Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (keep). While sympathetic to the OR concerns, it does not invalidate the entire article. The external links seem valid, so the topic is at least discussed at some level outside of Wikipedia. Since the votes are about 70% delete, but no argument other than OR was put forth for deletion, I'm calling this a no-consensus keep. Voters on both sides are encouraged to remove OR from the article, tag it as needing such, or to start a dialog on the article's talk page. Turnstep 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queer people of color

This is original research and reads more like the outline of a paper than an encyclopedia article; even as a list, this would probably end up being largely conjectural and would probably still qualify as original research. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America and delete. Erik the Rude 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. dbtfz^talk 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but Cleanup My first guess was ixnay as well, but Who'd have thunk - 17K ghits, a lot of them on serious edu websites. We have much less notable orgs on WP.Bridesmill 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Deizio, below, there are actually only 605 unique hits. JDoorjam Talk 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand the objections. Like everything else, the article should be confined to verifiable information; why would it "probably" end up as original research? In no case redirect to the GNAA troll farm; that is a terrible suggestion. Lambiam^Talk 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. I also think that the suggestion to "merge" to GNAA is incorrect and most likely a bad joke.--Jersey Devil 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and redirect to GNAA. --Terence Ong 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. This is unrelated to the trolling group. TeKE 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought User:Erik the Rude's vote was a joke, but for the record, do not redirect. -- unsigned comment by JDoorjam - DarthVader 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Nortelrye 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Hetar 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but don't redirect, it has no connection to a trolling group. -- Mithent 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is clear evidence that this has no relation to Gay Nigger Association of America and can be expanded on to be more of an "article" if many agree that it resembles an outline.Anarkafrica 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, 8 of which were to this AfD) JDoorjam Talk 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion that this is an "organisation" (as others seem to be suggesting), just a term and some OR. per nom, 612 unique g-hits. [1] Deizio 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article itself in no way suggests that its topic is an organisation, anymore than, for example, Christians in the Persian Gulf does. You can't vote delete just because an article does not decribe an organisation. "Christians in the Persian Gulf" gets 13 unique Google hits[2], some of which are Wikipedia or Wikiclone entries. So should it be deleted? Come on people, can't we stick to serious arguments? Lambiam^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not this article. This is this article. If you feel the "Christians in the Persian Gulf" article is not notable or falls under some other criteria for deletion, nominate it for deletion. As it stands, this article — an article that, uncited, states that being a "QPOC... intensifies the complications of existing in an oppressed community within an already marginalized community" and that "queer life has become a catalyst for religious and political crossfire worldwide and prohibited as taboo and perverse in social laws in most non Western countries" — sets off my WP:NOR-dar. JDoorjam Talk 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean to suggest it should be deleted because it's not about an organisation, I was pointing out that some voters seem to think it is an organisation and might not have considered the matter as fully as possible. However, on reflection this is not as big a problem as I thought and I've struck the ambiguity. Btw, threatening to or encouraging others to nominate articles for deletion for no good reason other than "If A is OK, why not B?" tends to rub WP:POINT up the wrong way. Deizio 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • My apologies if I misunderstood you, but why did you count the Google hits then? I was not trying to suggest that the Christians in the Persian Gulf should disappear; it served as an illustration that there was something wrong with a criterion I thought I saw being applied. A simple way to establish that a criterion for deletion is wrong, is to show that it also condemns perfectly good articles when applied to them. Or did you mean my reaction to Erik the Uncivil (no offense intended)? That was in the hope it would make him think about what he wrote, as a Gedankenexperiment. Lambiam^Talk 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks very much like original research. But, do not redirect to the GNAA page. --Andy123(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but greatly expand and beef up the citations. This is a noteworthy topic. As for OR, there's enough in the article that is not OR that the article should not be deleted on that ground. Doctor Whom 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I was joking, by the way. I thought it was such a spectacularly bad joke that no one would take it seriously. This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play. Erik the Rude 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By that token you presumably are of the opinion that African Americans in the United States Congress, Black Indians, List of African Americans, List of African American jurists, List of African-American mathematicians, and List of Black Jews should all be deleted. Lambiam^Talk 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've got no problem with deleting those entries. Bring them up for a vote, and I'll vote to delete. Erik the Rude 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think they should be kept, so for me nominating them for deletion would violate WP:POINT. If you think they should be deleted, why don't you "bring them up" and see what happens? Lambiam^Talk 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• " This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play." - Well then the notables section should be stricken, but you have yet to provide a valid reason as to why the article cannot remain where it is. Anarkafrica 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See Lambiam's objection. --YesIAmAnIdiot 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete who the hell cares if Denzil Washington (arbitrary example!) is queer or not!? Jcuk 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And that's a very poor example. Think of Bayard Rustin (seasoned activist, advisor and co-organizer to Martin Luther King) and James Baldwin- at a time when the basis for attaining equal rights and justice was not and still isnt so discernable to non whites unlawfulness disfavored and homosexuality a retardation and infiltration to affirming racial identity and manhood to effective warring against the power structure in place.Anarkafrica 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete eh? no. -Doc ^ask? 23:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, revise and expand. QPOC exists and to disappear it would be nothing short of bigotry. Morganfitzp 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, revise and expand. Obviously there is much more to be said about this, but it's a good start towards describing the experience of a group of people who both experience racism and homophobia/heterosexism. I don't really understand the objection that this is not an objective article, since this is obviously a topic with many viewpoints and isn't likely to be objective no matter who writes it. Jamespkennedy 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Two edits, both to this AfD.) JDoorjam Talk 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think it should be kept. It is important to be educated about the gay rights of coloured people. It should be revised and updated. Santos Martinez 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, to two articles, his own user page, and this AfD.) JDoorjam Talk 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has at least six other edits, made while – apparently accidentally – not logged in, namely as 64.229.197.163 and as 64.229.198.252, also involving fixing vandalism to a third article. Lambiam^Talk 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office of International Treasury Control

• Keep it, please - I am surprised that someone would like to delete the article. I posted it precisely because there is no much information going around about the OITC and the little there is seem to indicate it is a scam of which people should be warned. It seemed to me that Wikipedia could be a good place for people to pool data about it so that a more clear picture appears. I have conducted research and have included all information available, with links to newspapers that anyone can check. Please, don't ask to delete it before checking the links and considering the importance of people being able to access some information about this matter. Brintolin (Talk)

nn fake UN division, only 125 Ghits, admits it isn't verifiable. Rory096_(block) 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - potentially a wikinews, needs much more research to make it an article - if the 'is' for real & breakking news, the location prob explains the low ghits for now.Bridesmill 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Unverifiable, for all we know this could all be a hoax.--Jersey Devil 01:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable Nortelrye 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see what the problem is. Obviously the OITC is a scam, but it is verified that it is a scam with organisations like the UN having to make serious denials and references like Fiji govt.Tyrenius 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, rename, redirect, there is an article here about an international scam which probably gets past WP:CHILL, but current page title is misleading. Rename as OITC fraud (following Advance fee fraud aka 419 fraud). Deizio 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It appears to be a viable stub, yet has some questionable notability. Kukini 18:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sheesh, no kidding this organization is a hoax. This is an article about a notable hoax. RGTraynor 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It shouldn't be deleted because it's a hoax; it should be deleted because it's a non notable hoax. Why would a notable hoax get only 125 Google hits? --Rory096_(block) 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rename This is notable hoax if the UN has commented about it. Low Google hits may be because it is in Fiji. But, it needs to be renamed as per Deizio banta 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unmature

This webcomic, seen here can be found on the small free webcomics host Drunkduck. This comic has been around since December 2005, and has like 30 strips under its belt. This is not a notable website, the whole of Drunkduck manages an Alexa rank of 90,000 and this is just one of the many comics on its site. - Hahnchen 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nn, alexa rank of just under 90K. [3]--Jersey Devil 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete as non-notable, and watch out for the sockpuppets; they were out in full-force for the last DrunkDuck webcomic afd. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the Webcomic Cleanup Drive. TeKE 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn... Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Mithent 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TKE --Andy123(talk) 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Alexa rank and non-notable.--Doug (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High School Musical 3

Speculation and rumor. See google results.[4] -- Nominator is Mad Jack O'Lantern - DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Although it has been verified that the movie will be made, there is no verifiable information beyond that. Delete as crystallball. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Where has it been verified? Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Various interviews done right after the success of High School Musical, several higher-ups' (Such as the VP of Disney Channel Worldwide) have stated that High School Musical is a 3 part film, and all three have been greenlit. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crystalballs.Bridesmill 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Jersey Devil 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would weak keep High School Musical 2, but this has a couple years before consideration. TeKE 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete flimsy speculation Tyrenius 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nope Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball --Andy123(talk) 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE - High School Musical 4 has been nominated for deletion aswell, for the same reasons. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Bill Borden, producer of High School Musical, said the film is meant to be a three part telefilm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.40.20 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2006
• Delete, per nominator, shiny crystal balls. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pebble Version

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

This Pokemon fan fiction webcomic can be seen here and you can see their user forums here. It achieves an Alexa rank of over 5 million. A Google search for "Pebble Version" brings up 125 hits, many of which don't refer to the comic at all. (It also seems to be some sort of Java blogging tool amongst other things) - Hahnchen 00:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic, over 5 million alexa ranking.--Jersey Devil 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rankings can be iffy, but for a site that's been online for two and a half years, that's clearly nn. TeKE 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Danny Lilithborne 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 16:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Andy123(talk) 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Doug (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Alexia rankings have proved to be highly unreliable and my attempts at the aforementioned google search have turned up more hits than previously reported. In addition, being a fan of Pebble Version, I know of many sites that mention it which do not show up in the google search. Finally, it tends to rank in the top 30-40 on Top Web Comics, so it clearly has a decent following. --NBolt (talk) 22:120, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Torchic article has a paragraph on it since Torchic is the main character. Pebble Version doesn't need one. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The author is actually asking users to keep it. Which explains all the IPs... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Actually, he's merely pointing out that the article is up for delation and mentioning that people can comment if they would like. If he was really asking people to do it there'd probably be a lot more respones. Also, he does make of point of telling people to make intelligent comments and not spam if they do come here. --NBolt (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep firstly torchic is not the main charicter, it is brenden secondly if what TKET is true then we can delete some younger stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.23.74 (talk • contribs) .

Poké-centric wise (le sigh) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - His comment is actually, in spite of its 2 year run, it still hasn't managed to generate big numbers. We do delete a lot of younger stuff, but webcomics pop up on Wikipedia all the time, it's hard to keep track. - Hahnchen 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You guys are picky... can we just let ONE entry stay on Wikipedia for once?!? Pebble Version is a poplular, and good comic. It is linked to on Bob and George. I would hate to see it's entry deleted. Please, have mercy. --Ryan 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.204 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: It rocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.138.235 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: It is a very good comic and deserves a page if it has been running for two years.--Linkmasta 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - What does this even mean? I have a very good friend, he's been alive for 20 years? Keep? This really isn't about how good something is. - Hahnchen 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not assert notability of topic, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Turnstep 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macc lads (muttleys) bass cabinet

An unencyclopedic and borderline nonsense tale about a speaker cabinet that once belonged to the Macc Lads. Bige1977 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Macc_Lads & delete.Bridesmill 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Bridesmill. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Doing sessions from Live tours and studio dates!" Okay, unimportant. TeKE 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly nonsense, not vaguely notable or encyclopedic. If it's important it will / would be in the parent article without direction from us. Deizio 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mostly nonsense, is non-notable, the source links are to blogs. --Andy123(talk) 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus/keep. While the people voting for delete had a 68% simple majority, I fail to see how this page could be considered so unsalveagable as to warrant deletion. The page has valid references, and appears to be attempting to summarize that research, rather than just being plain original research. Deserves a cleanup and/or an expert tag, and a possible rename, but not a delete. Turnstep 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Whites and African Americans

Non-notable and usesessly specific article subject. This article is non-encyclopedic content Berger 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencycopedic. dbtfz^talk 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen the "good" version and I stand by my opinion. This might make a good essay, but it's just not encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after Merge to Physical_attractiveness.Bridesmill 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Don't merge or redirect, nothing is salvagable from the page as is (the resources used could be from anywhere). Per WP:OR--Jersey Devil 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Look at the history. The version that has been tagged for deletion is the result of massive vandalism. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination and revert to the last good version [5] of 22:11, April 12, 2006, and then reconsiders the AfD issue. Lambiam^Talk 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, thank you for bringing that up. But I still think is should be deleted per WP:OR.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good call Lambian, decent article with references. Not my cup of tea, but it's academic research. TeKE 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not original research; the article summarizes academic studies performed by others in a neutral way. I don't understand what makes it "just not encyclopedic". I hear what you say and I think it is "just not an argument". Lambiam^Talk 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yes it lists "resources" which can be from anywhere. Simply putting down a name and a title of an article without where the article was published does not make a resource verifiable and thus this is OR. See I can do it as well Jersey Devil PhD. "Wikipolitics: Islam, POV forks, and Systematic Keep Votes"--Jersey Devil 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand your point, and I agree this this is probably a paper someone wrote. I think with cleanup by people who know psychology, it can be turned from a paper into an article. I'd like to see it around for sixty days to give a chance for cleanup, because the subject has merit per Not a paper encyclopedia and the other psychological relation articles. I'm not a fan of the article as is, but I see no reason to delete. TeKE 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Some content in this article may be suitable for merging into other existing articles, but unless it is truly encyclopedic to have an article devoted solely to attractiveness, self-image and body-type preferences among JUST whites AND African Americans, this article should be deleted I believe. I mean, should we also have an article called "Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Asians and Pacific Islanders"? I know, a little exagerated, but I think you get my point. I just don't think its encyclopedic to have an article for a non-notable study done on a non-notable subject. --Berger 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the good explaination. I personally disagree because of the disparity of interracial relations due to this preference. I'm still staying by keep, but you response is convincing and I have no problem with consensus here. TeKE 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I see your point as well TeKE. However, when an article is questionable, I usually like to air on the side of keeping Wikipedia clean and thus deletion. --Jake11 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
            • That's my philosophy too, most of my voting history shows. As I said, I'm not a fan of the article but I do think this is rather quick for deletion, because it could be cleaned up. I'm not the person to do it, I'm no expert. This RfD is a bit hasty to me is all. TeKE 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Jersey Devil's unverifiability complaint: It is not hard to find verifiable versions of most references – it took me only seconds. I added the completions. Lambiam^Talk 10:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is this, Wikipolitan Magazine? Far from encyclopedic. --Craw Returns 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encylopedic. DarthVader 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & unencyclopedic Nortelrye 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, unencyclopedic, and absolutely too subjective to be useful. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with physical attractiveness. --Knucmo2 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, non-encyclopedic essay. -- RexNL 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, barely referenced, subjective, ne essay Deizio 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not OR, as explained above. Also, if it's so NN, why have several academic studies been done on the subject? Still, it could use a cleanup and possibly a new title that doesn't limit it to "Whites and African Americans." Doctor Whom 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Eusebeus 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I've seen the "good" version myself, and this is plainly original research. Spice it up and it might make a good Cosmo article, keep the tone and it'll do for any number of academic journals, but. RGTraynor 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An article on this subject is encyclopaedic. Needs cleanup and moving to a more succinct title. David | Talk 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think I saw something like this in one of the magazines on the checkout line at Wal-Mart. It may be suitable for an episode of Oprah, but not an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Better than I thought it would be.--God Ω War 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & revert to a good version. JeffBurdges 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phantasy_tour

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Page originated as a joke starting on said message board and is comprised of highly opinionated comments. Spellcheck10 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Highly opinionated comments? Oh noes!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.137.247 (talk • contribs) .

get loser, let it be who are u the internet police —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew kachur (talk • contribs) .

THis is as close to the truth as it gets! PT is the real deal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.153.41 (talk • contribs) .

Delete if not speedy; it's already been speedied twice with pretty much the same content (and tripped my watchlist as such). Andy Saunders 02:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect from recreation TeKE 02:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete pure nonsense. Montco 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax. — FireFox • T [12:40, 16 April 2006]

[edit] Jake Utah

Appears to be a hoax. Can't verify anything about a "Jake Utah" via Google except that he is a 22-year-old with a MySpace page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, bollocks, nn bio, etc. dbtfz^talk 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. The claims made by the article need to be verifiable.--Jersey Devil 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. "Jake Utah" and "Best Week Ever" returns 1 Google hit....to a myspace page that Jake Utah has left a comment on. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, perhaps hoax. DarthVader 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. If he was a co-host of "Best Week Ever" I think VH1 would know about it. Fan1967 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, hoax, nn. --Terence Ong 04:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldo's wallpaper

Non-notable, vanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebor Rowntree (talk • contribs)

• Keep - No advertising and not for profit site - if you like we can delete it and I will add it back so we can strike the silly "vanity" fru-fru. Also, his site is notable having been written up in Computer Graphics World Magazine and it's been in yahoo for over nine years.
  • Jmunchovie, you have to sign your posts with four tildes (like this ~~~~ in order for your votes to count.) --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn - WP:BAI for several reasons.Bridesmill 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No Alexa ranking, fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. That it has no advertising and is nonprofit makes no difference; there is no evidence of notability currently present. As well, we have seen lots of vanity articles for noncommercial sites. --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, while jmunchovie's defense is admirable, it doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article is non-notable Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge site doesn't rise to real notability, but the pictures on it are nice. Its url could be listed in a list of external links in an article about artwork of this type. Phr 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RexNL 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WEB noncompliant, agree with Phr under right conditions. Deizio 16:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to Categories for deletion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ambidextrous people

This page isn't relevant for any of the people listed, except for footballer Donovan McNabb. This irrelevancy is reinforced by the fact that there's no mention of ambidexterity on the articles for John Roberts or Kurt Cobain. Chaser 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Object. James Garfield is listed and he was indeed ambidextrous. He could write Greek in one hand and Latin in the other, simultaneously. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to CfD. This is a category, not an article. -- Mithent 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have now moved to CfD. -- Mithent 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Middleton

Vanity, can't really be made into a userpage —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unnotable minor radio personality. Green Giant 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - would being a presenter for a BBC station make him sort of notable? The page just needs to be made into less of a shrine than it currently is.Montco 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Considering he's a freelance presenter on an early graveyard shift at three regional stations and only a stand-in for two other regional stations, I'd say he's not very notable. Admittedly BBC WM (West Midlands) has a large potential audience, but this guy is hardly a Tony Blackburn or a John Peel. :) Green Giant 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Notable enough in my opinion, being a presenter for a BBC station. Needs to be cleaned up if it stays. Is the article just randomly copied from some other source? DarthVader 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Saforrest 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable person. RexNL 14:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or keep the subject if anyone wants to prune it to a tenth of the length (max). Tyrenius 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 100% non notable. Anyone who thinks a freelance BBC local radio presenter is automatically notable doesn't know much about WP:BIO or BBC local radio. Deizio 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per DarthVader Jcuk 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom SYSS Mouse 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Joy

Article about someone who designed some shirts for the singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Doesn't seem notable enough. Recury 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete" Article is accurate and contains a viable, current link. Christian Joy's been in Nylon magazine and on my blog, and I'm betting none of you Deleters have. Oh, and Christian Joy does great stuff.
• Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. --Lockley 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stripcreator

• Delete this was actually deleted before (See Here) but it was so long ago (October 2005) that I wasn't sure if I should just put up a speedy deletion tag. The article as is, is just an advertisement for a site with over 250K alexa ranking. [6] If this article is deleted (which it likely will) there should also be a {{deletedpage}} tag added to stop the members from that place from recreating it. Jersey Devil 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete and put tag, per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, and protect it from recreation. --Terence Ong 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, and protect from re-creation Nortelrye 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merged back to List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, and deleted. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation Victoria Cross recipients

listcruft, unedited for more than 1 year Tony Bruguier 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, even today's edit didn't improve it much Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. According to List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, this article will only ever have 1 entry, no matter how badly we try to expand it. As a result, it's unnecessary listcruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Kukini 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, see above. --Doug (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, degenerate list. Quatloo 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Part of a series which should be complete. CalJW 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Forshaw

Delete, Smacks of pure vanity. claim about nobel prize nomination is unverifiable as nominations are secret for 50 years. other than that, nothing else can make this fellow more than an ordinary physicist. Montco 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page - Green Giant 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tony Bruguier 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a cool guy, but this is vanity. DarthVader 04:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Was speedied under another name [7], IIRC, I was the one who tagged it, and I believe it was complete bullocks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As an alumnus of that university department, I can confirm that this guy is non-notable. Oldelpaso 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't believe this is vanity. It reads like a send-up of the guy. It's material taken from his university website page, apart from the Nobel Prize bit, and this:

"The following is taken from Jeff's website in his own words, listen to the genius."

That doesn't sound like the subject of the article talking. It sounds like a disaffected student. Tyrenius 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh MacKenzie

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete personal CV - Green Giant 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Resume made into two pargraphs. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, vanity. Montco 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn, vanity. DarthVader 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Green Giant, Fuhghettaboutit. Samaritan 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Parsons

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete more vanity or possibly even advertisement - Green Giant 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Montco 02:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agile Alliance

nn [8] Tony Bruguier 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-advertisement. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as an advertisement Nortelrye 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plain Old Java Object

Unsure about this one, but it looks to me like a jargon entry that is not that notable. I'd say it's a weak delete Tony Bruguier 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well known term in the Java circles. There are books about this [9] [10] Weregerbil 10:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well known term. --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful info ArgusCavalcante 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep good definition of POJO 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walker Middle School

nn Tony Bruguier 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Not notable enough. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete It takes a very strong case to keep a middle school for an encyclopedia. TeKE 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep most schools are notable. bbx 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe the school debate only really concluded that high schools were borderline notable. I might vote to keep if it was a decent article. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:34 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't believe that all high schools are notable. Elementary schools certainly aren't. Montco 06:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per well established precedent. --Rob 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I ask that you please, please don't consider precedent a reason for an AfD. With a thousand articles deleted every day through speedy, prod and here, context for the current situation is applicable. Sure, there are other middle school articles that may exsist because they escaped notice of the process, or notability exist (which isn't an official guideline either). Seriously, do you think paraphrase "Walker Elementary School in Oregon has a 1,000 students. They have education and sports" is the foundation for anything? TeKE 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly will consider precedent. I don't beleive in acting randomly. Over the last year there have been a huge number of school AFDs. The overwhelming bulk of schools (including ones like this) are kept. It's not "happen stance" that elem+middle schools are kept. It's the norm. Deletion is the exception, and almost always involves non-verifiability. Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005 shows the standard is it to keep all verifiable real K-12 schools (including elems and middle schools). Schools are in Wikipedia, because they are wanted, not because they "escaped notice". It is very intentional that school articles are created, and kept. Incidently, I don't vote to keep preschools normally, because I feel there is a clear precedent to delete them. I think we need to follow precedent, in order to provide reasonable and predictable results. --Rob 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational response. I was looking for evidence on votes to provide concensus, and I respect your POV. TeKE 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, real middle school. Kappa 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if it's a real school. Tyrenius 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Montco. RexNL 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge w/district unless article expanded and referenced. Currently fails WP:VER and WP:SCH. Gateman1997 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing can fail WP:SCH. It's a Wikiproject. The old Wikipedia:Schools page is a rejected guideline, since nobody could agree on anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong, WP:SCH did have a proposal out... and this fails it. Gateman1997 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, a proposal that isn't supported by consensus (or pretty much anyone, any more) doesn't carry a lot of weight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well I still support it as it was the only good faith compromise brought to date. Gateman1997 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or, failing that, merge to district or high school articles). "There's a school named X" isn't an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. Jcuk 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject. Hawkestone 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Let's see an end to these tiresome nominations. Many school articles are created every day. The odd one is nominated and usually it doesn't get deleted (never if it is a high school). What is the point of going on with these nominations. There are many classes of article on the margins of notability, but only this one gets picked on regardless of how many nominations fail. CalJW 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're citing a subpage for a rejected policy proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are more notable than train stations, and train stations are by policy notable per se. Monicasdude 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Which policy is that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• I wish there were an article on the school district so that we could merge this two-liner article there, but we don't. Well, it is an article at least, and precedent on schools is clear, so keep and hope for a merge or expansion later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not really meet even the minimal suggested standard for a school. This could probably be speedied as an empty article. Vegaswikian 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with district article. I'm from Oregon and can verify this is a real school. --Liface 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't it about time to rethink this "all schools are notable" nonsense? Hirudo 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Schools are notable and without question worthy of an encyclopedia which aims to be the sum of all human knowledge. Bahn Mi 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave O'Loughlin

Non-notable vanity. AlistairMcMillan 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this and related photographs per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe nine

non-notable club, advertising tone Tfine80 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, advertisement Tony Bruguier 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this isn't a business directory --Berger 04:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rendcomb College

nn Tony Bruguier 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep as per Rob. DarthVader 13:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete - sounds like an ad. Montco 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per well established precedent for schools. --Rob 10:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Weak assertion of notability provided through alumni, but I'll bite. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Rob Jcuk 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As with any senior school. Hawkestone 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per school precedent. The article is also well-sourced. Carioca 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High school CalJW 10:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avila (journalist)

Possible vanity page SDC 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unable to determine if she is notable or not. Google gives so many results for the Spanish city or St. Teresa of Ávila (or things named after them) that I can't find her among them. However, this is so POV and full of hero-worship that I doubt there's a salvageable article in there. Fan1967 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - this is clearly nonsense. Look at the history for even worse examples. Nuke article from orbit. Georgewilliamherbert 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy delete as nonsense. JDoorjam Talk 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grape quarter water

This article is better suited for a MySpace post or an Urban Dictionary entry, but that would mean it would have to exist. No pages come up when searching for "grape quarter water" on Google or Yahoo!. Tokachu 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I threw a {{db-nonsense}} tag on there. -zappa 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And I deleted it. JDoorjam Talk 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep for now, with the proviso that evidence of notability is sorely needed and another AFD would be entirely appropriate in the near future if none is found. Turnstep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie (program)

Appears to be nothing more than an obscure, single-author piece of BeOS freeware software, with no evidence given for widespread use or notability. It's not even mentioned in the list of BeOS programs. If evidence of notability comes to light, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, but until then I suggest that we should delete it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article could be expanded, (which I'll do), and I might be able to get sme notability. All software articles should be kept in my opinion. Linuxerist L/T 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the (unmentioned) author is Pavel Císler, who created much of the BeOS interface (Tracker, the desktop/file manager that everyone uses, was mostly his work), and currently works on Finder at Apple. He's notable enough as software developers go. We have many articles on potentially un-notable pieces of software due to the notability of their authors. --Kiand 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't, however, think the plugins list needs to be a seperate article, nor should there be articles about individual plugins. --Kiand 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional Keep - let's see if there really is evidence of notability. - Runcorn 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. The El Reyko 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'evidence' means, but Eddie featured heavily in the BeOS Bible, a fairly hefty dead-tree book published in 1999 about BeOS, including a 5-page interview with its author (although not as heavily as its then-commercial competitor Pe (text editor), due to the books heavy inclination towards pay-software...). I'd be willing to suggest that its as notable, if not more so, than many of the entries on the list of text editors. --Kiand 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on this? It could well be the evidence we're looking for, but I'm afraid that I can't find "Eddie" listed in the table of contents. I would suggest that the interview you mentioned goes more towards establishing the notability of Pavel Císler than about any particular piece of software he created. Indeed, perhaps what we could do is to summarise the contents of this article and merge it into Pavel Císler—who does appear to be notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That TOC and the book beside me don't agree about contents in all cases so don't take it as canon, but its mentioned along with other text tools; during the text on Pe; during the StyledEdit section, and a few other places. --Kiand 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires that: "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news media, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed." So this helps, but it would probably not be sufficient on its own. Do you know of any other references? I've done a Google search, but I coudn't find anything that appeared to meet these criteria. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Son of a bitch

More appropriate for wiktionary and a neologism to boot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and imrove, it cane certainly become more than a dicdef. Widespread "neologisms" (created during the early-mid 20th century?) are notable. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:35 (UTC)
• Keep, there are dozens of articles on wikipedia for all manner of swear word/phrases albeit this one could do with some improvment. Keep the article and add it to List of profanities. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A phrase such of this is more than just a word, it requires more than a dictionary definition, ergo it can be encyclopedic and not dictionaryish Robdurbar 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as a notable phrase that's been around for a while. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't understand why you're all voting to keep. Don't you know what a son of a bitch is? Isn't WP:WINAD policy, or has that been rejected now? Erik the Rude 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef -Doc ^ask? 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ↑ We are quite aware of the slang usage of the term "son of a bitch." Despite the literally meaning, the slang term is a very popular neologistic phrase in the world today and not a simple dictionary definition. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
• Strong keep. The Oxford English Dictionary Online's entry for "son of a bitch" is two pages long when copied into MS Word. You can say it brings nothing to the table now, but there are at least five meanings and numerous spellings not included in the article currently. I wouldn't even want to know what a slang dictionary like Partridge's would have to say about it. If anything, it needs dramatic expansion.--Primetime 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Dictionary that's why it should be on Wiktionary and not here and why this article shouldn't exist here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

↑ I think you're failing to see the point of the opposition to your nomination and opinions toward deletion. There are many notable words and neologism in Wikipedia that are more than mere dictionary definitions. By your logic, the words fuck and bitch should also be deleted. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

• I agree. An encyclopedia is a reference work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". All encyclopedias define at least some vocabulary terms and some even have embedded dictionaries (e.g., Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Besides, it is not a dictionary definition. See "good" to see what a dictionary definition looks like.--Primetime 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Further, although WP:WINAD, there is potential for well-known swear phrases/words to be expanded into encyclopedic articles discussing etymology, usage and social acceptance over time, etc., that a simple dictionary definition does not have. — TKD::Talk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless improved. Is there third-party research on the usage of this term? If so, let's cite it already. -- Visviva 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Keep votes like the ones above are why I could never, ever take Wikipedia seriously. We're disagreeing on fundamental definitions here, and if you don't know that adding a bunch of alternative spellings and trivial usage examples to a dictionary definition gets it no closer to being an encyclopedia article, well, I can't see agreeing with you guys on anything, even the color of the sky. Somebody might as well get rid of WP:WINAD, because it's not being followed at all here. I just hope the closing admin ignores the votes that go contrary to policy, but that happens only very rarely. We're on the slippery slope, people. Enjoy the ride down. Erik the Rude 16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll let the consenses decide that; thanks for your concern. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

• • Ignore all rules. - if the community decides that there can be a decent article then frankly, policy is just a son of a bitch. Robdurbar 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Right now this is no better than a dictionary entry, and I don't think it's a very notable phrase, but it's possible it will grow into a lengthy encyclopedic article detailing historical events/figures and controvery surrounding the phrase, etc., full of relevant citations and captions. I think it should be deleted at some point if it does not improve significantly, but I don't see any urgency to delete it this instant. –Tifego^(t) _{17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per WP:WINAD AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete - dicdef/wangi 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; I despise dicdefs, but the FDR quote is a nice touch. Melchoir 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, to clarify, I don't think this is clearly a dicdef. Melchoir 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Ignore all rules, the five major curse words are important. TeKE 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Bitch, until such time as a substantial core of verifiable content emerges. Per usual arguments for relatives of the famous. :-) -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A lot of potential here.  Grue  20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's already more than just a dictdef. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish the cultural significance of the term beyond the cultural significance of any other terms in the English language. Cedars 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Since it's clear that people can't stand the thought of this pathetic little excuse of a dictdef being deleted I have proposed on Talk:Son of a bitch that it be merged into Bitch which already has mention of derogatory uses of the term. Any discussions regarding that (unless changing a vote here to merge or voting to merge here) should be directed there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I respect your idea to move the article into the Bitch article, but I believe for merging articles, one should discuss the merging in the discussion page of which is it proposed to be merged. Therefore, we should direct comments to Talk:Bitch to incorporate opinions from that article as well. — Я не имею никакой жизни 06:18, 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Oops yeah, that's my mistake. The template points to talk:bitch not talk son of a bitch so discussions should be done there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a dicdef... pure and simple.--Isotope23 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7

[edit] Ernest Raymond Jones

I put the {{importance}} tag here a month ago and there haven't been any edits since. In fact, the only user who has edited this page has Jones in his username and is probably a relative of this dude. A search of google turns up little new. The only page that links here is the list of RHIT alumni Ergo, delete -Wiccan Quagga 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to goon. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hired goons

Not a term in common usage. Delete as probable Simpsonscruft. Redirect to goons, perhaps. Wiccan Quagga 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not referenced. Tyrenius 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to goon. A dicdef at best, and not a very reliable one. Haikupoet 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications in biology

The topic is so broad, it is inconceivable that any treatment could do it justice. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All peer-reviewed biological journals & influential papers & text books related to biology? A list this large would be useless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. --Tone 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per (aeropagitica). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per (aeropagitica) SorryGuy 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a list of all publications. It is a list of important publications. All that is needed is for the Biology community here to decide on criteria for importance. This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. --Bduke 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. These are the key publications, the criteria for inclusion are clearly noted. There are several similar articles with key texts as well, see for example List of publications in mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Inherently and insolubly PoV, and unmaintainable, but useful information. Conditional Keep, but only in WP namespace. Septentrionalis 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Salix. -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family fun pack for sims

Advertisement for upcoming product. De-{{prod}}ed by anon. Delete as spam. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also the title would need to change if it is kept as the official title seems to be "the Sims2 Family Fun Stuff Pack". By the way what is the "4 out of 7" in the article about, is it a rating or something else? --blue520 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal balls. Tyrenius 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was FCYTravis deleted "Big mouth corner" (nn). --blue520 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big mouth corner

nn club. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Stiffilis deleted by FCYTravis. -- blue520 07:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stiffilis

hoaxcruft. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Nonsense, repost, hoax, ect ect ect. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete --blue520 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masjid Tun Abdul Aziz

parishcruft (sort of, more like mosquecruft) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems non-notable; nothing to distinguish this mosque from all of the other small ones. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The main mosque of a city of 450,000 people, so it's the rough equivalent of a cathedral, but there is no such designation in Islam. The nominator's suggestion that it is the equivalent of a standard parish church seems to be quite wrong and misleading. Hawkestone 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hawkestone Monicasdude 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major mosque in major city. --Gene_poole 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for repost. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bepenfriends

advertisement, possibly copyvio from Bepenfriends (have not checked). Site is non notable date cruft. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and protect from re-creation. This has been speedied at least once and I want to say twice. Montco 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This really doesn't need to go through AfD, especially if it's already been deleted before. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete was not aware of that. Change my vote to speedy, will also be adding db-repost to article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic Engineering

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic Engineering

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gang of creeps

nn band, appx 500 google hits. No national airplay ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, airplay was local, does not have two full length albums. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dose not reach WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above Trebor 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and nobody has advocated deletion. kingboyk 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silverknowes and many others that are Edinburgh related

Delete Non-notable. Really, why must there be individual articles for these? Ned Scott 07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above: Jock's Lodge, Gogarloch, South Gyle railway station, Bonaly, Burdiehouse, Wester Broom, Pilton, Edinburgh, Powderhall, Drumbrae, Piershill, Fernieside, Craigcrook, Blackhall, Edinburgh, Trinity, Edinburgh, Mortonhall, Murrayfield, Longstone.

I'd be willing to support a merge if someone can make a reasonable argument for it. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all in principle. Place and railway station articles are automatically acceptable. Though in this case some merging may be advisable. I would suggest a criterion of one article for each postal district (but not, please not with a title of EHx!). For example we already have Meadowbank, Edinburgh which is EH8 so Jock's Lodge should be merged with that. -- RHaworth 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all. These are inherantly notable and verifiable, though as above, some should be merged ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, parts of towns and cities are often far better populated and far more notable than many small villages, but for some reason villages don't seem to get AFD'd. I too have misgivings about a lot of geographical place articles, but it does seem rather unfair to single out Edinburgh. Given time and research, all of these topics have the potential to be good additions to the encyclopaedia. I for one would be very interested to know about the history, topography and demographics of each of these places. (Declaration of interest: I am from Edinburgh; but then so are nearly half a million other people, so there is a potential readership out there.) --Mais oui! 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all, places such as these are beyond the usual subjective nominations and debates appropriate for AfD. Interested parties with local knowledge will expand, merge etc. as appropriate. Deizio 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all. These are all verifiable and merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many of these Edinburgh suburbs were distinct villages in their own right with significant history. Per comments above, over time they will come to be expanded into decent articles - Colinton is a good example (compare to original stub). That many are stubs right now is not sufficient grounds for deletion. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Deizio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Cactus.man although I'm not quite as optimistic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• We'd be keeping these by default if they were still individual villages; it seems odd to delete them because they've grown! They all have potential for expansion - Marchmont or Merchiston are decent examples - and they're more definite areas than it might at first seem; Edinburgh is more clearly divided in this regard than many UK cities, IME. Shimgray | talk | 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To follow through on my above comment - the only reason for nominating these seems to be that they're stubs. Areas of exactly comparable importance with fleshed-out articles seem to be acceptable - but the notability of something, and the suitability for an article, should be somewhat independent of what's currently been written. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per above. Joelito 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Cactus.man and Angus McLellan. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all. The notability varies, but some are definitely notable. --MacRusgail 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With this much support I have more faith that these articles really do have a future. When I was looking at the edit histories of some of them and saw they basically had creation and a stub edit, I was a bit worried. Silverknowes in particular got to me when the only thing it said about the place was that it had a golf course. But if this many Wikipedians really believe these articles have a future, then I have no problem with the articles. Is there a way to retract my nominations or something? It's doubtful that we'd have to wait a week to see the end results. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Korea Tours

nn advertisement cruft. Nice of them to mention wikipedia though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Advertisment for a nn-tour company. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement. Montco 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and is there some way to co-nominate the user User:NewKoreaTours for deletion / blocking as well? -- Ned Scott 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming Chaos

Non-notable, only has 200 members. Appears to be a vanity page. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place to gain fame. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• What harm is it doing. Its not a vanity page or something to gain fame. It something of things that are collectively remembered, known and sometimes treasured.
• This should not be deleted As the creator of the article, I attempted to make this article objective and completely factual about the site. By adding this article on wikipedia, we do not want fame or fortune, considering it's a nonprofit site. We would be honored just to be recognized on wikipedia, and the members pledge that by adding this article, we do not intend to abuse this great community and its articles. Jywayne 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)jywayne
• Delete: The article does not assert notability, and the website has an Alexa ranking of 684,719. --Hetar 09:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable Lylum 00:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete They are not trying to gain fame or anything. All they are doing is trying to keep their memories sacred by using the power of wikipedia. Also, the info is in a good and appropriate manner. I think that it should be allowed to stay.
• Don't delete I think it is a well written article while accounting good memories. If someone needed information on them, then now they can get it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship Of Fools (band)

Clearly non-notable band, haven't even released an album yet. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for failure of WP:BAND and WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. --Hetar 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Trebor 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Alliance

Non-notable internet empire. -- RHaworth 08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. -- Karada 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shehzad Bhunnoo

Non-notable, possible vanity Mtiedemann 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this as non-notable and mendacious vanity. One of the editors of this article, one "Shehzad Bhunnoo", claims "I am not he. Just a fan," which is really extraordinary. --Lockley 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transfer to Wikibooks. However, the originator of the article has said that he will expand the article. If that does not happen, and somebody wants to transfer it, please drop me a line and I will delete it at that time. Turnstep 02:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer

• Transfer: Nothing more than a word for word quote of the creed, belongs at Wikibooks. --Hetar 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transfer as per nom. Tyrenius 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtophobia

Original research, completely unsourced. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete While this may well be an actual category of bigotry, the name is clearly made up and the article (as noted) is wildly unsourced. Unless it can be shaped up quickly, it should probably go. IrishGuy 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely unsourced and crammed full of POV & OR. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, OR - RexNL 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it almost sounds like it belongs on Uncyclopedia at some points. Arzikl 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Delete; this was entirely lifted from an older version of Anglophobia. IP Address 23:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anry Nemo

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Article calls him "popular" but his notability seems to be confined to deviantART and similar websites. 684 Google hits, lots of blogs but no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment i would say he is well known outside of DA - i wasn't aware that he is on DA or gfxartist at all. Actually i'd say that lots of people know his art without knowing it's from him. His gallery (currently offline - here's a partial mirror - [11]) will come as first page (from 500k hits) on google just on search term 'anry' alone. If i'll have time, i'll try to lookup some russian sources on him, but my russian is not very good. I won't vote because i am inactive on wp for long time, i just thought you should know this.- JohnyDog 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That first result which pops up doesnt function and redirects to a webhosting service. Also a quick flick through some of the other results lead to other uses of the word anry (or in one case what seems to be another person using the same name). Yes he has other galleries featuring his work, but I could quite easily place some of my photos on multiple galleries and websites and use that to claim 'notability' for my work. What I think is the issue for these artists who have been tagged AfD is that although they may be extremely talented artists they lack further impact or notability beyond these websites which feature them. Bleedman and Linda Bergkvist havent been nominated and I think thats because their articles show that they have been published or involved in significant work beyond the production of work for these sites like DeviantART. Tyhopho 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly why I haven't nominated those two. Melchoir 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Hetar 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackeri

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART and similar websites. Roughly 100k Google hits, depending on what you search for; lots of blogs and dA pages but no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bri-chan

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 63k Google hits; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Conway

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 41k Google hits, most of which are about someone else; no reliable sources on this individual in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pu-sama

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 66k Google hits, almost all of which are apparently dA pages; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ssilence

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 100k Google hits, many of which are dA pages; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as failing WP:CORP. FCYTravis 09:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dryic, Dryice, DryicE-corp, and Dryice-corp

• Delete: These pages are all the same. NN corporation that does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisements written in the first-person. --CrypticBacon 09:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyn Dale

Non-notable poorly written bio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. seems to not reach WP:BIO.--blue520 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Knucmo2 17:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, VanityCruft. Stunned to see this has been around since November. Deizio 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick A. Kerry

Not notable for himself, add info to Richard Kerry and/or John Kerry. Arniep 11:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category. I'm convinced by Deiz's argument below that on this one, it's not that notable. So no objection here.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And I say NO. Delete. The El Reyko 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Campaign is a bit strong. The category advertises that it's subjects are not notable, and I was about to go through the category and nominate those which are indeed nn myself. It's called cleaning up/enforcing our guidelines and policies, not a "campaign". --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "campaign" turns out to be more loaded than I intended. What I meant was, all of the articles were nominated at once (and, of course, in seven different spots), rather than determining the success of the category first. I'm not happy with that, as I'd rather not see a category used as the basis to delete an article. --Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Worthy of a mention in his brother's article but I don't believe he's notable per WP:BIO. --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely nn save for famous descendants. Everything in this article is already mentioned at Richard Kerry. Mike Selinker, I'm confused - are you voting keep to make a point just because you're interpreting this as a bad-faith nomination, or because you have reason to believe that Frederick A. Kerry meets WP:BIO? The disputed category is entirely redundant, as committing suicide and being related to a famous person does not make for a WP article, that comes from at least being involved in a newsworthy suicide, a different criteria altogether, plus the cat authors have admitted it is designed to contain non-notable people, and that they hope the articles within it will be used to conduct original research. Deizio 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm the category's author. You have inaccurately divined my "hopes." I created the category, after discussing it with User:Michael David, as a method of categorizing the existing articles.--Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, doesn't answer my question. Do you personally believe that Frederick A. Kerry meets the criteria set out at WP:BIO? Deizio 10:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're asking whether I believe an article in a category defined as "non-notable people" passes a notability test? If it were part of a category called "The Kerrys" (as opposed to John Kerry), I'd vote to keep it in a heartbeat. Famous relations are fine with me, as it fleshes out the character of otherwise notable people.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, that's not how the project works. Individuals must satisfy the criteria at WP:BIO, regardless of which category they have been put in, who they are related to or the reasons behind the creation of their article or its nomination for deletion. Voting "keep" when you do not believe a subject is inherently notable is usually a violation of WP:POINT, especially when trying to "save" an article or category you have created or edited. Information on notable individuals (including important events involving family members which have a bearing on the individual's life) should be "fleshed out" on their own page. However, I'm sure you've figured all this out for yourself by now. Deizio 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been here for a while, Deiz, so among the things I've figured out for myself is that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. It's not the only reason an article might need separation from a main article. One reason might be to avoid clutter in a complex article. Another reason might be that the subject is not as significant as the main article. The notability test is one reason why you might believe an article should be deleted, but it isn't a reason that all users must follow for every article. Again, I didn't create any of these articles, but I think all (except maybe Daisy Keith, which is the stubbiest of stubs) are intriguing, and thus I vote to keep them (and thus try to categorize them in some useful way). Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But if they alone don't meet the likes of WP:BIO, then they don't merit an article of their own, so add their information to their notable relative's article. I'm not dismissing what you and Michael have identified as being pointless or uninteresting, but I don't think the framework of a general encyclopedia is the place to pursue it. Perhaps a third-party webpage or website linked to Wikipedia...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

BIO is indeed a guideline, and sometimes notable people don't fit, but I'm still wondering: what is the significance - or intrigue - of this piece? The suicide took place 22 years before John Kerry was born, and when Richard Kerry (who seems to have written one book and had a decent career as a diplomat) was six years old. If there was documented evidence that the event had affected the life of a notable person, this might be something. But there isn't, its still just a guy who killed himself and whose grandson would eventually run for President. There is is a very big difference between Fred Kerry and, for example, Cheyenne Brando, whose entire life was influenced by her relation to a celebrity, and whose newsworthy suicide has been linked to it. Mike, much love. Deizio 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, that's a very good point, Deiz. It's possible my interest in this one is influenced by Hannelore Kohl and Cheyenne Brando, which might be more interesting than this one. But this seems complete enough for at least me to be neutral on it. (Of course, I never want to delete any article.)--Mike Selinker 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing sufficiently notable for a general encyclopedia in this life summary. David Kernow 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody's grandfather? Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
• Delete Relative of a notable individual is not sufficient to confer notabiliity. JoshuaZ 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daisy Keith

Not notable in herself, add info to Brian Keith. Arniep 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.Revising my vote to abstain. This is barely a stub, and doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the other articles nominated for deletion in this batch. So it doesn't make sense for me to say "Keep" on it.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The El Reyko 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. --kingboyk 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Brian Keith per Arniep. David Kernow 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinaida Volkova

Doesn't seem to be notable herself, add any important info to Leon Trotsky. Arniep 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- well, I wrote the current articles about Leon Trotsky and his family, so I am probably biased :-) -- but I wouldn't object to changing this article and the one about her sister, Nina Nevelson, to redirects and moving the contents to Trotsky. Ahasuerus 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- and let my vote be delete on all the other "Famous people's relatives who have commited suicide" up on AfD because I can't be bothered voting on them all individually. The El Reyko 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with merge & redir, an interesting life but no assertion of notability other than famous relative. Again, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Simplify and merge with Leon Trotsky. David Kernow 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Leon Trotsky. --MaNeMeBasat 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Do not merge; not likely to be a good fit with Leon Trotsky. Septentrionalis 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. KNewman 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : If not delete or merge, then what's notable about Zinaida Volkova that doesn't have some association with Trotsky?  Regards, David Kernow 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, Yakov Dzhugashvili wasn't notable for anything that didn't have some association with his father, yet we still have a separate article on him. Why not on Volkova? We cannot possibly cram information on every somewhat notable person who had association with Trotsky into one article, can we? Anyway, I am an inclusionist, therefore I am biased when it comes to AfDs, but as I am entitled to my bias I voted to keep the article where it is.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've left my vote to stand as it's to simplify/merge rather than delete. Thanks for your thoughts, David 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, there has been a low level controversy over the nature of her relationship with Trotsky as of late. Some documents seem to suggest that she was mentally unstable at the end and had a crush on her father, which may have contributed to her suicide. It wouldn't be too hard to get it all compiled and NPOV'd, but I am not sure if it would help make her "notable" for the purposes of this discussion. Ahasuerus 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, independent if limited notability. Monicasdude 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge.—Vald 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assia Wevill

Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Ted Hughes. Arniep 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She is more than a simple footnote and also had a book dedicated to her. IrishGuy 21:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per IrishGuy --kingboyk 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, closer to the bar but still not, imo, independently notable. No evidence that she displayed excellence or distinction in her field, whatever that may have been, hence at best this is merge & redirect. When having a book dedicated to you becomes a WP:BIO criteria, the battle to keep cruft out of WP will have been well and truly lost. Deizio 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Simplify and merge with Ted Hughes. David Kernow 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep and enhance, her suicide and relationship with Hughes is significant in the lives of two of the foremost poets of the 20th century, one of whom (Hughes) was the poet laureate of the UK for a number of years before his death. Wevill's 'reenactment' of Plath's suicide, has significance for historical judgements of Hughes and for the feminist movement in general

--Dbspin 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Users 3rd edit on Wikipedia Deizio 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

• I still fail to see a) how this individual meets WP:BIO, and b) why all this crucial information about Ted Hughes should be scattered about, rather than contained on the Ted Hughes page. A very serious Heymann Standard of improvement is necessary to prove otherwise. Deizio 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable for involvement with Hughes/Plath events. Monicasdude 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She meets the standards of inclusion -- for Wikipedia. The scope of her entry, however, needs to be broadened. The Muse/music dichotomy of art is a generation-defining issue! Defenestration

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Linkletter

Linkletter Diane...Fact, the same man who was with Linkletter when she "Jumped" was later with Carol Wayne, of the Johnny Carson show, when she died of mysterious circumstances in Mexico. Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Art Linkletter. Arniep 11:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as her death is notable in its controversy. -- Grev 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Grev and per WP:MUSIC for her participation in Grammy-winning recording. --Metropolitan90 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would say winning a Grammy is fairly notable. IrishGuy 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The story (false or not) of the "flying LSD girl" is surely an urban legend by now. There's a film about her too (The Diane Linkletter Story) so I think this is a safe keep. --kingboyk 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Grammy winner plus newsworthy suicide puts her safely over the bar. Note this has nothing directly to do with simply being related to a celebrity and also committing suicide. Deizio 23:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I missed the grammy award, so I agree keep for this. 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arniep (talk • contribs)

• Keep as per most of the above. David Kernow 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Famous. Herostratus 05:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kingboyk & others. --Lockley 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I guess this has been resolved, but STRONG KEEP. She is not in any way obscure. It was a big news story in the late 60s. Rather notable. Moncrief 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheyenne Brando

• Keep - she was a key player in unfortunate events, albeit made notorious by the family connection.--mdecker

Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Marlon Brando and/or Christian Brando. Arniep 11:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep I would say that she is notable, since there was a huge court case surrounding her, her father, and her brother. Roodog2k 13:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I vote to keep this. She was newsworthy for a number of years. There must be people who would want to get the facts. In fact, I did. Also this is a much more interesting article than some, like individual episodes of TV programs. Rbraunwa 18:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she was ever in the news before the court case, and really even then the focus was more on her brother than her. I think we should just redirect this to Marlon or Christian Brando. Arniep 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - she was a notable participant in at least briefly notable unfortunate events. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom; I don't think she's independently notable. --kingboyk 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, model involved in several news events including her suicide. Deizio 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she was really a serious model, but perhaps the fact she was at the heart of the shooting case makes her noteworthy. Arniep 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Simplify and merge with Marlon Brando unless information/evidence indicating her own notability as a model included. David Kernow 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, involved in sequence of unfortunate events treated as highly newsworthy by media. Monicasdude 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannelore Kohl

Doesn't seem to be notable except for a cookery book which probably wouldn't have existed if she wasn't wife of Helmut Kohl. Arniep 11:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this subject falls marginally over the line of notability. The debates over the cause of her suicide also make her notable. David | Talk 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete I think she probably falls just short of independent notability, but it's hard to tell not being German. --kingboyk 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. She was in the public spotlight quite often independently of her husband. Deleting this article would be the same as deleting the article on Laura Bush -- Lylum 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the combination of her medical condition, controversy over her death and (assuming the article's description is correct) her fame as a culinary author are all of potential interest. Have added cleanup notice. David Kernow 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable in her own right for her charitable work with de:ZNS – Hannelore Kohl Stiftung. Valiantis 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently noteworthy as published author regardless of other issues. Monicasdude 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -Obli (Talk)^? 00:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarita Teriipia

Only acted in one film, Mutiny on the Bounty, then married Marlon Brando, not notable enough to warrant own encyclopedia article. Arniep 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Marlon Brando. --kingboyk 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Nomination is chronological bias. She had a major role in a famous Hollywood picture and then married a superstar. If a young actress had a major part in a 2006 Tom Cruise film and then married him and retired, would she have an article? Do I need to answer that? Hawkestone 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was really a major role, and I'm not even it sure it really qualified as acting as she just played herself (a Tahitian) and had never appeared as an actor before or since. Arniep 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There no doubt are people who will look for this article. And anyway, what's the downside here? Rbraunwa 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

They would look for Brando first, and any information on her (of which there isn't much) can go there. Arniep 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What is being considered here is not whether the info is useful but whether she is notable enough for her own encyclopedia article or whether she is merely known for being the wife of Marlon Brando, in which case she should not have her own article. Arniep 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Hawkestone. Monicasdude 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. kingboyk 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redmond UK

Article about an aspirant rapper, appears not to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Article is referenced prominently on subject's own website, referring to it as "my page". Wikipedia is not MySpace. -- Karada 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above Trebor 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (aka "oppose" ;). If the argument to delete is about the non-usefullness of the language-phone articles, then please start with a more established one (e.g. Anglophone) or better yet, nominate them as a group. Turnstep 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainophone

A clear-cut dicdef about a very rare term. Just like with Lusophone, Anglophone and Francophone the information contained that isn't about language usage (wiktionary information) is duplicated in the main language articles, in this case Ukrainian language. I don't see how any of the language-phone articles are relevant to Wikipedia. They often don't even contain any encyclopedic information, just examples of how the term is used and by whom, something sorted under the section header "Usage notes" at English wiktionary, and usually just duplicate the main language articles. What little verifiable information contained that can't be found outside of these articles is not made more accessible by keeping these kinds of articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose a term very valid in modern UA politics. The issue about parts of population being Ukraino- or Russophone is very significant in much of UA politics and this is the article to elaborate on that as well. --Irpen 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's about Ukrainian politics, it should be in Ukrainian politics. If it's about demography it should be in Ukrainian people or Ukrainian demography (or something). "Ukrainophone" is a pure dictionary definition. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Irpen. --DDima ^(talk) 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment are all the other "phone"s also up for deletion? I think this one has just as much right to stay as any other. And I double dog dare you to suggest delete francophone and watch the wrath of every single Quebec WPdian unleashed on you. :-) Kevlar67 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination is not ambigious; there is only one article up for deletion. However, there is absolutely no difference between Francophone and Ukrainophone except that the former is more widespread. The added cultural meaning of Francophone doesn't make it more encyclopedic; it just means that additional information should be added to the Wiktionary entry. It would be so nice if participants could show even a modicum of reason and try to discuss the matter itself instead of voting on every imaginable bureuacratic irrelevancy. I think we can decide on the merit of a single article without assuming that it creates a carte blanche for anyone who wants to zap all similar articles out of existence. / Peter ^Isotalo

• Well first off you're right, the francophone and ukrainophone articles do have the same information value, which is why I say that one should not be deleted if the other is not, simply for consistency’s sake. However the cultural value attached to them is exactly what makes them worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia or not. Why write about something that isn't "valuable"? My personal opinion is that the article on the Ukrainian language is too long (in fact it says so when you edit it). I think it should be split, and some of the information on geographical distribution moved here. The same could be done for francophone, etc. That would be much more useful than deleting this page. In other words I oppose the deletion. Kevlar67 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All terms have "cultural value", even dictionary definitions. You could vote to keep any dictionary definition by claiming it has a certain cultural value. "Ukrainophone", though, seems to be so rare that it might very well be considered a neologism.

That Ukrainian language is too big is not a valid excuse to start forks that have dubious encyclopedic value. There are countless ways to create sub-articles of main language articles (just look at any of the language FAs), but articles about the speakers as a group or a term for the sake of the term itself is not one of them. See geographic distribution of Portuguese for a precedent.

Please have a closer look at how language articles are written and keep in mind that none of "-phone" articles I'm aware of contain encyclopedic information (i.e. not just language usage) that wouldn't easily fit in the main language article or isn't already contained in them. I believe you should reconsider your vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Sppedy Delete, blatant copyright infringement pschemp | talk 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian allegations

Seems to be a long-winded, one-sided Turkish nationalist apologetics on quite what I can't easily figure. Breaks WP:NPOV and probably most of the WP:NOTs, epseically WP:NOT a soapbox and no doubt others not thought of yet. If the subject is encyclopedic, (Turkish-Armenian relations perhaps?) this isn't going to help one jot, and it would be better to start off from scratch. There are also copyright issues here and strange assertions on copyright. — Dunc|☺ 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: First of all this article is not copyrighted (if you could read the first sentence) and is rather promoted by a governmental institution to be published anywhere. If you think this article is biased, then it should also be illogical for the Wikipedia to have an article named "armenian genocide" online, since even the United Nations approve the fact that it cannot be named as "genocide" and therefore should be regarded as "allegations" only. Millions of people from tens of countries oppose the idea of so-called Armenian genocide by Ottomans. Also looking at the issue from a different point of view, half a million Muslim Ottoman citizens were also murdered by Armenians (not Russian, Italian, British or other forces in a war) and if there has been an Armenian genocide, then there surely is a Turkish Genocide by the Armenians. This article reflects the views of millions of Turks, including many Armenians of Turkish descent living freely and happily in Turkey. Its objectivity comes from the extensive proof and facts from the archives of tens of organizations and countries. Therefore, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia's credibility, but only diminishes its objective and neutral attitude. It is also a major offense for the memories of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, who have been murdered by Armenian terrorists 1914-1922, and their relatives. Having a debatable topic like "Armenian Genocide" but not allowing people to edit it is unbearable since some of that article is based on the fake documents and some doesn't even have a basis. Now, deleting this article for it opposes a debatable topic is neither a wiki-style nor a democratic/historical approach. I believe that people should read both articles and then freely decide on their points of view. --Kayaakyuz 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone see what I mean about the m:MPOV? — Dunc|☺ 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, has problems with WP:NOT & WP:NPOV. Also if the content is from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture of the Republic of Turkey it seems to fall under Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but if that is the case and copyright sorted out it could be transwikied to wikisource if suitable.--blue520 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I thought the Armenian genocide was well-established, to the extent that Turkey has a law against mentioning it, recently applied to one of their notable authors whose name alas escapes me. Hence Armenian genocide. Midgley 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean Orhan Pamuk. As you can read there, the case went nowhere. If you are interested in such things, here is an interesting interview with the author: [12]. Lambiam^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but perhaps call it Armenian Genocide, Official position of Turkey. I was going to say: Merge with Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey, but that article has mysteriously disappeared, even though the debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey was closed on 10 March 2006 with speedy keep. The article needs to be turned into something readable, which is a tough and thankless editorial job, but it is important to present the official position of Turkey (in an NPOV way) on Wikipedia. Lambiam^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Lambiam^Talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete I am surprised there isn't an article on the Armenian question. A good article can incorporate the positions of both parties. But poor articles like this written as strong POV from either side are not useful. Montco 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, title is POV, topic already covered in Armenian genocide. No need for ethnic clashes to spill over onto Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:22 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and suggest final warning to users. I believe the Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. It links to the disputant sources in the Turkish Government already and has taken viewpoints of Turkish historians into account, so copying statements from the wholesale is unnecessary as well as being a major faux pas. One might consider renaming that article to Armenian Massacre so as not to arouse a minority, but even the word 'massacre' is apparently disputed by one of the users involved in the edit war there, so it's best to draw a line in the sand to avoid editorial creep. Whatever the Armenians did to the Turks is covered elsewhere I'm sure, and does not detract from the reality of histoical events. Just because there are more Turks than Armenians doesn't mean they get to rewrite historiography! As a neutral European (with friends of Armenian and Turkish descent), I believe that nearly a century has passed, and these issues will be acknowledged by the Turks sooner or later. And even if that weren't such a huge inflammatory NPOV question, the article is also appallingly badly translated, has not been through the usual Wikipedia creation process, and the people who uploaded it don't seem to understand the GFDL. Are they in fact the copyright holders? Because if not, they cannot declare it GFDL, nor if it is public domain. You can hand out leaflets, but they have to understand that you cannot do this on Wikipedia. --Cedders 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what is meant by "suggest final warning" above. I contest that the Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. Confining myself to the issue at hand, the article is confused or confusing about the notion of "Turkish authorities", which are contrasted with "Turkish intellectuals". Are Turkish historians not Turkish intellectuals? Why are they lumped together with "authorities"? They may be authorities in their field of research, but that is not what you would normally understand "Turkish authorities" to mean. Why is Zeki Kuneralp quoted as an "authority", and quoted as if he spoke yesterday instead of more than 15 years ago, while the poor man, who has now been dead and buried for almost eight years, had then been retired for more than ten years? What is the subtext of the section heading "Political Arguments"? The excerpt or summary of the official position of the Republic of Turkey, although not entirely wrong, is quite incomplete. There are external links, but it is very difficult to navigate them to find reliable further details about the official position. Some people who have a strong point of view on the matter, from both sides, want to censor the presentation of some different points of view. I strongly believe that the viewpoints of all major players in this tragic, deep, and long-standing conflict should be reported accurately and comprehensively in Wikipedia. Lambiam^Talk 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • They should be reflected in a neutral article, not in a series of POV forks. And the amount of coverage given to each strand should be based on its credibilty among neutral experts, not the number or the strength of the feelings of the antagonists. Hawkestone 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete Nothing but a propaganda release. Hawkestone 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, historically falsifiable propaganda. Haikupoet 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So if I understand you guys correctly, because you don't agree with the position of the Turkish government on the issue, the information about that position should be withheld from other readers of Wikipedia. Lambiam^Talk 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Information about the position is not being withheld from readers. The identical text is linked to from Armenian Genocide#Websites opposing the genocide theses (third bullet point); there are 2000 words in section 4 alone describing the position of the Turkish authorities (that of national institutions of historians I think is hard to distinguish from that of the Government, since it is obvious that there is little academic freedom for historiographers, what with one person still on trial for this). The intention must be to produce one definitve article on the events, noting disagreements in the relevant places, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If section 4 doesn't represent the arguments in the link well, then a possible rewrite of it or new section 4.3 could be suggested at Talk:Armenian Genocide. By 'final warning to users' I meant that an admin should take this in hand and make it very clear to him that uploading 160KB of someone else's undeited inflammatory propaganda and making or repointing a dozen redirects to it (which I've now listed on RfD) is not part of editing an encyclopaedia. I don't think either holocaust denial or raising awareness of massacres should be a crime, but if the user concerned doesn't get it and continues to disrupt, should they be banned like the similar user who blanked Kurdistan? --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Both sides produce inflammatory propaganda, but if you call this inflammatory propaganda you haven't seen much. Personally I think we should not have the debate here, or on Talk:Armenian Genocide, but leave it to historians and record what they report. Loaded terms like "genocide" are inherently POV, and in particular terms such as "denial", implying that one side is "wrong", should be avoided. But I must confess (blush) I had overlooked the fact that that third bullet gives access to this "inflammatory propaganda", and therefore I have changed my vote to "delete". I think, however, that it is not given sufficient prominence or representation. For the record, the remaining defendant in the trial is a journalist, not a historian, and the charge, based on his criticism of a court decision, is insulting the Turkish judiciary and attempting to illegally influence a court case (where the latter carries a much higher penalty than the former). That is not to deny that such cases have a chilling effect, but I think the reason behind bringing charges has nothing to do with Armenian issues, but is really aimed at undermining the EU policy of the Turkish government. Lambiam^Talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that what folks are saying is that this piece is hopelessly POV and that relevant NPOV information should be added to the existing article on the subject. This reads like a rant.Montco 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Biased fork. ReeseM 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it! Wikipedia should stay in the center and should not be the representative of Armenians living abroad. If they loved their country so much, they should live in Turkey with peace, instead of cutting the vessels of the country. If they hated Anatolia then they should live in Armenia now, not in the foreign countries with a big majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rirez (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If an article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than government propaganda doesn't get deleted the hope that a volunteer edited encyclopedia can work will be over. Choalbaton 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' I think the article should be kept since it reflects different opinions based on facts and proofs on a topic that is highly debatable among the historians. Showing both sides of the argument through [Armenian Genocide] and [Armenian Allegations] is necessary. Therefore the article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anon ip (talk • contribs)
  • As has been pointed out, such 'POV forks' are generally unacceptable in Wikipedia policy. By the way, do you have any evidence the claims in the plagiarised article are held by historians outside Turkey? If so, the best place for your contributions (because the fork will eventually be deleted) is Talk:Armenian_Genocide. --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; see [13] for very obvious sockpuppet Cemcem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) voting 4 times. I just reverted it rather than proper commenting them out. — Dunc|☺ 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; it appears that Serdar Argic is running amok on WP. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV topic. *drew 03:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is shocking to see such a thing in an encyclopedia. Chicheley 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peggys tavern

A contested PROD candidate. This seems to be "just some tavern" in a college town, with no claim to encyclopedic notability.

• Delete. Joyous | Talk 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Best of luck to the happy couple, of course. Midgley 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or better still merge with Drake University (a private, co-educational college)... Tyrenius 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Peggy's tavern has similar text. --Iowahwyman 16:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HighTyde

Simply a non-notable vanity page. Also note that User:Hightyde, which I'm guessing is the guy himself, was the one who removed the prod. Urthogie 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, CSD A7. RexNL 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rex, I don't think this can be speedied under A7. He didn't request deletion. He removed the prod.--Urthogie 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you misread. A7 is Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. You must have been reading a sifferent CSD. --Bachrach44 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I assumed general meant 'A' cus it was first. Heh, --Urthogie 16:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable singer. Google turns up mirrors, blogs, forums etc. but no evidence of WP:MUSIC, nothing at Allmusic. Deizio 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google turns up some interesting links. [14],[15], [16], but still looks non-notable. --Andy123(talk) 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The clearchannel link is actually just a place where anyone can sign up to be on, its not an article or anything.--Urthogie 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete nn-bio --Bachrach44 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above (CSD A7). I will tag soon. I'm surprised this didn't get listed on AfD or tagged {{nn-bio}} earlier... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having just deleted one nn rapper, I think this one is a little closer to an assertion of notability (the criterion is quite explicit, no assertion of notability not no notability) - "He has been writing, recording and producing for well over 7 years and is a local sensation", and has multiple albums. I won't be offended if another admin decides to speedy delete or close as WP:BEANS but for now, let the AFD continue! --kingboyk 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A look at HighTyde's website reveals a tour that covers three states (does that make it a nationwide tour?), however this article is a blatent copy of his biography, just moved from the first to the third person.--LukeSurl 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A New United Ireland

Pretty much an unencyclopedic, unreferenced, POV essay about Ireland. Was PROD'd but the tag was removed without discussion. W.marsh 14:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete School essay Maustrauser 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very POV, and not clear how it can be made not so. Eron 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. The history is very bad too. See History of Ireland for discussion of the issues raised. Jdorney 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, as most of the links provided aren't directly related to this topic in the first place. Unencyclopedic. Biased. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, falling foul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. —Whouk (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Harro5 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Essay. Hawkestone 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very biased with no citation Socom49 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drew McCabe

Don't delete, found more stuff on him looking through google pages. Apparntly has film a handful of teenagers have mentioned on thier website, seems to be gaining a true cult status, might be worth leaving up and seeing what happens. User:Jeandré du Toit Can't find anything about this person anywhere. "Drew McCabe" gives less than 200 results on Google. Delete as not notable. Trebor 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Appears to be a student at University at Buffalo, apparently a student filmmaker. Fan1967 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Obviously non-notable, and very probably vanity. Bill (who is cool!) 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn-bio, fails WP:BIO. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spice Girls Hits (album)

This album does not exist. All content is pure speculation. Ac@osr 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete charming though it is. Per nom Tyrenius 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's fake. --hottie 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as speculation, crystal-ball fancruft. Cheers to the Spice Girls though. --Lockley 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David lavon

The author removed someone else's speedy, so I'll take it here. I happen to have heard of David Lavon and have seen his videos. I can tell you from personal experience that he is incredibly talented, and at the same time, an entirely unnotable internet phenomenon. --Bachrach44 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not every video - even popular ones - are notable or encyclopedic. --Hamiltonian 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough Trebor 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. HistoryBA 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Simpsons Stores & Signs

This is a pointless incomplete list. --Maitch 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. --Maitch 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very unencyclopedic cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have sufficient information in the entire Simpsons place-related category; this is just listcruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And if this list were ever complete, it would be so big it would be unmaintainable. Yep, that's listcruft. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Listcruft, per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This nomination was just blanked by 70.162.75.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good idea for a topic (and will prevent individual cruft articles), just needs expansion and organization. Gamaliel 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; important shops (Kwik-E-Mart, Leftorium) can be in articles about the characters they relate to (Apu, Ned Flanders). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are thousands of people who try to record all the places in Springfield, including me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comehomeusa (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. While it has two "references", that is a far cry from being in pre-production. Mention of such a tentative movie belongs on the Scary Movie or the Scary Movie 4 page, but there is just not enough content or confirmation yet for a separate page to to escape the wrath of WP:NOT. Turnstep 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scary Movie 5

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nothing on the IMDb. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as speculation, WP:NOT--Zxcvbnm 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I watched that episode of Dr. Phil, and Zucker said there would be a Scary Movie 5. That's not speculation. Mshake3 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too early to make an article for Scary Movie 5--hottie 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. SorryGuy 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The movie is confirmed. It deserves a page, even if it just says "Scary Movie 5 will come out in a couple years." Mshake3 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep Zucker is working on it. The cast have contracts for 5 and 6 and possibly 7. (Alphaboi867 13:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - when it has an IMDb page, I'll believe its definitely happening. Until then, it's just another movie in early development which could still collapse, despite the best intentions of those involved. There are thousands of such movies being worked on at any one time, and Wikipedia doesn't need articles on any of them. Alternatively, this could be redirected to either Scary Movie or Scary Movie 4 (see also Hulk 2 and Terminator 4). — sjorford (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So you'll take IMDB's word over the director's own word? Mshake3 04:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Zucker says he wants to make the movie. Weinstein says he wants to make the movie. That's fine, but nevertheless, it hasn't actually been started yet. I'm not treating IMDb as the decision-makers, but it's a good indication that a project has started active pre-production, which SM5 hasn't. And until it actually gets started, it could very easily fall by the wayside and never happen. — sjorford (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - According to the article, Weinstein has confirmed that the movie will be made, that sounds official enough to me. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not only will the day imdb be up to date be the day that I run for President if all have confirmed there is no reason why there shouldn't be a page (Pally01 15:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is my basic reasoning for listing this, but I also thought that I'd test the water following a discussion on the worthyness of the various Simpsons articles on Talk:The Simpsons. This page is unverified trivia that Wikipedia does not need, amounting to Fancruft. Its quite an ugly list too, and ought to go. Robdurbar 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just noted that someone else has listed List of Simpsons Stores & Signs. I thought I'd point out that I wasn't aware of this when nominating and that I do not know User:Maitch; this is not part of some sort of anti-Simpsons project, but more of a test to see the community's opinion on the many articles on the Simpsons. Robdurbar 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and any other Simspon's-related list that isn;t explicitly about the show (i.e. lists of characters or locations in the show). —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:24 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unremarkable fancruft trivia. -- Krash (Talk) 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial, non-notable listcruft. Many of those band I'd doubt would belong on the Wikipedia in the first place. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, listcruft. Most of the bands are non-notable, anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Tone 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless article.--hottie 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nuge talk 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going Out to the Shed

Neologism. rehpotsirhc 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unencylopedic. bcasterline t 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gwernol 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang dicdef, neologism, belongs on UrbanDictionary. Besides which I would think "going out to the shed" would be a process involving a shotgun and a shallow grave. Haikupoet 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, not verfiable, dubious dicdef, slang dicdef, and the only article edited by user "Desmondmorris". --Lockley 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle East Gay Journal

• Don't Delete - I authored this entry because I found this site and think it's important. And there are Google hits. Dirija 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No single hit in Google! A newly created blog. Szvest 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• delete it appears that nothing links to it. --Bachrach44 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:WEB - Politepunk 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable weblog at this point. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, per nom. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Systems A/S

Non-notable, company started a couple of months ago--Zxcvbnm 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP - Politepunk 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a failure of WP:CORP. --Hetar 18:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moosehead studios

I tried to PROD this article, in the belief that it failed WP:CORP uncontroversially and exhibited crystal ballism about the future prospects of the company. The PROD was removed. I'm listing it here in the belief that it fails WP:CORP uncontroversially and exhibits crystal-ballism about the future prospects of the company. - Politepunk 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep most of the articles facts are verifyable on the link given at the bottom. rather than deleting the entire article, the article should be edited so that the few facts that are unverifyable are no longer there.Barcode 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which requires independent, third party soures to verify information cited in articles. The Moosehead studios site does not count as an indepenedent source verifying an article about Moosehead studios, I'm afraid. Gwernol 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Clearly non-notable movie "studio". The linked page makes it clear that the article on Wikipedia is there for the purpose of driving traffic to their site: Wikipedia is not for advertising your venture. Gwernol 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Purdue Exponent has an article on the studios for November 14, 2005. It is not online. is there a way i can still cite this article.Barcode 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But this studio is non-notable Delete--Eivind^t@c 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment its in a local newspaper that reaches over 30,000 Purdue Students, not to mention faculty, and employees of the Purdue University so it has local notability.Barcode 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting a mention in a 19,000-circulation (not 30,000) student newspaper is not even close to major media coverage. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Google search on "Moosehead Studios" brings up only *six* returns, four from Wikipedia. Their own website doesn't show up on Google yet. "Moosehead Films" brings up *no* returns at all. No films on IMDB. Textbook definition of non-notable. MikeWazowski 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pr nomination, and for failing WP:CORP. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Events in Toronto

Event calendar, not suitable for an encyclopedia--Zxcvbnm 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Mention annual at Toronto. --Tone 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Wikipedia is not an alternative weekly. Haikupoet 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Haikupoet. Well said. --Lockley 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian women

Okay, I wavered on this one for a while before bringing it here. I'm not sure if there should be a real article with this title or not, but this looks like someone's midterm paper for a middle school social studies class. --Bachrach44 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Bachrach44 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. The external link supplied only seems marginally related, though I could be wrong as it's not in English. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I saw this and wavered as well. In the end, I just deleted some links that were Russian Mail order bride links. Seems like this was intended to be an advert for an agency. After another look I wonder why I wavered. Montco 18:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not assert notability, WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think some of the "Russian women today" section could be rewritten and smerged into Mail-order bride. Otherwise, delete as original research. Grandmasterka 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep topic of the article is fine, needs referencing though. Merge the Russian women today bit into Mail-order bride and cleanup the rest. Ansell 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shafilea Ahmed

• Delete. Clearly violates WP:NPOV at the moment. I wondered about tagging it {{nn-bio}}, but I decided she wasn't quite non-notable. It could possibly be cleaned up if anyone's volunteering, but it would mean starting from scratch. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or cleanup significantly. Kukini 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mtrx.net

Fails WP:WEB only 10 google hits. Alexa ranking, no data. Bige1977 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The article itself admits that the site "was released to the public in April 2006". Wikipedia is not for establishing notability. — TKD::Talk 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Kukini 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nowhere near WP:WEB. --Hetar 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worwis

Invalid speedy. But this is a minor web site. Article seems to be made to promote it. Fails WP:WEB in current form. So, while opposing speedy, I support deletion. Rob 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Response:

Although the article found by searching 'worwis' is in reference to a blog, it's deletion will not in any way benefit the primary aim of WikipediA.

As mentioned is the article, the sole aim of the blog is to benefit humanity, "whatever culture, race or religion".

I don't think it's a valid point if it's a "minor" website or not. It has a unique purpose and it's contents is different to that of any other article on Wikipedia. The level of uniqueness is such that it should be taken note of and assured it's small space on Wikipedia, as oppose to bieng deleted.

Thankyou

StriveR

• Delete, per nom, unless updated to respond to WP:WEB issue. Kukini
• Delete - per WP:WEB.
• Delete - not notable, and obviously not well written (although this is not a deleting factor). There is not much information in the article that benefits Wikipedia. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kukini, what do you mean by "per nom", and also by this "unless updated to respond to WP:WEB issue"?

Thankyou

StriveR

• Hi StriveR. "per nom" just means he agrees with the nominator's reasoning for deletion (e.g. me). WP:WEB is a guideline for inclusion, which you need to read. Basically, what you need is to identify a number of reliable sources, who have written in depth, about the web site. You need to show that more people, then you, and the users, are interested in it. We need information about the site, that doesn't come from the site. Most web sites, don't meeet this requirement, and can't be listed on Wikipedia. It's probably best to use other places, besides Wikipedia, to list your web site. We don't include web sites based on how good they are. We write about web sites that are widely deemed "notable", which few are. Probably a tiny fraction of a percent of all web sites, could every be listed on Wikipedia. So, while you could try improving the article, there's no guarentee you're work wouldn't be lost. --Rob 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Only 26 google hits + no assertion of notability. --Hetar 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for help Thivierr and Kukini. I doubt many people have written their interest in depth or the like, but for me 26 google hits is quite high :-P. Anyway, please visit the site yourselves so that you may benefit atleast.

Thanks again

StriveR

• Delete StriveR, 26 hits is pretty far from high. The site doesn't appear to have much traffic and the article doesn't outline any level of notability. IrishGuy 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello IrishGuy

I say 26 hits is high because I expected one if any. The people here may delete the article, but hopefully you can benefit from the website. All I wanted to do was to spread it and benefit people, but anyway hopefully different chances to come if this website isn't going to be much help.

StriveR

• Delete Not notable enough. Deletion doesm't mean it isn't a good idea, just that it hasn't achieved enough attention to merit a place in an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Where on Wikiepdia does it say you should use Wikiepdia to advertise your company, striver?

How can it be "the sum of human knowledge" if you don't let people contribute such things? The blog itself was made for the sole aim to benefit as many as possible, so whats wrong with providing information about it's roots and the like?

Earlier today I ate a bowl of cereal. It was corn Chex. Up until me writing this...I was the only person in existence with this knowledge. Should that have an article as well? You know, for the "sum of human knowledge"? Not everything can, or should, be included in Wikipedia. IrishGuy 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what you did shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Thats because it has no aim to benefit people and is of no benefit anyway. The worwis blog however has hand-picked sayings of the widely known early leaders of Islam - but religious material has been filtered by myself so only the sayings which all can benefit from have a place on the blog. Take this for example: Imam Ali [AS] said: "Silence is the best reply to a fool." and "Be like the flower that gives its fragrance even to the hand that crushes it". Now I think thats worth a space on Wikiepdia.

Whoever deletes the article will put theirselves and others at loss from these beautiful sayings. Why don't you visit it now, because the point is that people like you benefit? br

StriveR 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I hate to break it to you, but a website filled with quotes that has very little traffic just plain isn't notable. Your aims with your site are completely beside the point. There are very notable sites that have no desire to educate or enrich people...but they are still notable. Your site isn't. IrishGuy 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By the sites rules it isn't notable but I think it should because of it's contents [but that's not the point here anyway]. I would of thought a different type of article would be nice to widen the and enrich the variety availible. But it is good, even if it is not set out and designed well, because it is purely words of wisdom. Anyone here can just go to it, be it only two or three people of whatever amount so you can be at an advantage, if you know what I mean.

Just take about three minutes browsing and reading abit Irishguy; I recommend you scroll down and read abit on the sixth blog down on the homepage [spaces.msn.com/worwis]. I'd just like to know what you think and your opinions if you don't mind.

Thankyou StriveR 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB --mtz206 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy's tavern

Prod was removed, so I'm sending this to AfD. The article makes no assertion of notability; Google only returns 114 hits [17]. --Alan Au 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggys tavern. --Alan Au 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the other AfD discussion. Gwernol 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and the other discussion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this article is important to Drake University students, and thus holds relevant for them. Peggy's is a student staple at Drake. If other users don't like the article, they can feel free to edit it, but it's deletion is unnecessary. There are many articles about the Power Rangers that hold no relevance to anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynnmania (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Although a Google test is by no means a definitive measure of notability, it's interesting to point out that a search for "Power Rangers" returns 6.8 million results [18], while a search for "Peggy's Tavern" returns 118 results [19]. --Alan Au 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem is, if this article is kept, then Drink (arguably the most popular nightclub in the area) and other Des Moines-area bars -- not to mention millions of neighborhood bars around the world -- could end up having their own articles. I drive by Peggy's every day on my way to work, and I'm aware of its popularity during the Drake Relays, but this article may be more suitable for a travel guide than an encyclopedia. --Iowahwyman 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cocktail napkin science

Was tagged a speedy, but I couldn't quite identify a speedy criteria to put it under. Also, I've heard of this concept before, perhaps not under the name "Cocktail napkin science", but it's possible that this is a fairly well-known concept. "Cocktail napkin science" itself yields only 4 Google hits, but it could be under another name. Thoughts? No vote yet.-- Fang Aili ^說嗎? 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The creator of this page has tried to add a reference to it from the Peak oil page to disparage genuine science. At most it should be an alternate title for "back of an envelope" page which by the authors own admission was the original term and is in fact the more commonly used despite his affection for cocktail napkins. The creator's biography also states legal entanglements that would be affected by this article. The content of the article is also questionable as point of view. Carbonate 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Carbonate - you're free to criticise within reason - but this legal thing you mention - is that an inebriated rant - or if not what does it mean? As the "creator" I should hope I knew of any legal matters related to Peak prognostication. Also - do tell - what is the legitimate science in peak oil - note the entire argument turns on name-dropping, hero-worship and FUD - there is not a wit of hard science referenced in the entire piece to support even one of the 4 main tenants, the best we have is a scrap of paper scrawled upon by the great one. It's poor science, poor economics - classic Cocktail napkin science. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is ranting to draw attention to items mentioned on your own user page and if you are involved in some arbitration, it needs to be known by others if fair assessments are to be made. I will admit that I did not check the source of the comments on your user page and if they are inaccurate I apologize for bringing them to light here and suggest you make corrections. As to your references on the peak oil page, you should describe what is lacking in any of Hubbert's published works there rather than create a new page that says nothing relevant and linking to it. You clearly have not read much of the reference material on the peak oil page and I would direct you an easily obtained copy "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew Simmons who references and digests thousands of papers from the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Carbonate 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would argue that even if I were an axe-murderer passing caesarean-encrypted edits through from exile in Bahrain - it would have little to do with the subject of science and whether or not some science really isn't science after the Galilean/Newtonian tradition of empirical and repeatable first-person observation - Indeed, you, my gentle friend, whether you acknowledge it or not, are a product of the enlightenment, and if you had any idea of the personal lives of the icons under whose intellectual umbrella you, and I both take shelter, you might be tempted to run rabidly back into the rain. I suggest politely that it really is inappropriate to rant against a position by attacking the messenger - of which I suggest, you know only a fractional portion of the precious little there is to know. While I am active in the legal sphere, my legal interests have to do with eliminating predatory advertising on public property and nothing whatsoever to do with Peak Oil (which could hardly get into court - there being no evidence on which to base a claim). Moreover, I believe that I did discuss my concerns re Peak Oil as so many have, and my observation is that one point of view has been permitted to dominate the article at the expense of the reader. While I am as concerned as the next about the humanitarian issues surrounding energy, I try not to allow my zeal to confuse the line between belief and science. Nor the line between what is fact and what is WP:NCB Benjamin Gatti 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. Danny Lilithborne 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have a degree in physics and worked as an engineer until I retired, and I do not recall ever hearing this term. pstudier 22:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's presumably a derivitive of Fermi's "Back of the Envelope Calculations". Benjamin Gatti 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Could be interesting if someone could name a scientific theory that actually began on a cocktail napkin or something similar, but I can only think of references on shows like The Simpsons and a Dave Barry article that said supply-side economics became popular after someone held a cocktail napkin with some other theory sideways. --Joelmills 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps from this book? [20] Benjamin Gatti 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that Napkin and Envelope are exchangeable terms, with Napkin being the modern equivalent of the older Envelope, and that the variation of the phrase from Back of Envelope, Back of Napkin, Calculation, Physics etc are abundant with at least two books combining envelope or napkin with physics or science. True, these variations are not stable and singular within the language; however in all their variety they share the common meaning of a rough estimation of some scientific conjecture. (Bias Declared) Benjamin Gatti 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Another Comment Perhaps it makes sense to merge into Back-of-the-envelope-calculations which is presumable the original phrase - but I also think the phrase Napkin Science - refers to something related but distinct. I also think this particular form of the expression may be fairly deemed a colloquialism - however, the principle of Cargo cult science is important, and I see evidence that Fermi's Napkin is being merged with Feynman's cult to accurately describe that branch of pseudo-science which achieves social importance prior to rigorous experimentation. Benjamin Gatti 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge. Not sure it's notable enough on its own to justify an entire article. I'd keep it all under one title and make it clear that it's also known as A, B and C. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P.a.'s lounge

Non notable bar. Rory096_(block) 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Szvest 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• Delete per nom. Montco 18:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shøp

A whole article about a fictional shop that has been mentioned once i one single episode on The Simpsons seemes to much. --Maitch 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Maitch 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as being fancruft. It's one thing if a place appears regularly (or at least is recurring) on the show... it's another when it appears once and then is never seen again in further episodes. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hrmpf... As a Swede, I take offense by the claim that this is a fictional Danish chain. Despite the Ø, the Shøp store in the episode in question (Eight Misbehavin') is obviously intended as a parody of IKEA. I think the exterior seen at the beginning of the episode was even blue and yellow. Redirect to IKEA. u p p l a n d 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, they did actually say a Danish store in the episode and as far as I remember it wasn't a furniture shop, so I wouldn't redirect to IKEA. --Maitch 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has potential, someone needs to edit it, and place a "stub" Wikitag onto it. EZZIE 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A one note joke that can be mentioned in the relevant episode guide. Redirect if necessary. Gamaliel 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Dælete Cruftalicious, maybe merge with List of Simpsons Stores & Signs. Eivind^t@c 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Which will also be deleted. Just delete them all as Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though any more simpsons articles and a group deletion ought to be proposed Robdurbar 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This fictitious "shop" has absolutely no context outside of the single episode in which it was (briefly and not-really-notably) used. I could see redirecting to Eight Misbehavin', but I'm really having a hard time figuring out when someone would actually search for or link to an article by this title. Wikipedia doesn't need a stub about every single unremarkable fictitious location, from the Simpsons or otherwise. -- Krash (Talk) 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Smashy. Cruftavio Maximo. Herostratus 06:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It's Swedish, not Danish, and it's a parody of IKEA, and the "article" is a predicate nominative substub that qualifies as a CSD. Delete, and then delete the ground it was made on. Geogre 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is Danish. That is what they say in the episode. Swedish doens't even use the letter Ø. If it were Swedish the joke should have been "Shöp". --Maitch 13:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but make it a redirect to Eight Misbehavin', the episode where it was taken from. (Having said that, it's perhaps a little pointless, as no pages on the mainspace link to this page.) Nuge talk 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless Simpsons cruft per Krash. --Lockley 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KKWK

Non notable -- Szvest 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Delete it fails to establish any notability (and context). Eivind^t@c 20:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- rewritten for context. Duly licensed broadcast station in the state of Missouri. Haikupoet 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Haikupoet. --KHill-LTown 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; the current AFD precedent favours keeping all duly licensed radio stations. Bearcat 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bearcat. Amalas 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request. -- RHaworth 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital punishment/With wrongful killing rate

It's a fork of Capital punishment, created after a content debate. Eixo 18:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Author requested speedy deletion - I just created this, and I agree there is a better way to accomplish the same ends. --James S. 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why new manditory security measures are necessary

• Delete: This article is a letter/proposal that is pure OR and riddled with POV. --Hetar 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Heycos 18:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly an editorial. Wickethewok 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 100% Unencyclopedic. Bige1977 18:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (By the way, this had apparently been on PROD when the AfD was placed, I have removed the PROD as it is on AfD. This is not a contestation.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR, Soapbox, and title misspelled to boot. Fan1967 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Soapbox and original research. —ERcheck @ 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Grandmasterka 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Detain, hold incommunicado, torture, deny due process, and delete, per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Barno 18:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy (CSD A7). – Sceptre ^(Talk) 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This article is about a non-notable gang and the only link on Google for it appears to be to Wikipedia. ([21]). Its main editors only other contributions are to vanity articles, this page and to gangs. T.A Stevenson 18:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - *Note on the talk page User:69.248.87.242 left an unsigned comment reading http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0413/Front_page/024.html It's not a fake gang. T.A Stevenson 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- *Delete- Non-notable gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

- * Delete. They may be a real gang according to the article, but that's the only source we have on their existance and structure. Non-notable. --Doug (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- *Comment It appears there's some widespread vandalism of this article from several different IPs. If this article is deleted, it should be watched to prevent re-creation. Otherwise, it needs to be protected or watched closely. --Doug (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- *Keep- Hey, members have been arrested as being part of the gang- there were 11 people i the gang charged with misorderly conduct, all under E9F.. its real, and stupid.. $.$. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmbfan5804 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete. nn --Strothra 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- *Delete - Although they (and their rival gang mentioned) fit the definition of "gang", it's really just a bunch of bored middle-class suburban kids emulating that lifestyle because there's nothing better to do. Really, it's a rather boring little New Jersey town full of spoiled kids and clueless parents. In short, this isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.160.137 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete nn TigerShark 12:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- *Keepi go to this school & i have seen the vandalism & they wear black & greean their "gang colors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.129.19 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete I also go to the same school as them. While the gang DOES exist and does do all this vandalism, they weren't responsible for the shooting at the mall. Some kid who they confronted had a gun and shot the ground, not them. I hardly consider that a shooting. Delete this, it's not worth being up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.77.61 (talk • contribs)

• Keep This gang while quite silly has become quite a problem here in East Brunswick and is indeed notable. --GorillazFanAdam 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Los Angeles power outage

First nomination here, back in September 2005. With six months now past, I think it is time for a rethink. Remember the ten year test: will anyone remember this event in 9.5 years? Does anyone remember it today? It was a one and a half hour outage, totally unrelated to the (definitely notable) California electricity crisis; this was a human error, leading to a minor power outage. The fact that the article has to explicitly exclude Al-Qaeda is telling in itself. Put simply, this is an entirely non-notable power outage; and even then, power outages themselves are rarely notable.Batmanand | Talk 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - it is really not very significant but I don't know how recognized it was in 2005. --Tone 19:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IMHO if this had happened (and it has) somewhere not in Soutern Cali or North Eastern US it would have been deleted right away. Very trivial. --Eivind^t@c 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt people in the affected areas remember this, and I seriously doubt that the local TV news will be doing anniversary retrospectives, no matter how slow news is that day. --Calton | Talk 20:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. First AfD failed due to recentism of creator and nominator. -R. S. Shaw 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titicaco

Not sure if it is worthy. Better than to be speed'ed -- Szvest 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Delete - advertisement for something or other. Defo not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant ad. Haikupoet 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Blakley

Non notable -- Szvest 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Delete: Non notable and the article only have one sentence.--hottie 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creepy hand

Article is nn coinage. No relevant Google hits except wikipedia and mirrors. mholland 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Funny but useless--hottie 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense, neologism, made up cruft. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Made up in (a very good) school one day. --Lockley 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as CSD A6 (Attack page) by TigerShark. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Sabino

Non-notable biography with a smell of attack. Speedy deletion contested (five times...) Speedy delete as db-bio + db-attack. Weregerbil 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. The creator of the page hasn't "contested" the speedy deletion properly, just removed the speedy deletion tag without providing any kind of explanation. The page is still just an attack page on a non-notable person. --Metropolitan90 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dermac empire

• Delete- Non-notable faction of a non-notable game. Miguel Cervantes 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Batmanand | Talk 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable hottie 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High School Musical 4

High School Musical 3 is currently up for deletion. The 3rd movie will be made, this fourth one WILL NOT. Besides the fact that it will never be made, it's unverifyable, crystallballism. See WP:NOT lightdarkness ^{(Lightdarkness)} 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Shanel 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and next week's lottery numbers are... --Eivind^t@c 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete holy crap! I didn't even know they already put up a page for part 4. Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moola.com

Complete spam. Rory096_(block) 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bige1977 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. -- Szvest 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect: This article has already been deleted twice. Nothing more than a spamvertisement for a nn website. --Hetar 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald MacDonald (composer)

Vanity (see Ronaldm (talk · contribs) and Ronkymac (talk · contribs)). No assertion of notability that's backed up with an independent source. Gamaliel 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as non-notable vanity bio. --Lockley 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Already deleted by Elf-friend.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Habbowood

Disputed PROD. Seems to be an advertising gimmick promoting Habbo Hotel, although the fact that it isn't mentioned in Habbo Hotel makes me suspicious. I would argue that merging to Habbo Hotel is also unsuitable as "Habbowood" is nothing more than a non-notable promotion. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics

Previous nominations: March 2004, October 2004, October 2005

I'd like to nominate this for deletion for several reasons:

1. The list is so long that both Firefox 1.0 and latest IE hang for a long time while trying to display the page (on a 3GHz PC with 1GB RAM). This is extremely annoying and makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional.
2. If this was addressed by splitting the page into many smaller lists by letter, it becomes even harder to maintain. If this AFD fails I think it should be split in that way, though, to at least address the browser issue.
3. There is very little encyclopedic value to this article.
4. It is original research. I'm aware of the arguments that the entries are easily verified, but show me another list on the subject and I'll accept it's not OR.
5. It is unknown how many songs are actually missing that should be included.
6. I find it hard to see situations where this would be useful.

I'm not a deletionist or inclusionists. I don't like such labels and I don't think they have any place on Wikipedia. But I do think that this article is plain silly. I acknowledge that people have put a fair amount into compiling this list, but frankly this fact does not make the article any more useful.

TH 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This nom was orphaned so I am now listing it properly. --W.marsh 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Recommendations"

• Delete - for reasons stated above TH 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Huge and boring, list of songs with a non-notable characteristic. Phr 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --TonySt 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia in which I have no interest. That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Mosts lists are incomplete, and it's not ideologically unsound for this to be the same (if it were a 'serious' topic, then the incompletedness would be an issue). Its size suggests that there are sufficient people interested in it. If it is unmanagable, then split it up. If you feel you wouldn't like to attempt that, then leave it to someone else. It has already survived twice: accept consensus. The JPS 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a data mining operation. There are an infinite number of ways we could divide up the sum total of all songs ever written - how about the songs whose titles do appear in the lyrics, the songs whose titles appear N times in the lyrics, etc? Obviously we can't have them all, so we have to just pick a few. But who decides which are the most important ways to divide up and list songs by arbitrary criteria? I think Wikimedia projects should provide the raw material for researchers to create their own custom lists along these lines, but leave the original research to the researchers. A wiki-datamining project would be interesting, come to think of it... but this isn't the place for it. flowersofnight (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I voted for it previously as unmanageable, and it has since expanded. On the face of it, a good list, but the more you think of it, the less practical. --MacRusgail 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per The JPS. Moreover, why does the phrase "original research" pop up every single time a list is NfD? Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be carbon copies of existing works of literature, either in content or in concept. And anyway, it doesn't take much research to discover that a given song doesn't contain the title in its lyrics. -- Smjg 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the OR claim is that the characteristic of being a song whose title does not appear in its lyrics is somehow notable. That claim could be established by citing, say, a journal article that discussed such songs. Seeing whether a particular song fits the description is not OR. Phr 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per flowersofnight. --torritorri 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete considering there are lists of far less relevance which get kept, I'm not sure what the logic is behind deleting this one, but given that it meets the standards, I must agree. Danny Lilithborne 20:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless listcruft. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per most everybody above. Listcruft, absolutely unmanageable, barely loadable. Any list this long (164 KB) is too large to be useful for anything. Fan1967 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. garbage list (Notorious4life 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. Entirely too broad a list: it's not quite as bad as a "List of songs", but it's too large a set to be useful. --Carnildo 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Tone 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — artificial, pointless, and unwieldy list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Serves no purpose, arbitrary. --Eivind^t@c 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Been proposed for deletion at least twice before, in October 2004 and October 2005; article obviously was kept both times, and no new grounds have been produced, other than that people have continued to expand the list. Smerdis of Tlön 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)