Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 17

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in Tunisia

I really think that it is an unnecessary article, not only due to the fact that it is poorly written and non-wikified, but additionally its content would easily be suited to be included in the article Tunisia.

--NicAgent 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per every other African country having one. See the template at the bottom of the page. The current state of the article has nothing to do with whether or not it should be deleted, the potential does. --Rory096 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is Transport in Tunisia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in Tunisia. kotepho 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Jcuk 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Osomec 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite into a coherent article. Punkmorten 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. We have articles on transport for every country in the world and Tunisia should be no exception. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and mop up as per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, must be cleaned up --Ugur Basak 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup, as above Bucketsofg 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup, then keep. A bit painful at the minute. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have similar articles of several other countries, like Brazil, so, why not Tunisia? Carioca 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have started work on cleaning this up. Hope to have it completed over the next couple of days. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup completed.

Capitalistroadster 06:53, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riverbend Mall

I would like to propose this defunct mall for deletion. Apparently there has been in the past some disagreement on whether malls are in general notable. Consider this negligible mall, which operated for about 15 years, and not in Times Square, either, if you catch my drift. Does it deserve an article? I say it's non-notable. Then consider "Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States" (18 entries) and "Category:Shopping malls in the United States" (hundreds). How big is big enough for mall notability? In opining on this page, I ask you to not only decide the fate of Riverbend, but broaden the discussion, so that we could set a meaningful well-argued precedent for the future of malls on WP. DELETE. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep A good article. I'm an inclusionist in most cases. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep The article was written by the same person who wrote it on deadmalls.com with a personal knowledge of the center. Enclosed malls are not a dime a dozen and if they had major anchors and served a whole city count as legitimate. This mall was also notable in that it contained the only Georgia store for several major, now defunct chains.
• Weak Delete Malls are a dime a dousin, surely a defunct shopping mall that was neither the first or greatest in anything, doesn't assert much notability.Eivind^speak! 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nn mall. No comment for now on the others. JoshuaZ 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete questionably notable and very poorly written. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and WP:V. I think a lot of the defunct mall stuff unnecessarily mirrors http://www.deadmalls.com . It's possible there are other sources for this article, but actually no sources are identified even though http://www.deadmalls.com/malls/riverbend_mall.html was probably a major one. Esquizombi 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, an ordinary, non-notable, defunct mall. Not a bad article, though. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article and makes no difference to me whether the mall is operating now or not. It played a role in its economy and thus has historical interest and a story to be told. -- JJay 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, my great-grandpappy used to run a tobacco and snuff business off a horse-drawn cart. He stimulated growth in the local lung cancer treatment center economy, and reduced horse unemployment. Should he have an article too, under Cat:Defunct Solo Proprietorships? lol the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Do the article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I fail to see why you think removing information from this site is some kind of joke. -- JJay 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete It's no more or less a joke than the assertion that this article on a mall which is indistinguishable from thousands of others is worth keeping. Building on a flood plain isn't too bright, but if we want an article telling us that people are stupid, this is not it. Denni ☯ 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Weatherman90 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay, although it should be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic. BryanG 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are literally hundreds of thousands of non-notable shopping centers, and even more failed ones, in the world. One could spend a lifetime cataloging them. If it has some historical significance aside from being flooded in the 90s and the site of a kidnapping in the early 80s, I may be persuaded to change my mind, but I just don't see that in the article. -Dawson 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn mall. --Terence Ong 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think malls should be included unless they are the first/greatest/most of something (biggest, most visitors, first in a state, etc.) GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I tend to think that there should be a centralized discussion on what makes a mall notable. Otherwise, I fear a string of no consensus votes on the horizon. Also, I find the mall to be as notable and well-referenced as most of the high schools that have articles here, so yeah, keep. youngamerican (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's another problem area... I blithely tried to AfD one or two recently... Lack of experience. It turns out, high schools are notable by virtue of existence. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I struck the part of my vote that was meant to show frustration with school inclusionism, since some people misunderstood what I was saying. But, yeah, keep for now (although it would need cleanup and verify tags), have a centralized discussion and a policy in place, then delete this if it fails to meet the guidelines. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crazy ruuskie ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment maybe I'm missing something here but if we had a corporation that owned the mall, even owned a few malls we would probably delete it by WP:CORP. So I have trouble understanding how when the malls are separated they should be kept. JoshuaZ 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think some people tend to view malls as objects of geographical notability. E.g., the Mall of America, a profoundly notable thing, is run by the "Ghermezian Organization", a profoundly NN CorpMelvin Simon and Associates. Not that that should detract from the "delete" for this one. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Well, there goes that one. You prob. get my point tho. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are there any statistics regarding malls? Any rankings per country? This would give us a better clue as to notability. Also did it contain any notable stores? Did it leave an impact on the area or did it simply vanish without a trace? Did it have any attributable economic/social impact on the area? I believe these are things to consider. Joelito 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after failing to see notability. Joelito 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Perhaps a Shopping mall wikiproject? - Scaife
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep If schools are considered notable enough, why not malls? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just because there is currently an odd attitude towards schools among some editors(which is being reworked btw) doesn't mean we need to start applying the same logic to other areas. JoshuaZ 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep; I tend to support the idea of a wikiproject. ProhibitOnions 10:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm mis-understanding, but does this mean that you support keeping any article that's part of a Wikiproject? If I started Wikiproject People's Left Shoes, would you vote to keep Lord Bob's left shoe because it was in a Wikiproject? I realize this is a very absurd example but, honestly, that was the first thing that came to mind when I read your comment. I'd just like to know where the line comes in. Lord Bob 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A wikiproject isn't really what is needed here. There needs to be a centralized discussion, leading to a policy proposal, so we can sort out what, if anything, makes a given mall notable. youngamerican (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Articles such as this are important as they show an example of a general economic trend. The article could do for some citiations of sources, if those sources arent from first hand observations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.80.147 (talk • contribs).
• Weak Keep What, are we running low on space? Why not? I mean, it's a place, no? --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So is my garden. So is the McDonalds' down the road from me. Should they have articles? Please, could you explain your reasoning, I'm concerned that I'm missing something, here. Proto||type 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a place that has had a large cultural and economic impact on an area, and was visited by, and known to, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. So, unless you have a really popular garden, the distinction is clear. McDonald's is a chain, and no different than most other ones, unlike malls and schools, which have unique characteristics to them. Plus, the latter two have a far greater economic impact on area than a single restauarant does. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete malls aren't notable unless there is a clear reason why they are. In my opinion, schools notability should not be automatic. MLA 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A standard mall is a lot less important than a standard school. Scranchuse 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (per MLA). Kuzaar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-notable and of strictly local interest. Adolescents may find shopping malls to be interesting subject matter, but this article is deadly dull, and I had to make a real effort to finish it. I doubt this mall has significantly affected anyone who hasn't shopped there or otherwise seen it. Brian G. Crawford 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and no doubt a slap on my wrist for daring to expect some kind of quality control to be applied to Wikipedia. WP:NOT a memorial, and that should apply to buildings even more so than people. Was the mall notable in its time? Nope. Therefore, it is not now. The arguments to keep this 'article' are exceptionally flimsy (along the lines of 'keep because it should be kept'. Proto||type 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, strong delete - article is ENTIRELY unreferenced and unverified, as well as ugly and badly written. If hyper-inclusionism does prevail, then merge a less-boring and badly-written (ie, three line) description into Rome, GA. Proto||type 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; large buildings are "notable". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Question though (which has nothing directly to do with this AfD, sorry). If Schools are automatically notable, and malls are becoming so, why are churches not? Jcuk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment if this isn't an indication of the general absurdity of the inclusion of all malls and schools, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given up on trying to figure things like this out. The beliefs of some Wikipedians make my brain hurt. So I just don't worry about it and try to pretend they don't exist. It's remarkably effective. Lord Bob 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an important part of the local economy and something that has affected thousands of people. I've also cleaned up the article a bit - if people have further complaints or suggestions on it, please leave a note on the article's talk page. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and a shout into the wind. It's a mall, dead and buried. It wasn't even around for a particularly long time for a mall. It wasn't particularly significant, unless being the only Bon-Ton in Georgia is something that's particularly notable. That said, it lacks verifiability, which is the final shot to the head of this dead horse. We don't need to mirror deadmalls.com.  RasputinAXP  c 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn mall, nn concept, nn category. 204.69.40.7 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have to say Delete. I see no reason why a defunct shopping centre is notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it has a historical interest the wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, and information duplicated at DeadMalls.com. Mhking 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • this is not deadmalls.com Yuckfoo 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, and it's not a repository for useless information either. Denni ☯ 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • this is not useless thanks Yuckfoo 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable defunct mall Cursive 02:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added some info on the Millican kidnapping and murder- the subject of books, plays and Oprah. In fact, malls are not just cultural and economic centres for their areas, the village squares of our times. Besides being fun places to shop and buy ice cream, they are often the scene of real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society. I think that is part of the reason why we should be talking about them here. -- JJay 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Basketball courts are also scenes of "real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society" but should we have articles about every basketball court? Joelito 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• If that is where serial killers prey because of the easy access to young girls, yes. -- JJay 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• The killers are notable but the site where the killing occurs is not necessarily notable. Furthermore the killing didn't even take place in the mall. Joelito 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Combined with all the other aspects Riverbend clearly deserves a place here. Its connection with this notorious crime means that its memory lives on and it should not be forgotten. Millican would be alive had she not gone to the mall or gotten separated from her group. She would also be alive if the Neeleys had not seen Riverbend as an easy place to grab vics. The question is why are malls breeding grounds for these kind of events? Telling the story of individual malls helps shed light on the issue.-- JJay 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry but I fail to see other aspects which establish notability. Also I doubt that telling the story of individual malls help shed light on the issue. Finally deadmalls.com clearly states that "the mall is now merely a memory". Joelito 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The deadmalls page is a blog post by one user...but thanks for sharing your opinion -- JJay 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAHHH - the pain! The murdered Lisa Ann Millican doesn't even have her own article! If her murder is notable, it should be on her page, not the mall's! For crying out loud, people! the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per JJay and Turnstep. Zagalejo 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep Look folks. I wrote the article for deadmalls.com and I did duplicate it here, but wrote it much better than on deadmalls.com. I have wanted to sever ties with that site and have been publishing NOTABLE malls and major store chain histories for the state of Georgia on wiki. I especially like to note the vacant or demolished ones because these are places that people made memories that they might like to look back and find information on. Rich's? The Rich's at Greenbriar? I remember Greenbriar from 20 years ago, I'd like to hear what they had to say about it (see the point?).
  There are approximately 40 noteworthy malls in Georgia with major department store anchors: that is it. I am talking traditional, general enclosed malls that featured at least one major department store anchor. This one had three. Malls are disappearing at a rapid rate nationwide. These malls were significant, including some that were short-lived. Some successful malls die young. If an earthquake destroyed the world's largest mall five years after it opened, it would still be significant. Also, most of these descriptions consist of maybe two paragraphs with no photographs, logos or anything. I think Wiki wouldn't crash over that. This information is enjoyed by a surprisingly large amount of people and represents a time when malls were like cities themselves. People made memories in these places and they were known by thousands, maybe millions of people. The fact that they are dying this soon represents a major shift in American society. Riverbend Mall had a very large shopping area drawing people from upwards of three states and caused downtown Rome to lose its two major department stores and completely killed it for years. The mall also stood for actually 24 years though its period of actual success was only 15. And yes, this information came from memory and research of the various regional department store chains. I also remember seeing them report the flooding of the mall on the Atlanta news that year. I knew Hess's, Belk Rhodes and JCPenney (three major anchors) were all there and saw them with my own eyes. I do not need to quote that...I saw it for myself. And yes, this was a successful mall that died young because of a natural disaster (albeit poor planning). The location where it stood is still the major commercial strip of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.11.147.54 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 March 2006. moved down here for chronology sake. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)

• Thank you anon user for clearly establishing this as original research and lacking verifiability. Joelito 16:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong. There is a huge difference between writing something from memory and OR. All the store changes, flooding, etc. are verifiable right out of the newspapers. -- JJay 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Right. I was there. I saw the anchors, remember when it happened. I saw the banner in front of the Belk Rhodes that read "Outlet Store" a year after Mount Berry opened. I saw the very seedy looking Bon-Ton there with the cheap looking sign. That was strictly from memory and I remember the year well. I was going to Little River Canyon that day and noticed it. I ate in the Morrison's Cafeteria and shopped in the Reed/Big B/Revco/CVS drug store there. I spent much time in that old Belk Rhodes as a kid with my mom and even took a photograph in 2002 of the store just before the wrecking ball finished it off. I can also see a Chick Fil A employee handing out samples along that ramped part of the mall up to the food court around 1991 or so. We used to shop there a lot from about 1985-1992 or so.

• Delete as this mall lacks particular significance or notability, and malls are not inherently notable. The murder does not affect this — it had no geographic resonance; a tragedy that could have been located in thousands of other non-notable malls. Sliggy 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  Strikeout as issue not relevant now a separate article has been created. Sliggy 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: due to the recent rash of "if it exists, we need an article about it" folks showing up at Afd, I raised the question of notability of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of buildings. Malls and dorms seem to be the most common buildings that we get articles about. We have standards for businesses, see WP:CORP. I don't see how an individual property is more "notable" than the business than owns it, so I don't think being a mall is sufficient reason for inclusion. There are hundreds of thousands of them, they pretty much all do the same thing. For this article my opinion is delete (not that it matters), but I've no prejudice against someone making an article about the kidnapping incident. That seems to be the most significant thing about this mall. Friday (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:N Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In the AfD for List of dead and distressed shopping malls, we already determined that dead malls are notable, and determined to keep the list. Articles about dead malls, this one included, are notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I have removed the Lisa Ann Millican murder into its own article. That was the only potentially notable thing about this mall. To the admin who closes this: please disregard that rationale.- the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 17:15, 21 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 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

This article was originally moved from the Storm history of Hurricane Katrina, and after that, the section was greatly condensed from this article. Most of the important details on this article are already on Hurricane Katrina, and everything else is excessive detail which can be obtained from the official source given on the article. Since there really isn't anything to merge, it should be deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Reyk 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if there is nothing to merge. Note that the article "History of Hurricane Katrina" redirects to this one. If this is deleted, so should that, or redirected to Hurricane Katrina. Carlo 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't accept deleting an article based on a claim of "excessive detail". Who is to say what is excessive and what is not? The material was spun out from the main article, and while I'm not opposed to merging it back, I see no point in reducing our coverage of this event. Furthermore, what kind of argument is it to say that there are better sources available elsewhere? In that case, why should we bother working on articles in the first place since there are great pages, fan sites, official sites etc. for just about everything. Or to put it another way, maybe we should devise a template that blanks pages and provides a link to the better sources available on the internet. -- JJay 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down. Denni ☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just about everything has been done better and in greater detail elsewhere. For example, witness Vegreville, Alberta a little town of no consequence that no one has ever heard of. Our article is six lines, some statistics and a bad photo of an easter egg. What is the point of having editors try to maintain that inconsequential bit of villagecruft when the good folks at www.vegreville.com already provide such incredible detail and a halfway decent picture of the same egg? Why not just link directly to that site, since god knows we will never do it better than the people condemned to worship that egg 365 days a year? Of course, I'll fight for the right of the editors who think they can outdo vegreville right here at wikipedia. I just wish you would join me... -- JJay 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it should still summarize history rather than describe it in excruciating detail. Merge anything crucial to Hurricane Katrina. Deizio 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Conditionally only if the article contains info not already in other articles. Weatherman90 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The detail is excessive because this amount of detail is available in the tropical cyclone reports of every Atlantic hurricane. Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No, because it does not meet notability criteria. If anything, the TCRs should be added to wikisource. This is text I cut out of the Katrina article because it became too long, and the article itself has thus become a rather poor copy of the TCR (which is very interesting reading, by the way). — jdorje (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. -- JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that having such a large amount of information for one storm makes it extremely difficult to manage and improve the article. As Jdorje said, this information is already available somewhere else in Wikipedia, and to have detail to the amount you're indicating, it should be added to Wikisource instead of here. Katrina may be a remarkable storm due to its impact, but the majority of the editors who actually maintain this article want it gone, as it is completely redundant. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no problem managing or improving the material since it was spun out from the main article. Deleting will certainly not help editors to improve it. Also, jdorje has not said that the material is available elsewhere in wikipedia. A simple comparison of this with Hurricane Katrina shows that the material is not covered there to this extent. Finally, please do not speak for the "majority" of editors here. -- JJay 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep So long as there is any new material, it needs to be kept. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't any new material that can be added, everything has been covered in detail at the Hurricane Katrina article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Given the impact Katrina had, I don't think this article offers excessive detail. David Sneek 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major issue. This amount of detail is useful, given the controversy surrounding the failure to evacuate on time. Some of the detail from the main article can be offloaded onto this if there's duplication. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ProhibitOnions — important aspect of a major event. Feezo (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Do people even read the article being AfD'd and the explanations? All information is in other articles, this article is unnecessary. Everything else is available via the external link. Proto||type 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said that "all information is in other articles"? David Sneek 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all above. Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not aware of the servers nearing capacity.....Jcuk 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid sub-page, along with all of the others for HK. "...available via the external link." is a terrible argument. This is Wikipedia, not Google. Turnstep 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid subtopic. mikka (t) 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's an interesting article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• clean it up and keep it! Sparsefarce 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Argh. This might have been better dealt with as a redirect to avoid this discussion. I'd normally defer to the nominator, especially when one looks at the histories of the pages and sees whom the major contributors are. However the "keep and cleanup without ever editing the page" bloc appears to have spoken, so I'll say "delete but barring that merge (oh wait that's already done and oh, but this isn't a useful redirect) so bugger." - brenneman^{L} 02:23, 21 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 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James McDougall

Delete. I am proposing this article be deleted because the person to whom it refers is of questionable importance in warranting a biographical entry, there is little information in it of interest beyond the name and the individual's connection with the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (an existing article in which this information could be, and in fact is offered), and because the article conflicts with what I consider a more important historical figure, the explorer James McDougall (explorer) Fishhead64 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He's a central figure in a major event, and he is linked to from the Flight 103 page. The article should be marked as a stub and possibly expanded. Carlo 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and significant, and Move to James McDougall (Lockerbie) or some such other name, as appropriate. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Move to James McDougall (Procurator Fiscal) and make James McDougall a disamb page.Eivind^t@c 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. Weatherman90 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced that this guy is notable enough to have his own article. What more is there to say about him? A brief mention in the Flight 103 article seems sufficient. Plus, as the nominator points out, he is hogging valuable namespace that rightfully belongs to the much more notable James McDougall (explorer). dbtfz^talk 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be expanded. Any conflict with the article, if it exists, about McDougall the explorer can be remedied by disambiguation.Phase4 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Seems like the Lockerbie article should more than take care of him, but a stronger article might make a difference. ProhibitOnions 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move to more suitably named page and convert to disambiguation. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:02, 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 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3055 (number)

Delete as a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Was put on {{Prod}}, which was deleted immediately by the creator of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN StephenFalken 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. You have got to be kidding. Carlo 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• DE1E7E = 14,556,798 converted into decimal notation. Redirect to 14,556,798. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No offense to Leet fans, but this vote reminds me of those people who spell "Boobies" in their calculators. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per the numbers WikiProject. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete per wikinumbers. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Czar Dragon 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments . Reyk 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But seriously... Deizio 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but its not as bad as some other year-articles I have seen. We have articles for each year going WAYYY to far into the future. Weatherman90 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a number, not a year. Specific guidelines or policy on years might be different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WikiProject. This will definitely grow larger. --Terence Ong 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Joelito 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's just a number. JIP | Talk 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A number, not a year yet, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers.--Dakota ~ ° 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not listed on List of numbers or linked to by any mathematical page. Non-notable number, whatever that might be. ProhibitOnions
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 3000 (number). — RJH 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I will be the sole inclusionist vote on this one, I guess. 3055 is a verifiable number that can be proven to exist. That's more than you can say about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Prove to me that Saddam Hussein exists ... ohh that's right, you can't. But the existence of the number 3055 follows directly from the fundamental arithematic axions. Cyde Weys 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is an infinity of numbers, but there's no space for an infinity of articles. Thus existence alone is not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but there aren't infinite four-digit numbers. In fact, there's not so many of them. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If you seriously want to extend the ceiling on number articles with no signifigance, you might want to shoot for three digits first, not four. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. There's a real chance that you'll get your way, but I have to say it's small. Melchoir 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • We could ask the developers to have the server autogenerate an article page for every request of the form "N (number)", where "N" stands for a non-empty sequence of decimal digits. That way Wikipedia will have an infinite number of articles! Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'll join you on this one Cyde. Did you see what that number is in hex? And its found in quite of few lists of integers. Pretty significant stuff I'd say. --BostonMA 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's "BEF" in hex. How is that any more notable than "BEE" (i.e. Bee or 3054), which doesn't have an article? Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bee already has its own page. Why would it need another one? --BostonMA 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few lists? Are you aware that OEIS currently contains 116943 lists and counting? Being in only 41 is pathetic. Melchoir 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's notable because it is in only 41 lists. Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a Wikiproject Numbers subsection of "non-notable numbers" or something. Let it incubate in there for awhile. To me, numbers are inherently notable, although most of them don't have alot of content you can say about them, usually not enough for an article of their own. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has enough articles about subjects without any real-world existence. As Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man"; and while the underlying theological debate can't be resolved, the existence and singular importance of integers should be clear. Monicasdude 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with 3000 (number) (which probably ought to be 3000s (number). It's a charming article, but if we keep it we have to let everyone make an article about their favourite number. Peter Grey 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WikiProject criteria. Note that BostonMA has been campaigning for "keep" votes. --Carnildo 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and because of the spam from BostonMA. ---J.Smith 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and shame on BostonMA for spamming in favor of keeping this. Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. mikka (t) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pa Computerjoe's talk 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the factorization is useful, even if it is trivial. Although arguably that would be wikimath.org or something, but as that has yet to exist, most numbers tend to have certain properties in number theory which are encyclopedic to describe. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Every integer has a factorization. Melchoir 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to do a little bit more research on that (unless you're counting the trivial case of the number itself and one). --Cyde Weys 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I am. And prime numbers are hardly trivial; if this number were prime, it would be more notable than it is now. Still deleteable though. Melchoir 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my argument above. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge it to a list of numbers in the 3000 range. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Come on, gang. It's easy enough to prove that all positive integers are notable. They're well-ordered. If there were non-notable integers, they'd form a set. Then that set would have a least element. And being the smallest non-notable positive integer would, of course, be notable. And that's a contradiction. So there can't be any non-notable positive integers. So there. Monicasdude 01:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: How silly. Was this article created to make some point? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it had any unique properties in number theory, as Natalinasmpf describes, then it should have an article, but otherwise, there comes a point where details are too trivial to include. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

3055 is the unique integer between 3054 and 3056. It is also the unique product of 611 and 5. Michael Jackson doesn't even have a unique name people seem to think he is notable enough for an article. --BostonMA 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing to write a permastub on every integer? Melchoir 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --hydnjo talk 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (or merge per Bookofjude, inter al.) (although I always have wondered about what comes between 3054 and 3056; I always thought it was 12). Joe 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the obvious consensus above. This should've been deleted already. Cool3 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. So it's boring, so what? It is just a number, but it has various mathematical properties associated with it. One thing my education taught me about math is that it's too complicated for me to understand. There's probably a lot you could write about this single number. People complain about how you could go on writing about numbers forever, since they're infinite. That's obviously true, but I'm not going to complain if that means we end up with millions, billions, or even trillions of number articles. Bring 'em on. To me this is like a guy who inherits a big pile of money and complains: "That's too much, I can never count all that..." A little wisdom tells you it's nonsense to worry about such things. Also, a number could potentially fall into an automatically notable category, like natural species in biology, natural languages, planets, stars, that kind of thing: just by existing it has some notability attached to it, since it's automatically going to have some scientific significance. Everyking 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Every species, language, planet, and star on Wikipedia has already been written about elsewhere; otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Nobody has written anything about 3055. You propose that we could make up stuff to write about 3055; that's called original research. It is not the job of an encyclopedia. Melchoir 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything that is patently provable using the laws of mathematics can be considered "original research". Mathematics is really an entirely different realm than the rest of the encyclopedia because in mathematics things can be and are proven 100%. --Cyde Weys 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To the contrary, the history of mathematics is full of incorrect proofs and assertions; now, even after a theorem is proven, often it is not accepted without reservation. Whether a mathematical statement is "really" true or not, Wikipedia requires verification of its proof. Now, I am aware that in practice, mathematics pages contain some trivial original research, especially number articles, and we tend to look the other way. But an entire article filled with the stuff, and using it as a justification to exist, is completely and absolutely unacceptable. Melchoir 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • There's no such thing as an incorrect proof. Either a proof is a proof or it contains logical errors in which case it's not a proof at all. Can you provide any references for the kind of stuff you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Classification of finite simple groups, Four color theorem, Fermat's last theorem. Melchoir 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
            • You know, I was almost going to say, "And don't say Fermat's last theorem", in my post you just responded to. I had actually typed it out and thought better of it and deleted that part. You do know all Fermat did was saying that he "proved" it without offering up any evidence whatsoever, right? --Cyde Weys 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Oh, I know. Asserting the existence of a proof is, sadly, not the same thing as having a proof. We Wikipedians, being a wiser sort, prefer to demand verification. Melchoir 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Fermat claimed to have a proof, but didn't offer it. Andrew Wiles actually did have a proof, but his first version was incorrect. --Carnildo 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody has written anything about this number? How can that be? Recently I read about this kid who was able to recite pi out to over 8,000 digits...nobody has ever factored out the number 3055 before, or written its Roman numeral, and published it somewhere? Everyking 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You are welcome to look for a source. Melchoir 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I won't pretend to be able to interpret it, but is this a source? It's linked right there in the article. Everyking 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a database query generated by computer and input by the author of the article. If that counts as a reference, you might as well have an "article" on every phrase in the English language by referencing Google searches. Melchoir 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silliness. linas 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Obvious reasons Nigelthefish 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WikiProject Numbers. Looking through the OEIS, it's in maybe two interesting lists. The number has no special properties unlike other existing number articles - it's not prime, perfect, square, culturally significant (see, for example, 42 (number) or 1138 (number), a taxicab number, triangular, or any of a large number of interesting, verifiable properties held by most of the numbers which have articles. In other words, unencyclopedic. Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete otherwise we'll be on our 2millionth article quicker than we though. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television news music package

Seems to be unverified original research. Surely this should be merged somewhere else, or has been covered previously, but it currently seems unencyclopedic. Harro5 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather unusual that I only created this file just a few minutes before and already an AfD stamp had already been placed. I created the file after I was left a message by somebody (I can't remember their user name), but they said that I would be a good candidate to create such an article, so I created it. I had created other articles revolving around news music and when I was "enlisted", so to speak, to create an article about the subject, I took the chance and went with it, you know. But if anybody can gather information as I'm trying to on this subject, put it in. TmanokoTmanok 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I saw what looked like a strange and waffling list, but didn't know the history. At least it wasn't speedied out of haste. Harro5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep this seems like a reasonable article. it's not really original research to simply state that some channels use particular melodic lines for their news programs and describe how they do so. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tmanok. The nom also seems unclear and suggests a merge but provides no target. I think engaging the author before tagging the article two minutes after creation might have provided some clarification. -- JJay 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an important part of the branding of television. Eivind^t@c 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, requested in connection with another AfD discussion to provide context and as a possible umbrella replacement for a set of mostly boilerplate small articles. Monicasdude 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clarify soem of the terminology being used. Denni ☯ 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I suggested the creation of this article. We already had a whole Category:Television news music packages, about individual news music packages and their composers. I thought we should have a background article explaining what they were. Smerdis of Tlön 04:30, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cashville Records

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
• Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 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 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Radio 1 Gonzo

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the show being discussed is Zane Lowe's radio show; its not called Gonzo, which is the name of his MTV show; the article is a poor stub at best; info about the show can fit into the Zane Lowe page anyway. Robdurbar 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move and Rewrite The MTV show Gonzo probably (just about) deserves a page, but this is poorly written and wrongly titled. DWaterson 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, after merging to Zane Lowe. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Zane Lowe. Then redirect. Merge then delete is not an option under the GFDL. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 26 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 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOLD

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per WP:SOFTWARE? Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD. Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ... aa:talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. --MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto||type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it. Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:08, 26 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 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contested Expression

I had listed this to go to Wiktionary, but a new edit shows the word was coined only last year, and this is a memorial to a neologism and its creator. Per WP:NOT, this is not a memorial, a dictionary, a place for original inventions, and this also comes close to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harro5 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "Contested Expression" is an excellent way to describe the activities of graffiti, street art, skateboarding and etc. Simply because respect was shown to the person who coined the phrase is not sufficient reason to remove it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paintergoddess (talk • contribs).

• Delete NN. The phrase doesn't seem to google at all, except as cases where the two words just appear consecutively in a sentence. The phrase returns 0 Ghits when combined with the name of the person who supposedly coined the phrase. Fan1967 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having skated, and grown up around taggers, highly non-notable. Not for things you made up in school one day. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article even says it's a protologism; even if it is truly by a college instructor, WP:NFT seems to apply here. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-admitted protologism. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice try, but no Google. ProhibitOnions
• Delete. A neologism with an inherent POV problem. Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.--Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not for things your teacher made up in school one day. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:08, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Could Work Records

Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable corporation. nn unincorporated entity. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the United States this month, making them notable under WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.

  The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. --MatthewUND^(talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Systemic bias argument is ridiculous, this is nn record label. Bluelinked "projects" in article also suspicious. Deizio 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn record label. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete North Dakota HAS a cultural scene? j/k, but still non-notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I try to look sympathetically on "alternative" music ventures, they can be notable without selling truckloads of records. This one, however, seems to have hardly got started and is right now thoroughly nn. --kingboyk 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, regrettably. Startup label, no product except for a sampler LP. That makes it NN. ProhibitOnions 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MatthewUND. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a startup without any releases of note. Eivind^t@c 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, weakly. Non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and reaffirmed Keep. There are at least a dozen record labels in Category:2005 establishments, all with invariably small discographies. If Silvery Moon Records can have an article, there's no reason why This Could Work Records should not either.

  I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Just because other companies that are similarly unqualified for an article on WP haven't been deleted yet doesn't justify this one. Dbchip 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out? JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions. JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment It would be helpful if you could give us a citation for their completion of national tours. JoshuaZ 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP, red link cruft. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft^{cruft}. --Deville (Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you mean Cruft^cruft perhaps? JoshuaZ 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Daah, I've been TeXing too much these days. How about ? w00t --Deville (Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Maybe you can find a North Dakota wiki and add it there? Or if that doesn't exist, start one at Wikicities. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hasn't been mentioned in any ND newspaper, or anywhere for that matter. Ashibaka tock 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN company. Or even a NNND company. Marcus22 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Eusebeus 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:56, 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 del. mikka (t) 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental game

Unhelpful pseudo-category for games that are better classified elsewhere, like in Word game and Guessing game. There may eventually be a reason for this page to exist, but this isn't it. phh 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep. no inherent problems with the page. the mental games referenced are suspect but the page itself makes some sense by explaining the nature of the games. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All of the examples listed on this page can be (and already have been) placed into a better established category, except for The Game (game), whose status as an actual game is debatable. Article is unnecessary. WarpstarRider 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep. The fact that certain games require no equipment to be played (and hence can be played anywhere and at any time) is an important and useful distinction. Please read the more neutral rewrite of The Game (game), its debatability as a game is due to a misunderstanding of the rules. Kernow 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, category is sufficient. Stifle 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Del. Non-notable definition/construct. Czar Dragon 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Listcruft. Contradicts itself into the bargain (is it mental games or mind games?). Lists should contain significant and substantive info that would not be held in a category, this doesn't do it. Deizio 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but should definitely be a category. JoshuaZ 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft, categorisation will be better. --Terence Ong 08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, lists are more user-friendly than categories, and it should be crosslinked to the other similar lists of games. ProhibitOnions 11:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kernow. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deiz. Categories are, if anything, more user friendly than lists, as only the articles need to be kept up to date. With a list, not only do the articles need to be up to date, so does the list. Proto||type 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very nice job on this list, which is so much better than a category it hurts my brain. -- JJay 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. mikka (t) 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or convert to an actual category/list. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:11, 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 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Works Of Mika Feldy

An article about some short stories by the author, whose self-bio down the bottom would be CSD A7 if separated, with no hint of them being notable. I'd say this is blatant self-promotion, going against Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Harro5 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete apparent vanity. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentI the writer of this article claim that I am not useing this for self promotion but am simply useing this for those interested in extra information about my compilation of short stories or for those wanting to know more. If I wanted to promote myself, the article would probably give you a seisure as I have a habit of overdoing my advertisements. Please do not delete my article, it is form informative, not advertising, purposes. What can I change or add to make it seem more informative? Mika Feldy
• Delete - nn, vanity. >> Hi Mika? Wikipedia has sets of criteria and guidelines for what is and isn't suitable for inclusion. It may be that your page isn't a keeper, please check out WP:BIO (especially the line: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more") for info regarding authors and WP:DEL for general deletion policy info. Deizio 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That policy is a bit strict. What if a writer didn't have an audience of 5,000? We just leave them out and call them "unimportant"? Take a hint, everybody deserves a bit of recognition in today's day and age. Who cares if the audience is 3 or 3,000,000? You're singling people out Wiki... - Midnight

• Comment Wikipedia has guidelines and policies for exactly this kind of case. Who cares if it has a readership of 3? An encyclopedia should damn well care. Wikipedia is not a weblog or personal page. If Wikipedia is guilty of "singling out" completely unnotable writers then count me in. WP:DEL. If it is going to be published then cross your fingers and WP:CHILL in the meantime. Deizio 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, nn author. 14 Ghits (as Mika Haruhara (Feldy)) [2], all of which appear to be his own postings on sites like geocities and invisionfree. Fan1967 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whoops, sorry. I got the gender wrong. I've previously run into "Mika" as a man's name (Finnish) and didn't read carefully enough. My apologies. Fan1967 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This topic is informative, and I actually didn't know some of these things until I read this article. It's informative, and it varifies certain information. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do right? From what I can tell, its in threat of being deleted because not enough people look at it. Have you even given it time? Or a chance? You can't expect people to linch onto something in five minutes. People might want this in the future. Don't delete. - Maki

• Delete. Per nom. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentI would also like to note that this was put up for deletion BEFORE the articlewas finished. The article is now finished completley. Mika Feldy
• Delete even with complete version above still stands. JoshuaZ 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

is very informative, because i've read the article and I see that this writer Mika has quite potential to become a good artist. I think this shouldn't be deleted because if more people find this article and see the works of Mika then she could grow out to quite a succes. Give Mika a chance, im sure she will get more viewers and that this article will grow out with importantence. -[Z0diac]

• Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO, impossible to satisfy WP:V, and is likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notable self-promotion --MaNeMeBasat 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio, unverifiable, self promotion. --Terence Ong 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, as this might have attained notability in Japan, something I am unable to verify. Even so, it's a vanity piece that would be better organized under an article about the author. ProhibitOnions 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all of the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete,per the original nom. Kuru ^talk 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm as impatient as hell, I have e-mailed Wikipedia about the deletion of this article. They claim that the descision to delete it is not determined by requests but by the editing comity, so are any of you from the eidting comity? The e-mail says "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia written by its readers. The subjects for our articles are chosen by the editing community rather than by request." Meaning that if anything we should wait for the eidting community to stop by here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mika Feldy (talk • contribs).

Yes, we are all part of the editing community. Everyone at wikipedia is an editor. You may want to look at the Wikipedia intro page and related pages. JoshuaZ 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that the choice to delete is not based on any judgement on the quality of your work. Rather, it is the intent of Wikipedia to document well-known people, not provide exposure for those who wish to become well-known. The policy is described in WP:BIO. Postings by people attempting to publicize themselves are generally subject to heavy scrutiny, but if someone else had created this article I doubt the response would be any different. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your post. Fan1967 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait before it is "decided"? When can I get rid of this delete message? Mika Feldy 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For more details on the AfD process, you may want to see the relevant page linked here: WP:AFD. JoshuaZ 05:33, 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 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Monkey Poop Fight

A Flash game created some time this year found here. Is it notable? Are there respectable sources concerning this game? I don't think so, just one of the many non-notable newgrounds quality flash out there. - Hahnchen 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it's high google score would allow it to stay on Wikipedia. --Nintendude 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you removed the PROD earlier because of this. I had a look on Google, and it just looks like the flash has been pasted all over various Flash mirrors. I couldn't find any strong fan following like say Salad Fingers or critical reaction from established sources like EPIC 2014. - Hahnchen 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Del. Czar Dragon 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as original PROD'er. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and they're apes not monkeys. Eivind^t@c 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Relatively notable, as I've played it before seeing this ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn software. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn software, its nothing more than an advertisement really, oh and the game sucks i tried it. Mike _{(T C)} 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tried the game, loved it, esp. the baby dropping part. My wife was terrified though :) :) the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just another Flash game = non-notable per software guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable flash game --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn game. --Terence Ong 10:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I wasn't sure whether or not to put this up or not, but since someone else did I'd say DELETED! -- gakon5 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely non-notable flash game. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How can SMPF retain nn status when it's google score goes above 1,000? --Nintendude 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that the alexa rating for the official website is not in the top 100,000, but despite that, I am still baffled by why 1000+ google hits dosen't merit notability on the game. --Nintendude 00:30, 21 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 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandre Dharma-wardana

Seems like he is a good scientist, but I don't see how he passes the professor test. There are many Principal Research Officers (looks equivalent to full professor) at NRC Canada [3], and even I was in Who's Who Canada. For what it's worth, 52 unique Ghits [4]. "Ceylon Leather Products and Tannery" gives no hits. There are many more notable academics, don't think he meets WP:BIO or the professor test Samir (the scope) 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep passes notability Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I can't see it doing any harm, seems fairly notable. Weatherman90 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, current article does not assert compliance with WP:BIO or professor test. Deizio 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, solid credentials, decent publication record, appears to be viewed as notable to those in his narrow but important field. And even if the "professor test" was ever more than a proposed guideline, a Cambridge PhD in quantum physics is usually pretty notable. Monicasdude 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has many publications, some in prestigious journals: [5]. JoshuaZ 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending verification that he is indeed a professor ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 10:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — passes the professor test. Feezo (Talk) 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable but you wouldn't know it from this weak bio. ProhibitOnions 11:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no, there are a tonne of no name academics like him. His publications are all in minor journals (mainly impact factor <2). He's one of many researchers in solid state physics, and he doesn't stand out among the crowd. He's working at a lesser institution in Canada (NRC, not even an academic institution) and he's an adjunct professor at Montreal. I think that it was a page made by one of his post docs. Monicadude, Cambridge solid state physics = 15 PhD's per year, I can't see how that alone makes you notable. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, as per the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:15, 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 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel halperin

Non-notable bio written by User:Dhalperin. Some claim to notability in founding United Consumer Finance Network (11 google hits) and United Consumer Mortgage (4 google hits). Contested speedy, and talk page says, Who are you to say that I am not notable? I have been published in trade journals and my biography is relevant. Deletion is unncessary. Clearly doesn't mean WP:BIO. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable and redundant, since it's largely a reprint of his User page. Perhaps he had intended it as a User Page, and made a mistake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cfortunato (talk • contribs).

• Delete (I think the talk page rules out the possibility of it being a mistake, but that's neither here nor there). --DMG413 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• The edit history by (aeropagitica) says, Article has been userfied and deleted twice already. bikeable (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect if he keeps recreating it. NN Fan1967 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect per Fan1967. JoshuaZ 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know; one day one plays in the "Midwest Suburban Baseball League" and the next day he/she is a household name. In all seriousness, delete and protect per Fan. Joe 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and {{deletedpage}} per above. Already deleted once via AfD at [6] as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect as recreated text, nn. --Terence Ong 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and {{deletedpage}}. User has had sufficient time to read links related to biographical articles.  (aeropagitica)  12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect: vanity and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and deletedpage, per Kinu. Kuzaar 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and {{deletedpage}}. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and deletedpage --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per above - recreated article. Kuru ^talk 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 21 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 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simone Holcomb

Delete - the subject was briefly in the news almost 3 years ago. There have been many, many cases of soldiers returning to the US then refusing to go back. This individual decided to tell the media. It's self generated "notability." Nothing more was written about this after she was reassigned to Fort Carson, and probably nothing else ever will be. Nobunaga24 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

~Delete per nom. Weatherman90 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Del. Czar Dragon 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Self-generated notability" is notability, and is the norm rather than the exception. She fought the law, and the law lost, and isn't that notable enough, too? Monicasdude 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not that notable, but notable enough. --DMG413 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Will anyone care about this person in 100 years? 100 minutes? Does anyone care now? I doubt it. dbtfz^talk 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dbtfz... couldn't have put it better myself. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep marginally notable in the greater scheme of things. ProhibitOnions 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep although article could be cleaned/expaned. It may be a precedent of some small significance. Bondegezou 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as someone featured by major news sources. Turnstep 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If we're going to delete people who are self-notable, let's start with Angelyne. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more news articles about him than there are about me. Sparsefarce 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, borders on notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, might have some historical interest, but no context is provided in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario T Barri

Unverified stub about a supposed Filipino movie director (ie, directing Filipino movies, not that he is Filipino - there's no way of telling that, as he is unverifiable). There is a Filipino actor called Mario Barri, who should have an article yet doesn't. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling if telling for sure that this refers to the same person, and I don't think guesswork is appropriate. I'm noting that this article is for a director, and Mario Barri (with no T) was an actor, which also weighs against this being the same guy. Anyway, back on track. This fails WP:V, which is the bare minimum requirement for any article. Ergo, delete. Please note that this AfD in no way implies that non-Western 1950s pop culture people are any less (or more) notable than their Western counterparts, because God knows that's always the first accusation when you try and AfD an unverifiable and ugly hellpit of redlinks. Proto||type 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified and cleaned up. -- Krash (Talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Original author created many small articles which met the the-current verifiability policy. WP:V does not require online sources, and enough of the already-contested pages have proved accurate. Whatever the AfD nominator may say, the consequences of this campaign is to exclude large swathes of non-Western popular culture from Wikipedia by the moral equivalent of Wikilawyering -- and the same standard hasn't been applied retroactively to recent Western popular cultrue articles. And I don't see any "hellpit of redlinks" listed among the valid criteria for deletion; if they bother you that much, just unlink them. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If a reference can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. Note that I am actively trying to create articles on Filipino film here (see, for example, Giliw Ko), not delete 'swathes of non-Western popular culture'. If an article has no references, then, unfortunately, we do have to rely upon online sources. All articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Mario Barri is a well known filipino actor and director. One of his claims to fame being that he gave Fernando Poe, Jr. his first big break. All of his films are verifiable on the net. For example here where he is clearly listed as director. [7]. Of course, this demands some effort and knowledge, because Manila is not Hollywood. On a side note, I see the same articles nominated, prodded, then renominated. Once again, I say there is no reason to destroy our incipient coverage of the Filipino film industry. The denigration of other cultures needs to stop. -- JJay 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, if a reference to Mario T Barri can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. There is no verifiable proof that this is the same person. This is a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herminio Bautista - all articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep verifiability claims made by Monicasdude and JJay hold up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If JJay says it must be so. Herostratus 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:52Z
  • Comment I'm sorry, but is it verifiable? There's not a single reference. You can't say 'no, this is verifiable', and then fail to provide a single reference or source. At the moment, it's verifiable because JJay and Monicasdude say it is. Again, if there's one single reference provided, I will withdraw this nomination, happily. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep per JJay and Monicasdude Jcuk 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is the reference above not good enough? Or the IMDB page [8]? Or all the google hits? [9]. The nom refuses to accept any evidence and has repeatedly tried to delete this page based on a middle initial. I can't believe that justifies extending this debate. -- JJay 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The list of movies attributed to Mario T Barri in this article does not seem to correspond at all with the list of movies attributed to Mario Barri on IMDB. Like I said... there just seem to be some issues here that have yet to be addressed. --W.marsh 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's quite strange. Most of the movies listed in the article appear nowhere on IMDB. The ones that do don't mention Barri, but they are largely devoid of credits. "Anak ni Palaris" (Anak ng Palaris in imdb) doesn't mention Barri, but does mention Fernando Poe. Other film names appear to be spelled wrong ("Song of Sto. Thomas"). It looks like somebody made an article about a legitimate figure with a lot of questionable or downright false information. Can it be kept and throughly re-edited by somebody who actually knows about this person's career? Carlo 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone knows that Barri directed Anak ni Palaris. I mentioned that above and the info was included in all of the FPJ obits such as this [10]. -- JJay 02:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The People United

Fails to meet WP:WEB. SupahDupah 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as outrageous FanCruft, ForumCruft & WebCruft. "Since its creation in 2004, it has grown abrubtly". Thats just wonderful. Oh, another: "Katie and Jeffy of A-F Records, Spaz, and chris#2 are all active members." Remarkable. Deizio 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Grown abruptly"? What an odd thing to say. Anyway, does not even come close to satisfying WP:WEB. Reyk 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete vanity cruft nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank of around 1.5 million. — TKD::Talk 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity fancruft. Possibly deserves a mention on Anti-Flag's external links. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mr. Deizio above. No WP:WEB. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sorry, spaz and chris#2, it's nothing personal. --phh 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete However I will link on Anti-Flag external links. Nigelthefish 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Or not, it's already there. Nigelthefish 17:51, 21 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 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LordTrox

I came across this while sorting stubs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. It reads like an advertisement, has no references, no Wikilinks, and hasn't improved since November. No assertion of notability either - so it might qualify for a speedy as a vanity entry. I'll list it here since I'm not sure role-playing games can be speedied. Durova 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Seems to be a mislabeled article on some RPG that I can't even find anywhere. Fan1967 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense, vanity, nn-club. Is it an ad for some kind of RPG? I don't know. Kiss it goodbye Deizio 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an ad for somebody's home-grown MUD. Durova 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Goodness me. How has this survived for so long? Reyk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - idiotic Nobunaga24 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per deizio ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At best it's an advert for a non-notable RPG. PJM 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - copy-and-paste job from the non-notable Medieval Times MUD page, which was hosted at Lord Trox.com (now redirects to Times Mud.com). Green Giant 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Get medieval on this article and delete it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete per all Bucketsofg 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utter WP:VSCA garbage. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given above. ProhibitOnions 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable, vanity, advertisement, and copyvio, considering it's a cut and paste job. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How could something this stupid survive so long. Didn't anyone see it sooner? Tobyk777 05:50, 21 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NAMELESS THING OF BERKELEY SQUARE

Individual poltergeists don't seem particularly notable, so up for a vote it goes. 13 Google hits. DMG413 02:17, 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 as a group with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie_Hittler

Delete -- this group is not notable Steve 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - CSD A7, non notable group, tagged. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Darkness. JoshuaZ 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per lightdarkness ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 03:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GatorAider

Non-notable new student orientation organization at SFSU. Delete. DMG413 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn student org. And one would think that University students would be able to write better. JoshuaZ 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's one of those days. ProhibitOnions 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as quickly as possible. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Triage 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nigelthefish 17:06, 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 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goanet

Hi - this comes across as a promotional article without any encyclopedic value. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ahhhh head hurts. Damn, it really has a go at convincing you, doesn't it? Umm.. gee... (damn).. Neutral as a long established and popular board used worldwide it approaches the bar but it's totally one sided and I would have to see a convincing media coverage link. Deizio 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable Alexa ranking of 1,604,204. Green Giant 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem very notable per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If someone can get a sociological paper published in a peerreviewed journal on it we can have an article on it. Gomes, Alberto G. (2001) ‘Going Goan on the Goa-Net: Computer-mediated Communication and Goan Diaspora’. Social Analysis 45 (1), pp.53-66. Google scholar finds two citations of it. Certainly could use POV cleanup though. kotepho 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep after major cleanup. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep after major cleanup. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southover Bonfire Society

nn organization Where ^(talk) 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 03:38, 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 Move to Shed Hunting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinting

Neologism. Can find no references to "clint" or "clinting". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add that in the external link provided at Hunting it is called "Shed Hunting" and not clinting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete shed hunting is also known as Clinting.
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. [11]. PJM 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Prescott, Arizona and have heard the reference numerous times.

"Don't delete" I I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Carlsbad, California and I have heard the refrence before. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.4.74 (talk • contribs) .

• Changed opinion Move to Shed hunting as per this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marripalem

Hi - this one-liner's topic is totally undefined. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but only b/c I cannot find it on the city map. If somebody produces another map which shows this neighborhood, I'll change my vote. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, I clarified the stub. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of this "neighborhood," and Google tells me nothing, so all I can assume is that it's a collection of houses, as the term would imply. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reluctantly, as notability might far exceed implications of Google results. However, creating a new one-line article won't be difficult. ProhibitOnions 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Visakhapatnam, then redirect. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:25, 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 04:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deric Williams

Previously included in a separate nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artbox, there was no consensus achieved on this article, so it is being relisted separately. The original nominator (User:Fnarf999) argued that the person did not satisfy the criteria at WP:BIO. bainer (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge worthwhile information into Artbox. While I'd like to see the article stay put, I can't come up with a convincing argument to do so. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This reads as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's no "worthwhile information" here. He's the nephew of someone famous; he did marketing for a not-very-famous website, making him their, what, 100th most important employee? There's nothing here. My newspaper guy is as notable. Fnarf999 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Artbox, all notability appears to be tied up with that band. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 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 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pivotal Software(India)

Hi - this is a promo article, related to Pivotal Corporation.

• Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as non-notable as Pivotal Corporation above. Green Giant 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad and promotion. Definitely non notable. --Terence Ong 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 01:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TMMaster.com

Advertisement for a website said to offer freeware. The actual site just currently has a notice that "this website is coming soon." Delete. DMG413 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: non-notable and spammy. Bucketsofg 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't possibly be notable, because it doesn't even exist yet. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Elkman. JIP | Talk 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable crystal ball vanity spam. ProhibitOnions 11:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:11, 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 deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin sellers

Delete non-notable biography/vanity page with unverifiable content Lucian Gregory 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - nn-bio. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as above the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:29, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravi Prasad

Hi - this is a non-notable subject that has remained a one-liner and unsourced for nearly 6 months. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, the company he's CEO of, which might be borderline notable under WP:CORP. Sandstein 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... redirect to non-article that may or may not meet WP:CORP doesn't seem like the right solution.--Isotope23 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. mikka (t) 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, it meets the first stipulation of WP:CORP definitely. --Gurubrahma 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Gurubrahma. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Closing comment: You can't redirect to a non-existant article. If the company is in fact notable, I suggest somebody write an article about it and mention Mr. Prasad there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 23 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. JIP | Talk 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eocene coal

Blatant self promotion. Advertizing by User:Eocenecoal (edits:[12]) - Vsmith 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - advertisement plus blatantly self-promoting edits on Coal and Eocene (sensibly reverted by Vsmith) and the related Image:Eocenecoal logo.JPG which should also be speedily deleted. Green Giant 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per everybody. --Lockley 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 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. Harro5 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary Eastham

Non-notable in context, Google turns up little for this individual. I admire his entreprenuership, but not encyclopedic. TKE 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy a7 and tagged as such. Also a blatant advertisement. --Rory096 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree C&P'd almost directly from http://www.zacheastham.com/ Garfield226 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy a7 -vanity, advertisement, non notable.--Dakota ~ ° 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy a7 per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 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 keep as nomination is withdrawn and nobody has expressed a wish to delete this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamba Juice

Delete per WP:CORP. Nice co. but doesn't meet the stringent requirements set forth therein. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. They have over 500 locations -- which version of WP:CORP are you looking at? bikeable (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Definitely notable. dbtfz^talk 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Extremely definitely notable. Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh I know it's notable, but WP:CORP reqires either

1. multiple works,
2. indexes of important co's, or
3. stock market significance,

and this has neither. It's a notable juice chain that fails WP:CORP. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to google it? It's being bought: [13] [14] [15] ; it has 70 entries total on news.google.com ... Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• oh, please. Google News gives me 153 current articles about JJ. I do think that the second and third criteria give too little weight to privately-held companies, but that's not a matter for AfD. bikeable (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Good grief. Jamba Juice has 72 hits in major US newspapers in the last 12 months per Lexis/Nexis, the most recent being March 14, 2006 in the San Francisco Chronicle .Thatcher131 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "multiple non-trivial published works" apparently includes newspaper stories. Here I thought it was scholarly or industry articles. It's my misinterpretation of WP:CORP. Apologies to all. WITHDRAWN the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• OK, speedy keep guidelines allow for it when the nomination is withdrawn and there are no delete votes. Speedy keeping now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 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. Shanel 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Simmons

This article about a non-notable "guitar technician" has reappeared after being deleted after the following discussion: [16].

• Delete again.Wickethewok 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it again, hurry, she's got a gun. --Lockley 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, again. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Her guitar tech'ing is nn. However, she was a member, albeit briefly, of a band that has its own entry (From First to Last) and band members of notable bands are notable. She's also engaged to someone with their own entry, a member of My Chemical Romance. That seems just about enough cumulative notability to me. Bondegezou 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a short mention on the band / boyfriend page will be more than enough. Deizio 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO and page protect against further recreation.--Isotope23 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if she was a member of a notable band. Jcuk 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect, recreation of previous deleted article. Content is identical to what it was when it was deleted. From First to Last lists her as Alicia Simmons: Touring Bassist. I can't see anything on their website listing her as ever being an official member of the band, either. Image:Gun2.jpg appears to have been taken of her MySpace. Did Alicia Simmons upload it, and hence have irrevocably released all rights? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete and protect 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
• Strong delete - nn. Delete and protect. Megapixie 14:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above deletes. VirtualSteve 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Has been deleted four times previous. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:06, 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. A misinformed nomination. Both titles are valid. mikka (t) 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAP-XI

An existing page with more contents found Exchange_Infrastructure kkailas 05:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and delete Exchange Infrastructure. I copied that improved version over SAP-XI, so it's just a matter of which name is better or whether they should both be deleted. Feezo (Talk) 09:06, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olivia James-Baird

Notability not established. I have two justification:

• The Leslie Swan article was deleted because Swan had only done a voice for a single game character. According to her IMDb page, Swan has done voices for four games. Olivia James-Baird has only appeared in five episodes of just one show (Power Rangers SPD). If Swan was deleted for not being notable enough than so should James-Baird.
• AFD Precedents - Entertainment states that contestants on a show should be listed on in the main article. James-Baird is not a regularly recurring member on SPD (five appearances) and should be listed on the main SPD article if mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 05:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. And I can't believe they're still making that god-awful show. Eivind^t@c 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sounds like that precedent you mentioned relates to reality show contestants, not actual actors. That's to discourage making an article on the 2nd guy kicked off the 3rd season of Apprentice - i.e., people that aren't even in entertainment for a living and will likely never be seen again. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, working actress with recurring role in TV series and other reported credits. If you think Swan was wrongly decided, go to deletion review, but notability criteria for computer game voice actors and game show contestants are not applicable to those for working actors. She hasn't released two albums on major labels, either, but that's not much less on point. Monicasdude 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:DRV doesn't cover notability issues, though; DRV is for whether the procedures were invalid or not, and this clearly doesn't apply to the Leslie Swan AFD. - Hbdragon88 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Power Rangers SPD until this person has a carear outside of a single show. ---J.Smith 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as she is not a "contestant" as is not Leslie Swan. Power Ranger appearances makes her notable enough. Turnstep 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't like either argument. Subject is not a contestant and Leslie Swan was only a voice actor so it's not a fair comparison. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 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 no consensus. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic slurs

Previous nominations:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs/Archive of previous VFD, 18 Sep 2004
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs, Dec 22, 2004

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

• A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.

The list currently has approximately 1462 entries with new words being added every day. Of those, only about 108 (0.7%) (7.6%) are sourced, mostly from a few old slang dictionaries and one unreferenced website. This article is inherently unverifiable, because it includes contemporary street slang and foreign words that are not included in any reliable sources, With no modern sources available it is impossible to be sure that the descriptions of usage are correct and NPOV. Many, if not most, entries are derived from original research, and some are possibly made-up by users, or at least neologisms. So it irredeemably violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. And the article itself is a direct contradiction to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

For those who vote to "Keep" this article I'd ask them to try to answer these questions: "How can we source this?" and "How many of the entries will you take responsibility for sourcing?" -Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP is not a dictionary or Lists of such definitions, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I note that the prior AfDs had people voting to keep but wanting the article sourced, which has not been addressed. A number of people voted to keep because the list is "useful," but without it being sourced, it simply is not useful or reliable. Transwiki would be an option if the material were sourced, but it isn't. It's also 200 kb! WP:SIZE. Esquizombi 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Though proper citation may be difficult, the article should be kept. Fans of linguistics/etymology will probably agree. Some of these words are not even offensive/used any more("Tojo", "3/5er"), but the history of how and why they came into use is still important/interesting. If the article is deleted, consider moving these historical entries someplace else or creating new entries for them. Also, how important are credible sources for slang, the origins of which cannot always be easily traced? --Soulburglar 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• • About 115 of the entries in the list have sources. I have been adding sources for over two months now because Will Beback insisted on it.--Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. joturner 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. WarpstarRider 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Guettarda 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I have been working on this article for months, adding citations from printed dictionaries because Will Beback asked me to. Right now, there are about 115 citations in the article, and that number is growing rapidly.

  This list is a remarkable work, comprising over 1400 entries written since June 2003. Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available. Further, it sets a bad precedent, threatening to change Wikipedia from the largest encyclopedia ever written into one of the smallest. The current insistence on verifiability was instituted after many of these definitions were written. This discourages others from writing articles in the future for fear that a future policy will result in their contributions being deleted.

  If anyone here thinks the list should be in Wiktionary, they should move it there before nominating it for deletion. I would be much less reluctant to support this deletion if these entries were in Wiktionary, formatted (theirs is much more complex than our own), and accepted by the prudish administrators there. I certainly don’t mind that it is on Wikipedia right now, though, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." In a general reference book with almost no size constraints, almost anything can be included. Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". Stroll by a library reference section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of bullfighting, and so on. Another example I always like to give is the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana. It contains embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries. At 119 volumes, it is almost as large as Wikipedia.

  I also want to say that I enjoy reading and editing this list because I find the strange idiomatic expressions in it to be fascinating. English slang is one of the most unusual things in the world. I think that the social effects of a list of words can be easily overemphasized, as these simply show others the degree to which racism exists, rather than encourage it. Deleting articles such as these really helps hide the problem, which could make it worse.--Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment That Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of definitions has existed since 2002.[17] As for whether the list could be judged "remarkable" or "the most comprehensive," that really depends on how reliable it is, and 0.7% isn't very reliable at all. Esquizombi 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. I have six printed slang dictionaries at my house that I checked out from a library, so trust me when I say that the vast majority (about 75%) is verifiable. I also have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The OED is the largest dictionary of English ever created and M-W is the second largest. Also: 108 is 7.4% of 1462--not 0.7%.--Primetime 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment My apologies, I merely copied and pasted the percentage; I'll round you up to 8% and that still isn't very good. The list has no reliability as a whole at present, and whatever value it gains will be the result of your admirable efforts. It just doesn't belong here, and that has nothing to do with "social effects" and everything to do with policy. Transwiki might be a good case, they're awfully short over there on wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs. Esquizombi 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply. No worries. I would be much happier, though, if it were moved via transwiki rather than just deleted. I edit on Wiktionary often. The editors there are a bit prudish, and their formatting is dramatically different from ours--but it's worth a shot if it means saving the list.--Primetime 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for catching the decimal placement error. I appreciate your efforts on this list. I would vote for moving it to Wiktionary. -Will Beback 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Transwiki to Wiktionary per Primetime, and remind them Wiktionary is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (content-rated). Esquizombi 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. If Primetime is willing to handle the move then more power to him. I'll help with the formatting. -Will Beback 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per good faith in Primetime's efforts MLA 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dictionaries don't sort entries in this way. Scranchuse 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a list of made up and unreferenced dictionary definitions. Particularly as new unreferenced / unsourced 'words' are being added far quicker than Primetime can reference them (and Wikipedia is not Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Category:Ethnic slurs collates all those slurs that have articles of their own, and those are the only ones that are sourced and referenced, and encyclopaedic. If an ethnic slur doesn't warrant an article of its own, then it should be on Wiktionary. Proto||type 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, on further review, and reading of many of the 'entries', make this strong delete. It's just a big, bloated troll magnet.. Proto||type 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Gazpacho 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki. Good information. Perhaps not in the right place, but deleting this in no way improves Wikipedia. --L33tminion | (talk)
• Keep. This is the type of list that makes us great. We don't hide from real life like other encyclopedias. We face it head on and deal with it in an encyclopedic manner. Ethnic slurs exist in all cultures. There is no reason they can not be documented and listed here. -- JJay 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --TM 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't waste the work effort. Maybe move into Wikitonary or clean up, but don't remove. ( See also Wiki(pedia) Recycle Bin proposal. As implemented, it might help in resolving some borderline AfD cases ) --Easyas12c 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If unsourced material is truly overwhelming the sourced material, simply remove the unsourced material. There's no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidently, there's no reason not to throw out EVERY unsourced word at the moment. The truly unsourceable should go, but ones that have at least a decent circulation should stay, because they CAN be sourced, even if they currently are not. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the fight against sourcing last time, I wish you luck in your endeavour. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Primetime, Scranchuse, JJay and Dante Alighieri, and this: that it's encyclopedic as an extension and elaboration of our coverage of racism, human race and ethnicity in culture, etc. Delete it and it will surely reoccur again organically, someday not too soon, at someone else's hand as a spin off of some other article. Samaritan 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Czar Yah 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obscure and unsourced items could be removed. APL 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What about these: Offensive terms per nationality, List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or 'not one of us', List of common phrases based on stereotypes, List of sexual slurs, and List of political epithets. -- Zondor 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I appreciate all the people who have signed up (as per the nom) to do the work of bringing the article up to standard. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I am not convinced this is Wiki-worthy, especially given the italicized quotation at the top. Hyphen5 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't dispute that conscientious people have put a lot of work into this. Yes, its disappearance would be rather a pity. Well, let it be offered for transwikiing. Also, those keenest to retain it may note that it is GFDLed, so they may take it wherever they wish. Yes indeed it's an extension of WP's coverage of racism, etc, etc., as claimed above; and in a similar way that a list of, say, Hebrew words glossed in English would be an extension of WP's coverage of Hebrew -- which would not make the list encyclopedic. And what about Offensive terms per nationality etc etc, we are asked. They too are not encyclopedic (just as Flattering terms per nationality would not be encyclopedic). Dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic, and congeries (or thematic lists) of dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic. As for the notion that if this is deleted it will surely reoccur; well, that argument could be used to justify inaction in the face of all sorts of behavior on WP: spamming, the insertion of untruths, vandalism, etc. -- Hoary 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But see List of glossaries, Category:Glossaries, and Category:Lists of terms. Samaritan 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• It isn't appropriate, indeed. But people by popular demand just want to keep it because its useful and interesting just like what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads. Anyway, dictionaries contain separate dictionary entries whereas a list is more encyclopaedic. Does Wiktionary support this type of page? -- Zondor 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the list of slurs won't rid the world of racism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.203.70 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment Nobody said deleting it would rid the world of racism, so that's a straw man. Esquizombi 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki. This is useful information. I ended up here to find out what 'Wop' meant, and this was exactly what I was looking for. As far as being unreliable - certainly, as with a large number of articles, more information and checking against other sources is useful, but I would suspect this to be by and large accurate already. Wisher 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the information is useful, and we have several other similar lists, like List of sexual slurs and List of political epithets. Carioca 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as was said before, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Furthermore, some of these entries are laughable, and could go on forever. There are billions of people in this world, and everyone could potentially be offended by some word or expression. I use words like "Navajo", "Apache", "Negro", and "Good ol' Boy" every day and nobody seems to find any of it offensive. If this article stays, it should be highly edited to include only the most common ethnic slurs, otherwise this article will become a circus, with people including ludicrous expressions that most people have or never will hear before.
• Delete, As an undergrad student, I wouldn't use the vast majority of this information in a paper for fear of it being erroneous. Either delete the information that is not sourced, find a source for it, or get it off of wikipedia.
• Keep Move all unverifiable slurs to a subpage of the talk page, and place a notice at the top of the talk page that people should try to find sources for them. JeffBurdges 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Anybody who is offended by these terms should rent a copy of Eddie Murphy's "Raw," anything by Richard Pryor, and watch "Blazing Saddles," and get over it. Grow up and stop being so easliy offended already, you poosty molignons.
• Keep. This is a useful list (one of the few on Wikipedia) and, as has been pointed out, both interesting and valuable from an entymological point of view. Being offensive is not grounds for deletion. If you find it offensive, have whoever is forcing you to load the page put in jail. Oh, no one is? Well, then... Hiddekel 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was not nominated because it is offensive to anyone. It was nominated because it is not verifiable, and because it violates WP:NOT. Are you willing to take a "letter" and verify all the entries in it? -Will Beback 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Delete the neologisms and consider transwiki. --Scaife ^(Talk) 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The terms themselves and the explanations of their origins should be moved to the corresponding "anti" page for the ethnicity in question... since it now seems like every conceivable group has some sort of discrimination page. Cyclopean typewriter 11:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very informative, I have used it to look words up. Dolive21 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As has been established, the article violates WP:NOT so I don't see a debate here. Unless WP:NOT is going to be bent and twisted to allow this through, in which case, knock yourselves out. Barryvalder 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Angr/talk 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have lists of all sorts of language related items: Rail terminology, List of US railfan jargon, List of UK railfan jargon (the last 2 of which survived AfDs recently), just to name a few. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Though in light of numerous other lists....Angrynight 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please Keep Because it's useful. I'm not a contributor to wikipedia, nor do I usually share my opinions in these kinds of debates. I do, however, turn to wikipedia first when I'm looking for a quick and dirty explanation of something, which is how I got here. We users are *not* that naive: we know that a page like this will be a troll magnet, and we know the information contained in it is not verifiable. Its utility to this user was in no way hampered by its aforementioned shortcomings. --68.51.197.129 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep -- filter out the junk, stick to sourcable terms with historical significance. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- lack of sources is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Loom91 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep~ Eventually they will branch off into their own articles. Keep it. ~regruBgniK ....posted at 01:43, 24 March 2006 by 67.35.157.81
• Keep per Loom91; and consider comparable sections in Henry Louis Mencken's American Language. I deny that it violates WP:NOT: it's a discriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Wikipedia's list is an invaluable source of information, especially considering the regional nature of most epithets. Web readers should not be forced to troll the internet searching random, nefarious web sites in search of racial understanding. -- 68.192.188.254 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia was never meant to become a plethora of lists. Regardles of how useful it is, it doesn't mean it belongs on wikipedia. A how to on Calligraphy was deleted from the main article regardless of its usefullness for this reason. Please consider this when voting. Angrynight
• Transwiki. As a list of terms (rather than articles), this does not belong on Wikipedia. However, it should be preserved and moved to Wiktionary. Bhumiya/Talk 09:21, 26 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. – Robert 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allen county museum

I listed this for proposed deletion, but the author has tried to assert notability. However, being one of 800 museums in the US accredited doesn't notable make. I'd argue that if this museum gets an article, we'd have to go back over hundreds of other similar subjects who have had their pages deleted. Harro5 05:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, if schools are considered notable enough to be kept, why not museums? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• As long as Kappa is going to save every high school in the country, why not the museums, assuming WP:V from indpendent sources. Thatcher131 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is more important than plenty of museums with articles. It just needs wikification. Scranchuse 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is of course obvious that we need articles on every museum in the world given their cultural importance as the repositories of the memory of our civilization. Despite the nom's assertion, I do not believe that hundreds of museum articles have been deleted as that would be a real travesty for our burgeoning coverage in this area. -- JJay 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all museums. Dsmdgold 00:28, 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. Shanel 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaytrin

Unverifiable, non-notable vanity article Chris 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - note that the first paragraph asserts to be unverified.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I put that "unverified" comment in some time ago.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but add {{Unreferenced}} - I think that if true this is significant enough to have its own article - so not a vanity article. --David.Mestel 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no hits in Google (though a couple for the project's author), and some of the content seems pretty fanciful (a Linguistics Board, a Chancellor, a "Praechancellor" for a project involving at best a handful of people), so I'd say it's profoundly unverifiable, as well as an instance of using WP as the first place of publication.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My vote is now Delete --David.Mestel 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the article tells you that the language is unverified --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We've asked several times on the talk page why the language would be notable. No response. Unless someone comes up with some convincing arguments, I think we can safely state that this languages does not meet any standard of notability. BTW, I've moved its content to the Conlang Wiki, just in case: http://conlang.wikicities.com/wiki/Kaytrin. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if verifiable, would not be notable. Sounds perilously close to something made up in school one day Fan1967 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any URLs that would help us out?--Chris 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per article: unverified, undocumented and allegedly spoken by several individuals. --TM 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kaytrin has no significant use, and the several individuals consists of about 4 highschool students who usually speak in plain English, and its creator who apparently keeps a journal in "Kaytrin". A page devoted to "Kaytrin" is like a page devoted to a code that someone invented in school one day. - an informed student on the uselessness of Kaytrin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.106.158 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and rename to St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide).

[edit] St marks college adelaide

Non-notable, poorly written, not linked Sumple (Talk) 05:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree it was badly written and was actually a copyvio of the College web site. Why do students want to tell us they drink themselves silly? I have rewritten this article, although it is still a stub. St Mark's is the oldest residential university College in South Australia, affiliated to the oldest university, the University of Adelaide. The current Head of the College is a former Premier of South Australia. I think it is notable. If it is kept, I will move it to St Mark's College, University of Adelaide, a better title. --Bduke 08:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New name should be St Mark's College (University of Adelaide) per {{University of Adelaide colleges}} -- Ian ≡ talk 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (the rewritten version) at St. Mark's College, Adelaide. There are about four three articles that already mention it, although not presently wikilinked. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we have not agreed on the new name yet, I haven't linked the articles, but there should be links to this topic from the following: North Adelaide, University of Adelaide, NAAUC. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep see the Template:University of Melbourne Colleges and associated articles for what can be done and an example of naming. -- Paul foord 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • created Template:University of Adelaide colleges Paul foord 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Scranchuse 14:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Monicasdude 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bduke. Thatcher131 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Bduke. Article seems in reasonable shape now after judicious editing and it seems notable enough. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--cj | talk 02:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 10:03, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realtime Gaming

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. Sandstein 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert.Wickethewok 05:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 21 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. Harro5 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray renaghan

Has zero Google hits, but is "worth over 300 Billion" and has "invented such items as 3G Phones, Google, Shoe-Bombs, The Millenium bug (which he also cured)". Delete as hoax, would fail WP:BIO if he were real without the outrageous claims. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Clearly a nonsensical and outright hoax. — TheKMan^talk 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. JoshuaZ 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per everybody above. --Lockley 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete... maybe it's not patent nonsense, but come on. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savushkin

After proposed deletion was challenged, I have begun an AfD. This article is a one line stub on a character in a book, but neither the book nor its author has a Wikipedia entry. This suggests no notability. I'd question whether a character needs an article if all it states is that the character was in a book. Imagine how many characters there have been in books. We'd get to 1 billion articles in a fortnight! Harro5 05:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable character from a non-notable book --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and User:TBC. JIP | Talk 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete character in a book without a book and author. --MaNeMeBasat 08:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Triage 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - how can Wikipedia contain all human knowledge out if we leave out valid information on purpose? The Fish 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and merge into Yuri Nagibin, a notable Russian author with 300 unique hits on Google. [18] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per circumstances listed below.

[edit] Mohammed's sexual orientation

This article's information does not even match the title. The article is simply a list of quotes describing the age of Aisha, and thus uses that to decide whether the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a pedophile. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Or else, get one about Jesus hanging out with twelve men. Dahn 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as a fork. Pepsidrinka 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: as nonsense. --Hetar 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hmm. - Eagle^talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Inflamatory and nonsense. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm speedying... for a few reasons... firstly... it's forked content from Aisha that only is showing one side. It's also from a troller (See adding "dog" to Korean Cuisine and "Wikiproject:No Israel"). It doesn't cover orientation so much... I mean... he married Khadija and, it'd need discussion of that to be a good article... but, just because it's content copy from a troller I am deleting... Note, that it's possible there could be decently done work on this maybe... but, this is not that and it's not fit for cleanup since it's forked and ignores previous debates over at Aisha. gren グレン 06:05, 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 Both speedily deleted by Xezbeth - CSD1 & T7. Proto||type 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aryth Empire, Maxite

Wheel of Time fanfic, nothing on Google. Non-encyclopaedic. Sandstein 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft. --Rory096 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nonsense. - Eagle^talk 06:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per eagle --Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Would have been a speedy {{d}} but article author keeps reverting. --OscarTheCat^talk 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. I've had some discussions with the author about suitability for this project, and I think he's either left or understands now. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. I'll try and tag them as such again. Proto||type 15:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Saá

The article does not provide any evidence that Diego Saá has any publications in peer-reviewed journals, nor does it indicate that any notable scholars have cited and discussed his work. (As User:Dmharvey notes on the talk page, ArXiv.org e-print archive is not peer-reviewed; any registered user can upload a paper and have it appear within hours.) Searching for "Diego Saá" on Google Scholar yields only 11 hits, some of which are clearly not relevant. In short, the subject of the article does not appear to satisfy the usual notability criteria for academics. dbtfz^talk 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional delete. If he's actually a full prof at Politecnico de Quito, I might have to consider if that's enough, but I can't find any confirmation of that alleged fact. Of the 11 hits referenced above, the only ones that appear to be by el nuestro are three crank papers (unless a CS prof is branching out into the effects of chlorine gas on children's airways—an important topic, I suppose, but who thinks of these things? not that it matters here). --Trovatore 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment of course, crank status alone is not reason to delete, but I don't see any evidence here of notable crankdom. --Trovatore 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He is listed as "principal a tiempo parcial" (whatever that means) of the Escuela Politecnica National at this page. I couldn't find any papers of his in Web of Sciece or MathSciNet. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable crank. JoshuaZ 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable crank. linas 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn crank. The only Google hits on the first page are from Wikipedia, WP mirrors, and similar open-content reference sites. Haikupoet 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd prefer we didn't disparage the subject of the article with terms like "crank". There's no need for that. dbtfz^talk 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Crank" is an accepted term for anyone who espouses theories that do not pass muster in mainstream scientific thought. Haikupoet 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a little like saying "asshole" is an accepted term for a person with poor social skills.  :-) I'm just pointing out that we could try to be a teensy bit more civil. dbtfz^talk 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I tend to agree, and I apologize for using the term first. I certainly don't agree with Haikupoet's broad construction of the term. There is room for dissent in science, and even in math; civility aside, I don't use the word "crank" just for thought that differs from expert consensus. It's when they claim to have discovered simple mistakes in the established theory that, somehow, everyone else has just missed, that I think the "c" word is accurate. Whether it's good judgment to use it is a separate question. --Trovatore 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:CIVIL Mainly applies to talking to/about other wikipedians. There is no issue if we are making vaiue judgements about people in articles. JoshuaZ 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The two aren't always mutually exclusive.  :-) At any rate, I don't think that anyone here meant to be insulting or uncivil. dbtfz^talk 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
          • So just because WP:CIVIL applies only to Wikipedians, it means that it's okay to be uncivil toward others? —Larry V (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
            • If it is borderline uncivil and relevant yes. In this case, "crank" is a useful classification term. Do you have a prefered, more polite term? JoshuaZ 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Before we make a judgment about this issue -and any other similar issue- we should be aware that throughout human history, many of our systems have not been correct. The systems through which humankind validates its science today are definitely far from being efficient. This sort of incorrectness led humanity to the Dark Ages before. We should begin to notice that Science is being taken to a sort of Dark Age in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to question the consensus. In present time, someone who actually challenges the consensus is never taken seriously. We also should be aware that through history; the consensus has held incorrect theories/conceptions as valid/correct for long periods of time (for instance Geocentrism and Creationism). There are several similarities between the way we treated new ideas and people during the Dark Ages and the way we treat them in the present time:
  • The inquisition condemned lots of people because their ideas differed from the expert consensus. In other words; their ideas differed from the church's opinion; so the church called them, not cranks, but heretics. Today, scientists whose ideas differ from the consensus rarely get published by peer reviewed journals.
  • It was not really relevant to the condemnation of someone that he was right or wrong about something. It was only relevant that his ideas weren’t conflicting with the consensus, and that the ecclesiastical authorities accepted his ideas.
  • To judge others, a person had to be part of the church. Today, to be a "notable scholar", a scientist has to agree with the consensus.

Does anyone think that maybe it would be better deciding to cease the existence of scientists in Wikipedia by judging their work instead of judging them in base of their so called notability? It would be good that a decision like this would be taken by someone who understands the ideas that the author has expressed as clearly as he can in his papers. Diegueins 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Spurred on by the above comment, I had a look at the ideas in one of Diego Saá's papers, and based my decision on them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spurred on by Jitse, I decided to take a look at Saa's paper "Godel's theorem is invalid". I ended up being very not impressed. But that may be because I'm a "cantorian". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Grantham Duncan

No Google hits, no sources, very odd photograph: probable hoax or spoof. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete From what I recall, a Parliamentary Under Secretary has to be a sitting MP. I can't find any reliable Christopher Duncans through search nor any mentions of sitting MPs by that name, so I tend towards {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  08:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Feezo (Talk) 08:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- as {{hoax}}. Ye gods, what a peculiar looking man! Reyk 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a parliamentary under secretary in the usual (ie sitting member) sense but a minor party worker. Author has removed AFD tag which i have replaced.--Porturology 01:28, 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. JIP | Talk 06:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Creation Act

Starwars trivia, has a page on Wookieepedia already, and that's where it's belongs. We don't need an article of every fictional bill by a fictional parliament. Sandstein 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete fancruft--Mmx1 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- fancruft. Haikupoet 03:59, 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 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club Penguin

Website advertisement, non-notable per WP:WEB. Sandstein 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Ugur Basak 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising--foo19 05:16, 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 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broomfighting

Neologism and definition: the art and science of armed combat involving cleaning, dusting or anteseptic weapons. Prod contested. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see a prod in the history though, only speedy g1's, which he's not allowed to remove... --Rory096 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and send to BJAODN. dbtfz^talk 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Send to BJAODN. I think "antiseptic weapons" fits perfectly into BJAODN's purview. - Rynne 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• wait a sec ok. this is an unfinished article. broomfighting is a sport i invented with some friends, i wanted to get more people playing it. so i decided to give a wiki article. please let me explain more about- pics and everything - broomfighter

• Broomfighter, I appreciate your interest in WP, but WP policy is not to accept articles on made-up topics. When broomfighting is well known and has received media attention, we'll be happy to have an article. Meanwhile, I encourage you to put your effort into other articles, since I can't see any way this one can survive deletion. best, bikeable (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC):*thanks, i owe you 1.--Broomfighter 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• BJAODN and Delete --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The funniest parts of the article have been BJAODNized. dbtfz^talk 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• About Comment. this isnt a joke either. i really do this. ill bring pics--Broomfighter 20:08, 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 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Golden Fleece Found!

Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,848,000. Sandstein 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be vanity-published. Gazpacho 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable book --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein and Gazpacho. No major media coverage found in Google search, just a couple of blog entries. No other indication of notability. Looks like just another attempt to fleece people of their gold. Barno 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as vanity bit per nom and Mr. Barno. Kuru ^talk 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, incomprehensible crankery. Haikupoet 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --Focoe 19:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, possible vanity. Nigelthefish 17:06, 21 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 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmist

Non-notable MUD played by "many people". No Alexa data on their website. Sandstein 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment google returns 150,000 hits the top few are about this game, but many of the hits are about other things, so no vote for now. JoshuaZ 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is basically no content - just a list of programmers. Triage 00:33, 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 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorpiland

Advertisement for non-notable website (WP:WEB), Alexa rank 1,479,088 . Sandstein 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, soes not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 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 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Files Real Person Fic

Delete. Original research, unencyclopedic opinion, and, to use a word I don't like, fancruft. --Lockley 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fan-fiction.  (aeropagitica)  08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:POV and WP:CRUFT. Reyk 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 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. Every keep vote is by new users with almost no other contributions, therefore they are ignored as sockpuppets. JIP | Talk 07:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Outings of Galloway

Local club, appears non-notable and unverifiable, as it doesn't show up on Google. Sandstein 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a nn school club.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 06:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-club. Shame it's not about George. MLA 12:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A web presence is not necessary for a club - regardless of size. R.O.G. is an organization of dedicated students and citizens who want to work towards the greater good. Simply because it does not exist on google does not negate it's importance by any means. inhiding88
• "Keep" - "Keep" ROG is a legit club (why does it have to be on Google?) I have seen the kind of work ROG does for the Atlanta community such as reading books to children at a hospital. I think that is important enough to be on wikipedia. Also, who are these people saying to delete the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.O'brien (talk • contribs).

I am Sandstein. Nice to meet you, inhiding88 Dr.O'brien. Isn't it curious, Dr.O'brien, that this comment is your only contribution to Wikipedia (apart from vandalizing Richard Nixon once)? Please see WP:SOCK. Sandstein 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, local club with no indication of meeting Wikipedia:Importance now or in the future. Tens of thousands of local clubs like this exist, and doing minor bits of good deeds with good intentions does not make any of them encyclopedic. Inhiding88, please note that verifiability through Google is not necessary, but verifiability and importance are core principles of WP, and Google is one method by which V and I might be shown. Barno 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep R.O.G's community service is invaluable to the community. If you delete this article, you are discounting community service. R.O.G's good work stands as an example to the entire world. If other's follow R.O.G's example, the world will be a better place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.63.60.99 (talk • contribs).
• I am not the same person as Dr. O'Brien.. just because we share the same IP address does not mean I have two accounts. We in fact were using the same computer lab at the same time, and are both associated with ROG. Also, get off your high horse already man. inhiding88 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by inhiding88 (talk • contribs).
• "Keep As a local Atlantan, I can atest to the good ROG does for the community. It is more than a typical community service group. ROG is like a fraternity that helps bring the community together, and carries tremendous prestiege in Atlanta. Also what is with these people (that think way too much of themselves) that think that ROG must be on a search engine to be a serious thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.63.69 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kershner

I'm looking forward to hear people arguing that one-line articles on uncommon spellings of a German last name are encyclopaedic. Sandstein 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry to spoil your fun. JoshuaZ 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't Undictionary. Feezo (Talk) 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, here's to hoping your'e disappointed. The properly spelled word isn't even notable. Kuru ^talk 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 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: Speedily deleted by Brookie - patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farticles

SINCE BEEN SPEEDIED Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete listed here as creator deleted speedy tag. Wickethewok 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy BJAODN, I don't think you even had to list it on AFD. - Sikon 07:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question - is there an alternative action to take if an article creator deletes a speedy delete tag? Wickethewok 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd just put it back on until an admin sees it and decides. Doesn't usually take long. Sandstein 08:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, list it at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 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 redirect to Google bomb. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googlewashing

Dicdef. - Sikon 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected this to Google bomb, which is the already existing and more generally used name for the same thing. 68.39.174.238 07:08, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trigun yaoi

Delete - no reason for needing a page about this for one specific anime. Does every anime then get a similar article for this? I hope not. Wickethewok 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've repeatedly attempted to include information about the yaoi fandom in the original Trigun article. It is a very important part of what this anime and manga is, and I believed that an original article wouldn't offend people's homophobic little sensibilities. Apparently I was wrong. I also plan to expand this article, so please do not delete it simply because one person does not like Trigun yaoi. Plenty of other people do.

millyfan 07:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)millyfan

• • Comment - Umm, no homophobia here. It will not be deleted unless other people agree with me on the fact that every anime does not need its own article about a specific type of erotic fan art and fanfic. That is my reason for nomination, not "homophobic little sensibilities".Wickethewok 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Talk about a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. Just because there is an article for Trigun yaoi, does not mean that we'll see a flood of articles for anime erotic art. If mine was somehow just an "omg yaoi is hawt" stub or something, I could see deleting it, but this wasn't like that.millyfan 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Herrick 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I do not see yaoi being canon in Trigun, I don't see why it isn't possible to have a page about it. If it is done in a manner which is unbiased I see no problem in keeping the page up instead of deleting it. Those who find a problem with Trigun yaoi having it's own page, should maybe consider it being allowed to be included in the section for Trigun (though Millyfan has told me that it has been edited out before).

Also, why is this a problem? Star Trek TOS even has it's own page for a certain slash couple (which some consider canon, though that has never been confirmed by Paramount OR Gene Roddenberry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk/Spock

If this is allowed, why is this page about Trigun Yaoi such a big deal?

--K R 07:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with it being included in the Trigun article, I just don't feel it warrants its own article. Wickethewok 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wickethewok. Trigun is not long enough to require a separate fanfic fork. If fanfic is an important part of the anime's appeal, then it should be included in the main article and you need to work it out with the other editors. I think we generally discourage POV forks unless the main article is too unwieldy to accomodate it. Thatcher131 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wicketwok. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would gladly merge if the editors for the existing Trigun article didn't delete it every single time I posted anything suggesting anything less than a heteronormative interpretation. They even deleted a reference included to Vash's possibly being bisexual, and I dislike being tagged as a vandal and deleted simply because my opinion is different than that of the other article maintainers. millyfan 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First, keep track of the link to this discussion, it will be kept in the archives after the AfD is closed and you can use it for evidence of community consensus in your favor. If the other editors persist in reverting you, you can post a notice at WP:ANI and try to recruit some admins to mediate for you. Thatcher131 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Wicketwok. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 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 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google total

Delete - does not seem notable. As the author states, the site is not run by Google. Wickethewok 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - in addition to the above, seems like vanity. Author of site and article seem to be the same. Garfield226 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, written like an advert. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. WarpstarRider 10:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, vanity and definitely non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. And I expect this guy has some trademark violations going on that we do not need to promote. Triage 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ad Nigelthefish 17:42, 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 delete as attack page —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-17 08:23Z

[edit] Bulgarian internet users

Delete: Nonsense Gershwinrb 07:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas J. Rogers

Another entry that shops at vanity R us. This is what I got from Google when I matched "Nicholas J. Rogers" with "Rogers Airship".[19] The same search with "Nicholas Rogers" did not do much better.

• Delete as non-notable. JackO'Lantern 08:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, fails to meet WP:BIO by a long way.--Blue520 09:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and two laughs for the Google link. Draeco 23:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The company Rogers Airship Company does appear to exist but it is a one-man company only. Even being a director of a company with some employees does not make a person meet WP:BIO, and a self-employed person even less so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:44, 21 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, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team tøyse

Delete - seems like a non-notable lot of people. Google search yields little. Wickethewok 08:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Eivind^t@c 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Clear delete. Punkmorten 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Norwegian online poker team? NN per nom. Kuru ^talk 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 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 deleted per A7. Angr/talk 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodoros Skoulatos

Speedy delete. No notability stated.

• Speedy Delete JackO'Lantern 08:18, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridal Gala™

Delete. Deprodded by author without reason. Reads like spam. Link is not functional--Porturology 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As above. Wickethewok 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert. --Blue520 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert for nn event. See associated AFDs for Elite Soirée. Kcordina 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad and nn. --Terence Ong 10:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. A mention in Elite Soirée would be more than adequate. -Dawson 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisment as with the two related articles I just voted on. Company founder is 24, so it may not amount to much yet despite all the hype. Golfcam 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note this has been incorrectly put up for a second AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridal Gala™ (second nomination)) while this discussion is still open, could the admin that closes this discussion please also the second one as well.--Blue520 11:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all of the above. The (tm) doesn't help, either. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AOTA. Andy Saunders 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AOTA. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and we never use trademark symbols like that. -- Mithent 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete™, non-notable outside of Elite Soirée, which should likely go as well per its AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Lea Thomas

Delete. Alexa ranks the advertised site in the hundreds of thousands. Does not seem notable from limited research. Reads like an advert. Way too much info there. (note: no year listed for birthdate - leads me to believe it is written by someone with the subject's interests in mind) Wickethewok 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page for nn wedding planner. Elite Soirée also needs bringing to here as nn advert (which I'll do). Kcordina 09:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The page has now been rewritten to include much more detail. I still say delete as the subject still fails WP:BIO. Kcordina 09:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kcordina. Feezo (Talk) 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merge the company info into Elite Soirée, where it should be anyway, as the company does seem to be fairly notable and the person's only notability is the company. -Dawson 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As to age, it says she is 24, which means she's unlikely to have achieved as much in business as the article would like us to think. Golfcam 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note Creator of the article removed the {{afd}} tag (and has done so a couple of other times for other articles). I've dropped a note on his talk page requesting that he not do this, and hopefully that'll prevent him from removing the tag again, but you may want to keep an eye on the article to ensure that the tag stays up there. Hbackman 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It wasn't the article's creator who removed the tag; however, it was the user with the majority of the article's edits to their name. Andy Saunders 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wickethewok. Andy Saunders 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After doing further research on the subject at hand, I move my vote to Very strong delete; the subject only has 81 Google hits, including one where her company is looking to hire a freelance writer to extol this woman's virtues (check the bottom of the page). One wonders now if this series of articles is part of this process. Andy Saunders 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dear Readers: Thank you for your interest in this article. We have read every single comment and we're doing all we can to make this article better. The birth year will be added since I did not know it before. The feedback is very, very valuable and we most certainly appreciate it. The comments left by all of you can only aid in making this article much better. As noted for Elite Soiree, its success is attributed to it's founder due to her tenacity and dedication to her work, even at a young age (born 1980; she's 26 by the way), which has garnered her awards, TV opportunities, books and some of the most noted celebrities today. The story of Taylor Lea Thomas is commendable which is why it is written here. Elite Soiree was started without any partners or investors yet she has managed to accomplish the aforementioned on her own. For a woman in business at her age, her accomplishments are therefore notable, as others would agree. It is in no way an advertisement and nothing more than a mere blurb about the company. Rest assured, however, that we will make this article, as well as the others, better and more informative. We therefore kindly request help in doing so since we're inexperienced here on Wikipedia. In time and with your help, we aspire to make this article one that readers enjoy reading. Most importantly, it is not intended as a sales tool or press release and should be understood as such. Again, thank you for the constructive criticism and we most certainly look forward to working with you to make it better in lieu of simply deleting it. Also, we apologize for deleting the previous tag since we were unaware of this discussion page. Thank you for your participation in this matter. Peter Sanders 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article has undergone significant changes and will continue to improve with time. Peter Sanders 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's second vote in discussion. Andy Saunders 20:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 17:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO; if anything, the information should be at Elite Soirée, which I feel should go as well per discussion at its AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, see WP:BIO. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kensson 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Malice (model)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Williams

Another vanity entry. Google picks up nothing, for example, when cross-searching his name with "Never Noticed That Before", "Touch My Hair", etc. all his other "works".

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - just look at the history and you can see who created the page -->Al Williams Nobunaga24 11:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] João Batista dos Santos

A Brazilian craftsman. No notability evident or even asserted, so could even be speedied. However, it's a contested PROD, so let's hear it. Sandstein 09:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable maker of notable guitars. Eivind^t@c 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Any sources for this? Google shows only one pertinent hit: what I assume is his website. Sandstein 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete possible speedy. A Google search came up with 79 hits for him [20]. Not one of them is verifiable evidence of notability as an instrument maker. No sources provided and from my efforts none are available. Possible speedy as article does not assert importance. Capitalistroadster 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A skilled craftsman for sure, but not WP:BIO. Portuguese bio on his site doesn't assert any real notability other than being great at making and selling guitars. No independent sources thus far, making "keep" a curious choice here. Deizio 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Nigelthefish 20:38, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite Soirée

Advert for nn company. The company's stated website doesn't even work. See associated AFD nominations for The Bridal Gala™ and Taylor Lea Thomas Kcordina 09:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertisement for non-notable company. Sandstein 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, it seriously needs to be reworded to not be an advertisement, info from Taylor Lea Thomas should be merged into it instead of on a non-notable's bio page. The company has been featured prominently on a cable network, is award winning in its field, and has dealt with multiple celebrities, though it doesn't meet the independent source requirements of WP:Corp. -Dawson 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another note, it should probably be linked off of some of the people who have hired the company for events so its not floating all alone out in wiki world? -Dawson 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - if website is not notable enough to be online and working, then not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it imo. Wickethewok 22:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Company founder is 24 so there's probably a lot less to this business than the article suggests. Golfcam 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Focoe 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note Article creator removed the {{afd}} tag from the article. You might want to keep an eye out so that he doesn't do this in the future (I've already dropped a note on his talk page telling him that he isn't supposed to do that; hopefully it'll prevent him from doing it again). Hbackman 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Dear Readers: Thank you for your interest in this article. We have read every single comment and we're doing all we can to make this article better. The feedback is very, very valuable and we most certainly appreciate it. The comments left by all of you can only aid in making this article much better. This article on Elite Soiree is mainly to provide readers with the basic info on the company. Elite Soiree's success is attributed to it's founder due to her tenacity and dedication to her work, even at a young age, which has garnered her awards, TV opportunities, books and some of the most noted celebrities today. The story of Taylor Lea Thomas is commendable which is why it is written here. Elite Soiree was started without any partners or investors yet she has managed to accomplish the aforementioned on her own. For a woman in business at her age, her accomplishments are therefore notable, as others would agree. It is in no way an advertisement and nothing more than a mere blurb about the company. Rest assured, however, that we will make this article better and more informative. We therefore kindly request help in doing so since we're inexperienced here on Wikipedia. In time and with your help, we aspire to make this article one that readers enjoy reading. Most importantly, it is not intended as a sales tool and should be understood as such. Again, thank you for the constructive criticism and we most certainly look forward to working with you to make it better in lieu of simply deleting it. Also, we apologize for deleting the previous tag since we were unaware of this discussion page. Thank you for your participation in this matter. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Sanders (talk • contribs).)
• Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is being cleaned up. Taylor Lea Thomas has already undergone significant changes and will continue to improve with time. Peter Sanders 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User's second keep recommendation in this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP, based on the lack of information in the article and from what I can find on it. The website not working is the icing on the cake. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 21 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of some very famous people of Modern Times

This list is incoherent, and can never become coherent and encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 09:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that it can include about every other person on Wikipedia from 15th century onwards. So by all means, delete and suggest the creator to use more appropriate means to categorize articles. - Mike Rosoft 11:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally arbitrary list. David | Talk 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Feezo (Talk) 11:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mike. Was cut from Modern Times (history), but will probably not be missed there, either. Sandstein 13:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcurft. --Terence Ong 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doubly vague. Gazpacho 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain,  I "cut from Modern Times (history), but will probably not be missed there." (see above)  Paul Martin 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who is "very famous"? Punkmorten 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Useless list. Reyk 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Totally Redundant.Tombride 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add; "Actual Modern Times." Ha. Tombride 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Useless listcruft. In order to be meaningful, would require thousands of names (19 people hardly covers the 20th century) and would be basically everyone you've ever heard of, and a whole lot you haven't. Fan1967 23:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Tombride --Ugur Basak 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. L.I.S.T.C.R.U.F.T. Deizio 01:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete listcruft --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete. hopelessly vague - and with its current capitalisation of Modern Times it would list only Charlie Chaplin and Paulette Goddard. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as way too generic. -- JLaTondre 15:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if taken seriously, it would foster conflict among editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 21 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trollkotze

Originally an unregistered user requested deletion of the article as a hoax, and I did so. Now the creator inquired about the deletion and on the second thought the article doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate, so I am bringing it here. Can it be verified that the band exists and meets WP:MUSIC guidelines? (If so, then keep; otherwise, delete.) - Mike Rosoft 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The band's homepage indicates that their three releases were limited to 50, 25, and 10, respectively (doesn't look good for WP:MUSIC compliance). Delete unless somebody notably cares for their LEGO animation. Kusma (討論) 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)