Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 17 April 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] April 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tony Danza and The Tony Danza (sex move)

Found this under recent changes. Looks like it needs to be deleted. It's impossible to verify and very misogynistic. Erik the Rude 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating The Tony Danza (sex move). It's an exact copy. Erik the Rude 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Another, similiar article was also deleted, this one can go too. Transfinite 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If Transfinite is correct, this can be Speedy Deleted as recreation of previously deleted material. If not, it is a definitely strong delete. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Was previously part of Donkey Punch but was removed during an edit war. Should be remerged. — Linnwood 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this crap. u p p l a n d 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Some of the "see also" articles aren't very good either. They are fake sexual practices, even if a person, or a couple of people, did it once. It is particularly improbable that donkey punching is practiced with any kind of frequency (porn simulations aside). -- Kjkolb 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google gives me nothing. Seems made up. Fagstein 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD G4 as recreation of The Tony Danza sex move. Should not be merged or redirected to any other article since it is not WP:V. Шизомби 06:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above--Mboverload 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete g4.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD G4 -- Samir (the scope) 08:50, 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. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Touchyball & Crazypants

This is the english version translation of the Spanish webcomic Picapolla y Chocholoco seen here. They are both hosted on the same domain, and that domain comes back with an Alexa rank of 350,000. Note that the webcomic is not the only thing at that domain. "Picapolla y Chocholoco" gives just over 70 links and the word touchyball gives back 12 links. I do not think that either the Spanish webcomic nor the English translation is notable. However, if it is kept, I strongly suggest having the article under the original spanish name. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to Picapolla y Chocholoco, the Spanish webcomic version appears notable enough with the Google search. AndyZ t 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per AndyZ. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move, per CyberSkull..-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Picapolla y Chocholoco. --Terence Ong 10:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Knucmo2 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move- notability isn't really a concern; "sum total of human knowledge" and all that. But there's no reason to treat it as separate from the Spanish language edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainktainer (talk • contribs)
    • Your position is admirable, but it's against policy. Fagstein 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 'not notable' is not part of the deletion criteria. This article is at least stub quality, and does not violate any policies, therefore it is worth keeping. Cynical 18:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article is written by a User:Ccbaxter, the webcomic author, probably as a vanity or promotional piece. Having an entry on Wikipedia's list of webcomics seems to be a must these days for any old webcomic. - Hahnchen 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment the 'vanity prohibition' has been routinely violated by Jimbo (among lots of other people), so it's more or less deprecated. Cynical 20:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Fagstein. RexNL 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of little consequence. Quatloo 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Fargstein. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Fagstein. -- Dragonfiend 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please keep in mind that this is a non-english website, so there is a bias against it in the counting mechanisms. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:44, 25 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? 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend Of Anne Bunny

Please take a look at the webcomic in question here. Anne Bunny is one of the several webcomics hosted on the Magpie House Designs website. Are they notable? Is this specific comic notable? "Legend of Anne Bunny" gives 36 hits on Google, and "Magpie House Design" gives 23 unique hits. (The reason the latter search gives thousands of none unique hits is due to Google messing up it's forum page caching). Alexa also ranks the site at which it's hosted on at 600,000+. I don't think the entire domain is notable enough for an article, let alone a single webcomic on it. - Hahnchen 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad World (comic)

Is this a notable website? Hosted on Comic Genesis, the webcomic can be seen here and is also mirrored on DrunkDuck. The article seems to be written by the webcomic author, Michael Wriston. The website is updated on a random schedule, so that is perhaps why it is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comic genesis. But I just can't find an establishment of notability online, it looks to be one of the thousands of small time webcomics on Comic Genesis. - Hahnchen 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 Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

not really a notable church, parishcruft Montco 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you are not African American, or is this site not for what is notable for American of African heritage? This is a state of Mississippi Historic site. C. Baker Motley used it a the base of operations during the court sessions to integrate the Law school at Old MS University. Judge Marshall came there to work with other NAACP lawyers. Leontine Price sang there because it was one of a few places where she could sing opera to her own people in the south. It is not a Church but a 65 acre campus. The only place in this country where a Black person could legally walk on the beach or swim in a part of the Gulf of Mexico until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

It would have been a bit more civilized if I had been allowed to finish writing the article before passing judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLJQuinn (talk • contribs)

sorry am new at this. Jacqui Quinn

  • My criteria for an AfD are based on objective criteria. The retreat has all of 75 unique hits on google. Some of which include:Gulfport Timeshares. There were 2 AP stories, both of which had to do with the rebuilding of the camp. Big deal, lots of stuff has to be rebuilt after the hurricanes. We don't list every apartment building and hotel on the Gulf Coast that was destroyed. I found nothing to assert the sort of notability which you claim for the place. According to the state's historical preservation, there are 588 state historical landmarks in Mississippi. [1] including post offices. Not all of those are notable. Montco 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Google may not be the most representative source of information for stuff from the 1950s and 60s. Thatcher131 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I would say that by default, a state historical site is notable. I mean, the site has to be historically notable to become a state historical site, no? Roodog2k 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup. I think, as JLJQuinn shows, the church is indeed notable. THe article needs some cleanup, but presumably that will come in due course. (Jacqui: see your talkpage) Bucketsofg 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and add references - notability established (pending verification) —ERcheck @ 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending verification; this notable info should be in the article I have added some refs and done some preliminary cleanup Thatcher131 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. 97th historical site of The United Methodist Church doesn't seem all that notable to me though. Fagstein 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is as notable as User:JLJQuinn asserts, then it is far from nomninator's parishcruft and must earn a strong keep -- Simon Cursitor 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JLJQuinn; a state historical site should be sufficient for notability, let alone some of the other contributions of this church. Tijuana Brass 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic certainly seems worthy of an encyclopedia entry. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. The article certainly could use some cleanup though. NoIdeaNick 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable church and cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hang on and assume good faith. :) --Andy123(talk) 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable but needs verification. Wstaffor 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Lets let the author have a chance to get the article written, at least before passing judgement. Also WP:BITE, I think, may be in order. Roodog2k 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, conspicuously notable. If the nominator had the time to work his way through the entire list of Google hits to pick out the isolated timeshare reference in a foolheaded and uncivil attempt to discredit the claim of notability, he or she had the time to read the dozens and dozens of legitimate references which demonstrated notability. Such enthusiasm for a most dubious proposal is disturbing at best. Monicasdude 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Montco has apologized on JLQuinn's talk page, which I find commendable. I considered blanking my comment immediately above but I decided to leave it; maybe this episode will give someone else some food for thought too. Thatcher131 04:29, 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 Deleted by Geogre with sumarry of (Vandalism). -- JLaTondre 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifitti

  • Delete: Neologosim that references Wikipedia. --Hetar 00:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move the definition to Wikipedia:Glossary. AndyZ t 01:19, 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? 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABC idents

  • Nothing more than a gallery of logos with no encyclopedic information. Please Delete. Georgia guy 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is probably a logo gallery subpage for American Broadcasting Company. However, the images all seem to be fair use, but they all lack any fair use rationales and also amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Therefore, the image fair use problem should be looked into farther, and then perhaps the article should be deleted should the images fail WP:FUC. AndyZ t 01:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only if logo's meet fair use, then it would be encyclopedic  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up the article so it can meet proper standards. As per above, make sure the identifications are fair use. :: Colin Keigher 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Funky Monkey. SorryGuy 04:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clarify, if logo use is ok. Also, compare to or consider BBC television idents. --Ajdz 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. Is "ident" even the proper word to use? Fagstein 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Keep, encyclopaedic. "Ident" is the usual term I've seen for these. Vashti 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AndyZ and Ajdz. Tijuana Brass 07:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep encyclopedic -- Samir (the scope) 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, its just the logo and this is encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hard to imagine this not being fair use; hard to imagine conveying this information any other way. Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Currently this article fails to pass the fair use criteria policy. It needs more textual content regarding its history, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but with regard to comments above, review the fair use. doktorb | words 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think it is surprising that there are so many votes to keep this article even though it has no real text other than the heading paragraph. Georgia guy 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but article needs clean-up to be presentable. Wstaffor 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Really cool article. Needs some actual text, though. --Mboverload 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Either move to List of ABC idents, delete as unencyclopedic or expand. It is literally a list, no analysis, no text other than an explanatory sentence, etc. If it's possible to actually write something in the article, keep. Jesuschex 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course it's possible to write some text there, but not if it gets deleted before someone has a chance. The article was barely a day old when it got nominated. Analysis will be a problem because that is bound to become the forbidden "original research". LambiamTalk 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well then, someone go ahead and do so. Georgia guy 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If it's original research, than we'll delete it then. I'm all for giving it a chance, but only if there's potential. Jesuschex 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Given the example from National Broadcasting Company logos, articles like this have some chance for expansion into a good article. Then again, articles like ABC idents and BBC television idents don't. I thinking moving to "List of ABC idents" would be a good idea, because "list of" articles are just that: a list, not an article. Jesuschex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep encyclopedic. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to commons It is nothing more than a gallery, commons is the place for galleries. Ansell 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If improperly used images were removed this article would be two sentences, three external links, and four categories. Redirect to the ABC page until this article can be justified with actual content. Alternately, just delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:28
  • Keep - a valuable addition to the sum of all human knowledge. KWH 17:08, 22 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? 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea_Rosen

vanity. Endless Shrimp 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. None of her credits on IMDb indicate that she has moved beyond minor roles. This would need verifiable media reports if it is to avoid deletion. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • IMDb's credits are wrong. It lists her in at least one film in which she did not appear. Her wikipedia entry listed 4 films until very recently. Resume padding.
  • delete* fluff Williamb 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have corrected the errors from IMDB. Furthermore, WP:BIO doesn't call for the deletion of a writer/actress whose "failure" is acheivement in TV and theater rather than movies. --M@rēino 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I just noticed that Endless Shrimp's account has no edits before proposing this page for deletion. --M@rēino 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endless Shrimp (talk • contribs) \
    • Comment, please remember to sign your comments. SorryGuy 04:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not biting. The rules that admins use to determine afd results specifically say that admins need to consider the possibility "'bad faith' opinions(, which sometimes but not always) include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."--M@rēino 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's sourced. Stella (TV series) links to it. Keep. Fagstein 05:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Following verification in article. Capitalistroadster 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep slightly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BIO in my opinion. -- Samir (the scope) 08:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but barely. 100K google results on her name indicates at least some significant interest in this person. Article needs work. Quatloo 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just pointing out that most of the 100K google results on the name refer to the curator of a well-established NYC art gallery. Not the same person. Endless Shrimp 15:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This rides the edge of notability, but when in doubt it never hurts to be a little more inclusive. NoIdeaNick 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable celebrity, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I say - Keep is notable and encyclopedic :) --Andy123(talk) 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep slightly notable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Wstaffor 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the NYC Fringe Festival alone should be enough, as it's a quite significant stage. Monicasdude 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "fringe" should be a clue there, hoss.--Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The name "Fringe Festival" is self-consciously ironic; the event itself is well-known and extremely well-regarded. There are "Fringe Festivals" in major cities around the English-speaking world and more, including New York, Philadelphia, Boulder, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Melbourne, Prague, Singapore, Dublin, Brighton, Bath, and Edinburgh. Some are more substantial than others; the New York City event is extremely well-known, regularly covered in depth and treated as notable by media like the New York Times. The name, as I recall, goes back to one of the UK events in the late 1940s, staged in an area of the involved city known as "the Fringe". The last time I checked, an ironic name was not grounds for deprecating an otherwise substantial event. Monicasdude 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that this discussion was about keeping or deleting any "Fringe" festival articles. And yes, the various "Fringe" festivals themselves are very notable. But what sort of individuals -- you know, the actual topic under discussion -- perform at the various "Fringe" festivals? Hmmm, the word "Fringe" should be a clue there, hoss. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's sort of a flimsy criterion. The festival is substantial—in a commercial sense—but the same can't automatically be said of individual participants. Should every single musician who participates in the CMJ Music Marathon or SXSW have their own wikipedia article? Endless Shrimp 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)? Nope.
  • # Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. A regular in a failed basic-cable series? Nope.
--Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."--M@rēino 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
And just because they got a listing on IMDB or collected a couple of paychecks doesn't mean they should be kept, either. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downs/Archambault

Not a specific architect, it's a firm; reads like a business card or yellow pages entry; Brianporter 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article seems to say that the firm isn't that notable based on the limited amount of projects that the company has participated in; google gives no non-wikipedia hits for the term Where (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. delete self-promotion Williamb 03:29, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karren Reissmann

Non notable, minor party failed candidate, little extra available. Mtiedemann 01:13, 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. The only main-space incoming link was unnecessary, and I removed it, leaving an orphan duplicate dab page. Deleted as a housekeeping procedure. kingboyk 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion (disambiguation)

Redundant with previously existing disambiguation page at Motion. Also, I believe equal topic disambiguation and not primary topic disambiguation is appropriate in this case because of the genericity of the term "motion", the number of articles linking to "motion" which clearly do not mean the physical sense, and similar disambiguation organization on other-language Wikipedias. —Psychonaut 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Motion (such redirect pages are useful from time to time). TimBentley (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Motion. I can see people putting this in by mistake (for example, Motion (physics) accidentally links to it). Fagstein 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Motion. --Terence Ong 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Andy123(talk) 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zero sharp 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't care that redirects are cheap, take a look at the what links here for the page being discussed. Five things, four of them Wiki related! The one link in Motion (physics) can easily be changed. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Motion. Wstaffor 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect a dab page?! What, pray tell, would that achieve?! There's already a dab page and it's at Motion. I'm tempted to speedy this under CSD G6 (housekeeping). --kingboyk 02:16, 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 speedied due to request by creator. Ingoolemo talk 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States bomber scale-chart

I created this article some time ago, and I still believe that the information it contains is undeniably valuable. However, I have nominated it because I feel that the article is unencyclopedic in that it does not actually have a topic: it exists solely as a context for the scale-chart it contains—in fact, the article contains absolutely no information not already in the image it's built around. The GIF within it has been uploaded onto the commons, so no information will be lost. The commons is definitely a better place for this kind of thing. Ingoolemo talk 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the exception of its subpages, it's entirely orphaned and has been for nearly two years. Ingoolemo talk 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; the image of the chart should probably be linked to in the see also in an appropriate article though Where (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Since deletion nominated by author. I like the article though. TeKE 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per only significant author's request, with kudos for the work that has found a new home. Fagstein 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the above. Interesting work, though. -AED 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, author requested deletion. --Terence Ong 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, author requested deletion. --Andy123(talk) 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per above. --grafikm_fr 12:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete by author's request. Wstaffor 22:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweaty Brown Betty

Wikipedia is not for things made up while drunk one day. 0 google hits. {{prod}} failed. Delete -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this drink was invented 2 days ago; things don't become notable that fast (as google shows) Where (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable beverage. dbtfztalk 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Williamb 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Popularity has exploded in all of two days. Delete. Fagstein 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Tijuana Brass 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn drink, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 11:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to User:Adamblang, the author. It would be appropriate there. Davodd 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notability --Andy123(talk) 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, plus tastes awful (yes, I tried it) FinFangFoom 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Mmmm. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's been around what...four days? That's hardly time for a Martini-style craze. If there's a wikicookbook around somewhere, perhaps they'd be better off posting the article there. Pat Payne 21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:37
  • Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austral-Asian Community Church

This was originally prodded by User:AYArktos on the grounds of questioning how this church stood out from others. User:Cynical then removed, on the grounds "churches are notable". I disagree that a religious centre is inherently important so here it is. I am unconvinced that the fact that this church was formed by a minority group adds any more notability to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete wikipedia is not the yellow pages Where (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom - notability not established. Schools, for an example of a comparable institution, are merged into their locality article as a separate section, where notability not established and limited information provided. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Williamb 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches may be notable, but most of them are not in fact notable. Most of the churches which have come up on AfD have been deleted. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search of an Australia-New Zealand newspaper database came up with nothing so absence of verifiable material. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Much as I love church exposure anywhere it can be gotten, there's no verifiable information of the church doing anything beyond the standard church business. It's interesting but doesn't meet even the weakest standards of notability. Captainktainer 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Tijuana Brass 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pending citation of sources. I know I'm going against the trend here, but I feel that churches are by their nature notable. We have articles for every small town and CDP in the United States, so I don't see any harm in including an article on each church. On the other hand, whatever information is included must be verifiable, and if it is impossible to do that for this church then it will be impossible for Wikipedia to have an article on this church. NoIdeaNick 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NoIdeaNick. Never did understand why schools were inherently notable but churches weren't, Wiki isn't paper, so have 'em all I say (pending verification) Jcuk 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can edit the article to verify some sort of notability. Otherwise I really don't see how it is encyclopedic in any way. Wstaffor 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as above. It is verifiable, and represents a real part of a community. The fact that it is not in America should not be used to delete it. For great justice. 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment User:AYArktos and myself are both from Australia. AYArktos has been around a long time, has a barnstart of national merit and is an admin, and I have also written many new articles on Australian content - We are not prejudiced against Australian material, but we do nominate things if they are not particularly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. One reason it's so hard to find with Google is that this is actually called the "Austral-Asian Christian Church". If it is kept, the article should really provide more context. Australia, OK, but where in Australia? I'm getting a flashback of a ring found in the parking lot. I understand it is in Adelaide, but I see also a reference to Canberra, Perth and Darwin. Is this a Church in the sense of the Church of England (an institution), or in the sense of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (a building)? Based on 1266.0 - Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG), 1996 I'd think the former, but from their web site I'd guess the latter. What gives? LambiamTalk 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - totally as NoIdeaNick. Luka Jačov 08:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep multilingual aspect, also cultural diversity are notable. Paul foord 05:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely non-notable. --Roisterer 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per NoIdeaNick. What is with people just saying "non-notable" and never giving reasons? WP has lots of room for articles on obscure topics. People simply stating "completely non-notable" and the like should back themselves up if they are asking for deletion of articles. And I don't like overseas people simply voting for deletion because the article in question comes from another country. (JROBBO 01:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete one of millions of non-notable churches worldwide, most of which thankfully don't self-promote here. Harro5 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --serbiana - talk 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per NoIdeaNick. --estavisti 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep PANONIAN (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the anti-non-notability squadron is back. --GTubio 19:20, 23 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? 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurfc


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ComSer

It's an internet forum with 167 total members. Interiot 02:37, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OCS Pakistan

Advertisement/NPOV, non-notable, not to wiki markup standards J.reed 02:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletic Amenorrhea axon atrophy

Take a look at Axon, Atrophy, and Amenorrhea. This article talks about all three of those subjects, but fails to join them together. :: Colin Keigher 02:56, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tornado supreme

This article is more like a biography of two people in a band, probably does not show up on Google, and has reference only on a myspace page. Funnybunny 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Google shows 159 hits [3], but the first hit goes to their myspace page. Not a very promising indicator of notability. Doesn't appear to "appeal to all fans regardless of race, creed, or sexual preference", despite what the article asserts. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Williamb 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
why dont you tell us why your voting delete?65.8.35.219 03:46, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.A.R.X.

Article fails to assert notability of the band. It says that the group has "a large fan base in British Columbia", but does not state the source of that information, or provide statistics to support this claim. Thus, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Interesting name though, so a reluctant delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as speaking as British Columbian, I have seen a SINGLE poster posted in a bus loop in their hometown, and that is about it. This is certainly NN. :: Colin Keigher 03:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough yet. dbtfztalk 03:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delewte Williamb 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for bands made up in school one day which are one day going to make it big. Fagstein 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable --Andy123(talk) 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:40


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

The result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theorem 1

  • Delete. In my view this is a trivial fact with an improper name. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even think this is a theorem, much less the first one. "All right angles are congruent" is the fourth postulate in Euclidean geometry. --Metropolitan90 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is almost as bad as giving 1×1 its own article. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shouldn't this nonsense be speedily deleted? --CSTAR 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria — it has sufficient context, and "one right angle is congruent with another" is hardly patent nonsense. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The title made me think that somehow this theorem has an important role in Euclid's Elements, or is at least its first theorem, in which case I might have at least entertained arguments to keep a redirect to an article with a better name. However, I note that this is postulate 4 of book 1 of Euclid's elements, and not a theorem at all. I would like to know what list Randomaccount990 says this theorem is on (RS mentions in an edit summary "there is a list... and this is #1"), but I doubt it would change my vote. Delete. -lethe talk + 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's probably the first theorem on a list his high school geometry teacher passed out. Nothing wrong with that, but not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Euclid is spinning congruently in his grave. Fagstein 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The El Reyko 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Elroch 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Aargh! Was never good at math. But, this is an improper name. Delete ;) --Andy123(talk) 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --KSmrqT 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are theorems that have names like Hilbert's theorem 90, but this is not the same as stating "Theorem 90". Besides, there are plenty of well-regarded and known textbooks (e.g. Dummit and Foote's algebra text) that refer to this theorem of Hilbert that way. I would need to see similar evidence of the notability of this name "Theorem 1" for this fact. I suspect, as Trovatore has stated, that this is the first item on a list a hs teacher has passed out. --C S (Talk) 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Unless it's revised to say that the first theorem in every book is called "Theorem 1"?? But skip this silly parenthetical comment.) Michael Hardy 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Even with that revision, the problem remains that not every first theorem in books is called "Theorem 1". Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to respond to that :-) --C S (Talk) 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Improper name, and this is one of Euclid's postulates, not a theorem. Wstaffor 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (I'd have thunked that Theorem 1 was that if you have one point, then they are all congruent. Then Theorem 2 for two points.) LambiamTalk 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You know... I think I'm being outnumbered on this. And I know Euclid would be proud... (that man loves his theorems). User:Randomaccount990 April 19th.
Question. Why did you call this theorem 1 -- or rather on what list is it the first theorem? The name is puzzling (there are lots of theorem 1s in mathematics articles and book, sometimes even within the same book) and seems nonsensical in the context of WP.--CSTAR 17:11, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klambino Ball

nn game, zero Google hits for "Klambino Ball" or "Klambinoball". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in your backyard one day. Fagstein 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fagstein. Tijuana Brass 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT, nn game. --Terence Ong 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable --Andy123(talk) 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom AndyZ t 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Wstaffor 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy put it on the contributors personal space. No need to delete stuff outright on a contributors first real effort on wikipedia. Should encourage people to edit, just point them to the right places for certain edits. We wouldn't want to be accused of Biting the newcomers. Ansell 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be against consensus to have a contributor stay on wikipedia long enough to learn the way things work. Simple mistake to think a game with that many well-defined rules would be acceptable on an encyclopedia. Ansell 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So we're supposed to allow the first article by any and all editors? Have you seen the crap that gets deleted on a regular basis? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I did say user space, it is not "allowing" the article into the main space. I know what the guidelines are. I also think we should try to keep people from being turned off by people flaming them for their first edit. Put it in user space where they can have what they want anyway. I haven't seen any strict guidelines about what someone can develop in user space lately. Ansell 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:42

save Klambino Ball!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exotical

Seems to have been placed here by someone mistaking Wikipedia for a gaming discussion forum. u p p l a n d 03:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York University Student Centre

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete Ardenn 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, I am not too sure if this should be kept or not, as it is talking about the building itself, not it being a part of the university. Seeing that it is a stub about buildings in Canada, I would probably keep it, but I am abstaining. :: Colin Keigher 04:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Buildings aren't noteable simply by virtue of them being built. - pm_shef 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have lunch in this building most days, but that is not enough to make it encyclopedic. :) -Joshuapaquin 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Comment, You know, you have a valid point... mind changed. :) :: Colin Keigher 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can it be merged with York University? BoojiBoy 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - BoojiBoy, feel free to merge pertinent/encyclopedic information. —ERcheck @ 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OMG, building with KFC! Delete (nothing salvageable for merge). Fagstein 06:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete canteens are not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - if something notable happens to make the building important, let's recreate the article; in the meantime, let's delete.
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wstaffor 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - verfiable, can be merged if necessary. For great justice. 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:43
  • Comment I've incorporated the content of this article into York University, so it can be either deleted or merged. - pm_shef 21:08, 22 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? 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York University Ice Palace

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 04:00, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Du Page 3

Neologism. I have lived in this general area for 15 years and I have never ever heard this phrase. Google has nothing of the sort no matter what combo I use. Moreover, DuPage County, Illinois is never spelled with a space between Du and Page. This just silly monikercruft or even vandalism & it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Trust me on this.Madman 04:07, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tait Mackenzie Building

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete --Ardenn 04:11, 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. Just enough for a consensus, methinks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatrice Ice Gardens

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. props to ardenn for catching all this yorkcruft. pm_shef 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
comment, Pm_shef, please do not make false slanderous accusations, its very worthy of an article and is definetly not any kind of "cruft" as you attempt to claim --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bhoeble 11:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is one of Toronto's main arenas with spectator seating and is just as notable as the rest of Category:Indoor arenas in Canada. BoojiBoy 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, its one of the best arenas in the GTA, hosted many international tournaments, practice facility of many NHLers, the main rink has an "european style" ice surface, the largest ice surface in the north america --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the article somewhat. Request nominator withdraw nom. BoojiBoy 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. RexNL 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with fewer than 1000 results in Google, not really a matter of public interest. Quatloo 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
comment over 33,000 results in Google, originally called Ice Gardens, later sold naming rights to be called Beatrice Ice Gardens--JohnnyCanuck 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub. Needs expansion, but seems notable enough. Wstaffor 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a reasonable stub. In its current state it could probably be merged into another article, but the stub leaves room for expansion. Mangojuice 03:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm familiar with the topic and can attest that it is notable, and not so granular it should merge into York University or anything. Samaritan 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:45


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atkinson College Building

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Rousseau (Lost)

  • Delete. Completely duplicative of another article, Danielle Rousseau, over which an edit war has raged. Originator of the current page was blocked for WP:3RR on this previous article for two days, and his very first action on returning was (without discussion) to create this new page to cement his own stance on the previous article. Copyright issues also exist here but are secondary. This is a redundant article and should be deleted. PKtm 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Replication of information is pointless, particularly in the light of a reversion conflict.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant content fork. Fagstein 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Normally I'd say "Merge into Characters of Lost," but it seems that page already has ample information on this character. --Hyperbole 06:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As PKtm still assumes I am attempting to rage an edit war, even though I am not, I am upset to see him constantly marking my articles for deletion, especially one that would solve the current debate upon the Danielle Rousseau issue - Shaft121 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How does unilaterally creating a duplicate article resolve a content dispute? Fagstein 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PKtm. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hyperbole, although the Characters of Lost page should probably be split, since it's an unwieldy chunk of text.
  • Speedy Delete Danielle Rousseau already redirects to characters of Lost, this page is redundant. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as User:Fagstein  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. —LeflymanTalk 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Fagstein. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:46


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election and Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

Not encyclopedic. Pages for failed candidates of very minor party. brenneman{L} 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep for both. There are numerous pages like this on Wikipedia, and the article format is the result of a compromise that followed extensive discussions. CJCurrie 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If you provided some links to these discussions that would help. As it is, these pages appear to be platforms for non-notable people to squeeze into wikipedia, expanding the coverage of fairly non-notable groups. There's nothing encyclopedic here that couldn't go into the parent article. - brenneman{L} 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The original discussion can be found here. Subsequent practice has confirmed the acceptability of list pages -- I'll see if I can find sufficient evidence. CJCurrie 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Here is the first practical example of a list page being utilized as a compromise. CJCurrie 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And here is a more recent example. Note that most contributors now believe the list page approach is acceptable, even if the specific bio page is not worth keeping (which it wasn't). CJCurrie 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And here is a prior example of a list page being nominated for deletion, and surviving by a wide margin. CJCurrie 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for both. The CHP is just as notable as Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. :: Colin Keigher 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While I strongly feel that individual minor party candidates don't deserve their own articles, it is a good idea for an encyclopedic type production such as Wiki to keep a list of former candidates. Good reference material, without wasting space on non-noteable nobodies. pm_shef 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ardenn 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Gives us a place to store information on candidates for a party without clogging the place with non-notable biographies often cribbed if not copied from the Party website. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - At least some of this material belongs. If it doesn't warrant a separate article, then it may be merged to Christian Heritage Party of Canada, after discussion on the relevant talk page (not an AFD issue). Christian Heritage Party of Canada has nothing on individual candidates, and I think at least some, like those who's vote counts exceed the winner/runner-up spread, are worthy of inclusion in one or the other article. -Rob 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both per CJCurrie and pm_shef. —GrantNeufeld 05:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks interesting, and much better than having articles on each of the candidates. Fagstein 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Which sentence of it do you find interesting, choosing from those following the table of contents? The plain old results tables are, I expect, already summarised more sensibly elsewhere. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This whole idea was first proposed by AFD' as a solution to a very real and otherwise unresolvable debate. It's not an ideal solution, I grant, but it's the only way anybody's found to date to balance a very real and legitimate difference of opinion on the notability of electoral candidates. So, considering that this approach was AFD's idea to begin with, keep. Bearcat 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not a solution since we just keep the (non-)information somewhere else! What does it matter which title you put it under? If we get a bunch of politico-vanity-adverts every election, then that's fine. Delete them every election. I do not see, like Hiding below, that that discussion has any particular 'consensus' so strong as to overrule ordinary notability standards and to justify a dismissal of this entire AfD on the basis of it, as some seem to be suggesting. -194.247.247.60 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not a "solution" to the problem you are posing, but it is a solution to the problem posed at the centralized discussion. This is an unofficial compromise, not a 'concensus' that emerged from centralized discussion (it never went to a straw poll). The reason the title matters is because it is much easier to deal with one article than a dozen. These are just little bios that illustrate what kind of people are running for these parties. They are not full-blown biographies that require hours of research. One of the reasons the centralized discussion occured was because the afd process was not working, some were kept, some deleted (some repeatedly) but most ended with 'no concensus'. --maclean25 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems totally appropriate to me. While having a separate page for each of these candidates would be overkill, a list with some basic information certainly seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia of unlimited size such as Wikipedia. NoIdeaNick 09:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NoIdeaNick and others. Wikipedia is not paper. CJCurrie and others have gathered a lot of verifiable informaiton about these people into a small numbers of well-organized articles. It would be a shame to lose these. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We need to get rid of the individual nn candidate entries, and need a place to put them. One article per party per election for losing candidates seems reasonable. Fan1967 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How does keeping them get rid of them? Why do we need a place for below-average losers? One article per party that is actually relevant to the world outside their pub crew, I can understand. But an article just for signing a form once? That's a bit much. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 15 ridings tops???) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? As much as it pains me to do so, given my extreme detestation for Mr. Brenneman and his deletionist ways (KIDDING!) I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This is the sort of information that politics researchers find useful; one of the things that constantly hampers my discipline is not having information on the minor parties in countries outside the United States. Even if the article was not useful now, I can state without any reservation at all that, based on the research being done today, it will be useful a few years down the line.Captainktainer 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per CJCurrie et al. BoojiBoy 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant to the local community, the national community, the world community, the election, the other candidates in the election and as a grouping together of a whole bunch of utterly non-notable bios, each of which would be a near-speedy candidate if it weren't masquerading as an election result. There is little to no information in these articles that is informative of politics and there is no reason to spend time writing about a collection of literal losers. Losing by a stonkingly huge amount is something that Joe Anybody can do without even leaving their bedroom: literally. Add a passing mention to a main article or two, or a table of percentages somewhere. No need for a full-blown merge and redirect. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Above user has no prior contributions. CJCurrie 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have about 25,000. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • My apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time. CJCurrie 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, I did. And I imagine my comment sounds quite harsh to the author of the article. But really, did they have any impact on any of the things I mentioned in my first sentence? Are they likely ever too? Did they even get any significant media coverage, apart from some presumable stuff about being a fringe party (or whatever the terminology appropriately is)? Is the detailed info on the candidates actually of connection to anything other than this article? If you cut that out, at least we'd get a more focussed article. -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I didn't create the 2006 article -- someone else did. As has already been noted, the list system is a compromise: the candidates don't need to be individually important to qualify. To the party's importance, it might be noteworthy the Stephen Harper, Canada's current PM, once wrote about adding the CHP's support base to a broad "right-wing coalition" (not that I'm suggesting that the page should be kept for this reason alone). CJCurrie 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Notable for what? Your comment implies that some minor parties might be non-notable. What distinguishes this one? -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. RexNL 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Where has everyone got the idea that Wikipedia should onlyu include things that are important or "notable" (which is as vague and useless a term as one could imagine)? The main advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that is can cover the nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge in this world. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is an endlessly rehearsed argument. It fails on several key counts: Jimbo's ordinary opinions, whilst of great interest, do not form policy or guideline absent some authority being granted to them, or him speaking ex cathedra. Also, "non-notable" is such an accepted deletion criterion that non-notable bios, bands etc, can be deleted on sight per CSD A7. "Non-notable" is a frequently successful argument for deletion because it is simply a collecting-together of many different things: WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, of unencyclopedic information, etc etc. It is not as simple "i don't think he's interesting". It is clearly enough not a "useless" term, it is actually a usefully adaptive term that is just oft-debated as people differ on individual items. The nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge indeed; it is questionable whether the school-days employment of a random loser qualifies as knowledge. -Splashtalk 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And the counter-argument is that there are hundreds of articles on minor characters in Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Pokemon, video game and lots of other fictional universes. There are articles on weaponry, spacecraft, battles, religions, languages and institutions of these universes that do not exist. These articles exist because people are interested enough to write about them, and because Wikipedia is willing to be the host for information about them. Here we are talking about real world candidates of real world political parties for real world political offices in a county that is, for the most part, a real place. There are people who are interested in writing about and reading about these people. How is Wikipedia diminished by allowing the stories of these real people sit alongside all of the articles about the stories of minor fictitional characters? Ground Zero | t 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep per Ground Zero's excellent argument. If we can have articles on every single damn pokemon that (N)ever existed, this should be a no brainer. Jcuk 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the party is notable and the information here could be useful to researchers. Wstaffor 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that records on small party candidates are important for historical reasons. Also, CHP canidates tend to run multiple times and in multiple ridings. This info will almost certainly be useful for future elections. Just nbecause you didn't get a lot of votes doesn't mean that a candidate didn't make an impact. NDP Johnny 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per pm_shef. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, as above. Samaritan 07:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. While an article about the party is perfectly acceptable, these "list of failed candidates" pages are not appropriate to the encyclopedia. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to include content which would be unacceptable (per WP:BIO) if listed separately. If this trend is allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with these unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:58, 22 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 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry R. Heather

Has lost a few elections and made some ludicrous statements, but does not appear to pass guideline for inclusion of humans.
brenneman{L} 04:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, or barring that merge. Heather's past makes for an interesting bio, and I believe his status as a perennial candidate makes him sufficiently notable (he also holds an executive position in a provincial party of some note, in any case). I originally had this on the CHP 2006 list page, but decided there was enough material for a credible bio. CJCurrie 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Ardenn 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple newspaper references, ran against prime minister in his riding, and hosts a radio show. Good enough in the notability department as far as I'm concerned. Fagstein 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment you meant premier... Ralph Klein :: Colin Keigher 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I meant prime minister Stephen Harper, though he wasn't prime minister at the time, I suppose. Fagstein 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 105 google results against a living person == utterly unimportant. Quatloo 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A merge would also be acceptable, but it seems like there's enough information for an entire article devoted just to this one candidate. He is notable as a perennial candiate and as an activist. NoIdeaNick 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - My POV may wish he weren't exposed, but he is and he appears to have some importance. Captainktainer 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep sort of notable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom and Quatloo. RexNL 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Wstaffor 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Captaintainer. The guy's a yahoo, but if we can have articles for other such gadflies and annoyances who seem to attract undeserved media attention (like Fred Phelps)... Pat Payne 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per fine arguments above. Samaritan 07:34, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Kempling

High school teacher suspended for being anti-gay. Does not appear to be notable per guideline for inclusion of people.
brenneman{L} 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, or barring that merge. Was at the centre of a court case that gained national attention. I believe he is notable. CJCurrie 04:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to change my vote to merge -- I was confusing Kempling with Mary Polak re: the "national case" situation. CJCurrie 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC) In light of recent comments, I'm going back to my initial call. CJCurrie 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Ardenn 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article seems to be about the incident more than the person. Makes me more inclined to keep it. Fagstein 06:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per numerous precedents set. Like

CJCurrie says. Otherwise keep, relatively notable court case in Canada. Luigizanasi 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. --kingboyk 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Relevant guideline from WP:BIO is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events " Richard 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is an article about a relevant person in British Columbia. This was a major story for quite some time. :: Colin Keigher 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge as per Richard. NoIdeaNick 09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's about to tell the world about his situation through the UN. Deet 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Wstaffor 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still not seeing a single shred of evidence in the article that this person meets the guideline. Where's the coverage by an independant souce? Mentions in reputable media? Testimony of wikipedia editors is not verification and since this is a discussion and not a vote it would be good to have some evidence of notability presented. - brenneman{L} 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Supreme Court rejects teacher's appeal over homosexuality issue", Calgary Herald, 29 January 2006; "Quesnel teacher suspended for gay views running for Christian Heritage Party", Canadian Press, 12 December 2005; "Free speech needs to be for everybody", Calgary Herald, 5 November 2005 (feature editorial); "Civil liberties group tells court teacher `must constrain his public utterances'", Canadian Press, 24 April 2005; "A hard lesson in free speech: B.C. teacher taken to task for airing same-sex marriage views", Calgary Herald, 10 April 2005, "B.C. Civil Liberties Association intervenes in case of anti-homosexual teacher", Canadian Press, 31 August 2004. Should I continue? CJCurrie 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      Is there some reason that you were holding these back, eh? Better yet why aren't these references in the article? Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability it says in bold letters "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, yes, please do continue.
      brenneman{L} 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      I wasn't holding back -- I had no involvement in creating this article, and I wasn't even aware it existed until you put it on afd. When you posed the question, I did a quick newspaper search, which yielded the above results (and others). CJCurrie 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite obviously noteworthy. Silensor 06:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough: 14.000 google hits. Jens Nielsen 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is noteworthy but needs to be edited to included referneces and to make it seem less slanted. I have modified the language to make it seem less biased. Some one needs to add in some good references and citations Edward Brown.
If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that the term "pro-homosexual agenda" is itself slanted and POV. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the afd; please address the matter on the article talk page. CJCurrie 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Activists don't have agendas? Anyways, I take your point on discussing this in the other section.Deet 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: All who are familiar with this case should know that the Kempling case has enormous ramifications. Certainly the College of Education saw it as important or they would not have pursued the matter so far. The BC Teachers' Federation saw it important in that even though they were against Kempling's statements they gave him financial backing at a higher court level than, I understand, they were required to. Practically everything in this article is neutral, and it would only take one or two minor ones to make it totally so. The facts of this case, including the decision which effectively bars teachers from independent public discussion of education unless they are politically in line with the correct thinking, is enormous. User: Ted Hewlett 21 April 2006
  • Article is now updated Deet 01:28, 23 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 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coppola Group

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this corporation even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP. "Coppola Investment Group" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Nathan Coppola AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unable to verify that it exists, nevermind verify that it is important. -AED 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on verifiability grounds. If the info can be verified it may be worthy of reopening.Captainktainer
  • Delete as per above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified with sources. Wstaffor 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only John A. Coppola I could find on Google was one who was a realtor in Massachusetts...just a little bit away from Irving, Tx., dontcha think? ;) Pat Payne 21:57, 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 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Coppola

Relevant policies: WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this individual even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. "Nathan Joseph Coppola" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Coppola Group AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unable to verify that he exists, nevermind verify that he is important. -AED 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hetar 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hawkestone 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:37, 23 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 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election

Nothing encyclopedic here that could not go into parent article. There are lots of political parties that don't get elected, and lists such as this serve only to bulk up their on-line presence. brenneman{L} 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Wikipedia has an established precedent of permiting pages like this, and there is at least one instance of a similar page surviving afd [4]. I don't interpret this as "bulk[ing] up their on-line presence", so much as preserving information for future research. CJCurrie 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree with your assessment: I was the one who proposed the compromise and I obviously take a strong interest in the matter, but I'm certainly not the only one who supports the continued existence of such pages. The list pages provided a functional resolution to a bitter debate, and they've worked as a compromise for over a year. CJCurrie 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per comments above. It is useful to store information without clogging up the Wikipedia with articles cribbed if not copied from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per comments above :: Colin Keigher 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CJCurrie. —GrantNeufeld 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. -Rob 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per CJCurrie. NoIdeaNick 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per CJCurrie if there is an established precedent for these articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CJCurrie. --Terence Ong 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 5 ridings tops??? even less than the other party articles Brenny put up today) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? It is with great and over-riding (get it?) joy that I support Mr. Brenny in his noble endeavour. (KIDDING!!! about the noble part I mean...) and therefore I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... (from the GRR airport, yay for wireless access) ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the Christian Heritage Party. I find this information useful, and I find its unmerged location helpful.Captainktainer 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per comments above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a vanishingly small amount of encyclopedic information in this article, and the others. Why do we care what some irrelevant loser (yes, really, he lost) describes himself as? Why is the percentage information not properly in context in the main article about the election? Why do we care a fig, frankly, who failed to get a single candidate elected and who, judging from the article were of approximately zero impact at all levels. Add a passing mention to a main article, and delete. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I guess we'll have to disagree on the latter point. To the former: it's not just one decision, it's a full year's worth of precedent on this forum. CJCurrie 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Notable for what? All they seem to have done is sort-of exist briefly, once. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • They still exist. CJCurrie 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splashtalk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure that is established, and I'm reasonably conversant with AfD. I don't think that a single AfD in which the key assertion was "other articles exist" i.e. a repetition of the argument used here, making it at best a tail-biting assertion. The statistical info in this article can be and already is elsewhere. There is not much added by this article: I mean, why does it matter that "Zupansky has described himself as a business owner and salesperson"? The only reason this debate might not get us anywhere is if people decide not to engage in it: asserting that it should be overruled by a largely non-existent precedent. -Splashtalk 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the party is notable and this information could be useful for scholarly research. Wstaffor 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CJCurrie and others. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CJCurrie. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CJCurrie. Bucketsofg 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep informative. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:48
  • Delete. The article about the party is fine (and is not up for deletion that I know of). This "list of failed candidates" page, on the other hand, is not inherently encyclopedic. I do not agree with the statements above that there is any precedent to keeping such pages. Note: This page has already proliferated to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. If allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with such unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 22 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 Ttranswiki to Wikisource. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Order 12711

Not encyclopedic, this article is simply a verbatim excerpt from 1990 U.S. document without context Richard 05:21, 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 moved to WikiSource. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from WP:Cleanup

December 27 2005

  • Executive Order 12711 - Excerpt from 1990 executive order regarding Chinese nationals, completely lacking context. Saint Midge 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This should be deleted. It is simply an excerpt from a 1990 U.S. government document (executive order), posted by an anonymous user, probably copied from here: [5]John Broughton 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Richard 05:19, 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 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TJ2K_Software

This page is basically an advertisement. While there is not a specific "no adverts" policy, it comes close enough to a vanity page to merit deletion. Don't you have your own web page or something? Pfagerburg 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Note - found the above on Talk:TJ2K Software and copied it here as the nominator Pfagerburg did not create the AfD discussion page.--blue520 07:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Blue520, I screwed up on the AfD. I appreciate the fix. --Pfagerburg 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom- sounds like a cool company, but it needs a better writeup and some recognition in the broader community. Captainktainer 16:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - pm_shef 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promo. Wstaffor 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:53


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Nitrate Prize

Not a single result in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. Violates WP:V and should therefore be deleted. The redirect page Digial nitrate prize should also be deleted - Mboverload 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not sure if my vote counts since I created the vote =P --Mboverload 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It would be a neat idea if it were real, but unless someone demonstrates that it is, it's got to go. --John Nagle 06:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to have problems with WP:V & may fall under WP:NOT - crystal ball as the article notes "A group is forming to determine the rules of the competition and to raise money for the prize".--blue520 06:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, possible hoax. --Terence Ong 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello.. it is a real prize and, like the X-Prize, is constantly raising new funding. That will go on until the initial prize is won. There is a Yahoo group for the prize and several film festivals are announcing participation. It involves many members of the film and archive community and will become better known over time. The fact that fundraising is going on (perpetually) shouldn't count against it. It also takes forever to show up in Google! :-) The "official" website is under construction. Thanks. Movieresearch 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Where's the verification of this? When it becomes better known, then it's time to put it in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Right now I know this whole process seems kind of anal to you. But you are MORE than welcome to resubmit once you have a website and some media coverage. --Mboverload 21:52, 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 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyNetSpot.org

Website does not seem to meet WP:WEB. ~ PseudoSudo 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to fail WP:WEB or at least assert is notability to that level. May be very new as alexa has no traffic data for it and there are only two threads in the pages forum and no posts in the classifieds.--blue520 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. New site being promoted here. Five Google hits, most of which are not relevant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Weblog software, and even then only as a link/another example of a blog hosting service. As soon as/if it impacts human existence more than Joe's Home Page let's reopen the article. Captainktainer 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per blue520. RexNL 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Wstaffor 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Weblog software, as per User:Captainktainer -- User:Lot1vot32 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • First contribution to Wikipedia Lot1vot32? -- Lot2vot32 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • First contribution to Wikipedia Lot2vot32? Fagstein 04:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:54


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complicated Wire

NN band :: Colin Keigher 07:13, 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.... Mailer Diablo 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual slurs/old

(Previous nomination is here.)

I categorically demand removal of this page from main article space. It blatantly and openly defies the major requirement of wikipedia: Verifiability. What is more, the fans of sexual slurs persistently link it from the normal article, List of sexual slurs. This is total disrespect of the major rule of wikipedia. Also article forks are forbidden in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. The last AFD closed a little over three weeks ago and this is actually the third nomination. There has been no dramatic change in the article, Wikipedia policy, or the Wikipedia community in general since the last AFD. Thus, the will of the community has already been determined. Can another administrator please close the debate.--Primetime 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Wikipedia:verifiability policy is not revoked yet. And if you care to read it, you will find that it is one of the three cornerstone ones which are non-negotiable. `'mikka (t) 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - With so many people voting to keep the last time around, why hasn't anyone bothered to merge it? Especially given this article's enormous importance? Primetime is right in noting that this is too soon to reconsider, but it should be a moot point anyways. Tijuana Brass 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    The editors at "List of sexual slurs" want to merge them as they are sourced. They won't allow unsourced entries into the article for the time being. They don't want to delete them all, either.--Primetime 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    They have to move it into user space and don't link to it from articles, since this is a raw unverified source for future proper text. `'mikka (t) 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This practice of renominating for AfD until the desired result is achieved absolutely must end. If the community says "Don't delete it" more than once, it's a no-brainer that it should be kept. Captainktainer 16:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - to discourage renomination harrassment. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait until I start harrassing this bullshit for real. If the article will sit in the article space, and you continue to link it from other wikipedia articles, I have all rights to apply wikipedia:Verifiability to it and delete all what smells suspicious. If you don't want to follow rules, I will join the game. `'mikka (t) 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • CLOSE AS BAD FAITH NOMINATION - This comment is a possibly block-able violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a threat to WP:POINT. The current AFD doesn't meet speedy keep criteria with valid delete votes, but I would recommend that a closing administrator end it as a bad faith nomination and abusive behavior by nominator. Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Now, now. I am warning you (rather than threatening) that I am going to exercise my rights of an editor as applied to the article visible in the article space. I didn't do this before, because I thought at least one of dirt-word-lovers has a common sense. But this crowd persistently reverted my minimal changes aimed at minimal compliance with wikipedia rules. Now they are going down onto me with full forse. No more warnings. Now I will not speak but act as soon as this article pops up anywhere in the main article space. `'mikka (t) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Darkfred  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per too soon of nomination since last nom. VegaDark 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per too soon, and anyhow people throwing their toys out the pram and "absolutely demand"ing anything just pisses me off. Jcuk 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Lame. --Mboverload 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WINAD. Erik the Rude 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep slightly notable, and may provide some meaningful knowledge. Wstaffor 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • the real article, List of sexual slurs, is notable, but not this fork. By the way, forks are forbidden in wikipedia as well. `'mikka (t) 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE This page was again linked from main article space, which is inadmissible by wikipedia standards. What is wrong with the common sense? I genuinely fail to understand why the unverified content cannot be stored at the Talk:List of sexual slurs while the fwork is in progress? `'mikka (t) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Storing it on the talkpage would make the slurs harder to find for visitors. We were considering placing them on a subpage of the talkpage and then adding a link to it. Would that be acceptable to you?--Primetime 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Viewers must have a way to see the list. It can either be a subpage of the talk page linked from the article, or a subpage of the main page linked to the article. Either way, there must be a link to it. If I created a subpage on the talk page and linked to it from the main article, would you remove it?--Primetime 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that encyclopedia readers must not see unverified information. Encyclopedia editors can find this page, e.g., by link from the article talk page. `'mikka (t) 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I reluctantly vote keep, because I would have voted "delete" if I'd seen the last AfD. But the other voters are right, the AfD process shouldn't be overused. -Will Beback 09:25, 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. DS 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaliyah Yya

Page is empty Deon555 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as there is an update now, and it is fancruft :: Colin Keigher 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Knucmo2 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:CRUFT. --Terence Ong 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:CRUFT is not a policy document. Your fancruft might be my life's work (it isn't and I have no interest, but still). It's poorly written and needs to be tagged for cleanup (bearing in mind that the current update has been around for one day), but let's give the contributors some time to work with it. Captainktainer 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It may not be policy, but the document also states that: "Non-canon fanfiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopaedic." There's plenty of other policies that could be used here, such as WP:NFT. Danny Lilithborne 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft Computerjoe's talk 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten as per Captainktainer. Grafikm_fr 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of verifiability. Ziggurat 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless edited to meet WP:V. Wstaffor 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FICT. Fan fiction characters are non-notable until proven otherwise. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 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 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aibotteam

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Advertisement, no indication of being notable. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. (Please watch for sockpuppets in this vote.) -AED 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --blue520 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The name in question is a proper name of a group involved in Natural Language Processing, it in fact is mentioned in some printed matters (unfortunately not available on-line, but nevertheless it indicates notability). The article follows the "neutral point of view rule" so it should be not considered an advertisement. 84.40.142.82 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you cite these sources in the article (see WP:CITE) and explain what specific notability criterion of WP:CORP this company (or group, or whatever) fulfils. Sandstein 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think that the non-notability applies if this entity is said to be mentioned in print, isn't it ? Mobster lobster 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) — This is this user's first and to date only edit. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Being mentioned in print" is not enough. As per WP:CORP, the corporation must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Please cite these sources in the article. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not familiar with the publications mentioned (if there are any) but I've checked google and there are no other companies using this name, so I think this article can stay as there is no risk of misinformation. 213.158.197.33 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Misinformation is not the problem. Notability is. Read WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is about providing information, not about conducting lawsuits. Sandstein, you probably noticed that most people talking here are satisfied with this article. Or maybe they are far more interested in efforts in the NLP (even very tiny ones) than in your personal vendetta :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.241.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep As above. I would really see the article here. Leave it alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
    • You're going to have to provide some better reason than that. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Vox populi vox dei ;)) ...and I don't think this entry is in conflict with Wikipedia spirit 64.9.205.95 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The article is nothing. No meaningful text, not sourced, and seems to be completely non-notable. Wstaffor 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, the article is small, but it links to an interesting site. My suggestion is that the authors copy some content (eg. more details on the algorithms or the approach they use) from their www to make the article more informative. 64.9.205.95 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please keep copyright considerations in mind. Cutting and pasting is frowned upon unless it's from a website that has released its content into the public domain and/or GFDL or equivalent. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Double vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. To the contrary. In the discussion this name was said to be quoted so I guess it is notable. 05:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Obvious delete Not only is no assertion of notability made, but none could be essayed; even were the article fully developed, the subject would still be non-notable per WP:CORP. I concur with Sandstein and AED that one must watch sockpuppetry here. Joe 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:CORP refers to 'companies and corporations' (which I understand as commercial organizations), I have visited the webpage provided in this article and it seems that this entity is a non-commercial group (at least so far their products are available for free) so I guess this article should be exempt from the WP:CORP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.33 (talk • contribs)
    • Non-profit corporations are still corporations. I don't see how the notability guidelines don't apply here. Under what criteria would a non-profit be notable where a for-profit wouldn't be? Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per the above unsigned individual. Not familiar with the company but it reads as a non-profit organization. Almost Famous 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with the exemption. But PLEASE expand the content. Mobster lobster 07:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Mobster lobster, you voted already above. Please stop the sockpuppetry, it's not helping you. We can see if a user is very new and the administrators will discount such opinions. As to the company, it does look very much like a for-profit entity (with links like "Portal for Business Partners" etc.) and even if it were not, it would still have to establish notability. Sandstein 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that I am new here does not mean that I cannot state my opinion. Is this place for people who search for informatio or for people who spend their time harrasing other people ? Sorry for the double voting, but double voting is NOT a sockpupettery ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.", I use only one, the undersigned). Moreover I suspect you Sandstein (a.k.a. Fagstein, not to mention TheBernFiles on Wikimedia Commons, am I right ?) that you use sockpuppetery yourself. I would suggest that the authors re-classify the article to something less controversial like 'non-profit organizations' or move to a domain-related classification (like: 'search techniques' or 'NLP'). Mobster lobster 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Nice try though. Check our edit histories. Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As above. 83.27.118.57 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What with this edit histories ? I don't think I understand :((( Mobster lobster 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit histories (also known as User contributions) are a usefull test for sock puppety (not for meat puppets though), if the edit times over lap then it is very dificult for the two users to be puppet and master. For example if you check the edit histories for Fagstein and Sandstein you would find at least one over lap, with the edits at 05:10 (UTC) on 7 April 2006.--blue520 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable - rampant sock puppetry in this discussion is also a concern Barneyboo (Talk) 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure this is the sockpuppettery ? Please show some evidence, because without any your comment sounds just like pure insult.
  • I agree that unless some evidence is given the accusations of sockpuppettery are a nuisance. As for the discussion I would Keep the article provided some more content is supplied by the authors. I think that Wikipedia should promote the efforts in the machine processing of natural language. Keep up the good work ! 83.16.100.150 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sifl and Olly would be proud of their brethern here, though.  RasputinAXP  c 17:20, 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 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Theological Society

Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[6] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 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 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oakland Athletics: All-Time Team

Delete I think this article gives somebody's analysis on who they think what the all-time A's team is. In other words, it's sombody's opinion, not fact. I think that would constitute a "critical review" and violates WP:NOT Dspserpico 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete great team, but WP:OR -- Samir (the scope) 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The selection of the best player on a team by any given website is not notable. NoIdeaNick 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Trebor 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Mboverload 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. Wstaffor 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fascinating, but not notable. Fagstein 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for choosing Campy over Miggy. -- 160.5.82.208


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lords of Pain

Contested PROD. A pro-wrestling website that does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for articles on websites. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The number one website for wrestling news according to Alexa.com. Lords of Pain (Wrestlingheadlines.com) is known throughout the internet wrestling community as the place for news and columns in regards to professional wrestling.Zuma 20:05, 12 June, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 143,000 Google hits from a variety of different and independent sites treating it as a source and an object of news in and of itself establishes notability. This is an important part of the Web wrestling community, and should be treated as such. Based on just a cursory overview of the web content, the site has a significant presence on the web. Wikify it, NPOV it, but let's not just outright delete it. Captainktainer 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no awards / being subject of notable published works (WP:WEB) AndyZ t 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB - pm_shef 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Wstaffor 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Mirasmus 03:24, 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 the article. Categories go to the CfD if needed, not AfDs. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of drug scandals

Delete. Criteria for inclusion unclear - as its worded it could include countless incidents. The article has been here since October 2005 and has not been expanded beyond a single entry, which makes me wonder if it's there only to make a point. Category:Drug scandals should also go for the same reasons. I@n ≡ talk 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "List of drug scandals" but Strong Keep for the category. --Lockley 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, but I agree with Lockley, Keep the category. Wstaffor 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No expansion/research == attack article. Shenme 02:45, 23 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 by User:Davodd (vanity). - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There and back agian

Vanity. The title is incorrect, so could at least be moved; and after listing it for speedy deletion, the user (Thereandbackagain) removed the template. Obviously self-promotion. – Jared Preston 08:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above: Vanity. – Jared Preston 08:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --blue520 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear vanity. NoIdeaNick 10:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, need I say more? Dspserpico 10:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Kiss

  • Delete: No released albums, I see nothing that would help this meet WP:BAND. --Hetar 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band :: Colin Keigher 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Will you please investigate before you claim nn. They are notable all around the World and not just an ordinary cover band. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, WP:BAND are "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind". Electric eye also notes that WP:BAND says: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... For performers outside of mass media traditions: ... Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. NPR has covered them after many many many local publications around the world have covered them". For great justice. 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They are notable in local music scenes around the World. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
See MiniKiss: Life in a Little People Cover Band, NPR, Pop Culture, April 14, 2006 --ElectricEye 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: They also had a bit on MTV's Best Week Ever this past week, and pretty much treated as a sick joke on a par with circus geeks of a bygone day. This may be crossing the notoriety bar, if not in a way they might appreciate. RGTraynor 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per ElectricEye. NPR is a reliable source for determining noteworthiness. Captainktainer 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is being deleted because the nominator is not interested in little people bands, and so thinks that no one else should be able to read about them. This highlights the problems with the concept of notability. Just because they have a relatively targetted audience, someone will think we should remove them. For great justice. 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - User:For great justice, many articles go through this process and it helps to bring about discussion. Stay objective and comment on content. Making personal comments about others ("nominator is not...."), can get one into trouble in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Wikiki!!! ^_^ --User:ElectricEye (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks EE, I did not think that there was anything in my comment that could be called a personal attack. I don't think the nominator would disagree with my reasoning, but if they do, I would invite them to correct me. For great justice. 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am a little surprised that they could be regarded as a band since they were reported in Hustler magazine in 2004 as: "The band isn't really playing their instruments. In fact, their guitars are made out of wood, and they're singing "karaoke-style" over a Kiss CD." I was advised by the main editor of the Mini Kiss article that "lip-synching is a common practice amongst cover bands." While that may be so, are cover bands that don't even play notable - surely not as bands, perhaps as entertainment acts?--A Y Arktos\talk 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Take a look at Lip-sync#Singers_that_have_been_caught_lip-synching before you make a case that singing your own material has anything to do with being a band. Splitting hairs about when a 'band' becomes an 'entertainment act' is going to have huge repercussions on other articles. For great justice. 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: I would distinguish between those who have ben caught lip synching and those who have never done anything else. I understand that Mini Kiss only lip synchs, hence presumably why there are no recordings. Those listed at Lip-sync#Singers that have been caught lip-synching have all claimed to make recordings. I assume people go to see them because they like the music of Kiss and they like looking at little people.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I would not presume to know why they go to see them, but the issue of lip-synching, whether sometimes or all the time, is a red herring as far as deletion goes. For great justice. 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Oh, I wouldn't remotely consider them notable as a band. That they do seem to be notable on their own is another matter altogether. RGTraynor 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep:I have seen them multiple times on VH1. They are definitely notable. -Bottesini 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Wstaffor 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cult band, treated as notable by media like Village Voice, even though the whole spectacle reminds me of what Lenny Bruce said about well-intended freak shows. Monicasdude 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Although I don't believe the band to be of particular notability in the music realm (I'd be wary of them calling a cover band, perhaps cover performers would be the more accurate representation...), I do believe they are notable. ALthough I hadn't heard that particular NPR piece, they were mentioned in a question in last week's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! (stump the listener I think?). Although I don't particularly respect this kind of exploitation (the one in process by the performers themselves), I won't allow that bias to ignore the likely notability of this band. However, the article needs and will need a lot of work. ••\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to have received news converage. Fagstein 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep they're notable now (why, for the life of me, I don't know) due to a spat with another (you, dear reader read right-- there are two) all-"vertically-challenged" KISS tribute band over whom should exist... Pat Payne 22:02, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Blue Book

A database of movies that is designed to help independent filmmakers connect with film agents. The fact that it only started this year has been edited out. Advert - the creator user:Lachiusa has contributed nothing else. Sorry Lachiusa, as always, wait until someone else writes about it. -- RHaworth 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not yet ready for Wikipedia.--blue520 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, OR. RGTraynor 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Fagstein 05:09, 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: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd ("hoax/fiction/test"). - Mike Rosoft 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demigod slayer

Clearly nonsense. I'm also attempting to "bundle" Omega Delta (legend) in here because the two pages only link to each other and are both apparently of the same origin. Appropriate Username 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes Delete both, but a question what was wrong with the proposed deletion of both of them?--blue520 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a related image Image:Insignia.jpg, which I am attempting to figure out how to add in as well. Appropriate Username 10:09, 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 no consensus; I am turning this into a stub; everyone feel free to expand again (but not by readding the lyrics) or merge/redirect/whatever. - Liberatore(T) 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical Slaughter

Hardly a single. Poor article. No chance to get it expanded. Lajbi 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Delete the text of the single (possible copyvio problems), link from artist's page (it's mentioned in the intro), but keep. Within the admittedly narrow focus of New York's hip hop community, it meets notability standards, as established in the artist's page. Captainktainer 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the description into the artist's page, Delete the text of the song due to possible copyvio. Wstaffor 01:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Wstaffor. Fagstein 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a huge part of papoose being known and its important to the article of papoose himself. The lyrics are extreme and should be kept since most people cant keep up with what he is saying. 10:01, 22 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.173.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Utmost Cleanup This is way confusing. Jonathan235 15:35, 23 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. Thryduulf 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragondoor

I have no idea what this article is about. A filmmaker? A traveling carnival? Who knows? Appropriate Username 10:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Dragondoor was a professional wrestling federation that failed. I've given some background info on it, hopefully someone who knows more will be able to clean it up for me, but there should be enough there to give a general idea. McJeff 04:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable enough. McJeff 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep stub - poorly written, but notable nonetheless -> see What links here. It is a Japanese Professional Wrestling article. Not my cup of tea - but a valid article topic. Davodd 11:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim to noteability. pm_shef 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but the article needs some serious cleanup. Wstaffor 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as borderline nonsense. If someone can make sense out of it I'll change my vote. Fagstein 05:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • rewrite and merge anyone with a good command of Japanese may want to merge the article with Toryumon. Pat Payne 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • rewrite and merge with Toryumon -Voievod 00:49, 22 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 Kotepho 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Offer

Non-notable, defeated candidate, long way from next election to assess notability on that basis and we can't have every candidate on WP. Mtiedemann 10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment is ther person notable for anything besides his candidacy? Dspserpico 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently not, based on a glance at the 41 G-hits off of the UK Google. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is notable for securing one of the largest swings to Conservative in the 2005 election and is believed to be in the top swings to not gain a seat ever, as well as his campainging in Chester. It would be a bias for (hence break the NPOV rule) as both the Labour and Lib Dem candidates have their own page.
    • Feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Fagstein 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not because of bias issues, but because running for public office under a major political party in one of the world's oldest democracies is in and of itself notable. Expand and keep. Captainktainer 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment We can't keep articles just to provide a balance of politics, notability for each individual article has to be asserted. Simply being a prominent losing candidate has several times not been considered notable enough - see Antonia Bance, which article was deleted despite her continuing prominence in the seat and her blog and other claims to notability. In contrast, losing candidates who have less subjective claims, e.g. being a local councillor, have won keep votes, hence I didn't think it worthwhile putting up Cllr Mia Jones, the LibDem candidate, up for AfD. We need some consistency. Mtiedemann 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and expand per all above Jcuk 21:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub for now, but needs to be sourced and expanded. Wstaffor 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some list of candidates we can merge this into? Fagstein 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can understand merging non-notable candidates, however this is a notable candidacy, and will remain memorable (even if only amongst Cestrians and polititians. This reason was for the SWING, the fact that this is one of the most marginal seats in the country. 84.64.161.206 12:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments about M. Jones are irrelevant, as she has not been adopted as a candidate for the next election by the LD's, whereas Offer has, he is one of only c.10 people to be adopted by their respective parties, and was the first candidate after the '05 election to win selection for the following election. 84.64.161.206 12:13, 23 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? 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hexa

  • Don't Delete hexa is actually a great and relatively successful band, it looks like they're just having fun with their definition

Non-notable + stupid remarks grafikm_fr 10:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable vanity Maustrauser 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as previously said. grafikm_fr 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and bollocks. Complete contents: "Hexa is a band from New York City. They sound like Fleetwood Mac if Freddie Mercury was straight".--Lockley 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity. Wstaffor 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, this was created as a re-direct to Hexa-, an article on the Greek numerical prefix for 6. However, Uncle G made Hexa- a re-direct to Numerical prefix one day because he believes Wikipedia is not the place for numerical prefix articles, and then a double re-direct was needed to be fixed. Revert to the edit before someone made this into an article about the band. Georgia guy 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete some people + a place + an opinion = not even a stub. Shenme 02:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete if anything, request the description removed. it is true: they

are a relatively successful band. 11:01, 22 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 deletion nomination withdrawn in favour of merge

[edit] DLR P86 stock and DLR P89 stock

Non-notable articles on exact model of rolling stock on Docklands Light Railway. Not an encylopedic topic IMO and change of stock already in main article. Contested: I attempted PROD but author removed without comment or explanation. I vote delete. Cje 10:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK given precedents quoted I withdraw the nomination. The merge proposal sounds sensible. Cje 09:07, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Waite

This page reads like advertising for an upcoming Playboy magazine. It contains elements of speculation and is possibly written by the subject or a Playboy representative. Little of it is easily verifiable Delete Maustrauser 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue featuring Alison Waite went already out. All of the information contained in the article comes whether from the Magazine itself or several San Diego news websites (and can thus be verified). If it's compliant with the rules, I can obviously provide links. Don't Delete(Icepod 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

Keep per the dozens of other articles about Playmates. The article could use some work but that doesn't require us to delete it outright. GT 11:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per GT. Yeltensic42 don't panic 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. This is done in the exact format of other PMOM articles, and given the publication dates of major magazines, the May 2006 issue of Playboy must have been out two months ago. In any event, Waite was named the May 06 PMOM. RGTraynor 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The May issue of Playboy has been out for about two weeks now. And most of the info in the articles content can be found on Playboy's website[7] and this article[8]. Don't see the need for deletion at all. XXXFan1 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GT above. Wstaffor 01:36, 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 redirected to List of gay slang words and phrases. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyke diva

Unverified/unverifiable; Likely original research. Dicdef. Davodd 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, dykedef. RGTraynor 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Appears to have been redirected by User:Zavreio to List of gay slang words and phrases. Fagstein 05:21, 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 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Portslade

Nothing more than an ad for a minor non-notable school.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:SCHOOL Davodd 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Bhoeble 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. -- grafikm_fr 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SCHOOL. (not a high school, 211 students)Kotepho 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. the subject is fair enough, but this is a yellow pages entry and not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, WP:SCHOOL. --Terence Ong 14:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. May I ask why people are citing WP:SCHOOL, which was an outright rejected set of criteria? RGTraynor 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It is easier than rehashing the arguments over and over in every AFD. Kotepho 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, primary school with no indication of notability at all. No encyclopedic information provided. Google search shows a number of schools with that name (except a different municipality after the comma), and none of those hits are news stories or editorial features, just "here's our nice little school website". Primary schools, whether religious or secular, generally can't demonstrate verifiable impact on the community like high schools usually can. Barno 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barno and Sjakkalle. Henrik 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Sjakkalle. RexNL 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per strong precedent to keep all schools. Jcuk 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact there is strong precedent of lack of consensus to keep "all schools", especially at the primary level. I'll admit there is strong precedent of certain users voting to keep all schools, but that's not nearly the same thing. Barno 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am wondering why so many have cited WP:SCHOOL, when this article does not actually meet the criteria therein! Isopropyl 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All. Schools. For great justice. 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to precedent. As much as I'd prefer not to have every school, it's worked out that way and it's not worthwhile to try to undo it. -- Mithent 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no problem with it being a school, but WP is not the yellow pages. Would be fine if resubmitted as something more than an address. Wstaffor 01:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. No free rides. Fagstein 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a school, ergo it's notable. Keep. --Gene_poole 05:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove any kind of promotional language. Bahn Mi 17:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- understand and agree that page needs more information e.g. historical etc. and plan to include this information eventually...surely that is the idea of this site...to have people 'build' on the pages created. This page has just started empty. More information will be added soon. Regarding the first comment, I'm sure the thousands of members of the school and local community would NOT consider this to be a 'minor and non-notable school'- surely all schools are important and no school is more important than the next! User:Chris Kirwan 19:20, 21 April 2006
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:SCHOOL. Vegaswikian 05:48, 23 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, with page already userfied. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runescape3

Personal essay about a claimed discovery. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to User:Playasoccer. It would be appropriate there. Davodd 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about this. I'll move it to user:playasoccer like you suggested. Is that ok now? But I tried to move it and it said I could'nt move it. I'll need help with that. Playasoccer 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Playasoccer

  • Playasoccer, you can't "move" it by using the move option at the top, because the page User:Playasoccer already exists. You should just copy the text and paste it into wherever you want it on your page.
  • Delete Essay. Bhoeble 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless. grafikm_fr 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, essay. --Terence Ong 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to user page, or a subpage thereof. Wstaffor 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So the what is the exact reason your going to delete this page? Playasoccer 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Playasoccer

  • Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Delete, once userfied. Fagstein 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a made up story. The screenshots are obviously fake, and if Jagex wanted to test RS3, they would not put it on the internet, as they can simply test it in their office. They would probably tell us that they were working on RS3 as well. Dtm142 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jagex themselves do NOT have a plan for a RuneScape 3, so this is just rubbish.Makoto 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • dont delete it.he's just trying to do something cool,if its a lie,oh well, its an intersting story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenkliff (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to user page/subpage. This phrase could be copied to WP:NOR: "This is my discovery and I want the world to know ..." Shenme 02:57, 23 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 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics

This page needs to be scrapped and begun again. It could not be less coherent or informative, since it is wholly unstructured and uses circular definitions. Dave1898 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - valid topic. Just needs a major cleanup. Davodd 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've turned Tactic into a disambig. page and suggest that Tactics be moved to Tactic (method). Then rewrite per nom. PJM 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Sure it needs a major overhaul, but does not mean it has to be erased. grafikm_fr 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — I'll assume good faith on the part of the nom., but really this should have been dealt with through cleanup rather than AfD. :) — RJH 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Your assumption of my good faith is touching. I find that far too few articles are deleted, rather than too many. It is preferable that the word tactics return to the ignominy of being a red edit link, and so offer someone who knows something about it the chance to create an entirely new article; cleanup should be for articles with superficial problems, not for articles that have no good points at all. The refusal to delete poor articles is a weakness of Wikipedia, not a strength. Dave1898 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Charmed I'm sure. Obviously I disagree with the approach of blasting every page that doesn't immediately live up to some arbitrarily high standard. Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress. :) — RJH
      • Still, the point RJH made is a valid one. Bringing this to AFD wasn't really necessary. Placing a clean-up or expert tag on the article would have been the proper way to go. PJM 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep, obviously, but tag appropriately (which I will do shortly). AfDing articles on notable, valid and encyclopedic subjects which are just badly written goes exactly against the stated AFD policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Problems that don't require deletion
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Article needs improvement
 List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. {{cleanup}}, or preferably a more-specific tag.
Article needs a lot of improvement List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{attention}}
  • Keep, but needs clean-up. RexNL 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but definitely needs some cleanup. Shouldn't be deleted as the topic is valid. Wstaffor 01:47, 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 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven Last Words of Christ (Bible)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nyle Wolfe

I think it is a vanity page:

  • no page links here,
  • yahoo gives only 24 matches for this name (less than with mine !), and google not much more,
  • article creared by someone with the same last name !
  • Uri given by Monicasdude http://www.hberlioz.com/Archive/d3may.htm does not show this singer importance (a single shared second role) Lvr 11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per nom and weakness of article. Kukini 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I just ran a search...Nyle Wolfe could become a viable article, with some effort...perhaps it should be a stub? Kukini 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and onto the swanboat with him. RGTraynor 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Kukini. Amalas 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub simply needing more info. pm_shef 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub, needs work but is a viable topic. Wstaffor 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Google gives a few hundred hits for "Nyle P. Wolfe," with more under various forms of the name, and the second hit shows him playing Figaro in a significant German production (significant as measured by the number of online reviews). Opera, like dance and too many other arts, is barely covered online below the superstar level, but what coverage there is treats him as notable. Monicasdude 03:18, 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 by User:Geogre. --Hetar 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Religion

Wikipedia is not a discussion, and certainly not on religion. WP:NOT. See also the article's talk page when reviewing. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 12:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above – Jared Preston 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. grafikm_fr 12:40, 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. --JoanneB 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fontenot

Non-notable, no sources. grafikm_fr 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kukini 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Is the (barebones) citation of a surname even fit for Wiktionary? RGTraynor 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Fagstein 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as we can't have all names described here, but now I wonder why I haven't heard of a Wikealogy? Hey, wouldn't that be a great place to stick other name cruft, like Chinese pet names and Pet names (recently deceased)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shenme (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete- per nom, and Fagstein. DVD+ R/W 03:11, 23 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. --JoanneB 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devon Bateman

Non-notable Police constable YUL89YYZ 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 34 directed G-hits. RGTraynor 14:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it is an unelected position that fact in itself is not notable. We don't even have an article for the investigation that is his only claim to fame. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC) --Darkfred Talk to me 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NN. Wstaffor 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The case itsle might be notable; if it is, Bateman can be mentioned there. CJCurrie 04:15, 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 Keep.--Adam (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desaparecidos (band)

non-notable band, not sure if it is speedy deleteable Adam (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep appears to be notable band, signed on a label. Kukini 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep very notable band, Conor Oberst's project, on the Saddle Creek lable. The only nitpick is one album. TeKE 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC. Any band featuring Conor Oberst is notable, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Definitely notable. cheque_some 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per WP:MUSIC. Wstaffor 01:56, 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.

Every piece of discussion on the band's page was to delete. --Walter Görlitz 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melchizedek Principle

Original, unverifiable research, borders on ad for own site Lundse 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because one is merely a redirect for the main page and the rest also further what seems to be one mans theories:

  • The Melchizedek Principle
  • The_Revelatorium
  • Soul Atoms
  • Maldek
  • The Order of Melchizedek

Please visit the Revelatorium Melchizedek Teachings a get an idea of what this is about. If nothing else, all this is original research, IMHO. Lundse 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge per thatcher. Kukini 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I may have been a bit (too) bold in including this, as the user voted when only the main article was on this page (see history).
Not sure as to what the above author is referring. If to my vote, it was based on the content at the time of the vote. Kukini 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC), Wikipedian.
    • The content at the time was the The Melchizedek Principle article. I was hoping you would update your vote to include the current content, and maybe delete this (then irrelevant) exchange. Lundse 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what Melchizedek Principle is really even about -- it's almost bordering on gibberish. Delete AnonMoos 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It could be worse. You could have actually followed the link to the website, which is ten times worse. My eyes are bleeding, I think. Delete per nom as NN, OR gibberish. RGTraynor 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whatever isn't original research seems to be covered already at Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity). Thatcher131 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all these per WP:NOR, WP:NOT. I don't see a reason to believe these subtopics are important enough to keep even redirects, let alone articles. See the discussion under some of the Thelema-related Crowleycruft on AfD the last couple of days; then consider that the website (and any books etc) being promoted have been read by millions of people fewer than Crowley's books. Barno 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. Wstaffor 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't even qualify IMHO as original research. It's just pseudo-religious nonsense that really has little place on Wikipedia. I say tell him "thank you for playing, have a copy of our home version" and send him on his way. Pat Payne 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jim Ellis 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR and ultimately self-promotion. And besides, "super high frequency motivation" can cause brain cancer if held too close. Shenme 03:17, 23 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 Result of debate was nomination withdrawn. Dakota ~ 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bhatra

At first blush, this looked to be a real article effort, in need of wikifying and editing, but as it continued on, it began to look like a hoax. With no sources, it seems appropriate for deletion. Kukini 13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The parts about eating eggs for breakfast on Tuesdays and what cars people like to buy are what brought me to nominate this. It just might need a lot of cleaning, though. Kukini 13:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I feel that it is an inportant cultral comunity living in England and have cultral traditions which should be shared to help educate others about there herotege and how there culture has become a part of british culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Socarates, please look on the article's talk page (click 'discussion') for suggestions. --HJMG
  • Comment This is A genuine Article which is based on real Cultral Traditions from a member of the Bhatra comunity in the Uk plese feel free to get in touch or contact steve singh who is foundaer of the Bhatra Sikh information website this article is not ment to offend anyone however it is important to raise awreness and be REAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. My vote's subject to change if this article is cleaned up dramatically and sourced. Which it has been. Looks good to me now. Keep as edited. RGTraynor 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - now partly copy-edited. Someone with access to suitable source material could add a lot to this.--HJMG 15:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - although I've never heard of or know of this group, it appears that they have a limited web presence and they are a small group. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Great improvements! I am glad to see this is not a hoax. I withdraw my AfD. Kukini 16:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Can I do that or does an Administrator have to make that ruling? Kukini 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Interesting culture would like to know more

  • Keep as rewrite seems excellent and AfD is withdrawn. Wstaffor 02:02, 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. --JoanneB 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PGD IN IT

article written about a specific course with generic title Dunstan 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Idiosyncratic, not needed here. --Knucmo2 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --grafikm_fr 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom James Kendall [talk] 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, incomprehensible. RGTraynor 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Wstaffor 02:03, 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. --JoanneB 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Crouter

Non-notable Canadian YUL89YYZ 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kukini 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --grafikm_fr 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds like vanity to me. James Kendall [talk] 13:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as vanity. Another Laurentian University NN wannabe politico -- with three so far now, I have this uncomfortable feeling that there are several more out there. Actually, the article missed a trick in omitting the author's website; his page describing the creation of his personal flag will brighten your morning. [9] RGTraynor 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This guy is not notable. Also, former cadets are not "retired servicemen" in the Canadian Forces. --rehpotsirhc 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity although we might want to save it for BJAODN as well ... I have to chuckle at the idea of a 24-year-old kid trying to fast-track himself into politics by proudly calling himself "Master Corporal X, Ret." Only "Private X, ret." could bottom that (And as if any ex-servicepeople, anywhere, are truly retired in their 20s ... if you really are, it's probably not because of your distinguished service, rather the opposite in fact). Daniel Case 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My name is Steven Crouter (the real one), and I did not ask for, nor authorize this page. If it is at all possible, I ask that it be removed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrouterS (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as hoax or attack page or vandalism. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Samaritan 07:23, 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 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raindrop Studios

NN, vanity James Kendall [talk] 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity IMHO. grafikm_fr 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN sad sack of .... Even the link to the one short they actually claim to have filmed is broken. RGTraynor 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, vanity. Wstaffor 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Raindrops keep falling on my head. But that doesn't mean I won't still be voting delete (no assertion of notability). Fagstein 05:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. MikeWazowski 05:06, 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 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbeckart

Contested prod. It's an artist's vanity page. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as bio. Belongs on user page. Kukini 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Grafikm_fr 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. -Objectivist-C 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Wstaffor 02:05, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda in the United States

After attempting to cleanup and de-POVify this article I found it contained no useful information. It is composed entirely of the unsourced, unverified opinions of its primary author. --rehpotsirhc 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A sack of assumptions without proofs > /dev/null -- Grafikm_fr 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Keep after article rewrite. Still recommend deletion of history prior to blanking, which was what I advocated anyway. --Mmx1 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - crap "article" --Kalsermar 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • After rewrite, still voting delete. In its present form 1.5 paragraph actually deals with the subject. See my comment on article's talk page.--Kalsermar 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, possible original research. --Terence Ong 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOR, there is a place for an article on this subject if (heavily) verified WP:V, but this one is not it.--blue520 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. Could be a useful article. There's already an article dealing with Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, and there's no inherent why this article couldn't be improved and de-POVed. Fishhead64 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. This article, without doubt, needs a lot of attention and it is filled with POV. (In the talk page, I wrote a list of places that it needs references.) But according to the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, these two problems should cause change, not deletion. The article should be pruned mercilessly and closely edited to meet Wikipedia's standards... but not deleted. Chip Unicorn 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning delete Good name, bad article. maybe just redirect to Media :) --Darkfred Talk to me 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree with much of the contents, I don't see anything verifiable as a source for any of it. Mostly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violations. Weak keep and cleanup because this might be a slightly better starting point than deleting and rewriting from scratch. Topic is encyclopedic per precedents such as Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, but it's a POV magnet which will provoke edit wars. A sensitive topic and a poorly-documented early version aren't sufficient reasons to delete. Barno 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Utterly dreadful article full of unsourced generalisations, perjorative statements and assumptions. Nontheless the subject is valid and should stay. Keep. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I think the core issue is whether this article title is inherently POV, that is, is it a matter of controversy whether or not the US government issues propaganda. If the answer's yes, then the topic deserves examination. Article needs a lot of work, maybe it's overly broad, and it will be controversial, but should be kept. --Lockley 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but badly needs de-POVing and sources. BryanG 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. For great justice. 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and probably all OR. Resubmit if heavily edited and proper sources provided. Wstaffor 02:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete based on current content -- just a mass of generalities with a diversion into the issue of censorship. A legitimate article on this topic is possible, but this isn't it. --Metropolitan90 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over, this is just sloppy. Gazpacho 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, not the first article that had a bad start. Gazpacho 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Cleanup - In one form or another this article should remain: It is an issue of global concern, whether or not claims within are valid. De-POV, and probably remove the "Propaganda in Advertisement"; it's tautological as advertisement is inherently propagandist. Cathal 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that a few editors have largely blanked the article and rewritten it from scratch. Although there are still some POV problems, it is no longer in need of outright deletion, so I'm withdrawing my AfD nomination. --rehpotsirhc 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's valid, I have started a translation into Spanish.--tequendamia 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That something is tautological is no reason not to mention it (with citations). Gazpacho 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up - As it is it's a bloody mess, and not wothy of a place in an encyclopedia. However, there are a lot of things worth consideration in the article that would be a shame to waist.Islander(Scandinavia) 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact this article has been reported for deletion is absurd and pretty ironic! It's like trying to say propaganda doesn't exist in america and at the same time demonstating that it does! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.218.235.18 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but Redo Idea is good, current article is s@#t. Mbralchenko 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I want the article, in its future state. Would need a lot of real development. Shenme 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - content is so broad as to be redundant with Media of the United States, but with a heavy POV slant. Any unique content should be merged with Propaganda --Ajdz 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs work but a notable subject which can develop into a constructive article.--Cini 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up. This article definitly has potential, all it needs is some further research, editing, and citing of sources. --Malgalad 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It already has a (better) start at Propaganda. You could consider splitting that article by geography, but it would lose a lot of important context. --Ajdz 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. we have many country specific articles for major topics like culture, dance, demographics. Propaganda is one of big ones, even judging from the size of the article. `'mikka (t) 16:33, 25 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkism and Meimasism

Turkism/Meimasism appears to be a non-notable religion. The only source I've found is this freewebs hosted site http://www.freewebs.com/meimasism/ which does not use the term Turkism. Delete as unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable, made up religion, nn. --Terence Ong 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as NN and unverifiable. -- Grafikm_fr 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - made-up non-notable nonsense "religion", most probably a joke at best - Skysmith 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete – lame joke. LambiamTalk 01:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 02:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete already. Gazpacho 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 speedy deleted under CSD-G4 ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LostPedia

Recreation of an already deleted article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:58, 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 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixen Technologies

Contested prod. Company which gives no indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Delete unless it can be shown to meet those guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:CORP. Wstaffor 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 05:41, 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 redirect to Mujaddid. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majaddid

There is already an almost identical article on the same thing, Mujaddid, which is well-referenced and more detailed Tanzeel 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect to Mujaddid Richard 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. -- Grafikm_fr 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Wstaffor 02:11, 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 merge into Horace Mann School (New York City) - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

After checking what's already in Horace Mann School (New York City) about this, it seems to me that there is no interesting information to merge, so I have just redirected. - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cinemann

The presence of high schools on Wikipedia is already a debated issue. Whether or not they are considered encyclopedic is usually the main concern. However, unnoteworthy high school publications surely do not warrant their own page. Wikster72 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete it reads like a vanity article. If it can be cleaned up and shown to have some notability i could change my vote. David D. (Talk) 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. If someone can clean it-up, why not keeping it, delete otherwise. --Grafikm_fr 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. School is notable, but notability does not attach. Nor, contra article, does editor's onetime appearance on cable make it (nor, I daresay, the editor in question) notable. Daniel Case 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge encyclopedic content to Horace Mann School (New York City). --Dystopos 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Dystopos. I don't really see this as notable enough to require a separate article; but info can certainly fit well into the school's article. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge to the main school article per precedent. pm_shef 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge to the school's page, but only merge what is encyclopedic and actually worth noting.--Wikster72 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any worthwhile info to school's page. Wstaffor
  • Delete, though unless there's a name clash a redirect (and a brief mention in the article) would be fine. --W(t) 03:57, 22 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 - we've got all forms of different opinons here. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Boer - One Bullet

Extreme POV article without reliable references (the only reference points to an equally extreme POV website), created by an author User:Alcatel whose edits include addition of many unreferenced POV and racist statements to South Africa related articles. Also, in the context of South African history this slogan is nowhere near as politically significant as "One Settler, One Bullet", it is in fact a complete non-entity. Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:N as per above. Zunaid 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Clarification: While the POV argument above should not solely be used as a deletion criteria, it should be considered IN ADDITION to the fact that in the context of South African politics, "One Boer, One Bullet" doesn't even register, as indicated by Barno's argument below. While there is no inclusion criteria for slogans as such, I would assume it has to be well-known and in widespread usage, in which case there should be plenty of newspaper articles citing its use. Compared to "One Settler, One Bullet" and "Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer", this slogan is insignificant and undeserving of its own article. Zunaid 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin: Many of the votes so far are for "keep and cleanup". As I've mentioned before, too many articles survive AfD based on these without the cleanup subsequently taking place. IMHO these votes should rightly be considered "delete unless rewritten". Zunaid 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep POV but should be improved, not deleted.--estavisti 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If it can be cleaned up, why not... Grafikm_fr 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And if it can't be? Zunaid 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is large, slogans of similar significance are already mentioned if they are related to USA or Western Europe - South African topics are still more scarce on Wikipedia, but I am trying to change this. Alcatel 16:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per estavisti. It can be cleaned up. dewet|™ 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if its POV lets deleted; what a stupid logic. Luka Jačov 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep slogan seems semi-notable but I don't really like the title. Kotepho 17:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Google shows little use of this slogan (searching for variations): Mostly just the linked website (which is not a reliable source) and some sites claiming a hacker left such a message. Luka Jačov is encouraged to read WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's three core principles. If more evidence of widespread usage and significance comparable to "One Settler, One Bullet" is provided, I'll vote to keep, but pending that, I'm leaning toward weak delete. Barno 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup as above. Wstaffor 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the widely known "One Settler, One Bullet". The use of "One Boer - One Bullet" seems very minor, if it is used at all. Elf-friend 08:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have created the "One Settler, One Bullet" article. Once this discussion has been closed, I will redirect this minor variant of it towards that article (where it will be mentioned). Elf-friend 09:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As the article says, "One Boer - One Bullet is a very minor slogan in use in South Africa". There is, I would suggest, no practical limit to the number of "very minor slogans". Redirect per Elf-friend is fine by me as well, since that is a notable slogan (not least in that it has achieved some kind of presence outside South Africa) Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  •  :The words "very minor slogan" were added by Elf-friend. Alcatel 07:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • True ... and I stand behind my addition - the slogan has almost no Google hits and no coverage in any reputable press outlet that I am aware of. (And I must add that I am both a "Pretorianer" and a graduate of the University of Pretoria, where the slogan was apparently used.) This slogan is not in widespread use in South Africa and not deserving of its own article ... it is a minor variant of a much more famous slogan. Elf-friend 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Elf-friend. -- Visviva 23:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Elf-friend. -Kieran 10:06, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portsmouth metro

Likely to be original research, or just a plain hoax. Either way, there's no way it's an official proposal: various aspects just don't add up. RFBailey 15:42, 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 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KitchBall

hoax Rklawton 15:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This isn't a hoax. Read the article. Its a real sport. (by: 83.146.52.165)
I read the article. It's a ball game played in the kitchen. Ordinarily it would be deleted for non-notability. However, it's tenative claim of "millions" of players qualifies it as a hoax instead. Rklawton 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax or not, it still sounds made up in school. Daniel Case 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Your telling me that kids all over the world dont play this ? Get with the program grandad. Are you considering the 50 cent and Eminem pages for deletion because "I only listen to Billy Joel and Whitesnake" is your reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.146.52.165 (talk • contribs) .
Please do not make abusive comments; they won't help persuade anybody to keep the article. Daniel Case 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Get me some sources if you want to convince us of the authenticity. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Likely a hoax. Grafikm_fr 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete at best it is not notable. No media Milton Keynes (where it supposed to have been invented) have ever mentioned it. Hoax. --Concrete Cowboy 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete NN, hoax, neologism, etc. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NOT a collection of trivia of only local interest. "Millions of people (maybe) have taken up the sport." Uh, maybe not, and I bet those discussions with the 2012 Olympics Committee don't get very far. Its only claim to notability is not just unverified but a clear hoax. Barno 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT -pm_shef 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:V/WP:NOT. -blue520 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Fagstein 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Im sorry you want to delete this entry. It is a real sport. We have 27 leagues that have started in the last 2 months. I guess this site doesn't cater for 'local interest' items. Ill see you at a KitchBall event in a few years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnfarragher (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insomniacmania.com

Alexa rank of 85,955. Fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice. Alexa is overrated, but the article does not even claim a reason for being notable. Suspect self-promo; this is the creator's only contribution. Henning Makholm 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--LukeSurl 23:06, 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 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid Repurposing Technology

advertisement. I Vote Delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Grafikm_fr 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. George Bluth 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Joelito 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapidly repurpose into deletion. Fagstein 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tangential question. Anyone have an opinion on what we can do with repurpose and repurposing (both created by the same user as this article)? jareha (comments) 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added them to the Multipurpose AfD. Fagstein 05:00, 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 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rummel Pinera

Contested prod. This guy doesn't look notable enough for an article. He gets 13 unique google hits which all appear to derive from the guy himself. Relevant guideline is WP:BIO. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep - read some books google cant be only source and grade of notability. Luka Jačov 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand that. But the article doesn't support notability thru other works either. I don't mean to imply Google is everything, but rather that since the article didn't convince me of his notability, I gave Google a shot. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have some evidence of his notability? I just can't seem to verify that other people think this highly of him. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN and possible copyvio. Grafikm_fr 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be an add for a self published book. NN + Vanity page + incomprehensible prose. --Darkfred Talk to me 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This page has already been deleted once under a similar name. Does that make it speedyable? --Darkfred Talk to me 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Only if the content itself is basically the same. And I can't view deleted pages, so I wouldn't know. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like self-promotion. Golfcam 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per other AfD. Fagstein 05:55, 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 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burble

Classic WP:NFT example; WP:HOAX for the truthfulness of the subject's existence. ~ PseudoSudo 16:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing in Google about burbles and girbils... (but I still want one) Rklawton 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Grafikm_fr 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense -Obli (Talk)? 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A made-up word ("Jabberwocky") stimulated some creative writing. Shenme 03:38, 23 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 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of presidential issues

Unencyclopedic listcruft that is best dealt with on Wikipedia, if at all, in other politics articles. Daniel Case 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into the respective parties' articles, if there is something worthwhile to merge (which I much doubt but heh...) Delete otherwise. Grafikm_fr 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing worthwhile to merge. Hawkestone 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --rehpotsirhc 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsalvageable/useless for merge. Fagstein 05:56, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asia Carrera

This article is not verifiable, and is therefore in conflict with WP:V. I know this woman exists, and I've seen her in porn videos, but other than that, there's no reliable information about her. From WP:V: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." We don't even know her birth name for sure. In the article, it's listed as "Jessica Andrea Steinhauser," but on her website she says that her father is Japanese and her mother is German. If her parents were as strict and traditional as she says, she'd have a Japanese last name. That discrepancy makes me doubt Asia herself as a reliable source. This is definitely not the only discrepancy in her biographical information. Without WP:RS, we can't have an article. I'm not objecting to how she became famous (porn), I'm objecting to the lack of reliable sources and the impossibility of verification. Should porn star articles be held to a lower or different standard of verifiability than articles on other living people? I don't think so. Erik the Rude 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Verifiable sources can be found such as imdb.com. Also this would not be the first person with disputed birthdate and name. Many people from before the 18th century have dubious birthdates. Should we delete Christopher Columbus because we are not sure when or where he was born? Joelito 17:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The Internet Movie Database contradicts itself on Asia Carrera, and is therefore not a reliable source. I don't see what Christopher Columbus has to do with this. He has reliable sources. Erik the Rude 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he doesn't. Columbus has (partly conflicting) information in various unofficial and "official" (but not edited or peer-reviewed) documents. They qualify as "the most reliable sources available" and can be cited as such, but we don't treat them as absolute proof. IMDB, on the other hand, can have unverified information inserted by actors or wannabees or fans, so we treat it as just another pointer to possible information, whether self-contradictory or not. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To the extent of verifying a porn actress' real name, they should be held to a slightly lower standard of verifiability than someone not in that... industry. Anonymity is part and parcel of being in porn, and the stage name is more important for their work in any case, but like the Venerable Bede. Furthermore, in the United States children of Asian immigrants often have a non-Asian last name- whether matrilinearly acquired or invented- because of perceptions that it would reduce prejudice when interacting with government. Furthermore, the article itself cites IMDB as well as her personal website as sources, and her ethnic background is (tangentially) discussed in this article from the SFGate. At any rate, there is information in the article that is a matter of public record (her marriage, for instance), and whatever controversy there might be over her name is not grounds for deleting the entire article. If you want to point out some things that you see as discrepancies in her self-provided information, I'd recommend pointing them out in cleanup or someplace other than AfD. Captainktainer 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep don't think possibly incorrect information is a good reason to delete an article. If its incorrect fix it or add verify tags, don't send it to AFD. The subject is obviously notable. (plus to some it might smell of censorship) --Darkfred Talk to me 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I know I smell something... Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep beat it down to a substub but I'm sure there is some verifiable stuff. I don't really care about her real name. I wonder if she still reads HardOCP. Kotepho 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Beat it down. Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, one of the five most notable people in her field, has sustained this status for years. Plenty of verifiable media coverage can be found. Porn stars' real names are not crucial to proper encyclopedic coverage, and (as in the Jordan Capri controversy in these pages) could cause their own troubles even if verified. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Beyond that, as far as I see so far, I'm the only editor signing a comment with anything other than a pseudonym, which is ironic in this conversation. RGTraynor 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I use my real surname. I only display naked opinions online, not naked flesh, and I don't think these comments will draw obsessed stalkers. Aren't you afraid of overeager fans of Dick Traynor's NASCAR Modified racing from the 1980s (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York) mistaking you for him? Barno 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, nor from fans of the Robert Traynor who's an English soccer striker, nor from the bit actor of that name, and I'm probably safe from crazed fans of my (90-year-old) eponymous grandfather as well. Life's too short. RGTraynor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Although the issues of verifiability are interesting, IMHO they pertain more to page content, not whether or not she deserves an entry. --Lockley 20:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as obviously notable individual, only a content dispute. VegaDark 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All I can say is "huh?" Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, reluctantly. Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, absolutely must keep. This biographical data dispute is no more remarkable than confusion over, say Al Lewis' birthdate. Chris Stangl 05:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Anyone verify the Bible? Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false...The Virgin Mary, "they give her a pelvic exam to prove 100% she was pure", amyschubbyhubby 13:09, 21 April 2006 {UTC}
  • Speedy Keep - the veracity of some info isn't a reason to delete the whole thing. Dismas|(talk) 15:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, Gimme a break. if an article has small amount of unverifible/questionable info, tag it as such or take it out. You don't delete the whole article of a notable person. Crumbsucker 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep! Enough information is given to verify all the stuff you are arguing about. Her marriages are public record, and have her legal name. The Spelling award would have record of who won it that year, the piano award would also be verifiable if anyone cared to do so, and Mensa has her in their magazine. Surely they verified all her info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.114.156 (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 deletable spam that's already been deleted once. DS 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coddan

Pure promo about a British or Irish law firm. If there was any reason it was notable, it would be in the article. Daniel Case 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks like quite a big company. Article needs radical cleanup, that is true, but it's not a reason for deletion. Grafikm_fr 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as ad spam. Could we please do a little bit of research before taking an article's bald assertion of notability on faith? In point of fact, this firm has 33 unique G-hits, and each and every one of them is promotional spam; there isn't a single independent citation. Further, Martindale-Hubbell has never heard of it, and in a professional incorporation firm that's not only deeply troubling, I'd bet ten bucks against a nickel it's a scammer. RGTraynor 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete slowly per RGTraynor. (There is no applicable speedy criterion). Henning Makholm 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 22:48, 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 by RexNL as CSD A7, nn-band. --Hetar 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vida-127

Non-notable band Grafikm_fr 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Agh, speedy delete, no assertion of notability among the sea of who-cares material. Tagged. Grandmasterka 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this vanispamcruft per Grandmasterka, and may this "band" swiftly vanish from all human memory and thought. RGTraynor 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete by far fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), nn AndyZ t 19:53, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google guide

Article is an instruction manual/tutorial for using Google --mtz206 17:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if rewritten and/or merged with Google. Delete otherwise. Grafikm_fr 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten as per Grafikm_fr. Delete otherwise. --Casper2k3 18:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten, but it would require a lot of rewrite. Perhaps something vaguely like Google user interface--but then become more encyclopedic rather than tutorial. As is, it appears to serve as a way to advertise the creator's website. --Straif 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wikibooks, Wikipedia is not a howto guide, and we already have lots of information on Google. --Hetar 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are good google articles already and this is not a useful starting point for any extra material. I don't see why anyone should put effort into salvaging something so inappropriate so just get rid of it. Hawkestone 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and a lot of the stuff there is pretty trivial anyhow. Trebor 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Trebor. Henning Makholm 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the same reasons mentioned above. Wikipedia is not the place for "How To" guides. There are plenty of these posted all over the net now, not to mention in, OMG, printed books! Dr. Cash 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Metamagician3000 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Google query, rewrite a bit editorially to turn it from howto style into factual style (for example, replace If you click on "Similar pages", Google will give you similar pages with that page. by The link "Similar pages" in an entry links to a list of pages with a high degree of similarity to the page referred to by that entry. or some equally unreadable but encyclopedic phrase), add an intro, and bingo, we have a new article. LambiamTalk 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Fagstein 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:26, 23 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 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitabutterito

WP:BAND 12 unique hits in Google. John Nagle 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable band. No albums out other than self-published one. Sorry, guys. --John Nagle 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Related articles Lingi Records, The Turnpike Tour, Ulysses and The Strangers and Exodus (Ulysses and The Strangers album) were also created today to promote this band, and may require deletion. --John Nagle 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability, and, in fact, no notability. RGTraynor 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete + related cruft NN and advertisement. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:21, 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Did Atari attempt to acquire Amiga?

This article, by its title alone, is speculative prose that does not belong on an encyclopedia. It therefore cannot ever truly be NPOV. Bumm13 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Grafikm_fr 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Some of those facts could stand to be in the main Atari ST article. The rest, nah. RGTraynor 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Trebor 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article has collected information that was duplicated on both the Atari and Amiga pages. If this page is deleted, the information will be move back to the original locations, and be duplicated. A rename would be a better solution, but I don't have a better name. Val42 04:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The whole reason why I moved this article out was to avoid cluttering up the Amiga/Atari articles. If wikipedia can have information on obscure professional wrestlers and other nonsense, why not record this for history? If people think the information is untrue or speculative, I invite them to edit it. - Richardcavell 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Interesting concept but too speculative and POV for me to support. Needs sources and cleanup badly. The title should really be altered to a less speculative nature as well. I would be willing to support if these issues are addressed but not if the article remains in this state.--Cini 19:19, 23 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulysses and The Strangers

NN band, possible vanity. Only two Google hits, and the "record label" to which the band has signed has only three Google hits, is run by the band's frontman, and the lead hit is a Myspace page. RGTraynor 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete personal opinion is nn bands muck up searchs with crazy names involving more notable words. Not a very well supported opinion, but its mine and therefore I vote delete. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Related articles Pitabutterito, Lingi Records, The Turnpike Tour, Ulysses and The Strangers and Exodus (Ulysses and The Strangers album) were also created today to promote this band, and may require deletion. --John Nagle 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND --Grafikm_fr 18:45, 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 merge, as already done. - Liberatore(T) 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominar Bishan

Minor character that nobody seems interested in merging.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's clean it up, but until there's an appropriate article to merge it to, it should stay where it is. Captainktainer 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Farscape per WP:FICT, or delete if nobody can show why an encyclopedia should contain information about a character who exists only(?) in the backstory to a routine work of fiction. Barno 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He shows up in Peacekeeper Wars at least once, and I think twice. He's frequently discussed (or complained about) during the series and plays an important role in Rygel's backstory. As for merging, the Farscape article isn't very well set up to list by character rather than by actor. I wouldn't be averse to a merge, but until the Farscape page is reformatted to accept it or until there's an appropriate, separate article with a list of the Farscape characters, we should keep it where it is. I strongly urge against deleting for the simple fact that he does hold some importance, and WP:FICT explicitly warns not to delete meaningful content.Captainktainer 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I merged it into Farscape and it was promptly removed. The proposed list into which there was to have been a merge debate has been deleted and nobody contributed to the debate - nobody cares! So we should keep it because it's too trivial to merge anywhere? Dlyons493 Talk
  • Comment It's not so much that it's too trivial to merge, it's that there isn't a list or article that's set up for the merge. I'm going to head on over to Farscape to find out why the merge was reverted; maybe Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol thought it was vandalism. Update- I was just over at Farscape and couldn't even find the merge in the logs; it seems from your talk page that User:Kotepho reverted the merge. Since a merge has been tried but for whatever reason failed, I'd like to recommend that we keep until someone can either set up List of minor Farscape characters or merge into Farscape.Captainktainer 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then I suggest you create the list and do the merge since nobody else seems interested. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Merge complete - I merged the article into the List of minor Farscape characters article, along with some other stubs. It's a kludge job and I hope others will help me clean it up, but we can now redirect the Dominar Bishan article, assuming no further objections materialize.Captainktainer 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge. Utterly void of encyclopedic content. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 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.

This is a new discussion for the current version of the Mark Henderson wiki. It currently has been hijacked from its orginal purpose as a page for Mark Henderson of the Snow Bowl fame, and is being used for MArk Henderson, lighting director. Mark Henderson, lighting director is of considerable less fame and notoriety than the Mark Henderson of the Snow Bowl fame. The current article is barely a 2 line blurb on the lighting director, and should be deleted, possibly reverted back to the original purpose, and at most a disambiguation link be added for the lighting director. Alternativly, the current article on the lighting director should be merged with the tony awards page it links to.

Feel free to edit this to the correct format. I tried to make a new page for this discussion, as it is on a different subject than the previous AfD, but was not able to.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 History of the New England Patriots, where content is already. - Liberatore(T) 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Henderson

Very close to a speedy. No documentation offered (date this game was played?), but perhaps some hardcore American football fans can confirm whether or not this "famous" incident ever took place. -- Curps 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Actually, it did, in the 1982 playoffs, and engendered a change in the league rules concerning such things. Even as a Patriots' fan, though, since this was the only remotely newsworthy event of Henderson's life, I can't in good conscience give this one a keep. I'd Merge it into the Pats' article at best.Redirect and Delete; see below. RGTraynor 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We should only have biographical articles if there is a reasonable liklihood of being able to put together a full life story up to date of death, whenever it happens, and I doubt anyone will publish his obituary. Hawkestone 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm sure they will, as it was a significant event in football in the 1980s (there's a reasonable, but biased, summary here). However, I think this article would be better if it were to undergo a rename as The Snow Plow Game (which currently redirects to National Football League lore, where it can be found in the 80s list), with more info about the game and Henderson's effect on it. I'm not a Patriots expert but User:Deckiller is, and might be able to expand it under this new name.--Mike Selinker 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. After looking at the NFL Lore page, that's all this incident needs. This needs no more than to redirect there. RGTraynor 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge into New England Patriots. Insufficiently notable for a bio article; doubtful whether this is an important enough part of the team's or sport's history to be worth even a one-sentence mention. Barno 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to redirect to National Football League lore in agreement with RGTraynor. Even to someone looking up "the Snowplow Game", will the plower's name or his ex-con status be relevant to the story? Barno 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into History of the New England Patriots (or New England Patriots if people agree that it's significant enough to be placed in a concise summary section). — Deckiller 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice it there. That's really all that needs to be said, until someone decides to write a full article. So I'd agree with the merge into History of the New England Patriots (rather than New England Patriots) at this time.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah. One of the major debates during the Patriots' FA bid was how much infomation to include in the actual article itself. As a matter of fact, I just finished fixing up an excellent addition about the Hartford deal that I think borderlines inclusion, and the main article could use some more "lore" information" to even out the edges. — Deckiller 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep this page -- Mark
  • Speedy delete / BJAODN. This doesn't come anywhere near close to WP:N. Tijuana Brass 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a definite keep. Should be expanded, not merged. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? How is this a noteworthy person that belongs in Wikipedia? It's like doing an article on some kid that gets to mop the free throw lane at an NBA game. Tijuana Brass 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Your typical mopper at an NBA game isn't highlighted time and time again in highlight reels and best of moment lists. This guy is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per some notability. A merge into National Football League Lore would also work though. Seeing as how it's already on the NFL Lore page, it's tough to say whether this deserves a keep. This article needs to be improved on, though. --Wizardman 00:24, 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 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political_Abrogationism

Neologism created for what appears to be an advertisement for a self published book. Only a handful of unique google hits. All are either the users own geocities site or the book page from the vanity publisher. See other deleted and up for deleted articles by this same user. (deleted) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUMMEL PINERA (up for deletion) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rummel_Pinera -- Darkfred Talk to me 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete my own vote as per nom --Darkfred

Talk to me 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Grafikm_fr 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:25, 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 Merge/redirect Kotepho 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amiga software piracy

Article is speculative prose; Wikipedia is not an essay repository. The software piracy debate exists on all computer platforms and is covered in its own article. Bumm13 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Software Piracy already has it covered. No need for large random essays. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Grafikm_fr 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - What's speculative about it? There's some good information in there which is specific to the Amiga. I only moved it out because Amiga was getting too large. - Richardcavell 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Chris has merged it into Amiga software piracy. How about redirecting Amiga software piracy to software piracy then? - Richardcavell 11:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (done) then Delete make into a redirect to Amiga Software.
The article is neither speculative nor random. It gets the technical and social details right, and explains how the technical details mattered. It does not discuss the software piracy debate (whether, why and why not); instead it concentrates on the piracy process (why disk-based protection did not work on the Amiga, what Amiga publishers used instead). Note also that Software piracy redirects to Copyright infringement of software, which address the legal and ethical aspects of piracy quite well, but says nothing whatsoever about the technical aspects. Can I suggest that a little more effort in reading the articles under discussion might avoid future embarrassment?
Nevertheless, being somewhat of a mergist, I have WP:BOLDly merged the content of the article into Amiga software#Piracy. Not being an admin, I'll let someone else delete it.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
A later thought: Amiga software piracy should redirect to Amiga software, since that's where the content now is. CWC(talk) 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just edited the article into a redirect to Amiga software, but left the AfD tag there. Are we finished here? CWC(talk) 17:40, 25 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Z-Day

Strikes me as unencylopedic. Essentially a joke/hoax article. Delete exolon 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It needs cleanup and removal of some parts that may be copyvio. However, a google search for "Z-day +zombies" uncovers a fairly large (10,000+) number of hits from Kotaku, Kuro5hin, and Technorati, and Z-Day is part of the title of one of the Shaun of the Dead special features. Article needs a refocus, keeping the good bits (which is basically the first and last sections).Captainktainer 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Fagstein 06:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reasons as Captainktainer. Urhixidur 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keeep* i think this is a great article. "z-day" is a fictional occurance but all of the details listed can be found and so therefore it is a factual and well made article. Dont delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. This is a movie idea, already well-traveled (hmm, "round heels" anyone?) As for factual -- this is a predicted event -- the scientists don't exist -- the instructions are directly from movies. Remove the crap and the article would be left saying "this is a name for a plot device". Sounds like a movie industry dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic entry. Shenme 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Has all the workings of a hoax/joke to me.--Cini 19:22, 23 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide and Turkish National Movement

POV fork, no significant information pschemp | talk 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious delete. The name of the article doesn't mean much, doesn't correspond to the content, and the content is just unrelated, I still have no clue about what this article is. Fad (ix) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I do understand what the article is about and how it relates to the title, but it is so badly written that there is little that can be done with it. If there is sufficient popular demand, I could try to paraphrase it into something understandable. It is strongly POV, from the Armenian side. If someone should think that is an issue: wake up: almost all content on the issue present on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) is poisoned with POV assumptions, terms and phrases, whether from one side or the other. There is some valid but not terribly interesting content here; it would take more effort than I can muster to try and see if it is represented elsewhere. And then I'm not even mentioning the effort of finding reliable neutral sources for verifiability. LambiamTalk 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That this article is POV from the Armenian side is questionable. It has been created by a Turk, the same that undangered the integrity of the main article. Why has he created an article which appear at first impression 'pro-Armenian' as you might call it, I have my suspicions but I'd rather not say it here, besides, does it make any difference that a bad quality articles POV is pro what? As it is, this entry from what it is now, doesn't have a justifiable existance. Also, I beg to disagree, and strongly, and I even find it offensive that you'd go as far as using the term 'poisoned' for 'almost all content,' but having yourself questioned the name of the main article because you considered it 'loaded,' I can't tell that it would have surprised me that the content itself isen't satisfying you, but the word poisoned was misplaced. Fad (ix) 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • What I mean by 'poisoned' is that if part of an article is POV it taints the whole article. I didn't mean to be offensive. I'm curious as to your suspicions, but maybe I shouldn't ask. LambiamTalk 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as content fork. Fagstein 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --DanielNuyu 03:50, 22 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

  • Comment: Changing "proposed for deletion" to "articles for deletion" to see what the consensus is. (Boborok 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, unnotable. —Xezbeth 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability is a subjective measure and as such not for debate. (Boborok 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete as NN. -- Grafikm_fr 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A "satiric essay". Fails WP:NOT, WP:NOR. No indication of notability. Not proposing BJAODN. Barno 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"No original research" only applies to Wikipedia articles, and not the works the articles are about. (Boborok 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Do you see any citations of coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly journals or mainstream media with fact-checkers? The only source in the article at this writing is the website with the anti-WP rant essay. Yes, the essay is OR, but the article (one sentence plus one promotional link) is also OR, lacking any sources, regardless of whether it's vanity. Who says it's satiric; who says it's "in the form of a scientific study about W.T."? Barno 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As if there were "peer-reviewed scholarly journals" of internet satire. Hits on Google Scholar (Boborok 23:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Delete (Boborok 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC))
I added it to Criticism of Wikipedia. (Boborok 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete per Barno. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there was some way I could recommend revoking their degrees I would too. Fagstein 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's see, a website stub. About a "satirical" essay written by someone known only by initials. "Sociology stub". OUCH. I don't even have to reach for website notability criteria to tell whether or not this rewards an article of its own. Someone should delete this under WP:SNOW. I hate to see articles suffer while they're in AfD. On behalf of "society for ethical treatment of substubs" which I just invented a second ago, --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:12, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider pit sequence

Article was created by a blatant vandal whose been blocked several times now. I've tried redirecting this one because I'm convinced it's vandalism/trolling as well, but it keeps getting restored, sometimes by the author, sometimes anonymously. All content is covered in King Kong (1933 film), but written so much better. The exceptions are a couple lines that are unreferenced and that I think are just jokes- eg. Poland. User has a history of hoaxes, see the prod notice on his talk page. Delete to just end this madness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Grafikm_fr 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Send article to man-eating spider monsters... err... delete. Fagstein 06:36, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Levan

Appears to be fictional and/or vanity. Created by User:Mjclevan, a user that appears to have the same last name and has also vandalized other articles. I did a few Google searches and was unable to verify the information. JamesTeterenko 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity unless references are provided. Grafikm_fr 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tomb Ride My Talk 04:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there a specific short-hand for "wikipedia is not a genealogy"? Shenme 04:03, 23 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claus Levan

Appears to be fiction and/or vanity along with Jacob Levan. JamesTeterenko 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity unless references are provided. Grafikm_fr 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like it would be NN even with references. Tomb Ride My Talk 04:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like father, like son. Shenme 04:04, 23 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psyche (psychology)

del original research, possibly based on a single book, full of unverifiable claims. `'mikka (t) 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if rewritten. It would be reduced to a stub unless an expert edits it, but heh... Grafikm_fr 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But needs cleanup/experts. Fagstein 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep what? The article claims to be part of psychology. I dare you to read Psychology article and find where it speaks about "psyche". The whole article is a psychobabble. `'mikka (t) 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite. Currently it's unsupported psychobabble. I agree with mikka. Andran 01:02, 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. Thryduulf 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzztakus

Fancruft, neologism, original non-notable fiction. Mr Bound 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Not sure it is fiction; it reads rather like a list of participants in some webforum. Not that it matters, of course). Henning Makholm 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy or BJAODN or both. Fagstein 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Samir (the scope) 06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Fine, so I'm biased as the maker of the page in question, and also a fuzztaku. Fine, so this page won't help you in your daily lives. What about the sentimental value to all the fuzztakus who've ever been to the entry in question? Here they are, finally with their own little, insignificant segment of Wikipedia, and the article gets put up for deletion. If I can't convince anyone here to not delete it, could you at least put it in the bad jokes and other deleted nonsense section, and perhaps leave a link on the former page? Is that too much to ask?--Special Penguin 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete Im also a fuzztaku so please don't delete it thank you --robro 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Hardly notable and fancruft. This kind of stuff doesn't belong on wikipedia.--Cini 19:25, 23 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 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea donkey

Contested prod, wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, or unverifiable demeaning catch phrases DVD+ R/W 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many entries on words that are both Slang and demeaning. Pretending these phrases do not exist is the wrong direction for wikipedia. An honest article that explores the origins and social reasons for such demaning slang is a necassary part of Wikipedia's purpose. Jeffrey

  • Delete. Merely documenting the existence and use of particular slang phrases is not Wikipedia's purpose - except as an introduction to an article with some encyclopedically relevant information about it. In this case there is none of the latter. Henning Makholm 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google suggests it's not even used in that context. Fagstein 06:41, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bufonic parodhy

As far as I can see, it's a load of old nonsense. No sources, no assertion of notability, no context. —Whouk (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • ...and no end either. Delete. Grafikm_fr 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is somewhere between blog and doodle.--M@rēino 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense (though not patent). Fagstein 06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense (possibly patent; I didn't understand a word). --Rory096(block) 01:10, 22 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. Looks like the article was rewritten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaginal_flatulence

This article borders on nonsense. It is woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary and there is no ICD-9 listing for this condition. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete --Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy deletion on this "article" please. Grafikm_fr 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - I've done a fair amount of research on this topic since moving this page and cleaning it up many months ago. It's a real phenomenon, which is not a matter for debate at all. It is covered in a number of external sources, and is related to serious medical conditions (colovaginal fistula, for example, has related symptoms as described in the article). How, exactly is this not an encyclopedic article? Is it the cataloging of slang terms (something which many Wikipedia articles do; e.g. fuck) or is it the fact that pornography is referenced (again, this is an attempt to be complete, not to dwell on what might offend). How can we not cover this topic? How many external references are required for an article of this length? Why would an article be deleted for having less citation than that, rather than enhancing the citations? -Harmil 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - A few more sources [10] German link. The problem is that this condition is not a treatable disease or syndrom, though it can be a symptom. For example, "Symptoms of genitourinary prolapse: [...] Coital difficulties–dyspareunia, loss of vaginal sensation, vaginal flatus" [11] -Harmil 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The subject may be caused by legitimate conditions like colovaginal fistula or female genital prolapse, but it's included in a range of symptoms for these conditions. It only deserves mention in the articles on these conditions. Then there's the section on prevention which merits deletion because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This leaves the slang section which is just another way for someone to insert "pussy fart" and "queef" in the encyclopedia, and the pornography section which is merely one sentence. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Malber, I realize that pussy fart and queef might not be pleasant words for most polite conversation, but they're certainly terms that are widely used. Why should they not appear on Wikipedia? As for the first part of your comment: I'm not sure that it makes sense to discuss the same phenomenon in multiple articles without giving it an article of its own. You also claimed that the article was "woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary" in the listing summary. Could you please retract that comment, since it is a rather serious misrepresentation of the article (which contains 4 inline citations and 3 external links including links to sites such as UHRAD, WebMD and Medical Tribune). If someone has better references, please feel free to add them, but I think that this article is about as well sourced as one could expect at this point. I agree that the prevention section could be re-worded to avoid an instructional tone, and rather survey techniques more objectively... which I have now done. -Harmil 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • huh? Keep per Harmil Jcuk 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep huh? again --Mboverload 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the title of this article were "queef", then I would agree with the nom and vote for a redirect. Isopropyl 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment [12] claims the code in the ICD10 for Flatus vaginalis is N89.8. Don't know if it is reliable. Possibly move to Flatus vaginalis. Note that five foreign language wikipedias have articles on this too! Шизомби 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's of medical significance, even if it's not of life-or-death seriousness. As long as the article is kept relatively free of slang and completely free of those rotten "pop culture references" I think it's okay. A list of movie and TV quotes would ruin this rather serious article. Brian G. Crawford 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - (personal attack removed by admin - comment on content, not editors) Luka Jačov 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see people looking this up in a serious matter. To disperse the medical knowledge into separate articles would just confuse things. Kelvinc 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • maybe keep* - put a little more medical info into it and a few more links to actual medical articles about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.150.194.34 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2006.
  • Keep - I came looking it up (after hearing the term "queef" briefly mentioned in school) not knowing this was even at all possible. I definately learned something out of this (especially from the More Serious Conditions section, which I feel was very informative), and feel it has some medical notability within Wikipedia. A lot of people have been editting it, so it seems, so I feel a lot of people look it up too, heh. Shadowolf 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -Queef and Vart (which would be slang) redirect here, eventually we need to settle on *some* acceptable non-slang term for this article, either Flatus vaginalis or Vaginal Flatulence. Ronabop 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I understand your comment. The article is titled vaginal flatulence, and makes a clear distinction between the technical and slang terms. What are you looking for the article "settle" on? -Harmil 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm looking for the article to "settle" on a non-slang phrasing for the topic. Ronabop 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - what Ronabop said 24.7.106.155 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge and redirect - likely that someone would come to us to learn about the term, uncertain whether it needs its own article. Johntex\talk 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Empirically, it happens. Maybe the title could be more clinical... Roodog2k 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable but needs more medical sources and focus as well as a general cleanup. The current links are dreadful to say the least and need to be changed for more informative and accurate ones.--Cini 19:27, 23 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. If anyone actually found anything in here worth merging that has not already been merged then a temporary undeletion to allow this should be OK (request at WP:DRV). Thryduulf 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery

There are more ways of resisting slavery than just 7, and none of these are particularly unique to slavery in the South, or rather the South of the United States. Also this article as it now stands appears to focus on failure and lack of organization, not to mention seeming to divide the United States into "slaves" and "whites" Hackwrench 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with History of slavery in the United States if something worthy is there, delete otherwise. Grafikm_fr 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Merge with History of slavery in the United States. Personally, I can't find anything worth merging, but most of this stuff looks like it's true, so maybe there's something that the History article misses buried in here.--M@rēino 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete People should look around for the right places to add their material, and not leave it for others to do. Golfcam 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Assume good faith. If it can be salvaged it should be salvaged. I'm not saying it can (or not) but your argument is bad. TH 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, poorly organized. -Will Beback 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Will Beback. Fagstein 06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopeadic. Gold Stur 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic, original research, poorly organized, poorly written. Jim Ellis 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above if the writting is improved. Arctic Gnome 09:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to List of ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery Jonathan235 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Will Beback and Jim Ellis. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the revolts section to Slave rebellion; all the rest needs to be supported or it should go. Ziggurat 21:17, 26 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 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primitive Yahwism

Delete Suspected hoax. Google search brings up 34 hits, most of which are actually talking about the actual Yahwism, in Primitive times rather than any kind of modern version. Does not assert notability and is not verifiable, nor does it have any sources/references. pm_shef 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Verify. Maybe we can try and get an expert on the subject before deleting? Grafikm_fr 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources, unverifiable, and Google turns up nothing. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources seem to be available. Looks like OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MonkeeSage 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article all makes strict sense and I'm convinced it is not a hoax. But notability and verifiability appear to be real issues. LambiamTalk 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Verify - I can vouch for it's authenticity (actually being part of the movement) and it will not be found on Google as it is not a movement that publishes many webpages. As such I feel that it should not be discriminated against in that respect. If sources need to be furnished I can add them. --Steve Caruso 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you can provide reputable sources, I'll withdraw my nomination for AfD. - pm_shef 03:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no one said it has to be web-pages - it is just that the internet is usually a good source for phenomena too new to be found in scholarly journals or major magazines and newspapers. Certainly, if there are articles in academic journals, major magazines, or an enecylopedia of religions, or something like that (i.e. not from an exlusively partisan or in-house source), that would be a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Steve Caruso's statement above is virtually an admission that the whole article violates NOR and probably NPOV. It is a vanity page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will reconsider upon presentation of verifiable establishment of notability. LambiamTalk 21:51, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports flops

In light of recent AfD deletions of List of NFL Draft busts and List of NFL Draft steals, I decided to send this one to AfD as well to get a consensus. Others were deleted largely due to the subjective manner of choosing additions to the list. No vote. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as part of the Flops series --Jaranda wat's sup 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not in terrific shape right now but has potential value as a well-sourced nice little list. Lord Bob 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Split into articles for each individual sport, plus one for failed sports leagues. This is far too vague to be a good article, and I agree that which athletes should be included in this list is entirely subjective. Fagstein 06:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is the stuff of trivia! Drmagic 00:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep although Fagstein's proposition is sound. I'd like to see how the current article develops first before taking a more resolute stance. Either way I support this article but it remains whether it should be an entire list of sports or seperated into their respective sport.--Cini 19:30, 23 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 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rusty Joystick

doesn't meet WP:WEB; this is just a forum --M@rēino 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if cleaned up. It will become a stub probably, but it will get a start at least... Grafikm_fr 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having now read the article I have no idea why it's important at all. Forums are nice and all, but unless they gain some notability and/or notoreity, it doesn't even meet the lowest standards for keeping- like mine, which are admittedly low. Also, the article is a complete and utter mess, which would be a redeeming feature.Captainktainer 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 06:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A classic soapbox. Try and clean up even one paragraph - it's nigh on impossible. HawkerTyphoon 16:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Try and clean up your face, noob.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.76.204 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Just self promotion of an non notable website. They tried this stunt last year and they outcome is likely to be the same this year. The contribution above me shows the level of maturity of some of the members of the forum and the lack of respect they have for Wikipedia and it's contributors. Diddy Didds 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's just plain shit.
  • Delete. I've been watching this article for a while and I don't see any reason why it should still be here. ...discospinster 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mareino--Joe Jklin 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Online chess? What next? Online tiddlywinks? Its obviously at the higher echilon of discussion boards. Nice Waco feel to it too. Baaaaaaa! NoneGingerRaven 23.07 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. Thryduulf 12:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbone

Non-notable cocktail. Nothing more than a recipe. Prod removed without comment by article creator who also has not provided any references despite the article being tagged. Quale 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup. Needs to be way more understandable Jonathan235 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if rewritten as per Jonathan235. Grafikm_fr 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless improved with verification and a hint of notability. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All of EIGHT GOOGLE HITS, none of which mention the drink in question. Delete. Fagstein 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. - Liberatore(T) 17:41, 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 delete. Thryduulf 12:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RootShell Security Group

Wikipedia is not meant to redirect people to Google. The company bears no apparent importance as well. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a failure of WP:CORP. --Hetar 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Fails notability in my book. Fagstein 06:53, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayode Modupe-Ojo

Blatant hoax. No such person plays football for Bolton Wanderers or basketball for the Harlem Globetrotters. A Google search for his name shows nothing except a couple of postings to forums with similar false information, and a school newsletter from 2001 [13]. Article has previously had {{prod}} added, but original author APC News (talk · contribs) removed notice. Delete. Qwghlm 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional: The article Olukayode Modupe-Ojo covers the same person; although it is only a stub it is just as false as the larger article and should be deleted as well. Qwghlm 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I had previously brought my concerns to the author's attention. As I mentioned on his talk page I'd not been back, except to notice that he'd been editting, presumably in response to my criticisms. Back when the article was created I'd done what checking I could, and I had found only a couple news blogs mentioning this person's name, and always about a team being interested, testing out, considering him, etc. I added a {{prod}} with a reason, and echoed that with further explanation on the author's talk page. Since I don't know if my 'research' was sufficient, I won't vote here. So far I can't get any of the external links to work, but that might be editing problems (I see unclosed http tags - I'll fix them) Shenme 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if any of this was true he'd have at least hundreds of GHits, not nine [[14]]. --Eivindt@c 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I get two hits, one of which is this article. Fagstein 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Some or most things in the article are true, i am a huge basketball fan and i have witnessed this person play at the 2004 tour with the HGT but...he stopped trialing with bolton wanderers a few months ago so why the heck is the author stating that he is still a bolton player?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.24.230 (talk • contribs)
    • No verifiable reference for any of the above claims has been supplied. Also please note this IP address attempted to blank the article three times. Qwghlm 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 0 appearances. CTOAGN (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Its really funny as to how this geezers name has come to light at this present moment. Im a dye hard bolton fan and last I heard of him was at a suppoters meeting back in feb and one of the topics was rumours concerning the club, He didnt actualy get the gig at bwfc coz they werent interested, then he pissed off to united, god knows what happened there! What i can say tho is that apart from the naming of bwfc as his current club, everything else seems to match up with the research I did on him (and it wasnt via google). I have a few contacts that work for bwfc and they have (sort of) heard of him. I dont think he deserves a mention on wiki coz he isnt a full-fledged premiership player. The author obviously has to do his bloody research before posting. Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.115.160 (talk • contribs) 21:44, April 20, 2006.
    • No verifiable reference for any of the above claims has been supplied. Qwghlm 08:41, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punkscene

Self-promotion of non-notable group promotion of non-notable bands (all but two of the 23 names are either redlinked or lead to unrelated disambigs or redirects. The two that have articles are not clearly notable either). Prod removed by creator without comment. Henning Makholm 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 06:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - who are you to grade their notability. Luka Jačov 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Luka. estavisti 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep really ugly article, but inclusionism or death. Notability is NOT a Wikipedia issue. --GTubio 15:06, 22 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 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westside Barbell

non notable club Dunstan 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. Grafikm_fr 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Fagstein 06:57, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loc Le

  • Delete, Fake article basidd1 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, author/book does not google, not on bn.com, professor not present at harvard.edu faculty list. Accurizer 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax. Grafikm_fr 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Montco 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • De Le Te. Fagstein 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, It's been several days and I think we've proven that this is a hoax. 68.93.160.195 03:42, 23 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 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixy Chicken

poorly sourced, slightly nonsensical, not terribly notable, however I feel the speedy tag was undeserved, so vote here--152.163.100.200 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep & cleanup a few good links, better sourcing, good as new--152.163.100.200 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep added cleanup tag, keep this article NPOV and it should be fine. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fagstein 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:CORP (in my view, 100 stores do not a notable business make; if the prospective expansion is indeed likely [cf., simply suggested--WP is not a crystal ball], then notability would likely entail). Joe 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)`
  • Keep with clean-up. I've visited them myself and they are an important part of Islamic culture in the UK. Plus their chicken burgers are great! Keresaspa 17:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article needs a lot of cleanup. I've moved it to a more appropriate category ("Fast-food chains of the United Kingdom"; "Foods" is for articles about specific foodstuffs, not about restaurants.) Dr.frog 15:21, 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 redirect --Rob 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa J. Lennox

Was tagged as speedy for being "insufficiently notable". However, that is not a speedy criterion and article does assert notability, so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm adding sourcing. Possibly candidate for merge. Strike that, it should be merged into the Lisa Lennox article.Captainktainer 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The only thing I could really salvage was some external sources. Everything else is just copyvio from IMDB. Now recommending delete and redirectCaptainktainer 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Ardenn 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Captaintainer. Fagstein 07:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO -- Samir (the scope) 07:02, 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 keep and rename. The renaming has already been done. Turnstep 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Hills High School (Cincinnati, Ohio

Was speedied as "no context", but does have context, even if it is not very good, so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if the alumni are verified. Kotepho 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Western Hills High School (Cincinnati, Ohio), and Keep. --Eivindt@c 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. For great justice. 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason to delete, notable.
  • Comment. The alumni appear to be verifiable, but the school no longer operates under this particular name. [15] It was replaced by Western Hills University High School [16] and Western Hills Design Technology High School [17]. --Metropolitan90 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to the correct title (with the missing bracket). THis article verifies that Pete Rose attended for example, and with a clear precedent to keep high school articles (and for some reason we seem to be keeping yellow page entries as well), we can keep this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Sjakkalle and expand. Fagstein 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to appropriate name, and continue to allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 17:14, 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 deleted as copyvio. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest rock bands

Entirely subjective views; original content; POV

  • Not from NPOV; delete per nominator. Freddie 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Copyright vio from: [18]. -AED 22:10, 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 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinu

Was listed as CSD-A3 but isn't so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a summary of a NYC based company. No vote from me. - Czaruno 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Their website has an Alexa ranking of 6,365,009. The article doesn't even make an assertion of notability, and I can find no evidence that it meets WP:CORP. --Hetar 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 07:04, 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. Even if not discarding all the new/duplicated accounts voting "keep", the (cleaned up) article still does not really contribute anything that is not already covered in the main baptism article. Voters are encouraged to improve the baptism article and/or discuss things on the article's talk page. Turnstep 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ

This is a theological essay expressing the author's point of view. Proposed for deletion by User:(aeropagitica), reverted by author.

Note Rfamily, edited this nomination to add Keep to the top. Obviously it is a delete nomination.
Note -from Rfamily it was not intentional to put a keep at top-editing page is new to me. This article is good and I wanted to put my keepvote, started at the top, realized I needed to go to the end didn't realize I'd saved. Sorry for the confusion.
  • Delete. Gazpacho 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable original research or essay. Grafikm_fr 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteDany174 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT for essays, not a soapbox, WP:NOR. Author made a good effort to adapt early parts to encyclopedic style, but the article's focus and conclusions advocate theological positions. For comparison, see Baptism which describes what various religions believe in neutral point of view manner based on widely published sources approved by church councils. Although the phrase used as the nominated article's title is used in different Christian religions, I'm not sure it's significant enough to keep as a redirect to Baptism. Barno 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Baptism Needs cleanup though, the majority of section three is too verbose for an encyclopedic article. It does seem to have a valid set of points that could possibly be a full article one day, but right now only have enough in them to satisfy one paragraph in the main article. Ansell 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Ansell.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Baptism This article cane be merged into Baptism. Jinusun 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baptism I this article has some good points which can be add to the existing Baptism Article Mtanu 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Article This article gives a specific detail about Baptism In Jesus Name. 59.144.38.17 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Article is a Unique contents focuses on "Baptism in Jesus Name" Pastor Linu 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this Article - Sound, Biblically based explanation of baptism. Ramesh family 4/22/2006
Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nomination, this is an essay on the author's views and does not contain any information that cannot be found in baptism Jaems 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination, raises nothing that can't already be found on Wikipedia Stormscape 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Article is very particular on Baptism in Jesus Name 61.246.58.111 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Describe the exact description of Baptism in Jesus Name Linus 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Note Again, another questionable editor. Only two contributions thus far, one being here. This is getting more and more dodgy as the vote goes on. I have no axe to grind (other than a questionable article), but this is very concerning. Jaems 10:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The creator of the article should add this to the Baptism article. Moreover the language used is pov. The creators seem to adhere to Oneness Pentecostalism, so please edit that article instead. --One Salient Oversight 11:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is soundly explaining early Christian baptism according to the book of Acts in the Bible. This information is not so clearly explained in other articles on baptism.
  • Merge into Baptism or Move and rewrite as Baptism in Christian Scripture. I haven't found another baptism article that includes significant scriptural references, which probably ought to be somewhere in Wikipedia. GRBerry 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I found this to be very informative and accurate.
Note This vote was made by Rfamily, who has already voted and has been involved in altering votes above. Jaems 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Note There is more than one adult member in the Rfamily household. Please see note written by Rfamily member about altering votes above.
  • I've rewritten this without the POV and advertising, so there's not much left, and not worth merging. Best still to Delete. jimfbleak 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-Err, sockpuppet/meatpuppet emergency anyone? Homestarmy 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do these people think we are idiots or something? Sockpuppets are easily traceable. Not only will the use of sockpuppets fail to stop the article from being deleted, but it will probably earn a ban on editing for a considerable time period. --One Salient Oversight 10:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Baptism. the recent de-POVing make it seem like there's at least some sort of perspective in there useful for the baptism article. Homestarmy 13:17, 25 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Scott Ridgway

Supposedly a published author and blogger but I can not locate the books for sale anywhere, and the titles are at least mildly suspicious. A blogger and author of one or two books published by a Vanity Press. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Delete Thatcher131 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Examples of books: [19], blog: [20]. Might need cleaning, wiki and so on but there it is... (edit: forgot to sign, sorry Grafikm_fr 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Comment Lulu.com is a vanity press, so having a book for sale there is not usually viewed as establishing notability. Thatcher131 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Agreed. ^_^ Nevertheless, the book does exist and the guy too. Whether he's worthy of being in Wikipedia is a slightly different question...
My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my Logitec LHD-PBC8CFU2(B) portable 80Gb hard disk in front of me all exist, but they ain't getting articles.--Calton | Talk 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The requiring a vanity press to publish your work just screams "non-notable", not even taking into account the 46 unique (out of 181 total) Google hits. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, I agree with the discussion about the vanity press issue. BGFMSM 20:23, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacks poker

Tagged with {{prod}}, then removed by anonymous IP. Does not assert importance, nor does it appear to pass WP:SOFTWARE as it never left beta. Isopropyl 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me that removed the tag as I misread WP:SOFTWARE. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.49.173 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Fagstein 07:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, description of an event that was not public. And "a managerial train-wreck" is surely not-notable out of sheer repetition. (Unless you can draw a comic-strip...) Shenme 04:14, 23 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 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2022 Winter Olympics

Was tagged speedy but not under a speedy criterion. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep --Mboverload 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: unsourced, unencyclopedic crystal balling. Royboycrashfan 22:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While likely to happen, there's probably nothing to say about these games right now that wouldn't be original research. BryanG 04:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see this page for information on the current debate on this matter. → J@red  17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT a crystal ball . While there is an exception to the crystal ball principle for "scheduled or expected future events", this is so far into the future that "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research". Wait until the bids are announced. --bainer (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like it was created out of boredom. Gold Stur 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is 2024 Summer Olympics, so why not 2022 ? Hektor 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The question,really, is how many is too many. I invite you all to join the discussion I stated above and give your input. It just seemed to me when I went to delete some of these that some had more valuable info than others, and it would be a pity to lose some info that may be useful in the future. → J@red  20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Utmost Keep If we kept 2024, we have to keep something earlier. Jonathan235 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Hektor brings up a very valid point. I see no reason why this article should be deleted when the summer olympics has an article take occurs two years after this one.--Cini 19:35, 23 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 (A7). Sango123 (e) 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Chrisos

No unique Google hits, looks like vanity page. Anonymous Bob 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Grafikm_fr 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Mboverload 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete failing to even claim notability. Article explicitly says: Not much can be said about this young lad since he has only began his take on the culture of America. Sheesh. Henning Makholm 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. SorryGuy 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7.--blue520 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article asserts notability thrrough Brogcorp which is claimed to be a significant company. However, as a Google search for "Bryan Chrisos" comes with zero results, he is neither verifiable or notable. [21]. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The demos

Extremely non-notable new nonpartisan political group. Google finds no links to their website, and 10 hits containing "thedemos.ca", the first being the wikipedia user page for User:Thedemos.ca. Website has a helpful traffic graph showing 10s of users. CSD tag removed, so bringing here. Delete. bikeable (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Mboverload 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Alabamaboy 23:50, 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 redirect immediately as nominator has already merged and original author has acknowledged misselling. --Scott Davis Talk 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odgensburg Agreement

the title of this article is misspelled - it should be Ogdensburg Agreement, which already exists. I have added what info was not already in the correctly spelled article to that article. John Broughton 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the correctly spelled article. The fact that one editor was mistaken about the spelling (and it was not merly a typo, because the wrong spelling is repeated in the text) suggests that a redirect would be helpful to other people with the same mistaken spelling. Henning Makholm 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. Grafikm_fr 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. I am the author of the document, and I did not realise that the article header was misspelt. :: Colin Keigher 16:52, 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 speedy delete under WP:SNOW as a astoundingly poor nihilartikel. ➥the Epopt 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Gerald Wittlesworth

Yet another hoax bio from WoodDaver's current sockpuppet. He has also, in the past, created hoax bios for Iggens (which, when deleted, he then proceeded to vandalize the user page of anyone who voted to delete. Sir Isaac Lime 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Lime: How hard can you make it to protect my articles? I am not a sock puppet of any kind, and all I'm trying to do is share my knowledge with the world. Don't accuse me of such things, it's just not cool. GreesyGeorge 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortly after posting this GreesyGeorge vandalized my talk page Sir Isaac Lime 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And after I posted the previous comment, GreesyGeorge deleted it. Sir Isaac Lime 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To Sir Isaac Lime: Are you watching me? Because I'm just trying to tell you that I don't Give a fuck about wooddaver and that you should stop messing wit me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreesyGeorge (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2006 added by Calton

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under WP:SNOW as blatent hoax. ➥the Epopt 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filkser

Clearly a hoax. Sir Isaac Lime 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sir Isaac Lime: What the fuck? I don't see how you could be such a motherfucker, accusing people of fucking hoaxes, remove that deletion notice immediatly or I will fucking hunt you down. - Anonymous 23:40 18 april 2006 (UTC)
  • To Sir Isaac Fucking Lime: I would like to see some proof of why this is a hoax and how you can go around making all those assumptions. This is as truthful as the penis in my pants, not that you can say the same about anything... User:GeniusLevel 23:55, 18 april 2006 (UTC) Both comments above actually by GreesyGeorge (talk · contribs) at 22:43, 18 April 2006. (Refactoring and tag added by Calton | Talk 02:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Fable

Reads like an advertisement and has minimal information, consisting almost totally of stats. WP:NOT Gamefaqs. Other article (DragonFable)'s outcome was deletion --Zxcvbnm 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, pointless fancruft. Royboycrashfan 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft. SorryGuy 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a spin-off, it probably warrants a small mention in Artix Entertainment or AdventureQuest (where they are already mentioned to pretty sufficient extent), but this article is just plain awful and too... shall we say... statty. Better start over with a clean table. Not sure if this is yet worthy of an article of its own. Artix and AQ certainly do, but not this, not just yet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not ... whatever this is. Fagstein 03:33, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoforts

nn mod gamecruft; 57,700 distinct google hits Amcfreely 22:45, 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. -Doc ask? 23:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer run

PROD tag was removed from this microstub; original author states "I plan to expand this article to include information on beer runs as a cultural phenomenon among young adult males as well as possible connections between beer runs and drunken driving and other dangerous behavior" ... which sounds like WP:OR ➥the Epopt 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't know what the problem with this is. If you need a source for this being a real thing they mentioned it on the FX show Over There and plenty of other movies and TV shows. Commonly known in the USA. Just Google it. --Mboverload 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    The question isn't whether or not a "beer run" is a real thing. I don't think anybody's unclear on that point. The question is whether or not it's a topic that we can have an encyclopedic article about, using verifiable information from reliable sources, without venturing into original research. If there's nothing more to say than a definition, we run into Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we go beyond a dictionary definition... we'd need a reliable source for whatever facts we're going to report. Got one? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Unsourced dicdef not expanded since creation in July 2005. Quale 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone synthesizes information from sociological surveys or news articles about the importance of the beer run. If someone recreates the article and provides that information, let there be no smiting of the beer run.Captainktainer 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Once again, more suited for Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. -Bottesini 23:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to wiktionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The article just needs to be expanded. I see no reason to delete it. It's currently a stub, someone just needs to expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooja.bhatt (talk • contribs)
  • Expand it, don't delete it. Kurt Weber 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How can we expand the article? How can we possible write a verifiable article on beer runs besides a possible definition? This belongs in the wiktionary, not wikipedia. Dspserpico 00:55, 23 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

[edit] Flaming Dr. Pepper

Non-notable cocktail. WP:V -- no sources for any claims made on page. Quale 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the Simpsons reference is unfounded but I believe the cocktail is notable enough to keep. Evidence of this is the link from Bacardi 151. 137.122.66.106 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. over 500 unique google hits on "flaming dr pepper," almost all of them relevant. Seems notable enough to me. Note that we also have Flaming Dr Pepper, which is the proper title since "Dr Pepper" does not have a period. Simpsons reference should be verified or dropped--the drink is notable enough either way. dbtfztalk 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most definetly a notable cocktail if only because it is banned in many bars. Kntrabssi 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a soft redirect off wiki is not an acceptable alternative.  ALKIVAR™ 05:34, 26 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? 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finny Kuruvilla

Delete apparent vanity article about a non-notable person. Prod was removed by author without comment, so moving to AfD. Could be a userfy candidate? Gwernol 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Kill without mercy --Mboverload 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Anonymous Bob 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, userfy is fine too. SorryGuy 00:51, 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 keep. `'mikka (t) 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight Disciplines Problem Solving

del. No encyclopedic content, Little internet coverage of the term. One of numerous "problem solving for dummies". `'mikka (t) 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. This is not "problem solving for dummies" but a quality methodology (you are not a consultant, are you? - no, don't hit me please! :), see for instance here or here. It is crappily written and might be a copyvio, that's true, but it has to exist... Grafikm_fr 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever it is, the article in this form is exactly "do it yourself" and nothing else. I did see it mentioned in internet (I can use google, you know), and the several pages I've looked at were just like this article: a list of 1, 2, 3... 8. `'mikka (t) 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • here This link has 250 slides describing the method. It is more than enough IMHO... :) Grafikm_fr 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • HOwever many slides, only 35 unique google hits suggests me a very little notability. There are hundreds quality control silver bullets in the world. Which third party (besides consultants) discuss this approach? `'mikka (t) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn. It turns out that the most common term is 8D Problem Solving, and it seems quite visible, although the article needs work. `'mikka (t) 16:51, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White-bicycle technology

neologism. 44 google hits. Amcfreely 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. Grafikm_fr 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO.--blue520 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gazpacho 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cje 06:23, 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 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wenborn

nn; 699 google hits for wenborn+family Amcfreely 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. Grafikm_fr 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - creative writing. No facts tied to anything real. If it had any substance at all there would be *something*. This reads more like a fairy tale (complete with 'apple'!).


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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 12:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Tooth Grin

Non-notable cocktail. WP:V -- no sources for most claims on page. Prod contested without comment by an anon. Quale 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No sources. Unverifiable. Fagstein 08:10, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wei-Huong (Brian) Ebling

nn actor; 29 google hits, all wiki Amcfreely 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable Cje 06:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, and article is so badly written as to make me suspicious - either a pastiche by someone with good intentions, or a hoax otherwise. "likened to surrealist artists such as Magritte and Dali." ! "a number of promotional videos for chefs and courtesans." !! "since gone on to star in 32 feature projects, including ... "Philatelic Arts and Sciences"" !!! Starring in stamp videos??!! "Does advertising in WP work? Just did!" Shenme 04:42, 23 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? 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual neighborhood

nn vaporware software Amcfreely 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fagstein 08:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fagstein.Captainktainer 09:11, 23 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. Thryduulf 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual horse ranch-Grand Prix version

nn vaporware Amcfreely 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 23:29, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanspeed

article reads like a shoddily edited press release; clearly an ad Amcfreely 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 08:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails WP:V and WP:CITE. I've spent far too much time trying to track down relevant information. When there's sufficient evidence of notability, reopen without prejudice; in the meantime, delete.Captainktainer 09:56, 23 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 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arquitectonica

This page is an ad meccaneer 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleanup and keep. Yes, it's written like ad copy, but the firm is actually quite notable and influential. Daniel Case 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Daniel Case. DVD+ R/W 03:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. "What Links Here" suggests notability. Fagstein 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and revise This is a major design firm. It does, however need to be reformatted so that it reads like a neutral article (not an ad) Arch26 08:55, 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 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shabbir and abbas tejani

They don't appear to be very notable (google and alexa ratings). I'm not going to comment on the actual article itself... -Bottesini 23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if the website were notable (it's not: Alexa rank 385,013) the webmasters wouldn't. Fan1967 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 08:05, 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 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Iced Tea

Non-notable cocktail. Article says "a rather uncommon variation of the Long Island Iced Tea, which means delete. WP:NOT a recipe book. No claims in article are sourced other than the recipe. Prod contested without comment by an anon. Quale 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn Eternalbeans 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Zap into deletion. Fagstein 08:04, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vodkadew

Non-notable cocktail. WP:V and WP:NOR -- no sources Quale 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Do the dew-lete. Fagstein 08:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worthy of more than a single line somewhere at most. NTK 22:20, 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 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Byng Senior Wind Ensemble

Not-notable. I am an alumni of the school, and I can attest to the fact it is a good band, but it do not deserve a wiki entry. Merge or Delete Geedubber 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: not of notability -Bottesini 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any sources, specifically, that will support the idea that it is "well-recognized" as the best senior group in Vancouver OR British Columbia. In addition, with all due respect to members of this group, the regular invitations for the group to play throughout Lower Mainland does not necessarily indicate that it is a good band. The lack of sources, nevertheless, make this article extremely suspicious that this entry is used to "advertise", but not genuinely inform of readers. Good candidate for Wikipedia deletion. AWDRacer 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as highschoolbandcruft. Fagstein 08:03, 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. Thryduulf 12:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destiny (song)

It's just some copied and pasted lyrics- it doesn't even tell you anything about the song. In addition, I'm pretty sure lyrics are copyrighted. --Bottesini 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I have quickly investigated the lyrics via Google, and have discovered that these lyrics belong to a song named "Destiny" performed by the group called "Zero 7".
    Nevertheless, Bottesini is probably right about lyrics being copyrighted. Furthermore, this article does not add information to Wikipedia(other than the fact that the original author of this article liked it enough to place it on Wikipedia), and does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. AWDRacer 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, so i guess that means a delete vote? -Bottesini 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. The song is somewhat notable but if it remains as is it is an obvious delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio (without prejudice to creation of legitimate article if song is actually notable). There is nothing in this article but the lyrics. If someone wants to try again with a proper article and convince us that it is a notable song, they can. However, never having heard of this song or the apparent artist, I am somewhat skeptical that it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. But I could be wrong. --Metropolitan90 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is no longer a copyvio, but I'm still not convinced the song is notable enough for an article. --Metropolitan90 08:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio for now. Can be recreated as an actual article. Fagstein 08:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment made it a stub. Kotepho 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per my rewrite... but I'm just a little biased. Kotepho 19:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Kotepho. Amalas 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever is relevant with Zero 7 or simply Delete!
  • Keep after it was rewritten. gidonb 01:00, 27 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 Thryduulf 12:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary

TransWiki or Delete. This should be in the Wikitionary. Geedubber 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Fagstein 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Metamagician3000 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Wiktionary already has it [22]. - Liberatore(T) 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Paolo Liberatore. gidonb 01:01, 27 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? 03:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom Toaster

No Such Film

Neither title nor cast/crew are found on IMDb; link goes to vanity page. Alan Smithee in pre-production? This appears to be a joke. oreb 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Un-verifiable WP:V. No references can be found beyond the link in the article, secondly notability can not be established.--blue520 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably a hoax. GilliamJF 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, either not verifiable or not notable!! Shijaz 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Her Pegship 19:07, 23 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.