worth saving. It seems that it was copied straight from a local-interest type book by one Terry Shaw who is also apparently the user who created this page. Spondoolicks 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- article doesn't explain the importance of the event in Minnesota history or in the history of Machine Gun Kelly. The Minnesota Historical Society doesn't have anything online about it, although this article from crimelibrary.com asserts some notability of the event. Still, the current article reads like a narrative or a story, not an encyclopedia article. If the article could be rewritten to address these concerns, I'd be more inclined to keep it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:35, 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 — xaosflux ^Talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrant Delta

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Note the similar AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg MLA 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Ricaud 16:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice as non-notable fandom and vanity. Brian G. Crawford 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, maybe a speedy delete per nn-club? Sandstein 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 12:46, 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. Jinian 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Tales, Terry Tales 2 and Terry R. Shaw

Seems to be self-published local-interest book. Article was created by the book's author. See talk page for more details. Spondoolicks 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - per nomination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the author of the books article (Terry R. Shaw) was also nominated for deletion by User:195.92.168.174 but the process wasn't completed. I completed it by changing the AfD tag to point to this discussion. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Amazon rank over 1 million, author fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination - local-interest books that I've never actually seen in local bookstores. --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I'm removing this vote and recusing myself from this discussion because I've pissed off the author. Since I've never done a damn noteworthy thing in my life, OBVIOUSLY I'm not even qualified to participate in AfD votes or to edit an encyclopedia. You can go ahead and vandalize my page now, since everyone else who objects to my AfD articles vandalizes my page. --Elkman - ^(talk) 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and no evidence of books' notability.--Isotope23 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Anyone who finds the town notable enough for inclusion will find the book useful and notable as well. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Although clearly the three articles should be merged and nonsense like "popular book" should be made NPOV. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My two books have sold over 5000 copies and are currently being sold by Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com. I'm being inducted into the Minnesota Rock/Country Hall of Fame in May of 2006. When you "watchdogs" have done something this noteworthy, then go ahead and delete the articles about me. Until then, they should be left alone. [[71.16.163.148 02:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)]]
    • I actually have done something that noteworthy, sales-wise, but I made an early decision not to give my wikipedia career over to self-documentation. Anyway, if you can bring back The Defiants and Shaw-Allen-Shaw over the current copyright problems, then we can begin to address whether your own article is notable - but until then, we have a problem. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you prove the sold over 5000 copies claim? That would meet WP:BIO if it can be proven.--Isotope23 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd like to echo that request. If you can reference that claim, I'd be more than willing to reevaluate my position. (Which is only weak anyway.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and please don't bite a well-meaning newbie here. User:Torshaw made many good contributions to Minnesota articles. Yes, every one of them needs cleanup and rewritting to fit our style, but the content of these is valuable and I'd like to encourage Terry to keep adding good stuff. Jonathunder 02:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Jonathunder. JoshuaZ 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge to Terry R. Shaw or The Defiants. I think that the case to be made here is that in aggregate Shaw merits an article. The main grounds for inclusion is the involvement in The Defiants, which while at best barely meeting WP:MUSIC, is better evaluated through the lens of history. The fact that they are being The Defiants had local significance prior to the ubiquity of local rock bands, and as such are rather more significant than the dozens of bands that we delete daily. Further, though the articles themselves need copyediting, there are enough facts to build upon. Shaw's books, despite being of local interest, have nonetheless sold in the thousands, making this more than a mere church-basement project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you have found evidence that the book has actually sold thousands of copies could you please give us a link to it here to inform our debate. --Spondoolicks 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure how I missed The Defiants in my trawl through User:Torshaw's edits looking for vanity articles. His other non-notable band, Shaw-Allen-Shaw got deleted a few days ago and I'm putting this one to AfD as well. --Spondoolicks 13:43, 25 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. JIP | Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Ritter

Looks like another vanity entry. No IMDB entry (despite the link), Google picks up almost nothing when cross-searching her with the movies she has supposedly appeared in...

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Her credits look pretty much like walk-ons or extra. She could become notable in the future (she's not yet 15) but it doesn't look like she's there, yet. Fan1967 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not so much that her credits are thin, it's that I can't even confirm she was really in all those movies, in any capacity. IMDB doesn't list her, google doesn't pick her up... JackO'Lantern 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ... which kind of screams "extra" to me, assuming it's not totally made up. Fan1967 00:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • lol... that's what I assumed, actually. It wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to use Wikipedia to invent a career for themselves... JackO'Lantern 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Here's something even more interesting, a site that claims to be hers [26], including a bunch of credits in local and school theatre. A month ago, in her blog, she talks about planning to audition for films and TV. Hmmm Fan1967 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you hmmming at me or at her? :) JackO'Lantern 01:02, 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 — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda DS

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and without references this is speculation. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per the not a crystal ball thing. I was the one who originally prod'ed it. The only other contributor continued to remove it without reason. I wasn't exactly sure if that meant to take it to this level, but oh well. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For your information - if anyone removes PROD for any reason (or no given reason), do not revert it, take it to AfD. Mentioning "prod removed without reason" will probably encourage some scrutiny =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Games are cancelled in development all the time. --Ricaud 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously, no might in the world can stop Nintendo from making a Zelda game for DS... but we don't yet know when, what, or how. Until then, no reason making an article about it. Makes as much sense as an article titled "2009 in video gaming" right now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:20, 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. JIP | Talk 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replicator (band)

Delete as nn band. Article was originally {{prod}}'d, but tag was removed due to claims that the band met WP:MUSIC. While it appears to be true that the band has gone on a tour, and that they have produced two albums...they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC because touring in and around San Fransisco (with a couple of shows in Seattle and Portland) can hardly be considered a national concert tour, and without a more clear definition of what "one of the more important indie labels" means, the two albums were not released by "one of the more important indie labels". Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:MUSIC. The national tour wasn't "in and around San Francisco," but from SF to Palmer, MA and points in between during their "ReplicaTour" [27], which qualifies them for a national tour. A simple look at their website indicates this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Both albums are listed on allmusic.com, plus the tour, [28]. PJM 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep. Band has gone on several tours and produced two albums. While they are not as active today as they've been in the past, that certainly doesn't seem to be grounds for deletion.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request - military secret that leaked out - actually he said more commercial than military. -- RHaworth 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic Wire Test Set (AWTS)

This document defines the requirements for the … test set that will replace. No original research, WP is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a free host (see talk page) all apply. Joe Lombardi - I have just this moment been thanked for pointing someone else towards Wikicities where you can create your own wiki. I think you should go there too. -- RHaworth 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, various forms of WP:NOT at issue here. Sandstein 18:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creator of AWTS article says...

Please delete the article at your earliest possible convenience! -- Joe Lombardi 21:11, 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 userfy. - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timo Kouwenhoven

This appears to be an autobiography/résumé, made and edited almost solely by its subject. In fact, the vast majority of edits from User:Timo Kouwenhoven have been on this article.

• Userfy --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:29, 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 Keep — xaosflux ^Talk 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Wood

THis person is not notable. Delete article --Light current 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the fact that he is a Chief Executive at Siemens is verifiable. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, CEO of Siemens UK is notable enough. Verification here. Also a CBE and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, as well as chairman of divers industry organisations. Sandstein 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, probably Speedy Keep given orphan status and comments above. Monicasdude 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Funky Monkey 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- clearly meets notability. Reyk 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He is the CEO of Siemens UK, so he is much less important than Klaus Kleinfeld, the CEO of Siemens AG, but he just scraps though as chairman of EEF the manufacturers organisation. Bhoeble 17:03, 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumarchy

Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher. Prod tag removed so bringing it here.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, practically nothing on Google. What do people that write this sort of thing as serious science smoke? Sandstein 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete see above Nigelthefish 16:03, 20 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Marler Gentry

Pathetic article.Bewibes 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... and less than completely overwhelming nomination. However, he has no immediately pertinent Google hits, so we must assume he fails WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the nominator "Bewibes" is a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. -- Curps 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:MUSIC; the albums are self-produced, apparently; I couldn't find them for sale except at the band's own website. Mangojuice 16:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable band Nigelthefish 20:14, 20 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 List of video game consoles. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Video Game Consoles A-Z

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was There is already a similair article here: List of video game consoles. It has much more information and consoles on it. [29]. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, listcruft full of non-latin characters. Sandstein 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to List of video game consoles. Redirects are cheap. Nifboy 19:37, 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Hoglund

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Apparent vanity page, notariaty cannot be independently verified. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  17:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yawn. Aplomado - UTC 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Bucketsofg 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Lori Hoglund claims it isn't vanity, at least by Hoglund's hand. Nonetheless, her purported public attention and influence need to be demonstrable. A remotely noteworthy U.S. antiwar protester circa 2006 is gonna get plenty of web hits; she doesn't. Delete. Samaritan 09:52, 19 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 nn-bio -SCEhardT 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)