Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 24

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

The result of the debate was uh...24/4/1 (82% majority), consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citywide Church

Delete This article is only of interest to current and former members. The (recent) pastor (not creator, but regular editor) is using this to promote himself and the church, as well as 'diss ex-members. We don't have a WP:CHURCH, so I use WP:CORP, which this fails. Rob 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The pastor (or recent pastor) has his bio article on AFD. See William Oosterman (AfD discussion). --Rob 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn Royboycrashfan 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only claim to notability is association with a former pastor whose own article is receiving unanimous deletion votes. Durova 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm going to hold my nose and vote keep on this. Oosterman and his church have made an impact on the wider stage. Google turns up a fair number of references to their activities from third party sources. I feaar they are notable. Gwernol 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. This is not Winchester Cathedral or another notable church. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Prominently involved in several relatively high-profile controversies in the last few years, discussed in US news media at significant geographical remove. Monicasdude 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Could I ask that the editors who've made claims of secondary sources list them per WP:CITE. - brenneman^{L} 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are quite right to ask. A quick Google search [1] turns up 100 or so hits, some of them notable, for example [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Gwernol 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lexisnexis does not turn up much for Oosterman and his church: apparently the reverand's dog was stolen last May; a couple of years ago they hired a pedophile to be youth minister; Oosterman was quoted as opposed to women in the ministry in an article about the role of women in his baptist denomination. None of these stories were really about him or Citywide/Westboro. Bucketsofg 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into William Oosterman. The man seems notable; this church does not. --Hyperbole 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ultimately nn church. Known partly because of Oosterman who appears to be short of WP:BIO and whose (vanity) page is heading for deletion. Scandals may be worthy of note, in such case this church and person could be mentioned in legit pages where they are covered. Deizio 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. KHM03 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You chaps should look up the menaing of encyclopedia and related words:

A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. adj : broad in scope or content; "encyclopedic knowledge"

Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs). 03:15, 24 March 2006

Pastor William Oosterman (I gather that is who you are), do you expect this to change my vote? I know what an encyclopedia is. I also understand the concepts conflict of interest, disclosure, and recusal. Durova 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and carryover effect from related AfD. Also, I like the definition of "encyclopedia" at WP:ENC much better, because it's the only one that matters. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kinu.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu and the relevant articles are pretty weak as an argument for notability. JoshuaZ 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also note that this a different church from the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. JoshuaZ 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwernol. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and KillerChihuahua. Humansdorpie 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nominator. Marcus22 14:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The church seems to be notable enough to pass in its own right. The fact that it needs to be disambiguated at Westboro Baptist Church also suggests that a stub about this church may be necessary. Smerdis of Tlön 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No need for a stub, simply a comment at the top of the page works fine. JoshuaZ 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is disambiguated at Westboro Baptist Church only because Williamo1 tried to add a paragraph about the Citywide Church at the top of that article, and someone replaced it with a disambiguation reference (see [6]). Skeezix1000 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough to warrant an article. Eusebeus 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Durova has convinced me. Optionally, merge useful bits into William Oosterman, who may be a bit condescending above, but he's certainly notable. ProhibitOnions 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all others. Arbusto 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in view of those news links. -- 85.169.49.206 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that opinions on AfD debates from anon users may be discounted Deizio 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)>

• Delete as per nom and other arguments, as well as because this is a case of blatant self-promotion. For a pastor, not too humble. Derekwriter 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nobody cares about some church | A Clown in the Dark 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reads more like an advertisement for the ex-pastor than anything. Members of this church (no longer named "Citywide Church" apparently) likely don't even use Wikipedia and would be upset at the way this page has been created and used as a personal soapbox. Andyru 18:37, 28 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 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Planetary Bill of Rights Project

Non-notable website/movement. A few Google hits when one searches for the term, but few appear relevant to this particular website; for example, this seems to have nothing to do with Paul Kurtz's Humanist Manifesto. Nothing that can be considered a source on notability (i.e., media) seems to link to it either. Might just be adspam. The counter on the website doesn't make it seem notable per WP:WEB either. PROD removed with the comment The Planetary Bill of Rights Project for the people who would be free... which doesn't really answer any questions. Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn.--James 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:WEB, and WP:SPAM. Royboycrashfan 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Gwernol 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn website. --Hyperbole 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn WP:OR. This guy does know about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, doesn't he? Alba 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -M^ask 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, NN POV advertising. ProhibitOnions 01:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Typical American who doesn't know that other countries have rights codes too. Peter Grey 04:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 00:49, 27 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 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eta Omega Tau

Non-notable sorority. Unless we want to accept articles on every fraternity and sorority (and dmoz lists 7082 of them), I can't see why small sororities like this with no reliable sources on them should warrant a wikipedia article. According to their website, they have 82 members, almost all clearly having graduated by now. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nn. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 01:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The fact that it has chapters in four universities does indicate that it's crossed one important notability threshold. But the membership numbers just seem too low - if I read the website right, they average two new members a year. --Hyperbole 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable sorority --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a fraternity or sorority. JIP | Talk 07:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. ProhibitOnions 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -M^ask 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:44, 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 keep content; merging can be further discussed on the talk page of the article. - Liberatore(T) 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faculdade de Engenharia Elétrica e da Computação da Universidade Estadual de Campinas

This is a long name for an article and the article isn't even in English. --James 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's only been at WP:PNT for three days. Royboycrashfan 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. However, it should be noted that the contents (not identical, but substantially the same as far as I can tell) exists on Portugese Wikipedia [7] with a much more manageable title. If kept, should rename to be consistent with the Portugese Wikipedia entry. --Nlu (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)In light of subsequent translation, Keep. --Nlu (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Delzio makes a good point about the point of the article being marginal. I'll change my opinion to weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If needed, recreate in English with new name MadCow257 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this can be speedy deleted as per "not english". (Template:Db-notenglish).--Jersey Devil 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Jersey Devil. It shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia. Now that it's been translated, Keep. Nice work, Dlyons493 --Hyperbole 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above --Ugur Basak 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• So we cant have anything that might be on another language wiki now!?!? Welcome to systemic bias at its very worst. Voting Keep and translate purely as a protest. Which, yes I know, is wiki:point probably rendering this vote invalid. Jcuk 01:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Universidade Estadual de Campinas if translated. Eivind^t@c 02:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm from Brazil. FML ^{hi me at pt} 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy D per db-notenglish at WP:CSD. I'm all for more Portuguese/Brazilian stuff but the page exists on the Portuguese wiki and therefore has to be translated (I'm not quite at that level yet) to move over, them's the rules. Weak keep good work on the translation. Still a seriously niche topic for en: though, would be happier with a merge. Deizio 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [8]
• Keep I've translated it and moved the page to College of Electric Engineering and Computation, Campinas. The University itself is notable and I had reservations about a constituent College's notability but, when I went to merge, I came across its sister college Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Estadual de Campinas - merging a series of articles of that size wouldn't be a good idea. I wonder should that page be moved also? Dlyons493 Talk 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why translate "Faculdade" as "college" rather than the more obvious "faculty"? Is it the official translation used by the university? The Portuguese article lists units called both "faculdade" and "colegio". u p p l a n d 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm working from a basic level of Spanish and could easily be wrong. Anyone who knows better - please move the page! Dlyons493 Talk 12:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK. Anyway, I think it should be kept and then merged with Universidade Estadual de Campinas and broken out again when that page gets too long and all divisions of the university have a summary-style paragraph in the main article. u p p l a n d 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Looks like a Keep now. Even if Uppland is being a nit-picker.... Marcus22 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep after translation. --Terence Ong 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after translation. It could do with some WP:V, as could any article using the words "one of the most famous", but if that is correct, then certainly the page should be here. --Deville (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. According to the official website (www.feec.unicamp.br, http://www.fee.unicamp.br/FEEC-nova/pgenglish/iwelcome.htm) the correct english translation is "School of Electrical and Computer Engineering". I don't think that merging is a good idea, as Unicamp has many institues and faculties (FCM, FEEC, FEM, FEC, FEA, FEQ, FEAGRI, FE, IC, IFCH, IMEEC, IFGW, IE, IEL, IQ etc) and the article should be kept as a stub (there's a lot of relevant information missing in this one). It would be interesting using the common portuguese abreviation FEEC in the title. 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the "most famous" statement can be verified. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a annual ranking made by a magazine for Computing courses. FEEC usually is at the top of the ranking. Can this information be used? 143.106.16.14 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the translation -M^ask 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the translation, but rename it to School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Universidade Estadual de Campinas), as it obviously deserves its own article. Carioca 05:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a very long title - any way of shortening it? Even School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (FEEC) would be a little more concise. Dlyons493 Talk 23:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi.Your suggestion is very good. I support moving it to School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (FEEC). Carioca 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if that may actually be a unique name, but it certainly sounds very generic. What about School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Campinas)? u p p l a n d 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Moved as suggested Dlyons493 Talk 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as article has now been moved and translated to English. Silensor 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Higher education institution. Hawkestone 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with all secondary schools and above. Yamaguchi先生 01:29, 29 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 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NikeTalk

Notability suspect, and current article is too POV and spammy even if arguendo notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, but needs big rewrite. The author seems to think that wikipedia is place for an ad, using words like we and I MadCow257 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per MadCow257. 47,060 registered members seems to have crossed the notability threshold. Hmm, and on a sneaker discussion forum. Who'd have thought. --Hyperbole 01:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability provided in the article, which is horribly written. dbtfz^talk 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEPthis is the best sneaker site around.
• Delete, those interested in keeping are advised to assert and prove this meets WP:WEB. No evidence as yet. Deizio 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 13:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I also have my doubts about their claims to tens of thousands of registered members and hundreds of millions of page views; you mean to tell me that fifty thousand people get together to discuss sneakers? I'd like to see the proof of that. RGTraynor 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Traynors trainers' point. {edit to add signature} Eusebeus 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hyperbole. Davewild 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1st: Check out Niketalk.com it says 47060 registered members and ezboard doesnt lie. 2nd: Check out the Alexa rank for Niketalk.com and you will see " Traffic Rank for niketalk.com: 78,786" and that it averages 73,115 and it HAD had over 500 million visits. 3rd: You guys are probably clueless to how big the shoe game is now but its huge 4th: Its more then just a shoe site. Way more. Jordan 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• My argument against that: the shoe game may be large, but it's not a group that expands exponentially. It has a marginal growth rate to other hobbies. If someone is serious about collecting sneakers, they already know about the site or will find it way before coming here; so to me that fails notability in as it's not a curiousity to look up a particular fanforum. TKE 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." The site has received mention in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press stories, and most recently in the March 13th issue of Time Magazine. If one of the pseudo-intellectual "arbiters" of Wikipedia managed to accomplish anything in life worth mention in even one of these publications, I have to believe they'd be drafting a wikipedia entry within seconds. Yes, the article should be cleaned up - but its critics have no place impugning its merit based on the most perfunctory and prejudicial of arguments. The site's traffic and notoriety are EASILY verifiable. All you had to do was LOOK. Instead, many of you dismissed it offhand simply because it deals with tennis shoes and not pewter orc figurines. The article's inclusion only enhances the scope and utility of wikipedia. Don't confine this resource to your own narrow interests. RakimAllah 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  User's first edit. --Nlu (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Major cleanup is needed. The Time mention pans out: [9]. However, if spite was a valid reason, I'd say delete per RakimAllah. ccwaters 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is notable. That said, RakimAllah, you're not really choosing the best way to champion your cause. --Ashenai 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The article is pretty mu on point but some facts need to be cleared up. And to the doubters, please visit niketalk.com to look at all the statistics. - wiki_editor_wutang

  User's second edit. --Nlu (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." That's cool and all, but a subculture is sub to a culture. Collecting Nikes is not a culture in it's own right, it's a small small hobby group and this is a fanforum. Let'm find it on google as this is not an advertiser. I dislike the approach taken by the keeps, and that influences my delete. But upon more perusing a good point is made in a bad way, there are other fanforum articles. The mentions in major publications go to notability rather than verification in this is not a cite, but the alexa results hold up to looking up other shoe collecting sites. TKE 03:32, 29 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 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 In Plane Site

Not encyclopedic. It has an IMDB entry which amusingly notes "If you like this title, we also recommend Watch the Skies!: Science Fiction, the 1950s and Us" however nothing on Amazon. Lots of google hits but nothing to indicate that was even the smallest blip on the radar outside the S11 conspiracy circles. The villagevoice mentions it in passing in one article along with a list of others, but that appears to be as good as it gets for reliable secondary source. When taking into consideration the paucity of material available, the source of IMDB's information being unvetted, the low cost of productian and distribution of a DVD, and the fact that this appears to be mostly distributed via torrent anyway, I recommend deletion. brenneman^{L} 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep A notable documentary, just not a good article. Read the comments on IMDB, it's no farce MadCow257 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Clearly notable. Google returns 69,400 hits, and each hit seems to generally be about this documentary. --Hyperbole 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above; notable documentary --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Plenty of nutjobs concerned citizens are into this sort of thing. dbtfz^talk 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the throw-away line in the village voice, do we have a single mention in anything that would be considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Can we find evidence that this has been reviewed in a reputable industry magazine, that it's thesis has been given serious consideration by major media, that this film ignited controversy that was reported in a trustworthy online source? Because I'm not seeing anything like that. Google hits demonstrate that it exists and that it's been blogged, but that's not the hurdle for inclusion. - brenneman^{L} 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As long as the article focuses on the film and doesn't present the info inside as accurate, it doesn't matter whether the ideas in the film have been given consideration by the media, or even if they are correct. The film exists and has a sizable following and thus should have a wikipedia article about it. Shadowoftime 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm, tough one... (bias disclosure, Aaron Brenneman asked me to pop in here... but I am inclusionist) I think it's verifiable this video exists, that within the conspiracy community it has wide notice, that there are a lot of other sites that link to the site promoting the movie (which has an Alexa of about 140K... not high enough for notability on its own). But I'm not seeing major notability. All you keepers, take me through it again? The whole thing almost smackes of a Walled garden. Not available on Amazon, and the IMDB entry is weak. Very marginal notability. Still, the article is well written, as these things go. If this had any cites from mainstream sources (small town theorist run papers in Idaho need not apply) you can be sure the website would be trumpeting them, so that's evidence of non notability right there. Is there somewhere this could be merged to? Maybe an article on fringe movies that also included 9-11: The Road to Tyranny and 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands ??? I'm sorry, much as I want to say keep, I have to go with delete. The notability just isn't there for me. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: It is listed on Amazon [10], just not available. Changing my opinion to very weak keep in light of good, but not fully convincing, points made above. dbtfz^talk 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, I think I was looking incorrectly. That takes me to weak delete from delete because, well, because 25000 DVDs ahead of it in sales ranking means... not very notable. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what "they" want you to think. The appearance of non-notability is all part of the conspiracy.  ;-) dbtfz^talk 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me get my tinfoil... There, hat's on. OK, more seriously, I read the whole Village Voice piece, and followed some of the links from there. This is the wrong article. The real story here, I think, is about Dave vonKleist, not about this one video (the voice said it sold 50,000 copies, if true, that's probably marginally notable, but I'm thinking maybe this guy is more notable)... If my earlier suggestion about merging all the videos into one article about them all doesn't fly, perhaps someone should take this article and move it to Dave vonKleist, changing the focus from the video to the man. Sources for that might be much more plentiful. Leave a redirect from the current title to there... ++Lar: t/c 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I certainly wouldn't object to that, if anyone wants to do it. dbtfz^talk 07:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems notable. JIP | Talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Re "walled garden" argument (above), the "walls" of the article will fall substantially once it gets "Wiki-fied" if that's the word for adding blune-links in to an article -- 62.25.109.196 08:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I mean that the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory web of sites out in the wider internet has some walled garden aspects. They refer to each other a lot more than anyone else refers to them at all. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep exactly per Shadowoftime. feydey 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but edit. Certainly notable enough, but parts are in a very unencyclopedic style. I'll make some edits myself to see if we can't get it better. --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I changed it a bit and made it somewhat better. It still needs some work, though. --Deville (Talk) 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. IMDB is the cinematic industry standard web resource; Their opinion as to what is notable or not is superior to ours. RGTraynor 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not superior, just different. Significantly broader, in fact. So having an IMDB entry is (based on past outcomes of AfD discussions) NOT sufficient, in my view of what accepted practice here is, to establish notability by itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable document of notably nutty conspiracy theory. ProhibitOnions 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'd ask what people are basing the opinon that it's notable on? If a reason that an editor thinks that something is notable is explained, then we can talk about it, work it over, etc. But since this is a discussion and not a vote it's a real problem if recomendations aren't explained. They lack falsifiability for one thing. This is how I see it so far:

  • Google hits alone: Hyperbole, TBC
  • IMDB alone: RGTraynor, MadCow257
  • No clear reason given: ProhibitOnions, Deville, JIP, Shadowoftime, feydey, Terence Ong
  • Per all: Siva1979

  I'm not trying to be agressive in listing the names above, just trying to sort out what everyone thinks.

  brenneman^{L} 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Aaron, I said keep simply because the film seemed to get a certain amount of press coverage here in Germany, and AFAIK in France and elsewhere; this might not be apparent from an Amazon(.com) search. The film's the usual fringe claptrap, but that plays well in some parts of the world, and I think it is notable only for the fact that it was mentioned on national TV shows. Can't remember which, though. ProhibitOnions 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    • My reasons are: listed on Amazon, listed on IMDB, mentioned (albeit in passing) in the Village Voice, tons of relevant (if flaky) Google hits. None of those are alone sufficient, but together they make for a reasonable (though admittedly not overwhelming) claim to notability. dbtfz^talk 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's available also on Google Video for free, and theres a trailer for it on the NOFX enhanced CD 'War on Errorism'. -M^ask 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. And just as Google and IMDb are not 100% accurate in terms of notability neither is Amazon. My DVD collection has several films that are not listed by Amazon. 23skidoo 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Arbusto 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep not per nom. I also object to the vote tally that has been placed within this discussion that is designed to intimidate participants, despite the clear consensus. If it remains, suggest adding: Reasons for deletion: none. -- JJay 14:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, what vote tally? Do you mean Aaron's analysis of the reasons people are giving for keeps? That's not really a tally, is it? If it is what you mean, I find it useful rather than objectionable... you may not agree of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find it objectionable either. But I still say "very weak keep." dbtfz^talk 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since User:Brenneman is so full of good ideas, maybe we should all provide running "analysis"- i.e. distorted summaries of user opinions shaped to our POVs. Merely in the interest of facilitating discussion of course... -- JJay 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I asked for clarification of arguments. For example, I'd left dbtfz's name off of the list because xe had made clear that they'd looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If we don't know why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it. - brenneman^{L} 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, whatever. Not that there is anything really to evaluate since you made the case for keeping the article with the facts in your nom. However, while we are properly evaluating things, perhaps we can start with the only truly unabashed voice for delete on this page, i.e. Bov down below, who at least deserves a prize for honesty. -- JJay 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I will admit right off the bat that I'm voting delete because I think this film promotes blatant disinformation - pods, missiles, flashes, no planes. It is offensive to the families of the victims who died at the sites by suggesting that fake planes or missiles were used instead of the actual flights themselves. Is it notable? Sure, like a virus all over the internet. Bov 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, that's not a good reason to delete. An encyclopedia article about the film need not inherit the bad characteristics of the film itself. Most would agree that Mein Kampf was offensive and promoted disinformation; it does not follow that the article about it should be deleted. Notability alone is sufficient for inclusion. dbtfz^talk 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What an apt comparison. Actually I never said it was a good reason to delete, only that that's why I'm voting that way. Others can do what they choose. Bov 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Bov, if a vote for deletetion does not cite a current Criteria for Deletion, it is invalid and does not count toward the final tally. See WP:DP for the criteria list. -M^ask 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the tally is already settled on here, so it doesn't matter. But it'll be great to have a neutral page on it to cite the many false assertions in the content. Bov 02:12, 27 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 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Don't Guide

Just by reading it, it seems more like an advertisement for the book. It does not seem to be of encyclopedic value. Alex 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio [11]. --Allen 01:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete makes no claim to notability, and frankly, I can't even tell for sure whether it's a book, or a website, or what. --Hyperbole 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity created by author to promote book, aka AdCruft. Alas a vanity review of one's own book with no assertion of notability isn't a speedy offence, and this has been around for months so the 48hr rule denies a copyvio speedy. Deizio 01:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry; I had forgotten about that rule. --Allen 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Royboycrashfan 03:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - my tonsils are made of straw is almost never heard. I wonder why? Unfortunately, my article is made of fluff often is. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't keep. Adcruft. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn ad. --Terence Ong 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Davewild 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. ProhibitOnions 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adcruft of the highest order. -M^ask 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Arbusto 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete some of this has been mentioned at KAWZ. W.marsh 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K200AA

Delete. It's not even a minor radio station - it's a dedicated piece of hardware set to rebroadcast a minor radio station. I think it's utterly NN. Perhaps someone can explain to us why this is important stuff, but until they do, it doesn't belong. A related article is up for AfD here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Broadcast translators are clearly nn. Amusingly, this particular one lives about five miles north of my house. --Hyperbole 01:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, broadcast translator for a non-notable radio station --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge: I'm merging this information into a new article on KAWZ. KAWZ is the epitomy of a noteable radio station. It's the flagship station for one of the largest religious broadcasters in the US and has over 350 translators nationwide that relay it. Fucking deletionists. --Analogdemon (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I indeed enjoy intercourse quite frequently :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You do realize that advocating deletionism should be a bannable offense on Wikipedia right? Deletionism = vandalism. Deleting any information from Wikipedia, through consensus or otherwise, is vandalism. --Analogdemon (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are considered pretty important policies on Wikipedia -- probably more so than deletionism. Also, WP:NOT is pretty well accepted policy too. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinion, Analogdemon, and you're certainly welcome to bop over to the Talk Pages for the pertinent policies and try to achieve consensus for your POV. In the meantime, though, however much you love the article, it's probably safer to assume we're not here out of partisan hatred. My vote's Delete as non-notable. RGTraynor 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • How much I love an article has nothing to do with this. The information from K200AA has now been merged into the article on KAWZ because verifiable fucking information should never be removed from Wikipedia, whether I like the information or not. --Analogdemon talk) 15:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Information must not merely be verifiable ... heck, I can post pictures and PDFs of my birth certificate verifying I have blue eyes. That doesn't make it notable. No one is bashing this article out of lack of verifiability, but if you feel so very strongly that this information needs to be on Wikipedia as an independent article despite its complete and utter lack of notability, you should work to change Wikipedia policy. Good luck, there. RGTraynor 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn radio station. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to KAWZ. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Already done. Thank you for your rational thought on this matter. Merging is far better than deleting. --Analogdemon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable radio station. JIP | Talk 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Elkman. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep, due to the fact that this is the only translator to broadcast on 87.9 MHz in the U.S., and because there is only one other station in the whole country that does so. It might just qualify as notable for being an unusual radio transmitter, certainly not for any other reason. ProhibitOnions 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, exactly what is notable about that? RGTraynor 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two other stations broadcasting at 87.9, according to the article. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Annnnnd ... what makes that notable? If all this is is a piece of hardware retransmitting someone else's signal for greater coverage, this isn't like an article on the New York Times. This is like declaring the typesetting machinery on the West Coast allowing the Times to be sold there same day notable, and creating an article based around that. RGTraynor 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Onions... Unique may be notable in this case. -M^ask 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Arbusto 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable TgC 10:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial and uninformative in the extreme (the only translator at one specific frequency is meaningful HOW?). I can't imagine even professional radio engineers finding this of interest. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the information has already been merged into another article by Analogdemon, and the translator alone is nn for a seperate article --Krich (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete per nom--Adam ^(talk) 16:41, 30 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 non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoby

Nonsense article, bragging rights by Lewisdee

Much work on this by User:Lewisdee, but not encyclopedic, mere grafitti bragging about grafitti. Shenme 01:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes (word)

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT MadCow257 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as "yes" and "no" are such hugely important words. I'm not a linguist, but intuitively, it seems to me these could eventually be big encyclopedia entries. --Allen 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd say transwiki it to Wictionary, but Wictionary already has a perfectly nice entry for "Yes." --Hyperbole 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. Dicdef at best. Long way from convinced this will become encyclopedic, perhaps by saying "George Washington was know to have said "yes" in several key speeches. It also appears in the Bible.. "?? Delete. Deizio 01:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, citing instances was not what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of, why do we have a Germanic word for the affirmative and a Latin (I assume) word for the negative, when the two meanings seem so closely related? Why are "aye" and "yea" used in certain contexts? Why don't we use a different affirmative word for answering a negative question, like some languages do? --Allen 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • These are legitimate topics, but I think they should be discussed in Affirmation and/or certain subpages of English language. dbtfz^talk 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed this line of debate is interesting, and words such as "yes", "no", "milk" and a few others can be discussed in languages of the world rather than just English. But you seem to be advocating some kind of debate and research, rather than presenting information already known to be notable and already reported in reputable sources, which Wikipedia - as a tertiary source - is more suited to. If widely reported and accepted info can be shaped into a WP article about the evolution of a hugely important word then it has a chance, but I would need to see it presented as such before changing my original vote. Deizio 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know what you mean by advocating debate; I didn't mean to advocate debate. Nor do I mean to advocate any primary research. If the answers to the questions I suggested are not known to the field of linguistics, then my argument fails and the page should be deleted. I'm voting keep because I suspect that someone (though not me) knows the answers and will eventually put them in the article, with sources, given enough time. (My goal in these responses isn't really to save the article, but to explain my thinking. Incidentally, my understanding is that Wikipedia is both a secondary and a tertiary source. Is this incorrect? Sorry -- looking more closely at tertiary source, I see that a tertiary source includes both primary and secondary sources, which is exactly how I see Wikipedia.) --Allen 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes this should be deleted. 205.188.116.199 06:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, the band is the next that comes to mind. feydey 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki.Vizjim 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. And what's all that stuff about Greg's beard? Reyk 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. --Terence Ong 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fundamental grammatical markers and particles have important ramifications in both logic and culture, and are as worthy of encyclopedia articles in the English wikipedia as individual letters of the alphabet. The article already goes beyond a dictionary definition, and can be expanded well beyond what's there now. Should ultimately at least mention Molly Bloom's Soliloquy. Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the the reason that it's an exceedingly common concept and it could quite an interesting article about it that surpasses a simple dic-def. History, etc. I know I'm going against consensus here, but hay, whatever. ---J.Smith 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Allen. --Z.Spy 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; I'd like to see how this develops. At present it isn't a very strong article, but yes is a concept as well as a word, and it could thus potentially go far beyond the dictionary definition. The article does mention the French si and German doch to make the point that affirmativeness is not universal and can be dependent on context. Whether this is best explored in Yes (word) or in another article is something to consider, but I would argue against a hasty deletion. ProhibitOnions 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What precisely is this article meant to say, that is not a dicdef? (Ditto for "no"). Batmanand | Talk 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef -M^ask 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per wictionary. Arbusto 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Very common word, very interesting, notable for (eg) being first used around 1000. The OED lists 10 senses (which again is notable in its own right), and I'm sure that the wiki community could add others....if the article stays. keep. Robinh 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: dictionary def. Peter Grey 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• No, don't delete. Denni ☯ 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or interwiki --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No (word)

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above MadCow257 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yes (word). Hardly even a valid stub at this point, but a redirect would allow someone to expand it later. --Allen 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to be joking. Redirect "No" to "Yes"? Is this opposites day? --Hyperbole 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As they're both up for deletion, perhaps we should redirect each one to the other. The resulting endless loop would be fun for the whole family. --Xyzzyplugh 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As long as we're in Bizarro World, does "delete" actually mean "keep"?  :-) dbtfz^talk 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Redirecting 'No' to 'Yes' makes a certain amount of syllogistic sense, but no-one can be seriously suggesting redirecting 'Yes' to 'No'? 'Yes' must be redirected to 'Possibly'. Surely thats obvious even to a layman? Oh, and delete by the way. Marcus22 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't need to be transwikied; Wictionary has a perfectly fine entry for "no." --Hyperbole 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No thanks. See above op for "yes", Delete. Deizio 01:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wiktionary already has extensive articles on both 'no' and 'yes'. --Hetar 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Royboycrashfan 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete why are we even debating this :( M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No this shouldn't be kept.
• Delete as dicdef. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki.Vizjim 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. feydey 12:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its really just a dictionary article and little more than a line can be written on this page. Kyle sb 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I have to say this: no means no. Durova 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect and merge with Yes (word) for reasons stated there. Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Replace with soft redirect to wiktionary Night Gyr 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reason that this could be expanded way past a dict-def. ---J.Smith 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep If Non- English words can have articles, then this damn well can too --Z.Spy 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.What precisely is this article meant to say, that is not a dicdef? (Ditto for "yes"). Batmanand | Talk 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef -M^ask 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons Yes should be kept. There is much more to say about this word. That it has not been said here is no reason for deletion, just reason for patience. Denni ☯ 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dang. Deleting the word "No"? Wikipedia can be cold sometimes. Feh. Delete as per above. The article is...pitiful. Ace Class Shadow 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reyes chord constant pattern

Article seems to violate WP:No original research -- Eagle^talk 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the numbers are miscalculated. This is simply rubbish. - Eagle^talk 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Google returns absolutely nothing for "Reyes chord" and the article doesn't cite any outside source. --Hyperbole 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolute nonsense (the name, at least). It's basically just a problem copied from a high school textbook; nothing particularly groundbreaking here. At least try to make it look legitimate by rendering it with TeX instead of scanning in sheets of notebook paper. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep When I typed the 3.414213562 I am not getting anything on google. You guys are just typing in the name, and not the material. We need to find out if the material is original. If you try them, the constants also work.
• Delete as original research. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR -M^ask 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spellhold Studios

A non notable modding group. A Google search turns up less than 600 results.--PatCheng 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per nom. They seem pretty notable within the modding community but I don't think that's saying enough. --Hyperbole 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 01:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable modding community --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN -M^ask 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentum ad vox absurda

This page is a neologism coined by a wikipedia user, and thus contravenes the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms part of wikipedia's No original research policy. Jgsj 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's bad Latin grammar. Censeo paginam esse delendam -- I mean, delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a joke to me. Made me giggle a bit. --Hyperbole 01:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Nlu. Feezo (Talk) 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless legitimate sources are provided. dbtfz^talk 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Idem censeo quam Nlu censet Bucketsofg 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delendum est as bad Latin. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Censeo paginam esse delendam. Also, ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam per Cato the Elder, but that's just me.
  • ... and this discussion merits BJAODN. Alba 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Carthago est bona. Censeo Vandales et vandales et creatores novorum verborum esse delendos. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• "Rerete rer rarove." Esquizombi 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -M^ask 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch about this? Peter Grey 04:12, 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. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meesing

Delete - Probable Hoax. Searching for Meesing+Bigfoot gets mirrors or irrelevant results. exolon 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. See for yourself. Royboycrashfan 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifable - no articles related to the Lene Lanape mention this. Hoax unless someone can provide a real cite. Kuru ^talk 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Bucketsofg 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax -M^ask 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IT Convergence

It's not wholly notable in terms of the google test. Plus its marketing and communications departments wishes to take it down. -- Zondor 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination. -- Zondor 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as adverstisement, non-notable, and it fails WP:Corp --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. --Terence Ong 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -M^ask 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainland power

This page seems to be very bad in its wording. It seems to be extremely biased, and it does not explain why "mainland power" is at all importannt, or why it should have a wikipedia page. Marduuk 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable organization, unverifiable, likely hoax ("Great Stalin" and all that rubbish). The article is the only google hit for "mainland power" + "ratt".[12] Postdlf 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Postdlf 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and possible hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. The only reference in the article was deleted as crap two weeks ago. [13]. Kuru ^talk 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense, hoax. --Terence Ong 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete

What the?

Evidently everyone here needs to research more thoroughly the resurgence of Chinese Nationalism abroad, as this article discusses. Simply because none of you have any knowledge whatsoever in the aformentioned fields does not mean you have the right to delete knowledge based upon your ignorant conclusion and lack of contextual understanding.

I do not know how else to add a reply so this will do. —This unsigned comment was added by Gongocongo (talk • contribs) .

So give us some sources in which we can research "Mainland power", verify that it actually exists. The ball's in your court. Postdlf 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• No worries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationalism

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2393/is_4_163/ai_78729185

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/08/16/2003198998

http://big5.china.com.cn/english/2006/Feb/159363.htm

Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional, I don't doubt but their beliefs are clearly noted in my article.

I would encourage other members to add to the article, instead of merely deleting it.

None of the sources you listed are actually about the group called "Mainland power" as described in the article, or even suggest that it exists. Please don't waste our time. Postdlf 14:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a second. You just said the specific organization is fictional. Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not on fiction. Without some verification that this organization exists, it's just a rumor, or something made up. Delete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For reasons above. And may I also suggest you spend a few days in a charm school? Marcus22 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, or NN... it's one or the other -M^ask 01:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fictional?

I never said anywhere it is fictional...

Evidently, if you can't even read my words well...

The group does exist, some facts are ... well yes obviously, but the groups premise, beliefs and opinions are all clearly there.

Please learn to read my words, not misqoute them.

You said: Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional... If it doesn't refer to the specific organization/revolutionary movement (i.e. Mainland power), then what does it refer to? And when you say, "some facts are... well yes obviously," I don't even know what you're trying to say. Some facts are completely factual? Some facts are embellished? Some facts are completely made up? Don't insult me by saying I don't know how to read your words, when you're the one who's having trouble writing with clarity. And you still haven't given us any proof about this specific group other than your insistence that this exists. --Elkman - ^(talk) 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete please read WP:V ---J.Smith 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Cook

Delete: nn biography --Hetar 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: nn --Timrem 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BIO, only 545 Google results [14] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not assert notability. Royboycrashfan 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable rose- connoisuer.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nnbio -M^ask 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Traveller Films

Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up only two pages of results. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I would suggest merging the Andrew Merkelbach (AfD discussion) with this one. Royboycrashfan 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Curse of the Del Garria gets 17 Ghits - mainly self-promotion. Dlyons493 Talk 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 13:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:51, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fillmore real estate

The article reads like and appears to be pure advertisement. The original author also removed a speedy delete tag without comment almost immediately after it was placed. - CorbinSimpson 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. Not a speedy though. Dlyons493 Talk 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup. It is advertising in its current form, but it asserts its notability and if it is in fact the largest privately-held real estate company in NYC, it's notable, isn't it? --Hyperbole 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1) if it is in fact the largest privately-held real estate company in NYC ?Verify?; 2) if encyclopaedic, why does it end This article is incomplete - please visit www.Fillmore.com for more information ? -- 62.25.109.196 08:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn real estate company. The article can be recreated again by all means. --Terence Ong 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert for a NN company Marcus22 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Over 17,000 Google hits -- although there are conflicting claims as to whether this outfit is "first" or "eighth" -- and a lot of citations. It just very much needs to be rewritten out of self-promoting ad zone. RGTraynor 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seeing 441 Ghits for Fillmore real estate. If it's the largest that's some claim to notability, but I think eighth would be stretching it! Dlyons493 Talk 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad-cruft -M^ask 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dlyons. Arbusto 06:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Merkelbach

Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up less than 250 results, mostly from self-promotion. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I would suggest merging The Traveller Films (AfD discussion) with this one. Royboycrashfan 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 03:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Bucketsofg 04:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. --Terence Ong 14:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -M^ask 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Arbusto 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 00:47, 27 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, as requested by author —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-24 06:32Z

[edit] Daniel Fulton

Either a nn student bio or vanity. A google search for "daniel fulton" returns 312 unique results (the majority of which were unrelated to this person) and a search for "daniel fulton" "on human thought and understanding" ("his most well known and most important work") returns 0 results. Both speedy and prod and tags were removed; it was userfied to USer:Dgf32 but he decided to recreate it instead. TM 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a speedy tag to the article under the criterion of request for deletion by original author based on Dgf's comment near the bottom of this page and his blanking of the article. --TM 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ludicrous vanity. Looking at the page history, userfication was tried but rejected. dbtfz^talk 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reuserfy. Royboycrashfan 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• The article was rewritten to meet the inclusion criteria for an academic figure.

Article meets the following criterion:

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.

As the article meets the stated inclusion criteria, the article should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

• The article does not show how Fulton has introduced a notable new idea. Please provide an outside source supporting this claim, as merely expanding the article does not verify anything. By the way, removing AFD tags constitutes vandalism so please don't do it. --TM 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response:

• Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32

• Embarrassing vanity. Delete - he is a philosopher, but somehow he is also doing medicla research?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Blnguyen, Daniel Fulton did his undergraduate thesis at Columbia University in the area of the philsophy of science. He is currently attending medical school in Pennsylvania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

Response:

• Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

• As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32

• What troubles me the most is that in the edit summary of the article you said that Fulton's "most well known and most important work" was still unpublished. So how did Science and others find out about his theory concerning neural phenomenology if he has yet to publish anything? --TM 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, despite dgf32. Clear vanity. Bucketsofg 04:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

comment. The Science 'write up' cited above makes no mention of Fulton. (Nor does the CIMMS Workshop.) Should we add 'hoax' as a reason for deletion? Bucketsofg 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OK, if you all want to delete, let's do it. dgf32 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. As per Buckets, the Science article cited is a one-paragraph pointer to two other articles and a commentary ("perspective") in the same issue. Neither the paragraph titled "Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making", nor the Perspective, nor the two articles make any mention of Fulton as such. bikeable (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rael's Racewalker

Delete - Non-notable documentary, possible advertisement and vanity page. Google search brings up only *38* returns. MikeWazowski 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, advertisement, and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability for this film; likely adspam based on the AfD for Acropolis Films, LLC. Remove link from Race walking as well. And it's definitely not as important to the domain of race walking as "50K Racewalk by Videlectrix. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete, the pure idea of deleting this entry is the very definition of censorship; that which is in direct opposition to what any encyclopedia stands for. This is not only a film, which is what the WikiProject Films is dedicated to; it's a documentary. Its very nature is to present actual events of human endeavor. Photoactivist 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. We'll be happy to include your documentary as soon as theaters start showing it, people watch it, or someone drags you to court over it. As it is now, no ones heard of it. -M^ask 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, as a comment, there's a difference between censorship and standards - this is a case of the latter. No one's denying that the film exists, or trying to suppress the film itself. However, right now, this film has almost zero internet presence. It's a non-entity as far as films go, for now. If the film gets distributed or shown at festivals, even listed on the IMDB, then those are signs that there's some legitimate interest in the film, and then its inclusion in the Wikipedia can be revisited. But right now, it looks like the filmmakers are tring to game the system to generate false search hits and returns on their project, and that's NOT what I think the Wikipedia should be supporting. TheRealFennShysa 22:58, 28 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 why am I up at this time of night deleting garbage articles? DS 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics

nn political group with 8 Google hits and a suspicious acronym. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Presence in Australia is unlikely.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable organization --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and probable hoax with silly acronym mongering. Kuru ^talk 04:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, pretty good odds that it's a hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable organization. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect as repost. - Eagle^talk 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's clearly a hoax/joke. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a;; -M^ask 01:07, 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 transwiki. W.marsh 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Pollard

This is a quote, not a biography. Transfer to wikiquote. --Hetar 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Martin Luther King said she was notable, and used her as a figure in his preaching. "Since that dreary night in 1956, Mother Pollard has passed on to glory and I have known very few quiet days. I have been tortured without and tormented within by the raging fires of tribulation. I have been forced to muster what strength and courage I have to withstand howling winds of pain and jostling storms of adversity. But as the years have unfolded the eloquently simple words of Mother Pollard have come back again and again to give light and peace and guidance to my troubled soul." The quotation is well known, and has been the source for the title to more than one notable history of the US civil rights movement (the best known by Howell Raines). I like the eloquently simple form the article now has, and would myself simplify it a shade further, but I expect someone would soon enough convert to a more mundane, traditionally encyclopedic form. That someone would seriously claim that Mother Pollard (sometimes referred to as Sister Pollard) does not merit a few bytes of space in a supposed encyclopedia which devotes absurd amounts of it to fictional characters from mediocre cartoons, "performers" in the erotica trade, all the subway stations in the world, and every one of those wretchedly inbred British peers who devoted their lives to sexually abusing their kitchen staff, fox hunting, and oppressing the Irish is unfortunately unsurprising, and I would hope this proposal is immediately and resoundingly rejected. But I am certain it will not be. Monicasdude 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is unencyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikiquote. Royboycrashfan 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki If anything, I would say that the quote is notable. Perhaps it deserves an article. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki - there could perhaps be an article written on Mother Pollard but this isn't it. --Hyperbole 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki this quote, or (better) write a genuine article on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and rewrite per all. Alba 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki -M^ask 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. I agree with Monicasdude that the topic is notable, but this article is just a quote at this point. Mangojuice 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, this is ridiculous. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Transwiki per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 16:43, 30 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acropolis Films, LLC

Delete - Apparent vanity and advertising page. Non-notable - Google search brings up less than 200 returns, a large number taken from information redistributed from this article.

• I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons - self-promotion tied to main article, miniscule Google returns:

• Der Erste
• Acropolis Films

MikeWazowski 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity page gone OTT. Royboycrashfan 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, vanity, non-notable, fails WP:Corp --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, advertising. *drew 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is also a popular term i.e. per nom. feydey 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, ad. --Terence Ong 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, adspam. Obliterate the infinitely looping, distracting, obscenely large Image:Logo For Gif.gif as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do NOT delete - This is just a young company, and has not been given a chance to be updated by the public. Would you consider deleting Amblin Entertainment when it was in its infancy just because it had only released "ET"? And as for the infinitely looping logo, it's taken directly from their company website. Maybe someone should request a non-moving logo instead of committing to deletion because of its novelty. Photoactivist 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that ET made $14 million its opening weekend, the comparison is apples and oranges. As for being a "young company," can you show that it meets notability standards such as WP:CORP? --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • - How about "Brick (2006 film)"? Would that be more to your liking? It was only recently bought by Focus Features, and has actually been completed for over two years. The fact is, this particular company cannot be compared for not having an "Opening Weekend" in national theaters. It's an independant film company. --Photoactivist 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - If it releases a film that sees any sort of commercial or critical success, then it's worth including, but the single film that has been released is neither. Night Gyr 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • - Perhaps you're right, why should an encyclopedia be responsible for maintaining information and recording events, when it can be a top 100 list of popular trivia? The one film that has been released by this company is the only dedicated documentary in Wikipedia databases regarding the subject of Racewalking. That alone should ensure its reason for non-deletion. Not to mention that the film is regarding the World Masters' Championship, which is an international event in equally high standing as the Olympics. Photoactivist 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment & withhold can you show that it passes WP:CORP? If so I'll vote keep. ---J.Smith 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • - I cannot. Of the three rules to pass WP:CORP, the only information I can seem to find about the company is that they're self owned, and do not have stock holders. --Photoactivist 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Then delete leaveing open the posibility of repoening when it meets WP:CORP. (Racewalking? My step dad was in the finals to join the US team in the 70's.)---J.Smith 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. If it releases a notable film, we can add it back in. -M^ask 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. IMDB already exists; if we want to be them, let's just link to them. -Syberghost 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • - Then why do we host films at all? This goes exactly back to my argument of why the documentary by this company should be included in Wikipedia. If for no other reason than the fact that an encyclopedia's main function is to record information on human endeavor and events of human achievement. (it behooves me to mention that the film centers around the World Master's Championship, which could only be participated in by members of each country's elite qualified members. as I've said before, it's similar to the Olympics) -Photoactivist 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The subject dosn't make the film notable. ---J.Smith 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 22:51, 28 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. (I don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poseur

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. --Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word is already on Wiktionary. Movementarian 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A dicdef expanded with a load of POV. u p p l a n d 18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. stupid article that would be impossible to copyedit or clean up due to the lack of any actual information. way too long and ridiculous for such a simple term. get rid of it. Jbenkato05 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In youth culture, posers are frequently talked about. It's not a high-brow subject but it's probably worthy of an article given what other articles Wikipedia keeps (e.g. high schools). Cedars 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. --Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Cedars - it's encyclopedic. The article is quite repetitive at times though - this aspect could use improvement. --logixoul 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this term is a cultural phenom, not just a term. The article should be tagged with NPOV tag too and cleanedup. 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm with Tothebarricades. This article is absurd, and, beyond the initial definition, is not informative in the least. It is also incredibly poorly written, making it a chore to read. Maclaine Diemer 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A pain for the eye, and also looks like original research. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iwaku Roleplaying Community

Contested prod. It's a discussion board which gives no indications of meeting WP:WEB. I haven't don't any research--moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seven months old with 400ish members. Not notable at face, much less when applying WP:WEB. Kuru ^talk 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website (fails to meet WP:WEB). --Terence Ong 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WPWEB] -M^ask 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yottamark

This seems like an 1:1 copy from some marketing paper Malasa 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete agree - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as complete ad spam per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not just copied; maybe even OCR'ed--also uses "our" M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless Yottamark lets us advertise Wikipedia on their site. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as adspammery. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 07:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adv. --Chris 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adcruft -M^ask 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ad. Arbusto 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising--Dakota ~ ° 08:27, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Borozonets

non-notable; subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as vanity and nonsense --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A6. Royboycrashfan 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, yup. --Lockley 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Mejia-Canales

non-notable; appears to be garbage M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, seems to be an attack page. I've already added the speedy deletion tag --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A6. Royboycrashfan 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - nn-bio. -- RHaworth 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Longobardo

nn and no real content M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This page was speedily deleted by CanadianCaesar with the delete summary:(content was: '{{db-empty}}Played by Ashley Tisdale in the High School Musical movie2005 - sister of Ryan Evans (Played by Lucas Grabbel)') —Encephalon 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharpay Evans

A non-notable character from High School Musical. I question this article's ability to contain content that isn't more appropriate in the article for the movie. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete should probably create a new page, "list of characters from blah" M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1 Royboycrashfan 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soleado ghosts

Urban legend, no supporting references. --Chris 05:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:HOAX, and WP:V. Royboycrashfan 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons listed above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Frankly, this strikes me as the product of some elementary school kids playing with Wikipedia --Hyperbole 06:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Henning Makholm 07:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, before someone creates an article about the dead kids who push cars across the tracks. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Where ^(talk) 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -M^ask 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete uncited urban legend. Arbusto 06:55, 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 speedy delete as a (presumably) real homo sapien with no claim to newsworthiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy's sister

nn and nonsense M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nonsense, attack, and made-up sexual acts. -- King of Hearts ^talk 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a memorial for a person with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Long

nn, even if it is heartwrenching (sorta...) M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete per nom--Acebrock 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete non-notable and vanity, obviously fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bojidar Spassov

nn 16 y.o. saxophonist. Several Google hits for the composer Bojidar Spassov (b. 1949, Sofia) but nothing for The Falshimentos. Gimboid13 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite as the 1949 composer. Alba 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patently non-notable; no prejudice to recreate as article about the composer if so desired, but we don't need or want the edit history herein. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - see also this vote to keep at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Bojidar_Spassov by the creator of the article Bulgariangladiator - Gimboid13 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Based on the user profile at this forum: [15]], "bulgariangladiator" is a 16-year-old kid from Chicago named Bojidar Spassov. (That appears to be the one and only GHit for the name that doesn't refer to the composer.) Looks like vanity and possibly (probably) a total hoax. Fan1967 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note After I posted the above, the author added the following to the discussion page of the AfD: "More than one person can use the usernamebulgariangladiator and more than one person may be named bojidar spassov." Remarkable coincidence. Fan1967 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. 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 DELETE (per WP:SNOW and probable CSD A7 candidate anyway). Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley college debating

Original PROD by Kungfuadam as non-notable; contested by editors. Delete as non-notable club, and as WP:VSCA-magnet for its members, apparently. Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The club has also created a page about Han Ming, one of their so-called rivals, which should be speedied as an attack page, or at the least a non-notable bio. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does anyone have any idea which Wesley College they are talking about? Wikipedia has quite a few. Anyways, if they had some substantial wins like at a national or internation level, I'd be sympathetic, but this is seriously nn. JoshuaZ 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently it's Wesley College, Perth based on the editors' other contributions. Delete per all other nominations. Clubs from a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable club --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn club. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Burn in the fiery depths of Wikipedia hell... This is sickening vanity at its worst, particularly after reading the Han Ming article and putting a speedy tag back on it. Non-notable club. I can't bite the newcomers, but this is really, really bad. Grandmasterka 07:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This comic sucks

Non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB, Alexa ranking is 118,172[16] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please per Roy & TBC. StarryEyes 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For a previous AfD on this comic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Comic Sucks. The consensus at that time was to delete. According to the deletion history of This Comic Sucks, the article has also been speedied three times. It looks like each recreation of the article was by a different contributor and the contents were different. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This has been deleted so many times before, and should be deleted again. - Hahnchen 01:45, 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 Redirect; if needed, anyone can get the original content from the history and merge it where it is useful. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games obsession

A poorly-written article already better covered by Game addiction. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge anything important to Game addiction --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Royboycrashfan 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as above. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per TBC Where ^(talk) 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per TBC. -- Scientizzle 20:50, 27 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, sock or no sock. Mailer Diablo 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Pwnage

Non notable fan cruft. waffle iron 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

• List of Pure Pwnage episodes

• Delete as non-notable, Alexa ranking of 34,591 [17] Weak keep per Swatjester's comments --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very highly notable amongst the first person shooter community. I say this with credentials as a member of the web-based and print computer gaming community (I was an editor at Strategy Player Magazine, and editor at PS3vault.com). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google hits: http://www.google.com/search?hs=KCK&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22pure+pwnage%22&btnG=Search something like 284,000, including many notable tech blogs and gamign websites. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, 271,000 results to be exact --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment We must be using different googles: my link shows 284,000. Oh well. give or take 5% it's still notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Safesearch, lol. --Rory096 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Regardless of what the show is or how people feel about it as a fan people deserve the right to know about what they like. —This unsigned comment was added by Kennansoft (talk • contribs) .

Of course, but that does not mean everything with fans belongs on Wikipedia… (not that I'm implying that Pure Pwnage doesn't belong) --HeteroZellous 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Pure Pwnage and merge the episode list into it. It seems somewhat notable, and an Alexa of 34k isn't too bad. I would like to see more references of its notability in the article, though, such as the major tech blogs and gaming sites mentioned by Jester. (Note: While I'm not a gamer, I've watched a few episodes of this in the past, and I feel somewhat ashamed about it...) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The show is very popular, and many people go to the Wikipedia entry for clarification of terms that they use. The Scene is not voted for deletion, and Pure Pwnage is most likely more popular. The reason stated above, Non notable fan cruft is incorrect, it is notable, and is not fan cruft. --robz0r 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The show is very popular in my opinion. Check out the real second nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Pwnage 2. --HeteroZellous 09:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Anyone seen the eBay auction for a piece of Jeremy's hair? http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7601131682

it's up to US $4,150.00 with a total of 98 bids, and over 224,000 hits. For a lock of the main characters HAIR!? If this is anything to go by, the show has more than a few fans, and is definately notable. Silent War 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, although I have to admit I haven't read the article yet, therefore don't know the quality, Pure Pwnage is too big a phenomenon not to be in Wikipedia. If it's deleted I'm sure people will want to re-add it within no time. Retodon8 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is the third time someone's nominated this for deletion. We've already established the Alexa ranking invalid, as Pure Pwnage is a webisode, not a website.66.157.30.31 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Fairly notable within certain communities. Alexa rating doesn't appear relevant in this case. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is decently popular. No real need to merge the list in either. kotepho 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Low alexa rating due to availabity of webisodes through bittorrent without need to visit site —This unsigned comment was added by 219.78.119.182 (talk • contribs) .

Keep - Pure Pwnage is very popular worldwide and too many people watch it to consider this for deletion. The page is a great point of reference for people interested in today's gaming culture. --CharlieA 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has 37 contributions [18] ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^Meaning what? Is my opinion less valid than yours? What gives you the right to undermine my opinion?--CharlieA 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

uhhhhhhhhhhhh duh.com, nooob. only liek users with > 999999989 edits are allowed to vote. roflol noob. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - extremely notable, popular. -- infinity0 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - My initial impression from reading the articles were that they contained so many esoteric details and were not linked from any other articles. It seemed like someone was using Wikipedia as a fan site. I'd still like to see the articles paired down or the List deleted. --waffle iron 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Appendum to my comment - I think it's probably worth contrasting Pure Pwnage to something like Mega 64. It has a DVD out and worked with Ubisoft on projects. This article is short and to the point and their list is a real list, not a supplimental article. --waffle iron 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Commment Response*Sorry? It hasn't stopped people on this site before. While series like Star Wars and Dr. Who are amidtablly more notable than Pure Pwnage, the fact is they have larger articles and sub articles than World War II on this site (which, is funny since the first has its own Wiki). This goes for a whole bunch of other series as well. Like for example, before I would get fansubs for Gundam Seed Destiny, I'd check here first for the spoiler's. And they were fairly extensive. So, unless you are going to attempt to be a great champion of the wiki and nominate every single one of those article for deletion, I think the PP article is fine and short in comparion.BrendantheJedi 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment response I hadn't thought of that but that's a great idea. Especially since I LOVE mega 64. Let me know if anything comes of that, I'll be glad to help out⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft of nn site. I am genuinely impressed by how many keep votes this has garnered, although some must surely be from enthusiasts. Eusebeus 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I went though and looked a about 6 people's number of contributions... 5 of the 6 had more then 100. 3 had more then 1000. 1 had more then 5000. ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What Does that have to do with anything? The last time a I checked, this was encyclopedia could edit. So if if 20 people with only mild contributions vote to keep this, we are somehow viewed lower in opinion to one man with 1000? You stop focusing on the rep of the poster, and look more the value of the post itself. Even if someone with 2 trillion contributions says something totally stupid, that statement is still foolish. BrendantheJedi 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone with an abnormally low edit count is (purportedly) less likely to be knowledgeable about wikipedia policies and/or a sockpuppet used to vote multiple times. This isn't a vote anyways and only their 'vote' is discounted, not their view, opinion, or evidence. Of course, I am one of the people in the 100-999 range of edits under this user so take that however you will. If you care to know I have only heard of this in passing and only seen one episode. It was the googles that did it for me. kotepho 05:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But, you could be a long time lurker. Also sometimes I've made edits not with my account. In any case I know what cruft is, but I also know as long as their is at least 125 articles about mobiles suits, I don't think the cruft is well enfornced. I know wiki prefers to look at itself as encyclopedic, but this in an encyclopedia that be edited on the internet. Because of the demographic, the articles on this site may lean towards geekish followings. They can only go after smaller things like Pure Pwnage on occasion, since they still feel the futile need to look sophisticated. But we all know if they tried to cut down on articles on Star Wars, they attept would most certainly fail (unless of course it was a character article about obscure person in the fandom).-BrendantheJedi 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a site; Pure Pwnage is a popular webisode series. By the way, how are the numbers of contributions made by these users relevant to this discussion? --HeteroZellous 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for various reasons listed above. ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This page is possibly a better reference for the show than the show's own website. What's the harm in keeping it? Bchabala2 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the kind of stuff that makes me think that Wikipedia is doomed. It's too new a subject, and only time will tell if this is the start of a popular trend or just a flash in the pan. Meanwhile, this article only serves as an advertisement and an introduction to some painfully stupid in-jokes. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The first episode was released in May 2004, almost two years ago. Honestly, is that really too new? --HeteroZellous 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Too new a subject? Wikipedia is so useful because it is quick-- "wiki wiki." Moreover, how exactly does deleting a largly contributed article benifit Wikipedia? Deleting content is an awful way to promote the effort-- and I can't see how any of the arguments for deletion have justified such a "last resortish" kind of move.66.157.30.31 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I seem to have forgotten to add the comparison details in my earlier vote, so here goes: Not only was there an already large fanbase during the previous AfD almost three months ago, but it's grown considerably since with another episode released. The <200K for Google has jumped to around 300K (I just picked up 312K), Alexa ranking's jumped from 39K to 34K, his then-month-old MySpace has gone from 3K friends to almost 10K[19], and the forum members of 11K to 15K.[20] And presently, a TeamSpeak chat with the crew will be held on Saturday; I expect 300+ participants like it's happened before. Also, as said above, a lock of the protagonist's hair is going for more than US$4,000, now with over 100 bids and 225K hits, even after a bunch of relatively high bids were taken down for more safety from fake ones.[21] --HeteroZellous 01:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Extremely notable, if I recall accurately, there are already plans for the show to be picked up by a television network. Just about everyone I know has at least heard of it. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.Highly notable series. Well talked about. I mean this arguably as well noted as YTMND or Penny Arcade. I don't see anyone deleting those. The FPS Doug video is reason enough. BrendantheJedi 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Arbusto 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• BOOM HEADSHOT to all delete votes ;-) but seriously, strong keep. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't know a single male aged 14-18 who does not know of Pure Pwnage. To say that it's not notable is simply naive. 25 March 2006 —This unsigned comment was added by 144.132.206.106 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Keep Even if you did delete it someone would probably put it back (me) selmaelbeyati 10:02 25 March 2006
• Strong Keep Boom Headshot! ;) michael ^talk 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Popular and long-running show. The episodes list contains indispensible trivia, but should be merged into the main entry JVC 21:53, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
• Strong keep considering how long the article is, and the fact they're working on a tv show, plus other reasons above. Wikioogle=world take over 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep keep it, its a very important online show, they have popularized and invented such phrases as "Pwned"(or "pwn"), "n00b" and most importantly "BOOM HEADSHOT!!" Thrawst 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Thrawst (talk • contribs) .
• Keep It's huge in the gaming community, and has created some catchphrases, too.... keep the main article, and merge the episode list with the main article. -Outsidethewall 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its articles like this that make wikipedia worth coming too as i see wikipedia made up off two parts. Valuable historicle information that one would deem necessary for a regular encyclopedia and also valuable trivia for things such as this, Pure Pwnage. Keep this page, it contains more info than the actual webpage. -147.10.248.213 10:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SWATjester. --Rory096 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This show is extremely popular. Its also through this article that I discovered that Jeremy had a myspace and Tagi actually had a blog --M1xmast3r 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There are over a million articles in wikipedia, there is no reason why this has to be deleted. --Behun 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Over 20,000 downloads of their last video. I consider this article to be extremely notable. --JamieHughes
• Seriously, I know lots of people who have watched this (besides myself). Trust me this isn't the cruft you're loooking for, this is. (Keep btw) BrokenSegue 13:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Ardenn 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a popular series. GeorgeBills 07:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Popular Series - provides insight into terms and definitions - Fancruft debatable - and even if fancruft - not poorly written, which is criteria for deletion. - Quote from It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and POV - all things that lead to deletion. --wickahead 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Keep - What the heck?? This is an extremely notable site, I go to check in on it today and find it on AFD?? Staxringold 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I found this page because I was linking to it from another article (Chicken Fried Radio). Merge the episode list into the page and keep.
• Über Strong Keep ;-) - There are many good reasons listed above. It's very popular with many computer gaming communities, it's been around for quite a while now, and the amount of content is quite acceptable compared to the collections of pages for other shows on Wikipedia. There is no good reason to delete it, nor merge the episode list. Jasp 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is a popular web series, similar to things like Red vs Blue or any of the multitude of gaming webcomics. Fancruft may or may not exist, but the article is valid and should be kept. Bowmanjj 03:15, 29 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 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Pavlina

Possible Vanity Page/Advertising. No real content whatsoever/ Geedubber 06:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons listed by Royboy --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Silvestre Zabala 10:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Steve Pavlina is one of the primary figures in the movement to bring personal development information to individuals over the internet. The personal development sector has traditionally been limited to books and audio materials, and Steve Pavlina is arguably one of the most prominent figures in the new web-based human potential movement. Niche bloggers such as Atrios, Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga all have Wikipedia entries, and the growth of Pavlina's site indicates that he will soon reach an audience as large as any of these bloggers. This article should be kept and expanded. Zukin 01:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your examples are not comparable. Instapundit, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post are not small time niche blogs blogs. If, and when, he reaches as large an audience as these blogger then he can have a page. Wikipedia is not a crystalball.--Geedubber 05:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per NN. Arbusto 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. MaNeMeBasat 14:16, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin Vic

Unable to find any source for this. No idea which Victoria it refers to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, and how do penguins have anything to deal with a promotional tourism campaign? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notability claimed for promotional campaign. I imagine that this refers to the state of Victoria in Australia.  (aeropagitica)  07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's now been linked to there but the editor who created the article has been editing articles at Notre Dame University, which is in Indiana and it also has a Victoria. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think there are a lot more penguins in Vic, Australia than any other Victoria, and the existence of this character (also mentioned at penguin) is verified by [22], but I don't think this campaign is particularly notable. JPD (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- noteworthy television campaign, I'm sure (though it was a while ago), Penguin Vic was the actual mascot, not the campaign itself. Phillip Island has Fairy penguins, perhaps that adds to why a penguin was used? - Longhair 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There have been many, many tourism promotion campaigns; like almost all of them, this one does not merit any coverage in an Encyclopedia, let alone a full article. BTW, User:Longhair is quite right about why a penguin was chosen. (I lived in Melbourne when this campaign ran.) —Chris Chittleborough 09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I have added Advertising campaigns and Tourism in Australia categories. The first shows other campaigns with articles to use as a standard. The article definitely needs a picture and perhaps some expansion, although it's already longer than some. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, what was the campaign called. It might be a better idea to "keep & redirect" to the campaign name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I remember the campaign well, as I was a child when it was running (and penguins appeal to kids). I'd say it could vaguely be associated with a Mebournian sense of identity. Cnwb 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't remember it. Ambi 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, the campaign ran in the early to mid '80s. Perhaps this was before your time (?), which would be why you don't recall it. Cnwb 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to campaign ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:49, 29 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 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imia Fleur Edwards

Non-notable, despite the entry's proclamations. Her only IMDB credit is this - [23].

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable actor, only 165 google results [24] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every real actor is notable. Henning Makholm 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet WP:BIO. --Hetar 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable actor per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not very notable. feydey 12:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable presently, but doesn't mean this is not to change. --Soumyasch 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, non-negligible IMDB entry and nontrivial stage credits. Clearly more notable than Air Force Amy and Ewa Sonnet, and not much less notable than Matsumoto Marika, who's a nearly unanimous keep right now. Monicasdude 14:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Mikey Sweet

Obvious hoax. Zero google hits. Prod contested without comment.Henning Makholm 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as obvious hoax. "After he was born on May 11, 1988"... and he's a porn star? Junk. Speedy as patent nonsense if possible, under the "nothing to salvage" clause. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism in the form of nonsense: the subject allegedly "had a passion for rap at a very young age, as he released his first rap album while still in the womb." --Metropolitan90 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• RIDICULOUS!!!!! BJAODN. Grandmasterka 07:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought about BJAODN, but then I surmised that this was likely created specifically for the purpose of ending up there... in which case, we really shouldn't condone that behavior. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This is true. Grandmasterka 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} and tagged as such.  (aeropagitica)  07:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Sweet had a net worth of over $30,000,000,000 which was second only to Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft That must be news to...err... whats his name? Jimmy Buffett. ---J.Smith 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Arbusto 06:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete non-sense, hoax --Soumyasch 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE For the love of the 'pedia, someone close this already. Deizio 22:03, 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 Speedy Delete CSD A7 (Userfied). kingboyk 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan MacDonald

Vanity. OK, he's a stuntman, but he's still trying to break into the industry: "In Dan's attempt to break into the Film Industry he's been signed with Talent 2NV, a background agency for while he is still in his studies; which are schedueled to end September 06." Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I can actually give you the sources for all of this information. Not just from myself but those who know me. I am trying to break into the industry of not just student films and web based films. My movies and movies of others I have been in are known and do have a following. Especially in Cape Breton. If there is any information that you find questionable please tell me and I'll give you the proof of its authenticity. DanMacDonald\^talk

Response to comment. It's not a matter of authenticity, but notability. Literally tens of thousands of aspiring artists, actors, musicians, directors, et cetera create Wikipedia pages for themselves. While all the information therein may be factual, the vast majority of self-created pages are simply not notable from an encyclopedic viewpoint. For an actor or stuntman, you're going to need several major movie credits (i.e. not student/web films, and not just as an extra) before being deemed worthy of inclusion. StarryEyes 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, not notable enough per nom. feydey 07:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as userification has already happened. His one imdb credit is as an "onlooker" for an upcoming film, which simply does not meet the criteria for notability.. StarryEyes 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please, vanity, non-notable. Young Mr. MacDonald's sole contributions are that page and a few vanity insertions (i.e. including himself in a list of "famous" people from his hometown), which I see ol' Starry has taken the pleasure of erasing. Delete his pictures, too. Bottom line: this is not the place for self-promotion. Raggaga 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Que Huong Food Products

Appears to be an advertisement for a business, not an encyclopedic article Mary Read 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unnutricious for the mind. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't read adcruft, it's nothing but empty wikicalories. Delete. Alba 13:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad. --Terence Ong 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. You'd gag if I wrote the following on my talk page: "ProhibitOnions has become very well known to Wikipedians living in cyberspace and the user has a reputation of delivering only the best quality articles using only the finest words." So why put up with it here? ProhibitOnions 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Arbusto 07:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xhref

This is nothing more than blatant marketing for a company and a black SEO one at that. asmodai 08:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. This could have been {{prod}}ed, in fact. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• I wish we could elevate to prod, but I guess i'll just delete. Alba 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad. JPD (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertisement Bucketsofg 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• What does being black have to do with this, asmodai? --Boborok 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Nothing. "Black SEO" refers to "black hat search engine optimization". Catamorphism 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spam, bad article. Catamorphism 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, awful article, and they aren't very good in the Evil SEO Techniques if they can't even integrate the content to Wikipedia, now can they? Not funny enough to survive though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete to keep it secret... - Liberatore(T) 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Sigma

Delete: No information given about notability and Google does not turn up anything of note. Seems like something made up in school one day. Crystallina 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, of course there are no Ghits! It's a secret society. :D You know, this may all very well be true, but it's certainly not verifiable, and it was probably made up in school one day. --Deville (Talk) 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deville. JPD (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn secret society. Bucketsofg 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A2Kafir 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Arbusto 07:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs where the title repeats itself

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is list at its cruftiest. Is there any foreseeable use to this page? "Well, I like Wikipedia OK...but what I was really looking for is a list of songs where the title repeats itself, and they didn't have it." Pardon my sarcasm, but really I find even the very idea of this page laughable. Yes, it is factual and no, Wikipedia is not paper, but this is an encyclopedia, and all encyclopedias need to distinguish between worthwhile topics and extreme trivialities lest the signal-to-noise ratio surge towards infinity. StarryEyes 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 09:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ye gods... I like lists, but this listcruft^cruft. -- Saberwyn 09:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per nominator. Reyk 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. Ye gods, indeed. This actually seems so blatant that I suspect someone put this up just to make the Cruftiest. List. EVAR. or similar. --Deville (Talk) 13:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Cruft, Cruft, Cruft". Rhion 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruftometer...pinned. PJM 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without reservation. Sad to say it's survived here for nearly one year. --kingboyk 13:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete, this is listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. JIP | Talk 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, though moved it to music wikicities [25] maybe theyll want it -- Astrokey44|talk 14:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of cruftish lists. Nah, just Delete. Bucketsofg 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't an authoritative list without "Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow," the theme song for Meow Mix. Then again, this list is so bad, I'm going to ask for it to be deleted by name. Delete delete delete delete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Punkmorten 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from WP:NOT being violated, the question I ask is who in their right mind would ever search/want to know the information contained in this article?! Batmanand | Talk 00:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, arbitrary list that could encompass nine-tenths of pop music. A much smaller list might be List of songs where the title does not repeat itself. ProhibitOnions 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: There are songs with notable word-plays, but simply using a word like I or hey more than once means nothing. Peter Grey 04:18, 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 Redirect to Barbican Estate. kingboyk 13:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbican, London

Duplicates existing articles Pjc51 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or change to a redirect to Barbican Estate. Arundhati bakshi 10:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious merge and redirect to Barbican Estate. Alba 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7 (for the second time). kingboyk 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Prendergast

Vanity. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 10:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is. Not notable biography per WP:BIO.--Blue520 11:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and vanity per nom. Kuru ^talk 13:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Conde

I don't know whether or not this person is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but what I know is that the article is useless. Spam, full of useless trivia. Delete unless rewritten. (Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but I decided to list it here to give it a chance.) - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete highly praised (himself?) in the article, has an IMDb entry, but still all doesn't add up. Looks like everyone is nowadays listed in the IMDb. Maybe later when he gets proper film credits. feydey 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the proposer that the article is useless as stands. Furthermore, actually clicking on the IMDB link shows that this guy is completely NN. Come back in 5-10 years. --Deville (Talk) 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Maxamegalon2000 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above: nn, vanity. Bucketsofg 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity plus cellphone pictures and endlessly trivial "trivia" is still vanity. ProhibitOnions 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Arbusto 07:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for nn. Community theatre playbill, & not encyclopedic. LookNorth 00:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly also vanity now. LookNorth 16:00, 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 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congress Oak

Non-notable tree. The article does not assert the significance of the tree, and no proper Google hits except WP and mirrors. The prod was removed without comment, so it ends up here. Robin Johnson 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --Soumyasch 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Treecruft! Well, that's different, anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, floracruft per Mr. Blind. I'm not seeing anything notable about the tree, other than "it's nice". Kuru ^talk 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable tree. JIP | Talk 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Bucketsofg 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, treecruft. Totally non-notable and unverifiable, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC) --Terence Ong 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Appears to be notable in Poland, per the Polish Wikipedia article. Actually, I can't read Polish, so I'm not sure how notable the article claims the tree to be. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • According to www.poltran.com, it translates to roughly the same text, with roughly the same level of notability assertions: "nikt". Kuru ^talk 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Despite sucky stubs in both Polish and English, the tree is well known in Poland. I think it's reckoned to be the oldest tree in Europe. (I had my picture taken under it, it must be important for something, I just don't remember offhand.) ProhibitOnions 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it? Can you find any other information on this tree? It looks like the author of this page created a dozen or so articles for other trees - each time just giving some random stats about it. Can you shed any light on this? Kuru ^talk 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's proving quite hard to research (including in Polish sources), and it looks like the article might be toast soon. If I can't find it in a book or other source I'll change my vote to delete because of verifiability. ProhibitOnions 20:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All the Google results for "oldest tree in europe" seem to point to a yew in Perthshire, at least on the first few pages. Someone has edited the article to say this tree is 400 years old. I'm not a treeologist, but I'm not sure that's a particularly notable age for an oak. Robin Johnson 11:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Arbusto 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I don't think that protecting this against recreation is neccesary just yet, since that is something we usually do when someone consistently recreates it. That does not seem to be the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminator 4

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source of information in the article is the IMDB page which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Nominator simply commented out an old AFD and started a new one in the same page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for the article. For previous AFDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination). Blimey O'Riley, what a mess (in the past I mean, not the current nom's fault)! This is actually nomination number 4 or greater:

• Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2004 (2) - Deletion log entry according to What Links Here (but such a long article and I couldn't find it)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 - 30 September 2005 - Delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination) - 11 December 2005 - No consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (2nd nomination) - 27 January 2006 - No consensus

Page has been deleted 3 times previously:

    * 12:35, 12 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Terminator 4" (nonsense)
    * 00:26, 12 January 2006 EdwinHJ deleted "Terminator 4" (patent nonsense)
    * 02:41, 30 September 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Terminator 4" (dude, this was an attack page, no need for a AFD.)

--Kingboyk

• Delete per my nomination. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, Google does bring up quite a significant number of hits. --Soumyasch 13:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Google hits, yes [26], but they only affirm how speculative a subject it is. PJM 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Enough valuable time has been wasted on this crap. It's still speculation and the article after 3 AFDs is still a useless stub. --kingboyk 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Let me point out more, when you look at the Ghits for T4, if I'm reading it correctly, amongst the first ten links there are claims that the movie will be released in three different years. If the year of release is not nailed down, we are in solid crystal ball territory. --Deville (Talk) 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Kingboyk and Deville. Google hits can be useful to establish notability, but are of no use when the question (as here) is crystal-ballism. Bucketsofg 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and leave a locked page in place to prevent recreations. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation until there is an official green light announcement from the studio. The previous delete decision AfD still stands. Tag the page with {{deletedpage}} until an announcement is made to prevent recreations and future AfDs.  (aeropagitica)  15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Protect the page until the film is announced to be made to prevent any recreation. We are an encyclopaedia, not some site to post Terminator stuff and future films. A stub forever, no way! --Terence Ong 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol. We could go the other way of course, and get Terminator 5 stubbed up, just in case? :) --kingboyk 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Terminator 5, Terminator 6, Terminator 7, Terminator 8, Terminator 9, Terminator 10 --Deville (Talk) 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • !!! very droll. Had me worried for a minute :) I wanted to say "lol" but I think I may have used my "lol" quota for this debate already :) --kingboyk 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - crystal ball. Eusebeus 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Terminator series or else it will just be re-created. — RJH 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from further recreation. And just speedy any attempt to TRY to recreate it! --InShaneee 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect, crystal bollocks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, probably to Terminator series, to prevent it being recreated again. It would be a useful redirect, as it's something that it likely to be searched for. — sjorford (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (and protect until such time as there are actual verifiable developments regarding Terminator 4) would seem like a fine solution to me too. --kingboyk 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Terence Ong. WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR etc are all violated until this is announced. Batmanand | Talk 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Terminator series per Sjorford -- Astrokey44|talk 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above. No more of this until a film is officially announced. 23skidoo 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per others. Arbusto 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is pointless!
• No vote: The article is fine as long as Terminator 4 actually exists, in the sense of someone has started spending money or signing contracts. And it's verifiable, of course. Peter Grey 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep hey,does everyone think this movie doesnt exist,because if it will come out why delete the article?it is a good starting point192.30.202.28 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Film not forthcoming. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matsumoto Marika

• Delete I'm really not sure what it is but I have the feeling it doesn't belong when it tells me at the bottom I can't edit it.--Looper5920 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a biography, and it isn't non-notable at all. In fact, a Google search for 松本まりか (Matsumoto Marika in Japanese) turns up 483,000 results. I think she's some sort of actress, with a photographic collection on sale at Amazon.co.jp. Needs considerable improvement, though. - Tangotango 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. [27]. PJM 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Google. Fetofs ^Hello! 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Google, see also [28]. However, I entirely understand the nominator's original concern; any time an editor purports to restrict others' editing will send up a strong red flag in my face as well.--Deville (Talk) 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I should think that's more likely because he pasted it in from somewhere else rather than he's trying to control the content. --kingboyk 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point, I hadn't thought of that. That comment does read much more like the standard notice you'd see at the bottom of a thread on a blog or similar, now that I think about it. --Deville (Talk) 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete As unverifiable. (eg. how many of those google hits refer to this Matsumoto Marika?) Marcus22 15:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is why I gave the link to Google pictures above [29]: Even if you don't know what the articles say, the pictures are of the same woman, and it's some woman notable enough to have 600+ pictures associated with her name on Google. --Deville (Talk) 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right Deville and I'm wrong. Change that to a Keep. Marcus22 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand as there is a decent amount of information on the Japanese Wikipedia. --日本穣 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I just expanded it with the info on the Japanese page. After this AfD is over (if the page still exists) the page will need to be moved to Marika Matsumoto in keeping with WP:MOS-JA. --日本穣 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Major expansion makes this a worthwhile article on a noteworthy person. Fg2 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per others. Arbusto 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--紅会心 Kurenai Kaishin 16:43, 27 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 wasSpeedily redirected to Gocta Cataracts.  (aeropagitica)  15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gocta

This stub duplicates Gocta Cataracts. – Jondor 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gocta Cataracts. PJM 13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Gocta Cataracts. Fetofs ^Hello! 13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect per Fetofs Bucketsofg 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Gocta Cataracts, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Go

There are some links here, but I want discussion as this was already voted delete once before. Alba

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Fetofs ^Hello! 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Fetofs. Even without the earlier deletion, this is a pretty obvious nn. But, the old nomination went to delete pretty quickly, and I see absolutely nothing different this time around. Outta here. --Deville (Talk) 14:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Enochlau as db-author. -- JLaTondre 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pull it

This is not an article. It's just a comment made by the leaser of the World Trade Center building number 7. The term "pull it' is not used by the controlled demolition industry, as this "article" would like you to believe. We already have an article on the person who stated this at Larry Silverstein, so this is not only a non article, but a POV fork as well. Delete.--MONGO 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The term is real, see the section "Notice how a lot of other references where the word "pull" is being used to describe the demolishing of buildings:" here [30]. --Striver 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether the term is 'real' or imagined, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bucketsofg 14:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Phrase is common to many occupations, does not require explanation. —Chris Chittleborough 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a dictionary. JPD (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bucketsofg. What a strange article! But alas, "pull it" can be used in a virtually limitless number of contexts. StarryEyes 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send it over to Wiktionary, see how they feel about it. --Deville (Talk) 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the article quotes the sentence "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Maybe we should use the sentence as an example in Hello, Oh, we're, getting, ready, to, pull, building and six? There has to be some way to include 9/11 conspiracy theories in every article on Wikipedia! :-) Weregerbil 15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We could always create Category:Articles that lack 9/11 conspiracy theories. Believe me, it won't even be ten percent of the size of Category:Living people. StarryEyes 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here it is: Category:Articles lacking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Start putting things in! Weregerbil 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean Category:Articles requiring attention because they lack 9/11 conspiracy theories? --Deville (Talk) 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --mtz206 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Aside from the POV connotations mentioned above, Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, and not a repository for quotes (not cited from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) either.. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mmx1 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as WP:WINAD and WP:POVFORK. Esquizombi 18:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Expect the systematic keep votes to try and get a nonconsensus after the user lists this on his personal Wikiproject subpage.--Jersey Devil 19:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wiktionary as one definition or use of "pull".--Rockero 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, created to advance a specific 9/11 POV. Rhobite 00:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as brain-dead conspiracy theorizing based on a mishearing of "pull out"; as in "remove personnel from a building likely to collapse soon", a more likely explanation of the term considering the large numbers of people killed earlier in the day in collapsing buildings when no pullout order was given. ProhibitOnions 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no people there to "pull out", they where all evacuated already, firefighters included. I taged the article for speedie delete.--Striver 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but he was speaking spontaneously and wasn't making much sense anyway. The whole conspiracy theory depends on Silverstein revealing the plot in public once and then never mentioning it again. Thanks for the speedy tag. ProhibitOnions 10:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOTOREDE

No proof this ever existed as an actual JBS committee in article, except as a sketchy reference by critics of JBS Dominick ^(TALK) 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• deleteor Speedy delete Unverifiable. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete who knows if this actually exists?--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 17:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article actually makes its own AfD case. Sandstein 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the above votes were cast, I have cited new Internet sources that prove MOTOREDE's existence beyond a reasonable doubt; they include two used bookstores offering MOTOREDE publications for sale, as well as articles from the John Birch Society website and the New American. Even without using blogs or personal articles, I have been able to source the statement that it was a committee of the JBS. I have also written to the JBS, asking for more information about the committee. What more do you need? Seahen 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Prohibitions on original research WP:NOR aside, even if it does exist, does it deserve it's own article or should it be merged? Some of the sources you use are problematic. I would add this to the John Birch article and let the afd take it's course. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article is too short —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.77.136.101 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outpost: Coagulation

NN machinima production. Possible vanity (may have been created shortly after series begun), but I have little proof of that. If it is notable, it needs to be proven. Drat (Talk) 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Searching for "outpost: coagulation" -wikipedia machinima yields 914 hits [31]. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• delete nn --Bachrach44 14:25, 30 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 wasSpeedily deleted as per author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St John the Evengelist School (Silver Spring, Maryland)

I created this page poorly and I even spelled the title wrong. Just put it out of its misery. Vint 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• There must be some Speedy Delete category to cover this... --Xyzzyplugh 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• WP:CSD, case G7, covers this. I left a message for User:The Man13 so he could make this request directly, since I believe only the original author can make this request. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Child

Vanity, Wrong Information and against policies. —This unsigned comment was added by Jameslittle (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Keep unless convinced otherwise. The IMDB seems to verify this, unless that's wrong too (wouldn't be the first time, I guess). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I've checked the credits of the show itself, and he is indeed listed as creator and producer. Ignoring the possibility of some vast conspiracy, this is verifiable beyond any reasonable doubt. Changed vote to Strong Keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He does seem to be the creator and producer. Whether that means notability is another thing. He does get a good few Google hits though. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since he passes the spirit of WP:BIO. Much less notable people are around here. If you got a problem with the content, fix it. ---J.Smith 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Arbusto 07:04, 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 Deleted by The Epopt. -- JLaTondre 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versus (Fanfilm)

"Versus is a Star Wars fanfilm". Google search on it seems to show it being discussed in star wars or fan film message boards, no place else. Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fanfilm, no IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, non-notable fan film --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse Of Ra

Delete as NN game and advertisement. I had originally {{prod}}'ed this article for the same reason, but the author has since edited the article without removing the {{prod}} tag. Assuming that the edits were intended to improve the article and contest proposed deletion, I've removed the {{prod}} tag and moved to AfD. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't strike me as notable enough for a separate article. Also, no Mobygames entry. --Alan Au 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Different issue, but there's now a picture of the game put up there by the original author of the article that's marked as user-created and released to public domain. I thought game screenshots were considered copyright of the company making the game, in which case either the picture's mistagged or the person who wrote the article is promoting his own game. Kiti 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads-up; I've retagged it as a {{game-screenshot}}. --Alan Au 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Arbusto 07:05, 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 Deleted by Gator1 with summary of fails to assert importance and more like patent nonsense. -- JLaTondre 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sethcorps

Non-notable website. No alexa ranking. Maxamegalon2000 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Hoyt

Two non-notable bios in one article. Delete unless notability information comes to light. GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination (WP:BIO x2) Politepunk 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete ... and twice {{nn-bio}}, so tagged. Sandstein 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as to the first Robert Hoyt, who appears quite well-known and well-published in the space technology community, see [32] for examples of his work, [33] for evidence he is viewed as notable in the field. Monicasdude 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as stub with no content. If someone wants to write an article about the space tethers Robert Hoyt that actually has some content in it and assert notability about him, then fine, but this isn't it. Considered as a stub, it lacks sufficient content to be kept. It is standard to delete stubs that have almost no facts in them about the subject. They should be created when there is more content. And finally, this isn't an article OR a stub in its current form. It's a disambig page for 2 articles which don't exist. Slowmover 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Should have been speedied under CSD A7. Thanks. --Ragib 22:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Arbusto 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Harro5 01:05, 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 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ManBeer

Claims to be non-notable beer, no google hits, does it even exist? Title has slight scent of possible hoax MartinRe 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 17:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The article doesn't really strike me as smelling hoax-y (new word?), although I do think I smell a hint of spam. Needs some verifiable sources and notability. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Catamorphism 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN local brew or hoax per nom. Slowmover 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and localized beer. We need a WP:BEER. Kuru ^talk 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources/importance. Arbusto 07:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)