Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 20 April 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] April 21

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy Things

Take a look at this Australasian Furry community here. Have a look at the plethora of different Furry art/comic/fiction sites they host. One of these, is the webcomic Fuzzy Things, seen here. The entire furry.org.au domain returns an Alexa ranking of 300,000, maybe it's a notable furry community that's a different discussion, but is a one site out of the scores that are hosted there particularly notable? I don't think so, I don't think it is any more notable than any of the other sites hosted on that Furry community, and they aren't. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - one of the few longstanding non-yiffy Furry webcomics. - Synapse 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as something of very limited interest. This should go to WikiFur. Brian G. Crawford 02:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a legitimate and long-running web comic. It seems that there's some sort of guilt by association or non-notability by association going on here, instead of judging this on its own merits. Madman 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteWikipedia is not adveritsement for furry comics. Gold Stur 04:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ~311,000 on Alexa, "'Fuzzy Things' Sario" returns 603 hits on Google. -Objectivist-C 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable, long-running or not. Bucketsofg 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all webcomics not syndicated in no-trivial treeware. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like everyday on Wikipedia another non-notable comic turns up. --Knucmo2 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Eivindt@c 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: a ranking of 300k from the severely flawed alexa seems good enough. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Roisterer 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please consider what Madman wrote above: "It seems that there's some sort of guilt by association or non-notability by association going on here, instead of judging this on its own merits". -- Synapse 14:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 09:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems notable enough, but barely. Startup account 23:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fragile Gravity

A webcomic, which can be found here at Unseen Studios LLC. It's Alexa rank comes back at over 1.5 million and neither their Livejournal nor forums are particularly active. The article claims that a book has been published, and gives an ISBN number which I can't seem to trace. However, there is a link to their book on the website, which you can only buy direct, and looks self published. This doesn't seem to be notable. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not particularly active is an understatement—the forum has 11 registered members. In addition to the nominator's concerns, there's no assertion of importance in article, the webcomic returns only 207 unique google hits, the comic's main webpage is commercial (see the "store" link) which is not damning all by itself, but still not a good sign and the book is not listed on amazon. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Keppa 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per fuhghettaboutit.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. No sign that this meets WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a non-vanity published source can be found. Ziggurat 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Bolasanibk 12:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Bucketsofg 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the comic exists and is regularly updated. The page meets all applicable WikiProject standards. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm curious... how do you propose that Fragile Gravity meets the WP:WEB guidelines?--Isotope23 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Seems too bad. Startup account 23:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr B B Sinha

Non-notable doctor. Pugs Malone 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability substantiated by editor. No assertion of importance in bio article usually equals vanity and burden of proof is on them.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Metamagician3000 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, may be a real person but there's no proof of notability. If evidence is shown, the article really needs to be wikified and properly cited. Keppa 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a shaky and vague claim to having made important contributions to malaria.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Claims need to be verifiable. Where's a source?Keppa 04:51, 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 was speedy keep. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misandry

  • Delete - Misandry is just an artificial construct of the Patriarchy created because they hate it when feminists assert themselves and try to deconstruct the Phallocentric male-female power dynamic. -207.62.186.233 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Article on a notable topic of recent political/academic interest, verified through reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Shimeru 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - dunno that this qualifies for speedy but if so, then speedy. Nomination is nonsensical. Otto4711 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Anon, unknowingly or not, is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.--Djrobgordon 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Although it could stand to be revised for a more neutral POV, the topic is notable and the page is informative. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is it when a Feminist wants to discuss something, all you misogynists come out of the woodwork with your "Speedy" and "Strong" Keeps? -207.62.186.233 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because this isn't the place to discuss whether or not misandry is an artificial construct. This forum is for discussing whether the concept of misandry has been discussed and written about enough that is should be defined on Wikipedia. I think eugenics is garbage science, but that doesn't mean we should delete the article.--Djrobgordon 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article clearly has problems, not the least of which is its overreliance on a single, controversial book. However, a review of Google Scholar will show that there are other sources that use this term. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. WP:POINT Dragomiloff 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad nomination (no reason given) from a bad user (blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account). Turnstep 13:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soben Huon

Delete! Delete! Delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 0:44, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

Keep? How is this person notable? Delete! Delete! Delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:21, 21 April 2006

  • Speedy keep, likely bad faith nom, possible vandalism. Nominator's account name worries me. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Quidditch. ConDemTalk 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. Keppa 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Super speedy keep. Nominator also seems to be spamming the AfD list, that needs to be taken care of as well. WarpstarRider 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quidditch banta 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Beauty pageant winners are notable? Really? I can see the reasoning behind having articles for each Miss America and Miss USA, but do we really want 100 articles per year on individual states' winners? Anyway, I'm voting a very weak keep based on WP:NOT paper and the clearly bad-faith nomination. --Hyperbole 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate keep - I don't really like pop-culture, but being the state champion is relatively notable. Pageantry isn't particularly skillful, but it is relatively notable in a celebrity sense.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakish keep per Hyperbole and Blnguyen - Metamagician3000 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- apparent bad faith nom. Nothing much wrong with this article. The El Reyko 05:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Soben (and the other delegates) will appear live on national television, they have been interviewed on Fox, NBC, appeared on Regis and Kelly (as part of the Miss USA pageant), been featured prominently in local newspapers, and, quite simply, she holds her state title, which is quite an accomplishment. I am one of the editors of this article, but I believe Soben is definitely notable enough for Wikipedia. And don't forget, WP:NOT paper. PageantUpdater 06:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as above. I hate to assume bad faith, but this does appear to be a bad faith nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith AFD nomination as the username suggests. --Terence Ong 13:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only because this is apparently a bad faith nomination. The idea that a beauty pagent contestant (not winner) is somehow notable and meets WP:BIO sans any actual accomplishments is a pretty big stretch though. I guess that 15 minutes of fame buys you a wikipedia article now.--Isotope23 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She is a winner (albeit at a state-level). Reasonable media coverage. So, she's been found notable. --Rob 16:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bad faith M1ss1ontomars2k4 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if this article goes there's at least 50 others that would have to. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, you say that like it's a bad thing...--Isotope23 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete shie is only a state winner, will be forgotten next year, unles she wins, then recreate.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Only a state winner? Soben perhaps isn't the best case, but some of these girls (TX, LA) have competed for years (6, in one case) against hundreds of girls each year. A major acheivement, and they get tons of coverage in local press. PageantUpdater 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP: WHY is this particular entry being considered for deletion, but not others? This is a notable entry, considering that Soben is the FIRST CAMBODIAN to win this title, making history. Her community is very proud of her and she deserves to be acknowledged in as many ways as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakemonster (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 April 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletethissocalledlongestwordvanityspamcruftarticleoffthefaceofwikipedia. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lip­smackin­thirst­quenchin­acetastin­motivatin­good­buzzin­cool­talkin­high­walkin­fast­livin­ever­givin­cool­fizzin

Just because it's a long advertising slogan doesn't mean it deserves an article. It will be a perma-stub and it can be mentioned in the Longest word in English article instead. Nobody will find this article anyway.--Zxcvbnm 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. Keppa 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi-Cola GT 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. banta 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; there was some actual information at the similar article for McDonald's, but this article doesn't hint at anything interesting to say. Melchoir 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Longest word in English per nom.--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just looking at the title gives me a headache. 23skidoo 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Longest word in English - the merge has apparently already taken place, as this information exists in that article. --Hyperbole 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977
  • Delete per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Articles like this shouldn't be brought to AfD. Redirects are cheap and can be created simply by being bold. NoIdeaNick 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Longest word in English.--blue520 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't understand redirecting this to Longest word in English. Does anyone seriously believe that the result of stringing 15 words together like this creates a new word that is among the longest in the English language? I think this was just an ad campaign not meant to be taken seriously and that neither Pepsi's intention nor the effect of their campaign was that a new vocabulary term was created. GT 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you questioning the proposed redirect or that the word and a small amount of info are included in the Other long words section of Longest word in English?--blue520 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Both I guess. Personally I wouldn't put words in that article that aren't real words but that's just my preference. GT 09:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi-Cola. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi, obviously. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This should certainly not be redirected to Longest word in English since it is - not a word! GT is quite right. One could redirect this to Pepsi, but who is going to type in this striong in the first place...? Eusebeus 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No point in redirect, nobody will ever use it as a search term, and the only link to this page is FROM the Longest Words in English page. --Maelwys 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a valid word. And as already mentioned, nobody will ever search for it anyways. --Bolasanibk 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Longest word in English. --Terence Ong 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Longest word in English.--Jusjih 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Maelwys. Colonel Tom 14:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't imagine anyone searching for this, or spelling it the same way twice. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, not even a mention at Longest word in English. NO ADVERTISING on Wikipedia, period! Angr (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, nn, and it's not even a word M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi-Cola, mention on Longest word in English. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. Brian G. Crawford 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi. VegaDark 04:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: nonsense, hoax, neologism, advertising, unverifiable. Invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if necessary. (Unless of course some can cite an instance that someone actually used the 'word' in conversation without being paid to.) Peter Grey 04:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete way too long. it's not even a word. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TH 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, no evidence in article it was an actual ad campaign. Шизомби 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete"" per nom. This doesn't appear to be a legit campaign either. :: Colin Keigher 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Google shows that apart from this article Wikipedia and its mirrors, the only other top hits are mostly message board postings. Is this a hoax? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pepsi-Cola.--Cini 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't warrand a separate article. Mukadderat 17:19, 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. -lethe talk + 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediation

Was tagged for speedy, citing "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," but I do not believe that is grounds for a speedy. I do, however, believe this should go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete! Delete! Delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete seems bad faith banta 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, cute idea though. Melchoir 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense/invention.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I originally pegged this for speedy deletion (as I enjoy parusing the newly-created pages to see what's awesome and what's patent nonsense), and I stand by that decision. I mean, this will be deleted no matter what, but the article is non-notable, made-up garbage. As a result, I am going to still vote speedy delete. -- Kicking222 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Clear childish nonsense/non-notability/vanity. Renata 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandonar
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per (aeropagitica). SorryGuy 06:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 07:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not for things made up in (insert place here) one day... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT even mentions this bloody game, can't people read? Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That was actually just added today. --Rory096(block) 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Speedy Delete The game idea itself has been on WP:NFT for a good while now. Not only does the Wikipediation article use the example in WP:NFT as its game idea but it also outright admits to being something made up in a school one day. Shadowoftime 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Well yeah, NFT obviously applies, but this particular thing wasn't on it until the 22nd. Also, NFT is not a WP:CSD. --Rory096(block) 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 13:16, 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 delete. -- RHaworth 01:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary colours of disgracefulness

Vanity, no useful purpose. Keppa 00:53, 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 merge. SushiGeek 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto Pen Pal Service

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. The article makes no claim to notability; the website itself claims about 400 members. AOL homepage, so no Alexa data. A few web directories but no non-trivial coverage available on Google. [1] [2] [3] Melchoir 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge into Esperanto jmd
  • Merge into Esperanto (probably just as a couple of external links) --Hyperbole 04:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Esperanto — CJewell (talk to me) 05:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hyperbole Computerjoe's talk 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hyperbole, but w/o prejudice to recreating a better version. The concept is almost self-explanatory; on the other hand, organizing Esperanto pen pals has long been a project of the Esperanto movement, and an explanation of that aspect of the movement may make a good article. In this case, the article should no longer be "about a website" and WP:WEB may not apply. Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No way. I don't even see the point of a merge either into the Esperanto article either. Maybe, if its not there already, put it as an external link at best. --Knucmo2 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Esperanto  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Hyperbole Startup account 19:47, 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. No Guru 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matty Flory

Possible hoax. No google hits Cvene64 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax; Matt and Matthew don't Google properly either. Melchoir 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V; I can't find anything relevant from searches on "flory rugby" or "flory newcastle rugby" or "matty flory newcastle rugby" either. --Hyperbole 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the same user also replaced the Jonny Wilkinson link on the England Rugby page with a link to Flory. Must be a hoax. Cvene64 04:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a hoax to me. SorryGuy 06:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified hoax. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Certainly does not play for the main Newcastle rugby team, he probably means a semi-professional one. As such, is non-notable. --Knucmo2 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete er nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:07, 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. No Guru 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childless Mother

Seems long advertising promotion for a book. No evidence provided that the book is especially notable or cited by a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Created by same editor who set up an apparantly spam article also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com David Ruben Talk 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; this is probably a chapter out of the book being advertised. Melchoir 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I am the editor of said book and host of said website. Not enough attention is paid to the hundreds of thousands of women around the globe who consider themselves mothers but who are childless due to miscarriage and stillbirth. The book is in review with notables in the field of pregnancy loss through PLIDA, A Place to Remember, The Centering Corporation and has been endorsed by leaders in the field of pregnancy loss and pregnancy after loss. I don't consider the topic of being a childless mother SPAM, and I would venture any mother who held her stillborn child in her arms wouldn't either. - Amy L. Abbey, editor
That's a red herring and you know it - appealing to people's sense of pity has nothing to do with the notability of an article. If you feel it is notable, write an article, don't just copy and paste a section of the book. Tokakeke 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
These edits are mostly spam. What really irks me is that you're aware of the existence of those articles, and you claim to care about the issues surrounding them; yet all your edits are self-promotion. That is not what we need around here. Melchoir 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article doesn't even say what "Childless Mother" is. I think it's just the name of the essay that the entire article consists of. According to Amazon, Amy L. Abbey has one book to her credit, a book called "Journeys: Stories of Pregnancy After Loss." It's published by WovenWord Press, which, based on its website, seems to be Abbey's own press. There is a consensus on Wikipedia that self-published works and their authors are not notable. --Hyperbole 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for so many reasons. -Objectivist-C 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NPOV violation, with 'I' statements, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete primarly falls under a number of points in WP:NOT, as well as other policy/guidelines (or as per Objectivist-C "for so many reasons").--blue520 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article from the book Journeys: Stories of Pregnancy After Loss. This article has not been printed elsewhere. I am not the owner or an employee of WovenWord Press. This book is NOT self-published. This article was drafted to enlighten individuals about the existence of childless mothers. Childless mothers exist. Are any of you childless mothers or fathers? Have you experienced this? It is a completely non-validating experience. Our stories have nothing to do with pity. Why don't you read it and decide for yourself? Childless Mother, the phrase, I defined in Wikitionary. My intent was not to SPAM, it was to raise awareness. Everyone starts somewhere, perhaps I picked the wrong place although I thought this was part of Wikipedia's mission. Amy L. Abbey
  • Delete, advertisement. --Terence Ong 13:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of the existence of women who identify themselves as childless mothers, and regardless of the depth and validity of their experience, and regardless of the awareness they deserve, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So revising this into an article more of an encyclopaedic format would be acceptable, is that what the consensus is? Are there any women here commenting on this? I don't want to be adversarial, my goal is to increase awareness about the every-growing cohort of childless mothers (not childless women by choice) Elovesme99
In terms of article style, that is closer (vs just quoting), but one has to cite a reliable external source. As an editor, that source can not include ones own work. So if subject is covered by a notable book or newspaper article, then the topic gains notability and there are sources to cite as giving the views that are then sumarised in the encyclopaedia. As well as the situation needing to be described elsewhere, so does the specific term 'childless mother' (vs 'bereaved parents' which I agree is not quite what you are referring to). Slightly off-topic, but indicating the need to cite a source for usage, are there not 'Childless Fathers' too, so unless the term is specifically defined and in common use would 'Childless parents' be an alternative heading ? David Ruben Talk 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How does a book get to be notable by Wiki definition? Childless mothers and childless fathers have different experiences. As a mother, I can only write from a woman's perspective. Childless mother, the phrase comes up sporadically on Internet-searches, and is very recently being used. Elovesme99

That may be so, but you're inferring the term is notable, not the book. If the term is your main intent to write about, explain :it on Wiktionary. It should not even be on Wikipedia unless the term has some notability that isn't just it simply being a
term. As for the book, there are specific guidelines on when a book merits its own article. "Nonetheless there is no dictum against :any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a :no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to :on-line or press-published reviews of the book." Also, see :WP:NINAD. Tokakeke 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad, nn, spam  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR/POV essay, vanity, advert. MCB 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. advertising --Strothra 05:18, 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. No Guru 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Empire at War Tactics

Wikipedia is not a game manual/tactics manual. Even if it were, there is no content on this page. Purpose better served by linking to something like GameFAQs' page on EaW FAQs. Tokakeke 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and/or redirect back to the main article. Same for Empire at War Space Skirmish Tactics. Melchoir 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. Gwernol 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I made the tactics page. My reason was because I normally use Wiki for a whole lot of stuff, and that it would be good to really have some stuff all in one bunch, not to go to some other place to get this tactics and other. Anyway a lot of those gaming sites need a subscription. Who's gonna pay $10 or more just to see a little guide or some info on the units? Anyway, I'm still rather new to Wiki, and I value your opinion. Let's discuss some more. RelentlessRouge 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith editing, and it's exactly what we need here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it'd be nice to have a general area of information, Wikipedia isn't everything. That's why we have Wookieepedia, Wiktionary, etc. GameFAQs is free, and has plenty of guides. IGN is mostly free, unless you want to see a video guide or something. Tokakeke 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Thnx. I'll think about it. Let's keep in touch. I've been surfing around the Net 4 EaW tactics, and couldn't find an iota... hmm. Interesting. Let's keep in touch. Tell me other reasons why. Thnx a lot. RelentlessRouge 01:50, 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 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My First Thomas & Friends

This should be deleted as per WP:NN. It's mostly just an unpleasantly long list of each different variety of doll... Plus, “...who discontinued making them several years ago” and “as new models haven't been seen for almost three years now”. Perhaps a merge with Tomy, the US company which produced them? The UK company Golden Bear Toys doesn't seem to have an article. --Valermos 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom. Link to Tomy's website should be sufficient. Tokakeke 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Thomas the Tank Engine is notable, therfor surely articles about Thomas toys are? Jcuk 10:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopaedic list of items in a single commercial spin-off. Perhaps mention the series in the main article, but this is pointless. Just zis Guy you know? 10:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even though it sounds like it's associated with Thomas the Tank Engine... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:34, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Games Association

There is no assertion of notability in this article. They're just some group that tries to make sports popular. This is written like an ad and a google search gets 193 hits. [4] A Clown in the Dark 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as I think this is an A7 (which covers non-notable groups). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Slow delete - well it organized an event, so there is some assertion of achievement, however, it admits to having no official powers, and appears to be a minor lobby group.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at a moderate speed, per comments above.-Polotet 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per above. SorryGuy 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure if I'm allowed to vote (will check later), as I'm a member of the IGA. I'm not the author, though, although I think one of the edits may have been mine (June '05). In response to some of the above comments: the IGA doesn't try "to make sports popular", it promotes gaming (all of the types listed on that disambiguation page with the exception of gambling). It has, thus far, organised 17 annual conventions, which themselves have raised over €70,000 for children's charities in Ireland. In my opinion, that makes the IGA notable. Admittedly the article could use some expansion, something I'd be happy to do if its retained. Bastun 09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've looked at various deletion pages and can't find anything suggesting I'm not allowed to vote. My comment above explains the reasons for my vote. In addition, while a google search does only return 192 results, a search for 'Gaelcon', the IGA's main annual convention, returns 15,600 results.[5] Bastun 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, after recent expansion. Mukadderat 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Mukadderat Startup account 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although it still needs further expansion Kiffer.geo 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. - Runcorn 21:44, 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. No Guru 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire at War Space Skirmish Tactics

Its parent article is Star Wars: Empire at War Tactics, also up for AfD here. As with this that article, this should go as WP:NOT a how to guide. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, delete per nom. Melchoir 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT GameFAQs. BryanG 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a how-to guide, etc. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We are not GameGuides.com --Knucmo2 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above reasons. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even more clear-cut than the "parent" article. Gwernol 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We are NOT a game guide! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:14, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page_printer

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is little more than a dictionary definition and has no promise of expansion.--Wikiwriter706 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If deleted, I suggest it redirect to Computer printer.--Wikiwriter706 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Maybe the article would be best reverted to its pre-AfD state [6] and then transwikied to wiktionary.--Wikiwriter706 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If it was a little longer, it might warrant a merge. Tokakeke 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Almost every consumer printer is a page printer. There is no reason to make this distinction. --Valermos 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think the subject may merit an article. For example, modern page printers need to be able to hold at least one page's worth of data in memory, which means they must come equipped with RAM, unlike, say, an older daisy wheel or inkjet printer where the paper is fed through by "teeth" (although many of these models, of course, do have memory). How did the older, huge, floor-standing page printers work? Frankly, I don't know. I don't really want to write it, but I think there's an article here. --Hyperbole 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Old line printers printed an entire line at a time and so had a buffer that was as big as a single line (e.g., 80 or 132 bytes). They weren't "page printers". Page printers really only arrived on the scene with the arrival of Xerographic techniques ("laser printers", more-or-less).
Atlant 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge with Teletype. As Hyperbole notes, there might be a good article here struggling to get out, and it would make a nice bridge between Teletype and Computer printer. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Clairification, because there seems to be some confusion here. There seems to be a difference between a "page printer" in the teletype context and a "page printer" in the computer printer context. I was assuming this article was about teletype printers because when I looked at it, it refered to the Morton & Krum teletype patent and had references to teletype articles. Teletype printers of course were the ancestors of computer printers. So my assumption was that the article would be about the interesting if somewhat obscure topic of teletype page printers. Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to computer printer or another relevant article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is completely disjointed. It originally was an article about laser and inkjet printers which wait for an entire page to be rendered before printing. Then someone added a bunch of teletype stuff which is a complete contradiction in terms as teletype machines print every character as it is recieved, and the used rolls of paper instead of sheets of paper. Bige1977 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above - a mess and unnecessary. Eusebeus 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Based on arguments given by those in favour of the deep six, it is rather apparent that some of them never even bothered to read the content of the cited references. Folajimi 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that there were no cited references when the article was nominated and that they have all been added during the course of this debate. The comments made by people who "never even bothered to read the content of the cited references" were probably made before there were such references. Major additions have been made to the article.
    • P.S. To those who glibly remark that the entry is "a mess", you should read up on the deletion policy for Wikipedia. According to that document, your argument is baseless. (Then again, such users contribute little or nothing in the way of original content to the project, but are always at the ready to condemn/destroy other people's work...) Folajimi 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • With your addition of teletype material, the article now states that computer page printers were invented circa 1900, and patented in 1924. Considering that electronic computers weren't even in existance at the time makes the whole article is now very confusing. The teletype information belongs in Teleprinter. Bige1977 18:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You make a valid point regarding the "computer printer" terminology. Considering that the printer in question was intended for use with telegraph equipment, the term should be de-linked, and the 'computer' prefix should be dropped.
As for the teletype information, notice that they are included under "References" — this means that the information used in the article was drawn from those sources. From what I gather, it is good practice to cite sources used in the construction of articles; if for no other reason than to avoid charges of plagiarism. Sources used in the entry are chosen based on content, not titles. Folajimi 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article is a whole mess. --Terence Ong 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP I agree that this this has the potential to become a useful article. many great articles start out as stubs...lets let the wiki work.
now that the specific teletype meaning has been clarified, any slight doubts I may have had are gone. And now, knowing that this is really not about computer printers, it seems pretty much impossible to make a case for merging. Interestingstuffadder 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingstuffadder 14:17, 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 keep the cleaned-up version. Good work, everyone. Turnstep 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Griggs Havey

This page is self promotion and spam and has no business in an encyclopedia.--Joe Jklin 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep as per Kusma (author has shown willingness to change page).--Joe Jklin 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Nationalparks 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Vanity, ad. Eron 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Make that Keep, the rewrite is good and the subject is notable. Eron 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: has a page, and supposedly Havey has sold more books than . There are also 74,300 Google results to her name. -- Zanimum 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
other author's page looks like a Wikipedia page. If Julia's page were formatted and wikified, and less like an ad, I might be inclined to change my vote. Right now it reads as vanity, self promotion, and advertising. Nationalparks 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nationalparks but it should be an outside editor. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. But Julia Havey could be considered a notable author ( I got 25,400 unique google hits).--Joe Jklin 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean she took the exclaimation point directly from her bio on ediets. Encyclopedias don't have ! marks. When the article is fixed, I will reconsider my vote. But as it is now, still delete. Nationalparks 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Nationalparks. Tokakeke 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This edit where she says "Were you a tattletale with no friends in school or do you just enjoy making people's life miserable for no reason?" doesn't help her case, in my opinion. Nationalparks 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Needs major cleanup, but keep, combination of fairly popular books and media coverage means notability.-Polotet 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
To argue my case, I simply saw a page for another author and did a listing for me. I didn't know all of your rules and within like 10 minutes Joe nominated me for banishment (sp?). I didn't intend to break your rules or do anything wrong, had never even heard of your site before. I thought it was cool and wanted to be part of it. Seems like a lot of fuss over something that really wasn't/isn't problematic. Not like I am trying to hurt people, I help women lose weight, empower their lives and get healthy. As for my rude comment to Joe, sorry, I am human. But jeez, within minutes he voted to have me banned, yes, to me it seemed a bit tattletale like and I knee jerked back to him. I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)
If you are willing to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion (less like an ad, etc.), I will be willing to change my vote to keep, but not the way it is. There is a difference between "banishment" and deleting an article you've written.Nationalparks 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited it, it seems pretty nuetral to me, I would welcome any suggestions and changes you have. I realize there is a difference, but since it is "me" who is being deleted, it does feel like being banished! Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

  • Conditional keep if proper citations from reliable sources can be provided. If this was really the top-2 weight loss book author at amazon at some time[citation needed], she should pass WP:BIO. Kusma (討論) 03:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep as per Kusma. I have made the article much more encyclopedic and added an image. Nationalparks 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would like to see some relevant pages link into Julia's page (right now no mainspace pages link in). Nationalparks 04:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep per User:Kusma. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it's often considered distasteful to write an article about yourself, there's no official policy against it, and Havey is clearly a notable author. --Hyperbole 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep I have done an additional rewrite on the page to further expurgate the ad-feel. I think the tag can now be removed. Eusebeus 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that Eusebeus has rewritten it, it seems a lot more clearer to keep. The author is reasonably notable. Englishrose 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping me get the listing done correctly. A notable author, perhaps, but certainly not a wikified one--until now! I am a fast learner, again, thanks and I really do love the site, it is great what you are all doing here. Much respect, Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

  • Delete This still looks like an advertisement. The book cover image seems far too promotional and, therefore, inappropriate. The sentence "She is currently a motivator at a diet-loss website, eDiets.com" should be deleted, as it misleadingly implies that the author is a consultant to the website when in fact they are the sole operator. The link to the author's commercial webpage also seems too promotional and should be deleted. This author made a rather inauspicious debut on Wikepedia by attempting to create a self-aggrandizing Wikipedia page (presumably for commercial purposes), adding commercial links to the Obesity page, deleting substantial amounts of content from the Juice Plus page, and by making a personal attack on one of the editors. Also, it is salient that the author’s entry was self-submitted, which runs counter to editorial policy 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as it is fairly likely she meets WP:BIO as an author. Page should be watched though to protect it from the creator.--Isotope23 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the book cover there and totally do not mind if you take it off, that book is 3 years old! I am a consultant at eDiets.com, I don't even own stock in the publicly traded company much less the sole operator! That is not an accurate statement on which to base a delete decision. NOT correct. I am the Master Motivator at eDiets.com and DO NOT own that company. I own my own company that makes my LifeChanger program, which is not even available for purchase at eDiets.com! Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, it may have started as vanity but other people have worked on it to bring it to an acceptable level. If Ms. Havey can resist the temptation to work on the article in the future and add linkspam to obesity-related articles, I see no reason why we can't keep it. I would encourage Ms. Havey to review Wikipedia policies and gain experience working on other articles. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It seems like it might be sufficiently NPOV minus the book cover and commercial external link. Rhode Island Red 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep Startup account 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep - needs further work - Runcorn 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete creator's promotion. --MaNeMeBasat 14:10, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaiho Tsunechika

article makes no assertion of notability. If there were an article on every retainer had by every noble in history, wikipedia would explode ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I'd say he's notable. A Clown in the Dark 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V. The article cites no sources and Google returns no hits for the name. I assume that he's a real historical figure, and not made up, but as it stands I have no way of verifying that. --Hyperbole 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kaiho Tsunachika and delete the incorrectly spelled page. Nice work, Haeleth. --Hyperbole 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - google hits in English for Japanese figure will be low. Even more so for someone dead 400 years.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if someone is notable in Japan, put him in the Japanese Wikipedia; the English one should only include people notable to English speakers. - Runcorn 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - You have got to be kidding me. Do you really mean to imply that any notable figure outside the standard mainstream of study in the English-speaking countries should not be mentioned in the English Wikipedia? So, if Japanese feudal lords are not notable enough for you, where do you draw the line? What about obscure Pharoah's advisors? What about the nobility or royalty of the Baltic states? Just because something is obscure to your personal point of view doesn't make it non-notable. LordAmeth 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:V aside, WP:BIO states for deceased figures "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this passes WP:BIO, and it definitely doesn't pass WP:V. Even if the person in question was Japanese and died centuries ago, not a single Google hit shows reason for deletion: either the info on the Wiki article is wrong, or it is a hoax, or he was non-notable. But in any case, it's still unverifiable, and that's grounds enough for deletion. -- Kicking222 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Hyperbole and Kicking222. -- Kjkolb 08:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. A search for the hiragana versions of the names do not turn up any results in Google, suggesting lack of notability. (The same goes for the other similar bios that this user has created). Tangotango 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Eusebeus 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after correction. This article appears to be about Kaiho Tsunachika: he has a Japanese Wikipedia article, ja:海北綱親. It's debatable whether he's notable enough to be worth mentioning in the English Wikipedia, but he's easily verifiable once one sees past the spelling error in his name.  :) — Haeleth Talk 14:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How amusing: it turns out that we already have an article on Tsunachika already, written by the same editor, containing much the same information. Make that a merge, then, since I am pretty confident they are both about the same person: Tsunechika seems to have been created by a typo in the author's uncited source for the article, here (note the entry that follows for his son, which gets the father's name right). — Haeleth Talk 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haeleth; good job. Taking into account WP:BIAS, I think he's notable enough, as notable as some of the minor nineteenth century politicians that fill my 1956 Encyclopedia Americana. Coverage of obscure subjects will be as deep as the energy and interest of the contributors. Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested, notable topic but spelled incorrectly. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the two spellings, then keep or merge the result with Asai Nagamasa. Whether or not he's noteworthy enough for an article, the information belongs in Wikipedia, either in his own article or in his lord's. The article does assert notability with the word "senior." Fg2 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Merge --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Merge Startup account 23:23, 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. No Guru 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kama Craft

All 57 Google results for this "religion" are either completely unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. Article cites no sources, is pretty much all by one author, and says the religion is "shroud in secrecy" and "a youthful religion in its exposure to the public". Unreferenced template was applied in March and the author has not come forth with any references. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V. I can't find any references for this article, and, frankly, I doubt any such references exist. --Hyperbole 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:V at the very least. That's the problem with secret religions. You can't verify them. Fan1967 02:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't matter much if this is something made up in school one day or the true Illuminati. If it can't be WP:V-ified, it doesn't belong here. Jkelly 03:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 06:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 04:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V - Bobjames 19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Startup account 23:25, 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 speedy delete per CSD A7. Royboycrashfan 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Era Wrestling

Not notable organization. There is a New Era Wrestling but this doesn't seem to be it. Eron 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, which are for wrestlers associated with the above organization:

  • Sterling Eby
  • Patrick Coterillo
  • Sean Curtis
see also Quiz the Wrestler, Allen Curtis and others.
  • Comment Prototype doesn't seem to be part of this AfD - were you thinking of another page? --Hyperbole 02:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply Thank you, that was a transcription mistake on my part. The New Era Wrestling page listed names the wrestler as Prototype, but the actual page is under the individual's name. I've corrected the list. Eron 02:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Five guys in South Carolina mimicking WWE in their backyards is not notable. --Hyperbole 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete oper above. Eusebeus 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with real article. Actually there are several organizations with this name, all more notable than the one mentioned here. Delete all the pages other than the main one. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete backyard vanity pages... also i suggest bloking the User:SeanCurtis who has made these pages and been adding them selfs to professional wrestling move lists... when i say "notable users" i sure as hell dont mean Sean Curtis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete protect them all. --Rory096(block) 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm going to tag these with speedies, I don't see any claims of notability. --Rory096(block) 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NFT.--Isotope23 17:00, 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 keep. No Guru 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kajiwara Masakage

another non notable japanese retainer. 54 google hits. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The Google Test isn't very effective for sixteenth century figures. He strikes me as a notable and verifiable historical figure. --Hyperbole 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- WP:BIO states for deceased people: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"....in this case it appears not.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Swatjester. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia ja:梶原政景, which has much stricter inclusion criteria than the English one these days. If we have individual articles for transient pop songs, I see no reason not to have them for verifiable historical figures. (Note that the article could beneficially be tweaked based on the Japanese one, though I'm not going to waste time doing that when the figure's notability is up in the air.) — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:BIAS. Besides, he might appear in a manga some day. Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest of all possible keeps The man seems to not have been a "mover and shaker" in Japanese history, but instead was on the periphery of the action... It's a little like putting in an article about a minor Roman senator. Interesting, and perhaps encyclopedic, but who is really going to have a burning need to know about a retainer of the Ota clan, who seems to have had little impact on history? But as others have mentioned, if we can have the likes of Gaius Iulius Iullus whose only historical information is that he may have existed as a Roman Consul in 489 BC in Wikipedia, then why not have Kajiwara-dono? It does no real harm...Pat Payne 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual's notability is not established and cited in the article. He seems to have little more prominence than any other individual soldier of any army. --Strothra 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia needs more historical and multicultural depth. This article should stay, and relevant WikiProjects should be notified to clean it up. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep it's not like we've got gigabites of Japanese history clogging up the big giant harddrive. He's remebered 400 years after his death, I somehow doubt that Paris Hilton will. Throw in a source, and I'll change my "vote" to Strong keep. --Eivindt@c 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the Japanese Wikipedia considers him a notable enough figure, he is notable enough for mine. Verifiable sources would be good but they can be added over time. The Google test should be used with care in relation to historical figures who existed well before the Internet. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fg2 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. "The" history books? What history books? Individuals write history books and pick and choose individuals they consider to be notable. That subjective process does not make an individual notable. Individuals must be judged by specific standards regarding their notability. For certain works that list of criteria is different than in others. Wikipedia has its own standards and they must be judged by those standards in order to gain inclusion into Wikipedia.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.P.E.

Article contains assertion of notability--"commercial success"--but there's no evidence of that notability. See WP:MUSIC for Wikipedia's criteria for bands. Chick Bowen 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Street cred" as mentioned on the article's talk page is completely unverifiable. Give evidence of their notability, per WP:MUSIC. Keppa 04:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:16, 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 Speedy deleted, though someone should really take a crack at rewriting this one in a good way. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuckton

Not only is this article almost assuredly incorrect (I've been using "fuckton" for a years before today), it seems like an attempt by a Slashdot user to claim notoriety via Wikipedia. At best, "fuckton" is a Wiktionary entry. FreelanceWizard 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, a neologism if ever there was one. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for the above reasons. -- Kicking222 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Objectivist-C 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I get tired of all the slashdot related articles. Cvene64 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Wiktionary. Like FreelanceWizard, I've been using and hearing this word for years, but it's non-notable slang. --Allen 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wictionary. 37,200 Google hits. I'm impressed. --Hyperbole 04:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it really worth TransWiking in its current state? -Objectivist-C 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose what I mean is "delete the article, but create a Wictionary entry under 'Fuckton'" --Hyperbole 05:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Childish NN. Moriori 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only been around one day, as of this writing, and there's no way the word could have gained notability yet. --Elkman - (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Elkman. --Bardak 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per all. -MrFizyx 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I might start using this evocative term, but unfortunately it's still a NN neologism. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:17, 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. No Guru 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jinbo Ujiharu

Does not meet WP:BIO "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?". Non notable retainer. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I continue to think these samurai are notable. Yes, I would argue that their contribution to the military history of feudal Japan is enduring. We have no problems with the notability of people who play Samurai on TV - like, say Kazuya Nakai - but we question the notability of actual historical samurai? It seems backwards to me. --Hyperbole 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tsk tsk, you're being elitist, Hyperbole. Nothing, nothing is of more significance than TV dramas, unless perhaps it's computer games. -- Hoary 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole Jcuk 10:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As with the others, if it's notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia (see ja:神保氏張), I fail to see why it's not notable for us. I suspect the Japanese are better equipped to judge who is and who is not notable in Japanese history than a random Wikipedian who does not even know the language. See also WP:CSB. — Haeleth Talk 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or Merge. Samurai as a group are notable but not all individual samurai are notable. This individual's notability, however, has not been fully established in the article. The individual's notability should be estbalished and cited. If kept, the article should be merged with Sengoku Period --Strothra 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep per my comment on the Kajiwara Masakage AfD, and Hyperbole. --Eivindt@c 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - No assertion of notability. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk
  • Keep real people are notable. Begin by deleting fictitious people. Fg2 01:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Not all real people are notable. --Strothra 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Good point. But, real people are more encyclopedia than fictitious people. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's not neccesarily true. Ficticious people may be, and often are, just as notable, and perhaps more notable, than most individuals. It's about the importance to society, culture, and other important aspects of humanity that people and objects are judged on their nobility. For instance, Santa Claus is a ficticious person but he is still more notable than most people. --Strothra 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BIAS comes into play when we talk about people from 500+ years ago and a foreign culture. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, a Comment - Swatjester, I see that the author, Darin Fidika asked you for an explanation on your talk page since you nom'd several articles for AfD right after that person created them. Rather than assume that these figures are NN just because you never heard of them, you might pay some respect to the author, since their contributions seem to indicate that they have an interest in this period and are adding a great amount of information to Wikipedia. In other words, talk to them about the notability instead of reflexively nominating for AfD, which might piss off a worthy contributor. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: "I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article." - Jimbo Wales[7]. Talk:Jinbo Ujiharu. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: It does not seem that Swat submitted the AfD in any improper or hasty manner. He simply put an article up for deletion which failed to meet the standards of Wikipedia. He cites his reason in his deletion vote. There's really no reason why he has to give any further explanation. --Strothra 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what "the latter" means within the article, so it's a bit odd. Also, I fully understand the disappointment that this person doesn't have the encyclocognointellectual significance of, say, anything here or here. And the article should be retitled, with macron. (Granted that WP uses the ghastly Hepburn romanization system, a lot of its articles need to be retitled.) After that, keep. -- Hoary 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) PS This person certainly existed, but unless he can be shown to be notable in some way, merge the article somewhere. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above arguments. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The "he's more notable than fictitious people" thing is nothing but a red herring. The fact is, this guy gets one hit on Google, and from a questionable site that doesn't cite its primary sources. For all we know, he could be totally fictitious himself. If he is real, he fails WP:BIO and every other notability guideline spectacularly. If you think other people discussed on Wikipedia are non-notable, nominate those articles for deletion rather than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He gets one hit because you used an unusual spelling of his name. His name is normally spelled 神保氏張 and this got 188 hits a few seconds ago. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He comes from Japan and he lived nearly half a millenia ago. You really expect him to get 40,000 unique Ghits? Jcuk 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - He gets one hit because he isn't notable. Simple. We don't cut people slack on notability guidlines because of their circumstances. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On the number of hits, see above. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Precisely why Google should not be used to establish notability but rather the article itself with full citations. --Strothra 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Google isn't being used to establish notability. The guidelines at WP:BIO are being used--see the nomination above. I am pointing out that he only gets one Google hit to further illustrate his lack of notability as well as draw attention to the giant steaming red herring in the middle of this AfD. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I take your point about lack of an effort to establish notability. However, please reread (read?) my point above about Google hits. You've spelled his name in an unusual way: spelled conventionally, it gets a lot more hits. -- Hoary 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I was replying to Strorthra there, not you. I didn't reply to your comment as I'm having trouble understanding you. I'm not "spelling his name in an unusual way." I am pasting it from the title of the article, which, unless I'm mistaken, is a standard Japanese-English transliteration using the Hepburn system. What you seem to be trying to say is that he gets more (but still very few) hits with his name spelled out in Japanese. I'm not disputing that--you won't find notable historical figures from Japan who get one unique hit for their transliterated names. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm humbled by my new awareness of how poorly I manage to express myself. Yes, I meant that he gets more hits when his name is written in Japanese script. As of a few seconds ago, 195 hits. A smallish number, to be sure, but then again he's not a character in a TV show, let alone a character in a computer game, so the blogging masses are unlikely to be interested. -- Hoary 07:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Once again, Google cannot be used here to illustrate, establish, etc nobility or lack thereof. You are talking about an individual who lived too long ago and in a different society. That does not mean that the individual is not notable to that society or culture. More than likely, notability on this individual will probably have to come from written textual references which is why my delete vote stands until that may be given. English Google is more likely to bring back nothing but contemporary pop-culture references or specific holdings at American/Brit museums and archives. --Strothra 13:39, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conor Butler

To be honest, I'm not buying the claim in the article. I really don't believe there's a sport called "Pez eating," and a google search on this fellow (including "Conor Butler" +"pez") turns up nothing that seems relevant. This looks like a vanity page to me, but I'm not 100% positive -- thus is why I'm nominating it for AFD and not just sticking a CSD A7 notice on it. FreelanceWizard 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like a joke.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - possibly a hoax; at best, a non-notable achievement. —ERcheck @ 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hyperbole 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - the comprehensive PEZ article fails to mention the sport and google hits turn up nothing on the sport - it is a hoax.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, IMO. "At age 12, Conor did not have the agility and anaerobic fitness to be winning comps"? How agile etc does one have to be to eat Pez? More suitable for the Uncyclopedia. Colonel Tom 14:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD, A7. I don't think there's a world record for eating Pez, and even if there is, the record just doesn't seem that noteworthy. --Elkman - (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Nationalparks 20:38, 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 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Martin

Hoax—or just plain nonsense? Parts are obviously cribbed from Himura Kenshin; I'm not sure if there is an actual person hidden behind that, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's vanity nonsense if you ask me, or at best a hoax. --FreelanceWizard 03:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
By the by, you might want to get Eruditology while you're at it. Given that one of the first lines of that article is "No one, except for Matthew Martin, knows exactly how the universe began," one might think it's perhaps a bit, how shall we say, "totally nuts." :) --FreelanceWizard 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Done; good catch on that one! Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism. Founder of a religion and Japanese assassin called Matthew Martin. A Google search for "Matthew Martin" eruditology comes up with the Wikipedia article and nothing else. [8]. A search for "Matthew Martin" assassin comes up with more hits but nothing confirming this see [9]. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above.Keppa 04:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. And eliminate Eruditology too. Moriori 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, nonsense. --Terence Ong 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax and nonsense per above. Next time, an article like this should provide a source or two. --Elkman - (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with Extreme Predjudice "History" is stolen wholesale from the background of the main character of "Rurouni Kenshin." In fact, I'm surprised this wasn't speedied. Pat Payne 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete. vanity, nonsense --Strothra 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax / vanity  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Startup account 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not even sure what can describe this. Speedy, except it's a hoax and ineligible M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:19, 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 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Sheffield

A teacher at a high school. Does this sound notable to you, folks? WhisperToMe 02:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. Non-notable by encyclopedic standards. —ERcheck @ 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ERcheck - but, man, does that guy look young for 70. --Hyperbole 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • He's not. Some idiot named Betty Coburn is going in and making frivolous changes [10] WhisperToMe 00:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Possible hoax as it claims that he has been nominated for an Order of Lenin which haven't been awarded since 1991.

Capitalistroadster 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone vandalized the article. Still, it shall be deleted. WhisperToMe 01:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Allen 04:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Methinks the veracity of the dates are in question. -MrFizyx 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • They are - Someone vandalized it. WhisperToMe 01:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete But the theater company might make an interesting article? Startup account 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:19, 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. No Guru 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist law

Delete. Article has changed much since first nomination, but not in a satisfactory way. Furthermore there is absolutely no discourse on anarchist law to be found anywhere (like at [11]) Intangible 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Almost every relevant google hit I found was a WP mirror, which strongly suggests original research, neologism, etc. Seems like anything said here can and should be covered in Anarchism. dbtfztalk 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anarchism is already sizeable and takes a far broader view; there's really nowhere to merge this material. Vashti 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong Delete as per vashti. as per rehpotsirhc...I didn't actually look at the external links. --Strothra 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Besides having an oxymoron for a title, this article is 100% WP:OR. None of the external links seem to have anything to do with the subject unless you take the article's rather novel interpretation of them into account. Unencyclopedic. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk
  • Delete. The term is as much a contradiction as "anarchist government". It could probably be left as a redirect to natural law, which is the term used by those few anarchists who do use the word "law". Virtually no one uses the term "anarchist law", and over 90% of the google results when searching for the term are related to Wikipedia. In some ways it's also original research of a topic that really doesn't exist. Sarge Baldy 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Some adherents of anarcho-capitalism have a profound belief in natural law. Intangible 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Impossible to have Law and Anarchy. Startup account 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete As per above, a redir to Natural Law or a disambig would be better.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 03:59, 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 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eruditology

Nonsensical fake religion, possibly connected with Matthew Martin (which is also up for deletion). Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. As stated earlier, Eruditology in relation to Matthew Martin comes up with one result - his Wikipedia article. Capitalistroadster 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.Keppa 04:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense religioncruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Moriori 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax and nonsense. A Google test comes up with no references outside Wikipedia. --Elkman - (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense, as per my note back on Matthew Martin. --FreelanceWizard 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:18, 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 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The next Michael Jordan

Delete - This article has no references/sources, is very editorially conceived, and has scant encyclopedic value. That's my vote. Downwards 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unencyclopedic generic phrase. Every context of human culture and activity has their heroes and stars, and comparing someone new to those exalted figures as "the next X" is an incredibly commonplace and mundane statement in English. There is no indication that it is a significant and distinct phrase. Please note that the author also created "Poor man's Michael Jordan", which is more of the same. Postdlf 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Keppa 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree. Bssc81 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. --Strothra 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a speedy Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was planning to AFD this myself, pure POV Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though not speedily. I should say that I do imagine a possible NPOV incarnation of the page, one in which the term is described and in which the list of players to whom it has been ascribed is fully sourced (as, for example, List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party or People speculated to have been autistic), where then the list functions not to reveal our subjective preferences but to aggregate the expressed subjective preferences of those whom we'd deem notable (e.g., Michael Wilbon). For me, though, such an article would nevertheless be unencyclopedic, consistent with Postdlf's excellent elucidation above. Joe 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete unencylcopedic per se M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:19, 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 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Project

Article is a copyright violation cut and pasted from an unsigned band's MySpace page, see [12]. Three Yahoo! hits, including Wikipedia, when searching for "The Last Project" and lead singer "Andrew Ferguson" [13]. No CDs per search on Amazon.com. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Ataricodfish 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.Keppa 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the fact that the article makes no assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom and non notable. --Strothra 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:19, 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 speedy delete at author's request. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International American Bar Associations

This "article" is a collection of a whopping two external links. Brittanica, assume the position! Appropriate Username 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • keep Keep it, but try to order the text. I think is useful. Sandonar
Wikipedia is not Google. The article subject matter is non encyclopedic. Appropriate Username 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Hi, I am the author, and a lawstudent. I am improving it now. Many large articles start out as small insignifgant ones like this one. Deleting an entry simply because it is small is rather shortsided. Why not get on Google and add more International American Bar Associations instead of spending your time arguing about deleting other people's work. Travb 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bar association and delete - if that article becomes overloaded with international american bar associations, *then* it would be appropriate for this article to fork off from it. -- Hyperbole 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A strong argument for keeping the page would be putting some actual text there. As it stands now it's just Two links that I think should be on Wikipedia Appropriate Username 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I like Hyperbole argument thanks for the idea! And I will merge it now. Appropriate Username, go harrass someone else you miserable pest. In the Soviet Union they had old women who would yell at pedestrians for walking on the grass. You remind me of those old women--annoying and worthless. Actually, you are worse, because the old babuskas didn't actively attempt to destroy anything.Travb 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is totally and shockingly out of line; it shows a complete inability to grasp what WP is about and how it works, which in turns raises serious questions about the author's ability to participate. In no way does any comment made here by AU warrant this type of response. Delete this, redirect, and have editor go read WP:AGF, WP:Civility and WP:NPA. WRT Hyperbole's suggestion, the old delete and merge doesn't actually exist, right? Eusebeus 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I added back the AfD tag that Travb inappropriately removed. Original page was an external linkfarm. Redirect to Bar association isn't necessary in my opinion because the term International American Bar Associations is a neologism and I can find no evidence that any of the groups linked (or any other ABA sub-groups) ever used the term "International American Bar Associations" to refer to themselves either individually or collectively. I also want to mirror what Eusebeus said: Travb seriously needs to sit down and read WP:AGF, WP:Civility and WP:NPA.--Isotope23 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, {{db-club}} and {{db-empty}} and don't bother redirecting, it's an unlikely search term. --Rory096(block) 18:50, 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 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tashbann Online

Was tagged prod, with reason "zero Google hits- thus, non-notable (and probably made-up)." And that's for game which is online...


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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of licensed Monopoly game boards. -- No Guru 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Monopoly Games

Page is entirely redundant. There's a formatted text list on the page Monopoly (game) and a second list exclusively to the Hasbro-licensed Monopoly-branded games at List of licensed Monopoly game boards with photographic references. --JohnDBuell 04:12, 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 noconsensustohavethisarticledeleted. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun

Relevant Policy

Just because this is a popular phrase/slogan doesnt mean it needs a article. It's been a merge/redirect candidate before and moved to various McDonalds articles, yet various authors have moved it back here. If there are any solutions, ie re-directing or transwiki it somewhere, then I won't stand in the way. NO VOTE for now --Arnzy (Talk) 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

  • After looking at User:Porge's provided link, which proved the slogan was at one stage used by "one word". However, we can't have separate pages on every single advertising slogan, so it'll be better merging all McDonalds related advertising slogans to a single page ie List of McDonalds advertising slogans. So Create and MERGE information into List of McDonalds advertising slogans. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into a relevant McDonalds article. Bige1977 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Must we have an article on every advertizing slogan, even if well known? Plopplopfizzfizzohwhatareliefitis?--Fuhghettaboutit 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL, I'd say Move someplace as there is some actual info here, but I'm not sure where, as the article name appears to be incorrect (note to admin: this is not a keep or delete). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into McDonalds.--Dakota ~ 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most Americans know this phrase better than the Pledge of Allegiance, which also has its own article. --Mosquitopsu 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Big Mac. Fetofs Hello! 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and move to Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. A noteworthy slogan; but I don't ever recall seeing it in print as a single word. Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect — Per Fetofs. — RJH 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is an extremely well-known slogan, and the article is quite encyclopedic (with history of the phrase, cultural references, etc.), so I think it should stay. Based on current voting, it looks like this could get deleted, but I personally don't think it needs to be. I might suggest moving the article to the phrase (separated by spaces and commas as opposed to one word), but I think the slogan is notable enough to remain on WP. -- Kicking222 16:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but move per Smerdis of Tlön and Kicking222. BryanG 18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per usage in pop culture. It's only a weak argument for keeping it, though. --Elkman - (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a list of advertising slogans, move it there. If not, delete.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a list of McDonald's advertizing slogans (or more generally, a list of fast food slogans or a list general of advertizing slogans) then merge' there. If not, rename this article to something like advertizing slogans of McDonald's. Q0 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No Vote: There is a Category:Advertising slogans which has slogans I feel are noteworthy enough for their own article, so I guess I've decided that there can be a single article on an advertizing slogan. However, we can't have an article for all advertizing slogans. I don't know where to draw the line between which slogans are noteworthy enough and which are not so I am going to take back my vote. Q0 11:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom--Zxcvbnm 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Big Mac. This is a terrible title. You would never search for something this long except via google. --Mmx1 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Big Mac, I'm sure the occasional person will try typing this in. --AlexWCovington (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't really see anyone trying this as a search term, and even less so also spelling it correctly. Hirudo 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known slogan, wikipedia users are mostly familiar with the use of the search feature and/or internal links. Kappa 22:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Seems somewhat well known yet does not need its own article. SorryGuy 23:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Big Mac. The phrase is of some reasonably encyclopedic cultural importance, but not as its own article. MCB 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete. Ad and clearly a joke. --Strothra 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep i'm not sure about it all being one word, but it's better than the pepsi one at least. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Big Mac, no redirect (when was this ever used as one word?), perhaps redirect to Big Mac from Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun Шизомби 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect - the concept is encyclopedic, yet I don't think the topic is notable enough. Put a prominent link to this discussion on the talk page of the redirect, strongly suggesting that it not be recreated on its own. GRBerry 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't think it should be a redirect, as it's actually not the right slogan. Am I crazy or were there tomatos in there somewhere? Keppa 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I was wrong, no tomatos. Redirect also. Keppa 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rename to have proper spacing and punctuation. It's culturally significant, and it is a well-done article. Too bad there's no good way to truncate the title. --Icarus 10:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect. San Saba 11:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable term in regards to McDonalds. Well known enough to warrant own article.--Cini 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike the Pepsi article, it has actual additional info porges 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Oh and: [14] for those who haven't seen it as a single word ;)
  • Keep. Funnily enough, I heard this reference from two different people. Apparently it was so catchy in the 1970s that some of my friends' parents still know this by heart. I think that proves its staying power and notability to me. Mike H. That's hot 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect. (Mukadderat) 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun if reliable sources can be added. If not, redirect to Big Mac without prejudice. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename or Merge I am old enough to remember this and some of the stupid jokes to reference it. The name of the article is completely inappropriate and should be changed. Could be merged with something else McDonalds related as trivia. --TrollHistorian 15:11, 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, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom harper

Non-notable. Article was prodded and prod removed. -- RHaworth 04:16, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobility device

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. It could include such things as wheelchairs, hobcarts, calipers, etc. Jcuk 10:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but turn this into a category definition. --Bardak 20:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and turn into a disambituation page. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful if expanded  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and categorize; otherwise it's just a dicdef. MCB 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. --Strothra 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep potential for expansion. Mukadderat 17:33, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multipurpose, Repurposing and Repurpose

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move/merge to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:38, 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 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Wrestling Circuit

Fails WP:WEB. 237 Google hits, no alexa data. Bige1977 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 23:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mukadderat 17:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Firmin

Delete vanity San Saba 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.P.P

It seems incredibly like a vanity club page to me. I put a speedy (CSD A7) notice on the page, which was then promptly deleted by an anonymous user, so I'm tossing it onto AFD. Google provides no relevant hits. FreelanceWizard 04:58, 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 Deleted by TKE.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Give Me Novacaine

Talk page useless, the talk in the page is not involved with Give Me Novacaine. Weirdy Ain't have no user talk page you nitwit 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Question Is there a reason to not just remove the comment, rather go to the trouble of deleting the page? -Objectivist-C 05:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Awnser: Couldn't be bothered. Weirdy 05:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Just looking at the talk page horrifies me. 220.233.30.154 05:28, 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, per reasons given in debate. SushiGeek 08:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overpronator

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Already exists at Wiktionary as pronate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Overpronation is a common problem that leads to injuries among many runners--a worthy topic. Currently "Pronation" redirects to Anatomical terms of motion. There is also an article on Sports injuries. Neither of these does a good job of covering overpronation/underpronation in running. Given the lack of content here, I suggest we delete and transwiwki the definition until we can find a better place for this to go. -MrFizyx 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect into any article which is even remotely on topic and collect all "pronation/overpronation" pieceds there. The topic has potential for expansion. No reason to bury it in wiktionary. Mukadderat 17:38, 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 keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valley View Middle School

Originally, I popped a proposed deletion notice on this article because it didn't even attempt to assert how this middle school is at all notable compared to any other middle school. I ran a google search on the school and didn't find anything particularly impressive about it besides the fact that it's a school. Thinking that I may have just been crazy in remembering that schools usually need to be particularly notable to make it into Wikipedia, and wondering if it was proper that my proposed deletion was shot down, I ran a search of past deletions and found that such articles usually end up having to go to AFD for a decision to be made. So, here we are, with this school article nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's barely a stub and not of encyclopedic notoriety. FreelanceWizard 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a school, ergo it's notable. Keep. --Gene_poole 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with merging the article into Snohomish School District. How many schools in the US do you think are named "Valley View Middle School"? Dozens at least, I would guess, as it's a rather generic name. Obviously this naming convention cannot be kept if we are to allow any grade school to have its own Wikipedia article. As it stands, the article contains nothing to suggest that this school is any different from any other one. Rishodi 07:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite a lot. Let's see, using Google we have at least: Edina, Minnesota ([16]), Simi Valley, California ([17]), Pleasant Hill, California ([18]), Bloomington, Minnesota ([19]), Valley View, Ohio ([20]) and El Paso, Texas ([21]). That list is not exhaustive. The problem over naming is discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools). I agree that if kept as is, we will need to move this to Valley View Middle School (Snohomish, Washington) and leave a disambig here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - schools, providing that they are accredited, are an integral part of their community, as everybody goes to one (by law), and should be kept.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: it does not really affect the argument, but I would say "almost everyone". Home schoolers, unschoolers and the medically exempt don't go to school. Also, schooling is not required in some parts of the world. :-) -- Kjkolb 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep school=notable Jcuk 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. middle school < notable. Eusebeus 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sjakalle, and per the loose consensus reached at WP:SCH. Proto||type 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:SCH. Articles that say nothing are useless; give the poor thing some context. — Haeleth Talk 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Current content is redundant with Snohomish School District page. This adds nothing new. — RJH 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sjakalle.--Isotope23 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 17:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. BryanG 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What harm does it do? Scranchuse 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. Expansion nessasary. SorryGuy 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please these are notable really Yuckfoo 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Valley View Middle School (Snohomish), The days of Wikipedia deleting articles on individual schools is over, but it would probably be best to disambiguate considering all the other Valley View Middle Schools out there. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand I agree with Sjakkalle. I believe it is possible to acquire much information on this school.Generalnonsensecomic 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 13:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as most schools are notable. bbx 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not even meet the little in WP:SCHOOL which was not able to get a consensus. Vegaswikian 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Expand Startup account 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Irvington high school of fremont, california isn't notable either. But it's still here. I'll site WikiProject:Schools to prevent personal attacks ;) M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:21, 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 keep - Turnstep 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paid in capital

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, there seems to be some room for expansion, such as why this is done and its advantages and disadvantages. -- Kjkolb 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, business terms such as this tend to have a lot of background. Wikify and refer to Business and Economics. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; significant concept in finance and capitalization. I gave it an appropriate stub tag. MCB 04:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Seems more of a dictionary term. Startup account 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --MaNeMeBasat 13:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rangers Media - A Glasgow Rangers Fansite

DELETE, non-notable San Saba 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete is only 4 months old, and just a bunch of random people with no officiall status in the club.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN website ::Supergolden:: 09:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Mukadderat 17:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Car

Non notable 'con artist' and/or hacker according to Google. Speculative. contributing editor removed prod. Delete. Rockpocket 05:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • im not sure what i am doing but I do know that john car(as un-real as he may seem to you)is for a fact real,the messenger hackings in 2004 were in a small red deer paper,along with the suspected drug deals. ok whats that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinoguy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I've explained on your talk page. Please sign your comments so other editors can attribute your comments. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources or references for claims of behaviour. Speculation as to current mental and physical condition.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless improved to meet WP:V with appropriate citations for claims. Rishodi 07:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless significant references are provided. Grafikm_fr 08:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete needs references for claims WP:V.--blue520 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO if you believe he is a real person... otherwise as just an unimportant series of events.--Isotope23 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:31, 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 pages as copyvio, with no redirect per Mukdderat's point. Future non-copyvio versions are encouraged and should not have this AFD held against them. Turnstep 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Security Disability Insurance

Afd - dupe of Social_security_disability_insurance Rmcii 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Copyvio and possible spamvertisement Before someone suggests being bold and doing a simple redirect, both Social Security Disability Insurance and Social_security_disability_insurance are copyvios from an About.com Q&A session with Don Keck of Allsup.com, which coincidentally is the first external link in the article. By content, the articles are un-encyclopedic; a form of FAQ/How To guide rather than a neutral topical reference article. Suggest deleting both and redirecting to Social Security (United States). Thatcher131 06:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as copyvio. Unless someone posts a substantially altered article in the next 5 days that isn't a cut & paste job...--Isotope23 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Social Security (United States). MCB 04:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Copyvio --Strothra 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Social Security (United States), per Thatcher131 and MCB; allow the article to be recreated if/when done so without copyrighted information. -AED 03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no redirect: the suggested targed says not a single word on the topic, so, in fact the redirect will be confusing. What is more, the (deleted) article tries to draw a distinction. Mukadderat 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - of no interest outside the USA, and not much inside. - Runcorn 22:00, 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 speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midx

Not notable, see WP:WEB. Rishodi 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom Tangotango 08:28, 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 delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Tango

Self promoting not notable tango group from Poland; no recorded album. Mariano(t/c) 06:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tangotango 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom, as A7 applies to whole bands too. Will tag soon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:39, 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. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heidi Bray

non notable teacher. WP:BIO, professor test, WP:NOT etc ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence of notability is presented --Icarus 06:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In agreement with above users. This article was eligible for speedy delete. Rishodi 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 08:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable biography. She is a schoolteacher with no other indication of notability. Db-bio tag added to article.Capitalistroadster 10:25, 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 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Peacocks

This sort of page surely does not belong in Wikipedia. The Peacocks is a completely generic and run of the mill shopping centre. If anyone is really interested they can follow links to local websites from the Woking page Al17 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep since The Peacocks appears to be one of the most notable facilities in Woking. Tangotango 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not remotely notable! It's a bog standard shopping mall and, as I said, is already linked to from the Woking page. Al17 08:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wokingcruft. Eusebeus 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be anything that makes this mall notable Hirudo 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Mall articles are nothing new on Wikipedia, and the page has been there for nearly a year already, being edited significantly along the way. Why nominate for deletion now? --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep can sort of see usefulness  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Meaningful on a regional level. Startup account 23:36, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta Sigma Phi

Non-notable sorority. (Founding date would be useful in determining notability, but is obviously false in the article) Tangotango 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Please go to the Zeta Sigma Phi Website to determine the founding date (which you say is obviously false). You can also Contact the University of Southern California's Office of Greek Life to discuss the founding of this sorority and the subsequent Multicultural Greek Council.

Please do you're research before you go tagging articles. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Sorority with no national presence. IMO, founding date is irrelevent because it falls below my threshold for organiations or clubs since it is comparable to a local chapter of a national sorority.--Isotope23 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The USC Chapter of Zeta Sigma Phi is the first chpater of the soon to be expanded organization. The sorority does have a national board. IMO you people should get a life or at least do some research. This sorority is very prominent on USC's campus, has been featured on MTV's "Sorority Life" and is in the process of expanding to other schools in the Southern California area. What is "a threshold for an organization or club?" An organization or club does not have to be a national organization to be a club. It is not a non entity at USC. It is the trademarked organization holding the name Zeta Sigma Phi. Again I question as to why the other non trademarked Zeta group's page was not deleted. I also question why two grown men care? Are you paying something to keep this page around on the interent? NO! Get a life outside of wikipedia and stop attacking pages that may be relevant to a group of people that doesn't include you're selves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.89.11 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If your argument is that this will someday be an important sorority in the future, thus this article should be kept now, I direct you to WP:NOT's crystal ball clause (and while you're at it you could try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). The only thing that matters is the relevance of Zeta Sigma Phi today. If it becomes a national sorority at some point in the future, then it would be wholly appropriate to add the national organization (though not individual chapters) at that time. As far as I'm concerned, a sorority (or fraternity... or any club for that matter) that is simply a local organization at one college does not have the appropriate level of relevance to merit an article on wikipedia unless there are some extinuating circumstances. You should also try making logical arguments as to the relevance of this organization. Telling people to "Get a life outside of wikipedia and stop attacking pages that may be relevant to a group of people that doesn't include you're selves" (sic) is strangely enough not persuading me to change my opinion.--Isotope23 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To will- I didn't intend on deleting the "articles for deletion" section. Why aren't you in school anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This article should be deleted. Zeta Sigma Phi was founded at NYU years before this sorority was founded by stealing trademarked letters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stacylynnaustin (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

to Isotope23- I don't believe in changing peoples minds. You will believe in what you will want to believe. Very few people can be convinced otherwise. The fact that you don't have anything better to do outside this website is a sidenote. Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority, but It has only one chapter. The possibiliy of keeping the organization local to USC has been discussed, however the national board has never been dismantled. The national board deals with things outside the scope of the happenings of the group and is its own seperate entity. Again I urge you to do some research. You're whole argument is that Zeta is not a national sorority but it is which shows you are ignorant to the argument and therefore should not be commenting on it. You are refering to the lack of national presense as far as numbers of organizations across the country. What in you're esteemed opinion, constitutes the number of organizations a group must have before it deserves its bit of cyberspace? 15, 20? This is a usless argument. to Stacylynnaustin- Copyright you're Letters. If you're organizations letters were copyrighted, there wouldn't be another Zeta Sigma Phi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Something more than 1 chapter with 15-20 members. based on the criteria you want applied to your soriority pretty much any club on any college campus with over 10 members deserves a wikipedia article as long as they call themselves "national" and I simply disagree. Generally speaking, local chapters of national organizations get deleted. Saying that somehow a "national sorority" with one chapter is different than the local chapter of a national sorority is semantics. You can call yourself a "national sorority", but until you have an actual presence to back that up, you are "national" in name only. Feel free to disagree with me, but if you "don't believe in changing peoples minds" then it is sort of pointless to do so. On a side note, Stacylynnaustin's group did try to trademark their letters. I found that out when I did a little research before I opined deletion.--Isotope23 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority. It has a national board with Almni and non alumni members completly seperate from the college group. I'm not just calling it a national sorority, it has an actual National board, something i'm guessing you're "research" didn't turn up. I don't see why National groups with limited individual chapters don't deserve a wikipedia page. You aren't paying for the service, so I don't see why you would be against it personally. . its not attacking anyone and its only non notable to you because you are a non sorority member in detroit. Further Stacylynnaustin's group didn't try hard enough to trademark the letters. They weren't trademarked for the almost 10 years before the USC group came into existance, leading our founders to believe they were a local non expanding chapter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Tell you what- I've confered with some of my sisters and we have decided wikipedia is not a reliable enough source to argue over. It is not a encyclopedia you can quote as made obvious by that fact that a bunch of yahoo's with no connection or real knowledge of the group can edit the groups information- thus making it untrue information. I am removing the entry. Please do not repost it to continue you're discussion.

Tamarastern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.67.141 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, worthless crap. incog 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tamarastern/128.125.67.141, Wikipedia would be pretty reliable if people would actually follow the rules of citing sources and writing from a neutral point of view. Some articles have achieved this, so it's not entirely impossible for Wikipedia to be a reliable encyclopedic (i.e., secondary/tertiary) source. Also, you should bear in mind that it's generally not recommended that you write about yourself, or a group you are involved in, unless you can write from said neural point of view. And just because people who are not involved with a group can edit an article does not necessarily mean it will become inaccurate, or untrue - more often the problem is people inserting their own speculations and biases into the articles. Please note that you cannot delete this article as you are not the only author, and the article has a number of other edits. If you do want to have it deleted, please vote delete in this AfD discussion. Thank you. -- Tangotango 08:59, 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 21:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MovieMistakes

Reasons? well there are a bunch: Advertisement, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, and it is also very poorly written. Delete Geedubber 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: very spammy, no notability established. --Hetar 09:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above (ironically, for an article about MovieMistakes the page itself has more mistakes than any other I've seen on Wikipedia.) 172.128.155.222 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and write out spam-ish writing. Sufficient Alexa ranking. JHMM13 (T | C) 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. - Runcorn 22:01, 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 keep. SushiGeek 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Knowles

Tagged as an A7 candidate, but being a goalkeeper for the League 1 team Gillingham does seem to be an assertion of notability. Players in the Premier League are easy keepers, but I am not sure about players further down in the league system. I think this deserves discussion so I'm bringing it here and abstaining from voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I say Keep. Although he is currently out on loan to an Isthmian League club, there are other players at that level who have their own entry, also he may yet play for the Gills ChrisTheDude 08:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The organization he's a part of seems to be highly notable within countries that regularly follow English football (soccer :-P), and he's sufficiently notable to merit a short article about him. However, taking a page from the Farscape: Dominar Bishan AfD, an article "List of Gillingham players" or some such, with a short bio for each and a link to the section on Danny Knowles would be a very good solution here.Captainktainer 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep As the author of the article (or rather stub) I say keep, however I must admit, the information in the stub is pretty much all the information there is available on him at present. I think that the information on Danny Knowles should be kept, whether it requires its own section or whether we should follow Captainkrainer's solution is up to you. GillsMan 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Expand. Startup account 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Players in the Premier League are one thing, but below that are rarely notable. This should be a precedent for deleting some others. - Runcorn 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been announced today that he's not being kept on for next season. As I think it's extremely unlikely that he will go to another League club, I think the page can probably be deleted ChrisTheDude 11:58, 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 Speedy. Tawker 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Www.HiddenCameras.TV

Delete, advert, should likly be speedied. San Saba 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Aritcle fails to assert or show notability - WP:CORP (or WP:WEB).--blue520 09:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - advert. -- RHaworth 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn site spam. Don't speedy; spam is not a CSD. --Rory096(block) 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No way is this advertisement, this SHOULD stay. This is one of the largest shops in New York City and is pretty much a landmark. Its popularity exceeds that of X-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.59.140 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete spam. incog 02:45, 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 Moved to RfD by B.B. --blue520 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raimon pannikar

False spelling B.B. 08:51, 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. — Apr. 26, '06 [04:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Fives (drinking game)

Uh, this is encyclopedic because? Take it down, and pass it around -- I mean, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • 99 bottles of beer on the... erm I mean Delete. Grafikm_fr 09:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, no reliable source. Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and drive safely. PJM 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my drunkening. Pat Payne 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad faith nom. The page has been around six months; a previous wikify notice was followed up on two weeks ago, no reason to delete. The page is listed on drinking games and has been on {{Drinking games}} from the start. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable and unverifiable drinking game. MCB 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn --Strothra 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Drinking games are notable - more so than schools. Cedars 13:58, 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 merge with Dulwich College. SushiGeek 08:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dulwich College Boat Club

  • Merge into Dulwich College, this is a non-notable school rowing club.
  • agreed Merge this with the school's article 217.196.245.2 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the school's article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Runcorn 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Merge, as DCBC has produced several notable Oarsmen (eg Kieran West), and won several notable competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (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 - WP is not a crystal ball. Tawker 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pen Wars

Apart from looking like a film made up in school one day this is pretty much all crystal ball stuff:

it was presumed to be done in June 2006, but this was to positive. It is re-calculated to be done in late 2006. It is estimated to be 3 hours when it is done, it is being considered to be cut into three movies instead of one, with approximately one hour each. It is also likely to be more heavily clipped then before,

I'm consequently nominating it for deletion; it can come back when it actually exists and meets notability criteria. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 09:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom --blue520 11:43, 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 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of significant archaeological discoveries

Inherently POV: who says they are "significant"? Unsourced. Looks like Original research. If a legitimate list does have some status in academia then we need an article under that precise name - but I don't know what that would be, unless a journal has published some market research showing what academics in the field believe to be the top advances. Mais oui! 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Point of information I note that the article was only recently Moved from List of famous archaeological discoveries - which says a lot. This is really a type of "celebrity"-spotting article, of no encycloaedic value. It has been hanging around the Wikipedia ether since January 2003, and yet it has gained no actual substance or weight since then, only unsourced additions to the list. I spotted this because its related category is up for deletion at CFD:
--Mais oui! 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as open ended listcruft ::Supergolden:: 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I contributed to this list in the past. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft, per nom: significant by whose definition? Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Subjective creation, of no value to researchers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion If the content of the article has any merit, in that the sites listed contributed to the development of archaeology, then referencing these sites from History of archaeology in context would be more useful (and delete this list article) - Viv Hamilton 13:57, 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 Speedy deleted by Curps due to mass vandalism by sockpuppet accounts. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Strelchik

Previously kept no consensus, but discussion on WP:AN/I indicates substantial sockpuppetry in the VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) mould. The subject is a failed political candidate whose only real claim to notability appears to be as a "founder member" of Free the Children, but this membership was not significant enought to be mentioned in the article for the group itself and there is no indication of how many such there are (and indeed no apparent citation for the claim). For the record I wanted to nominate this myself anyway but was put off by the recent second nom; had I realised at the time that it was a sockfest I'd have done so.

Relisting, then, for a (hopefully) clean debate. Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Which turns out to be a forlorn hope, since the tag has already been removed from the article by one user and two sockpuppets, and this AfD blanked several times. Just zis Guy you know? 11:01, 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 merge (already done) and delete, despite the fact that this is indeed a funny article title.

[edit] List of U.S. state muffins

Merged into List of U.S. state foods --CapitalR 10:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete obviously. Eusebeus 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested. Grafikm_fr 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge No requirement for a separate article. Every state in America has a muffin? Well I never...  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope only the ones listed as far as I can tell.--Isotope23 16:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the epitome of listcruft. IMO, a better merge/redirect option if that is the consensus would be Muffin as this info is already there (minus Wisconsin's) & so few states have actually reached the level of boredom where they took the time to declare a state muffin.--Isotope23 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No vote yet. I have not looked at the article. I am going to make my decision based on whether the article has reasonably good source citations for a reasonably high proportion of the state muffins. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article. Re-create an entry for the sole state muffin for which a good verifiable source is given, Massachusetts in List of U.S. state foods.(Not needed, already there). Optionally, re-create an entry for the other state muffin for which a source is given Wisconsin, but preferably try to find a better source than a WIsconsin promotional website that does not cite its sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC) P. P. S. Yeah, Wisconsin is iffy. Several not-very-WP:RS websites do mention "The 1988-89 fourth grade class of Washington School in Merrill, Wisconsin, proposed the Cranberry Muffin be named Wisconsin’s state muffin"[22], but the (tendentious) website freerepublic.com has an article that says "What about the group of fourth-graders from Merrill who, in the late 1980s, tried to get the cranberry muffin designated the official state muffin? The Legislature turned them down, even threatening to introduce competing legislation to use the official muffin title on the meadow muffin, which, for those of you not familiar with agricultural terminology, does not pop from the oven but rather drops from the hindquarters of a cow."[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562726/posts] I don't know if that's accurate, either, but it does show that it is premature to put "the cranberry muffin is the state muffin of Wisconsin" into Wikipedia as an encyclopedic fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Reasonably comprehensive-looking list at official state website has flower, bird, tree, fish, dance, rock AND mineral, animal AND wildlife animal AND domesticated animal... no muffin. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this a hoax or do US States have official muffins?!?  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I already merged the article, so this should be deleted. Some states actually do have official state muffins for real, this wasn't a hoax. They also have Official state donuts. --CapitalR 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD G4 as recreation [23]. Шизомби 14:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not speedy-able. The previous revisions were not the same as this current version. Pepsidrinka 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of U.S. state foods as it appears the merge is already complete. Pepsidrinka 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete Merge if there is a state muffin, delete if not M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with my personal thanks to CapitalR for creating an article with such a hilarious title. Made my day. --phh (t/c) 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Evidently, most states don't have their own muffins. - Runcorn 22:05, 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 Keep. Tawker 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water balloon

Wikipedia is not a howto guide and this topic is too small to have it's own entry. The reference on Balloon should be enough. Nick Catalano contrib talk 10:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The how-to guide type text was a copyvio and removed. This seems perfectly fine as a reasonably sized stub. — TheKMantalk 10:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    I went ahead and added a few references. Also note that this article includes a description of a water bomb that is not a balloon, and methods of launching them that would be borderline irrelevant if merged into Balloon. — TheKMantalk 18:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable item, but should be properly referenced. PJM 11:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if properly referenced. -- Grafikm_fr 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge it with Balloon. Seems like the best compromise to me. Al17 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not WP:V referenced.--Isotope23 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing here which is not obvious from the two words "water" and "balloon". Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't think this article causes any damage. David | Talk 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very notable item, and this article has the potential to expand massively. Since the how to guide was removed this is a perfectly legitimate article. Tobyk777 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, at its current version. --Bardak 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, water balloons are a distinct and notable class of balloons. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Water balloons are extremely notable and a common childhood activity. Tokakeke 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No real reason to delete. E. Sn0 =31337= 08:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, a common childhood activity. --MaNeMeBasat 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very notable recreational item amongst children and adults alike.--Cini 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's hard to figure how this article could be below the "Delete" threshold when 50% of the items I bring up with the random-article link are not. Shyland 04:32, 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 - advert. Tawker 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Development

Article on a web development company, which doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria, and the article reads like an advertisement. Was tagged to speedy delete, but I don't feel it meets CSD. Doesn't seem much point {{prod}}ing since there are frequent edits by the original creator. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising and violation of WP:AUTO Matt Eason 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete worthless --mboverload 19:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Mukadderat 17:51, 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 merge. SushiGeek 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PURE:FM

Tagged as speedy as advertising, but may have merit so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • merge and redirect to the home student body, as we usually do with student radio stations. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above; Heavily clean up as the current page is terrible vanity/advertising. The article deserves to exist (at least, as part of a larger article), but in its current state, you might as well just blank the page and start from scratch. -- Kicking222 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge unless someone coughs up a callsign or a decent case for notability. Rewrite either way. Haikupoet 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to see the entry for Pure:FM kept in Wikipedia but edited to bring it in-line with the Wikipedia rules; it would be a shame to lose this web presence, but I can understand the reasons behind deletion. Best regards - Alex H (UPSU.net webteam).
    • If you're concerned about keeping the page then what I would suggest is finding out if there are either any notable alumni or an FCC license. If it's a part 15 campus station, it almost certainly isn't going to be notable enough for Wikipedia -- the exception would be something like WTBU at Boston University, which was Howard Stern's first radio gig. On the other hand, the general consensus has been to keep licensed stations even if they're in relatively small markets, so if you have a callsign you stand a much better chance. Haikupoet 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thankyou for that information Haikupoet. As I'm relatively new to this (but would consider it to be a shame if Pure:FM lost their entry at Wikipedia if it was at all avoidable), are there any other ways we could go about securing it's place? As an aside, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but the station is a not-for-profit entity - the only site advert (at the time of writing at least) only makes a small contribution towards the station's overall maintenance costs - and as such stands to gain little or nothing in terms of revenue. Best regards - Alex H (UPSU.net webteam).
  • Re-write: no objection to having an article, but not this one. - Runcorn 22:08, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

The person who emailed info-en informing us of the CopyVio has asked for the page to be put up for deletion also. They probably don't want to keep checking the article to protect their copyright. This is a comment, and not a vote - I'm simply going thru the deletion nomination procedures for them. Jeandré 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, clean out the history and make into a stub-sized article about a notable college. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
History now shiny and pristine. Interestingly, I found a previous deleted version and a long history. It's a bit of a puzzle, but it's also hard to work out at what point the copyvio crept in so let's work frmo what we have to be on the safe side. Just zis Guy you know? 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually worked for the store that acted as their bookstore for a few years, so I might be able to track some information down. I'll put it on the to-do list. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and check accreditation status accredited vocational college. This is a job for {sofixit}. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ardenn 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment late to the party, but I did some fairly big expansions and added some infobox information. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this incarnation. Fg2 01:50, 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. DS 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Way too early for this page to exist. You can't compare a book with a film that hasn't even entered pre-production yet, and probably won't for at least another year. Maelwys 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The subject would not require its own article, anyway. PJM 11:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Matt Eason 12:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as crystallballism and as derivative cruft even if it were not speculative.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, waaaaaaaaaay too early, the fifth movie is being made, the sixth one is a long ways off. Crystalballery. Grandmasterka 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this article has to exist at all, it should come into being after the film has been distributed.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Someone has too much time on their hands. --Dunstan 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not only too early, but if the others are anything to go by the contents is pretty much the entire book. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is likely fancruft. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 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. DS 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramyk

It seem to be a trademared name of some sort. Lingered around in Wikipedia for too long. Dangherous 11:47, 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. SushiGeek 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiers (video games)

In this unsourced article, it seems as though a common term (tier) is borrowed to create a subject. As it stands, it violates WP:NOR. PJM 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to a merge into Top tier (fighting games), as long as that article is properly sourced. PJM 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Top tier (fighting games) should also be deleted as unsourced WP:NOR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent original research. And it's not always tiers, either. This is just game fans looking for more and differnt ways to say the same thing; much better to go out and find something different to write about. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Just zis Guy<* /span> you know?. Hirudo 22:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is a common term and concept in many message boards across the internet regarding fighting games. Deserves its own article. Silverleaftree 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • in many message boards across the internet: This is why I've had so much trouble finding a "source" to make this verified - it's not like anyone would publish transcripts of message boards, and since all the major ones (GameFAQs) purge often, no links would be stable. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless substantially verified (message boards, indeed...aren't there print publications about video games, or don't video game players read (printed material)). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Libraries rarely bother to collect video game publications. The fact that it exists doesn't mean it's easy to get to without buying it oneself. -- stillnotelf is invisible 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete . verifiability problem. Mukadderat 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to the closing admin - please userfy this to User:Stillnotelf/Tiers (video games) if it gets deleted; that way we can save the history if I ever find sources for it. Thanks. -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Runcorn 22:09, 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 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin H. Freedman

User:Martha Ramsey added the AfD tag to the article saying it's a well known hoax. I'm subst:ing and finishing the nomination to make sure. I have no comment as I don't feel like web searching. Optichan 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, first off it is a copyvio of the opening here: [24]. I've tagged it as such. The second problem here is verifiability based on reliable sources. The book referenced exists [25], but whether or not is was actually authored by "Benjamin H. Freedman" is subject to debate. Basically the "Benjamin H. Freedman" story is printed and reprinted by the usual anti-Zionist crowd: Jew Watch, National Vanguard, and a bunch of other groups watching out for the Illuminati boogyman. His story is basically used as "proof" of the one thing these groups desperately want to believe: that Jesus of Nazareth was not of Jewish origin. None of these sources comes even close to WP:RS and all basically just reprint the text of his attributed book... no verifiable biographical information. But just for the sake of argument lets pretend someone can prove Mr. Freedman did exist. He still doesn't meet WP:BIO as an author. No evidence his book ever exceeded readership of 5000. Pretty clear cut delete to me.--Isotope23 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This AFD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached; please add new discussion below this notice. Proto||type 11:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, theres a lot of info on google, ala "A Jewish Defector Warns America", but nothing to tell weather a real person ever existed, or if he did, where reality and myth separate. Not varifiable - nothing atm more than propoganda. San Saba 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, verifiability. Mukadderat 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless something more substantial is revealed. Startup account 23:45, 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. SushiGeek 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Mazmanian

Appears to be a vanity page, mainly on the supposition that association with famous people is enough to have your own article. I don't think he passes Wikipedia:Notability (people), unless being Audrey Tautou's unconfirmed fiancee counts. Anyway, I'm somewhat on the fence, but wanted to see what others think. Girolamo Savonarola 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The article tries to assert notability, but I don't think there's enough notability to go around. -- Kicking222 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have reluctantly changed my vote to "Delete". Sorry. Doomguard 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's been here since 2004; there ought to be a statute of limitations on AFD noms. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I fail to see how the one has anything to do with the other. Girolamo Savonarola 09:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ironically it seems he would rather it was deleted! but i say it should stay. notable for sure. Delete i am afraid i must change my vote to delete. i must concede that at this time he is non-notable as per wiki policy. Publisher dude 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after reading Doomguards' comment, I would say that this is a borderline case, but it has enough notability. The amount of time the article has existed should not matter. Lapinmies 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Delete, the list of magazines seems to be dubious, other claims are not significant enough for a keep. Now it looks like Mazmanian just associates with famous people. Lapinmies 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Why get rid of a page that is so true?gretas dude
    • First edit of User:24.205.42.27. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough notability to keep the article. Idaho spud 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's 12th edit. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's Mazmanian's own thoughts on the matter. While his request for deletion is itself not sufficient, I believe that most of the reasons he mentions are consistent with my point. source Girolamo Savonarola 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
THEY'RE TRYING to KILL ME...
At last! I just got an e-mail from my buddy John Couse (aka "Doom Guard") who tells me that Wikipedia's "Lance Mazmanian" Page has been nominated for deletion. John's apparently adamant that the page remain, being a big fan of Dave Hargrave, and Arduin, and all. Myself, I'm happy to see the page burn. As a few of you well know, I've never liked that Wikipedia entry. It was started a long time ago by some well-meaning chap, but was so preposterous upon origination that it was frankly embarrassing (like some other similar bullshit that's occurred elsewhere (IMDb) by the hands of individuals with benevolent if completely unwelcome intent). Since the page appeared, I've had a couple of friends go in and tweak it to bare bones on occasion, because I was originally told the entry would not survive a deletion request. But even in a minimal format, the Wikipedia "Mazmanian" write-up is still premature and silly. Why? Well, while I'm indeed sitting in a pocket-universe of people who are definitely kicking-ass and taking names, I myself am in more of a "ramping-up" mode...like 20-million other boys and girls. So, while I appreciate the interview requests and other such fabulous stuff, it's all rubbish right now...until such time that it isn't. Besides, the people who read this so-called "blog" and visit my website number in four-digits a week... This is more than enough communication for the time being, and better yet, it's information that originates with and from the source. So please, Wikipedia, by all means delete the bastard! But do come and talk to me in a year or so...L.
  • i must apologize for what i have said here as i have been speaking out of turn. i will refrain from making further foolish comments and i will agree to agree with your comments Girolamo Savonarola that he is non-notable at this time. i have not been wise to speak out of turn as i have and you are correct that he asserts his own non-notability and i must respect that. apologies to everyone for any trouble. Publisher dude 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has been featured in more than four publications--so why is the nom so certain he isn't notable‽ Apparently is among the elite of the fine arts and someone took the time to write an article on him in the IMDB. Nom, stop wasting our time!--Primetime 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not vanity... if he's an award-winning poet, I'd say we could keep this, though I'd like to see a source on that. Mangojuice 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if he really is an award-winning poet like the article states. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "award-winning" modifier was added by User:Publisher dude on April 16th. A look at the history also shows that this modifer was once placed before the photographer description, while only listing him as a published poet. Publisher dude, can we have a source? Girolamo Savonarola 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment i have embarrassed myself by being too passionate about all this and i must disengage from this process with apologies to anyone i may have offended, including Girolamo Savonarola. Publisher dude 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the source is apparently IMDB: [26]. I now say delete as the only claim to notability is unreliable. Mangojuice 02:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Award or not the subject is notable . 69.230.173.152 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, an anonymous vote from an IP with no edit history. Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - four poems published? My grandmother had four poems published! He paid somebody to teach him some stuff? I paid people to teach me some stuff! He worked crews on a couple of movies and was a bit actor in a couple more? We're going to have to make articles on half of L.A.! No offence, but I've seen MySpace pages with more heft. - DavidWBrooks 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey! You're a newspaper reporter just like the other David Brooks and you have his sense of humor, too! He's god to me (watch him every Friday on The Newshour.)--Primetime 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Certainly not notable. Wikipedia is not the LA phonebook. beekman 12:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment can we get a formal policy to that effect? - Runcorn 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently NN. Startup account 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Account created on April 25.--Primetime 20:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. - Runcorn 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DavidWBrooks. -- No Guru 20:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual LRC

Unremarkable webpage with an alexa ranking over 1,000,000. Prod removed by author. Delete. Grandmasterka 12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Alexa ranking doesn't tell the whole story. The VLRC is a unique metasearch engine in that it only indexes information pages recommended by teachers, librarians and library and educational consortia world-wide. As such, it represents the collective wisdom of the educational/library community. The purpose of this one-of=a-kind search engine is to help serve as a guide to students for valid information for school research projects. You may deem it "unremarkable", I see it as a needed resource. - Dr. Michael Bell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.163.196 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete May become notable enough at some point in the future, but right now it's just yet another search engine. Hirudo 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. nn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 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 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Games featuring London

listcruft Hirudo 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Sure, there have been a lot of video games to take place (fully or partially) in London, so if this were to survive, it could be easily expanded. But this is listcruft, pure and simple. If this article exists, why not have a list of games featuring NYC, or Miami, or Tokyo, or every other major city in the world? -- Kicking222 16:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't see how this list would ever be useful. BryanG 18:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic list, cruft, sets a bad precedent for other UE lists as Kicking222 said. It could certainly be expanded, but for what purpose? (Full disclosure: I prodded this article before it was deferred to afd.) --Icarus 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic list allowing users to understand how London is represented in popular culture, a bit like List_of_books_set_in_New_York_City, but shorter. Kappa 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Presumably, books set in NYC (or any other specific city/location) have some plot elements that make the setting relevent to the book (otherwise, the specific city would likely not be named in many cases). If someone has a good faith argument against this premise, they're free to prod or afd that article (as opposed to your WP:POINT-violating nomination). I'm not a gaming expert, but at least from what I've seen, the city it's set in is more of a backdrop than an integral part of whatever level of story exists in the game. --Icarus 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep could be useful to some.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Come off it Kappa. London is used as background for a few chase scenes. It means nothing and if it did I can't see gamers writing about it here. Bhoeble 15:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Getaway's detailed depiction of London was a major selling point and the subject of large amounts of media coverage. Kappa 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then that should be included in The Getaway's article. That doesn't support the existence of this article. --Icarus 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • It refused the suggestion that "London is used as background for a few chase scenes", which is given as justification for deletion. Please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 10:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Just because the realistic depiction was used as a marketing point does not mean that it's ultimately anything more than a very well-done backdrop. I haven't played the game, so I don't know if the setting has any practical relevance to any plot the game may have, but its use in marketing does not refute the claim that it's ultimately a backdrop. Only evidence of relevance to/corrolation with plot would refute that claim. --Icarus 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete can't see any reason this should be in WP or any other encyclopedia San Saba 10:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete can't see any reason why this wasn't just quietly prodded away. Eusebeus 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, inappropriately deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa- this should have died quietly. (also per San Saba). Kuzaar 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and would create an unhealthy precedent.--Cini 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really relevant to one game, maybe, but that's it. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic entry. Johntex\talk 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Startup account 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely arbitrary list.--Isotope23 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; pointless - Runcorn 22:12, 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. Tawker 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Green Day songs

listcruft; their most important songs have their own article anyway Hirudo 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Track lists should go on the individual album pages, and unreleased tracks can be mentioned on the Green Day page, or given their own page if there's enough. No need for one giant list. Fightindaman 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:40, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses

wikipedia is not the yellow pages Hirudo 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yikes, where to start? Listcruft, Masscruft, a bunch of links alone, and pretty farkin' non-notable. RGTraynor 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and pretty much every sub-article linked there could have it's own AfD. I didn't check every single one, but there are alot that fall below WP:CORP from the looks of it.--Isotope23 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is a reference work, and things like this aren't always simple to compile from public databases. Best to leave it in the hands of locals. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my own comments on the discussion page. No other cities in Mass, much less the rest of the country or the world appear to have the honor of a page like this for them. Consider also that most of it is just a nice long list of red links. Unbelievably non-notable. Keeping this would invite someone to make an article of 'Names of people who live on my street'. 24.62.27.66 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and per list criteria at WP:NOT. See also: listcruft, redlinkcruft and cruftmagnet. Kappa really lets rip when he pulls up the current prods page, shame because it's otherwise a great system... Deizio 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid list; cited sources. Listcruft is not a criterion for deletion. Masscruft is not a criterion for deletion. Wikipedia asserts that it is not various things, but it does not assert that it is not the yellow pages. Fg2 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does assert that it is WP:NOT for mere collections of external links, internal links or Internet directories. That's policy. There is zero context here, except for a (likely POV) labelling of some businesses as "prominent". Deizio 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't think I would find a list of notable businesses founded in Taunton in the yellow pages. Kappa 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I'm a bit perplexed how a list full of businesses that fail WP:CORP has any value at all and could be considered "notable". By what criteria? Also, list is "selective"... it is a completely arbitrary set of businesses picked by the author. Where is the local McDonalds? Doesn't Tauton have a Walmart? Local restaurants? What is so damn special about these particular businesses?--Isotope23 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article doesn't claim or show notability for most of those businesses. Hirudo 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. Wikipedia may not assert that it's not the yellow pages, but it doesn't assert that it's not a fish or a bicycle either. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No kidding; neither has Jimbo Wales personally asserted that Wikipedia is not explicitly for a subjective listing of some business that might be notable in a small Massachusetts city. There are just times when common sense should prevail over rules lawyering. RGTraynor 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above "wikipedia is not the yellow pages". San Saba 10:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 'cruft and not notable.--Cini 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the first section on Taunton-based business into Taunton, Massachusetts, then delete the fluff. Sahasrahla 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 11:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Isotope FloNight talk 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Cleanup Could be useful if made NPOV. Startup account 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - what next - a description of every person living in Helions Bumpstead, Essex? - Runcorn 22:15, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FlameHawk

Prod removed by someone without comment or change to article. Band in question appears to fail WP:MUSIC, is unsigned and hasn't released an album yet. Heycos 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Currently the article meets speedy deletion criteria as an article about a band that fails to assert notability. A {{db-band}} tag might have been more appropriate. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:18, 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 Keep. Tawker 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiril Merjanski

A non-notable poet. Works do not appear to be very notable, and only about 70 Google hits on him, [27] a significant number being a news story about how he got caught up in a mob while out in public (he was apparently only mentioned because he was one of the witnesses who spoke with the reporter). Claimed notability in the article is not cited --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Consider my vote to be a Keep now in light of the evidence dug up by the dedicated researchers below. I would withdraw the entire nomination if not for the delete vote that still remains below. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, but the tag was contested (see Talk:Kiril_Merjanski) --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a hoax and/or vanity. The article claims that "his works have been translated into English, French, Bosnian, Croatian, German and Swedish", but no library anywhere in the world seems to have a copy. Bucketsofg 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Keep following verification below. Bucketsofg 03:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Can we take some more time to attempt verification? Does this guy's name (or those of his works) transliterate in Bulgarian to something that might trigger a search on the various EuroGoogles? RGTraynor 16:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be real, in as much as a pub lic reading at a US library can be taken as an indication, but equally appears not to be at all notable. Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Library of Congress and Canadian Library have him as Kiril Merdzhanski. I think he is probably Кирил мерджански.--HJMG 19:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) And Merdjanski!--HJMG 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted - the works correspond! Митът за Одисей в новата буколическа поезия, for example, is The Myth of Ulysses in the New Bucolic Poetry. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep. Under the Cyrillic spelling, I come up with 242 hits off of Bulgarian domain websites. This guy may well be notable in Bulgaria. RGTraynor 20:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Seems to be known in Germany too - as Merdshanski) --HJMG 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would someone who can read Bulgarian and/or German be willing to check the hits under those names to determine whether there's notability there, and do some translation for us? At the very least can we determine how well-known his works are? --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Included in German volume of most significant post-war Bulgarian poets--HJMG 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some bibliographic info to the article. He seems fairly clearly notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here is a scholarly article which predominantly cites some of his work (see citations at bottom). He may be notable in academic circles as well as in poetry. -- No Guru 00:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This AFD is a classic case of systemic bias. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative (and I admit I did probably nominate this article prematurely), but systematic bias as it applies to WP generally refers to the omission or slant of information in favor of Western interests. In this case, there simply was no citation in the article (originally). Though I agree those in less off locations have less access and ability to edit WP than those of us who are more fortunate, the author and editors of the article had just as much ability to cite as anyone editing any other WP article. The burden of evidence is on the author/editors of the article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I second AbsolutDan on his point, and would only want to add that having the name misspelled prevented an easy confirmation. In light of this, however, I wonder whether we shouldn't move the article to Kiril Merdzhanski and redirect the current entry there.
Yup, I was thinking about that and I've now been bold and done it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Valentinian (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable non-Roman alphabet poet. Vashti 16:08, 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 as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lukor

neologisms, this seems to be a company name among other random things. Lacking in evidence Dangherous 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. Bucketsofg 13:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete not just a neologism, but also complete nonsense. -- Kicking222 16:45, 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 delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Käsekopf

I can fin Nothing of use in this page - check its history, and you'll see a big load of tosh. Delete Dangherous 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as empty page and/or patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Grafikm_fr 14:00, 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. DS 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krypt

"something as uncool or an indication that something sucked/sucks". Not for an encyclopedia Dangherous 13:35, 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, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenden

An awful disambig page. The word has a meaning in Dutch, see Wikt:kenden, but other bits seem a bit useless Dangherous 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete useless. A disambig page with no links at all? Come on! Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Slowmover 19:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Mukadderat 17:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keirebu

Japanese term, wrong script Dangherous 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not any kind of dictionary, much less a Japanese-English one. Bucketsofg 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. -- Grafikm_fr 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TheKoG. Just zis Guy you know? 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is so rare a name it's not needed in any dictionary, and moreover, as people have noted, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fg2 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As a 2 year student of the Japanese language, I am qualified to say that all this is is fitting an English name to the Japanese katakana syllabary. "John" becomes "Jon", "Angela" becomes "Anjira", "Scot" becomes "Sukato", etc. It's not some "special" translation anyway. Therefore there is no reason even to put this in Wiktionary. Tokakeke 23:16, 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, does not fit Wiktionary criteria. Tawker 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamoke

Borderline case for this I feel. A slang term with a fair bit of good search result. I don't know if you wish to keep this though Dangherous 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wikidictionary (WP is not a dictionary). Bucketsofg
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. The term's been around for decades. RGTraynor 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above Just zis Guy you know? 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above (at the very least get it out of here)M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwikied - now at Wikt:jamoke for you all. --Dangherous 12:45, 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. SushiGeek 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sybunt and lybunt

Charity-ruft? Dangherous 12:10, 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. Tawker 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filewile

Appears to be bandcruft. No references are given (the "footnotes" all refer to the band's own website). The language is POV throughout; the claims of significant following seem to be very exaggerated. I can find no sources that indicate any particular notability. — Haeleth Talk 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as bandcruft. Grafikm_fr 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Until WP:MUSIC is rewritten to include internet-only releases, anyway. Colonel Tom 15:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although they are more discussed than most bandcruft entries, as noted above these undoubtedly fail WP:NMG and it's hard to find any neutral discussion of them on which to base a judgment of whether the article itself satisfies WP:NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete vanity


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

The result of the debate was Was deleted after 5 days on prod, not sure what its doing on AfD. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPD (band)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. This is was a contested prod submission Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No indication of published music records. I think this might well be a WP:CSD A7 db-band speedy candidate as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Out of curiosity; does the fact that the prod was contested automatically mean that CSD A7 is contested, therefore speedy is not appropriate? Colonel Tom 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bandcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep under WP:MUSIC unless someone here can name a more prominent synthpop act from Betchworth. Refer to an appropriate WikiProject for cleanup. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:39, 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. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rohn Padmore

  • Delete, vanity page, fails google test San Saba 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Grafikm_fr 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:VAIN and fails WP:BIO. Also the subject's website sucks badly. Just zis Guy you know? 17:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete actually should be db-band M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Obvious vanity article. - WarriorScribe 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Autobiographical vanity of a non-notable guy. Hey, that's three reasons in one sentence! Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per... well, everyone. · rodii · 18:21, 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. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruts hut

  • Delete, advert, fails google test San Saba 13:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Grafikm_fr 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm from that general area and I haven't even heard of it. Metros232 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad vanity nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. fails google, advert, vanity, fails WP:CORP.--Dakota ~ 01:28, 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. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le Geren Toomer

Non-notable biography of a guy who played 1 minute in NCAA basketball last year. Entire article seems to be a copyright violation as well. Metros232 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't stop it, you can only hope to Delete it. Haikupoet 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... if they're going to write an article about him, make it understandable. Plus, someone who played for an ENTIRE THREE MINUTES (omg!) doesn't deserve that much text. --Disavian 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn. Mukadderat 17:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tales From Another Side

Webcomic hosted on Deviant Art that's less than two months old and has just 20 strips. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:24, 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. Tawker 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of animated television series and films with LGBT themes

Listcruft Will (E@) T 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The issue of LGBT themes in animated series and films is a controversial issue, especially when the product is marketed to children. However, it is clear that it does exist. Browned.
  • Delete unsourced, contains many entries of a speculative nature (that don't meet WP:V), contains elements of WP:NOR, and it is listcruft to top it all off.--Isotope23 14:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete From the first entry: "In the episode titled Legends Of The Dark Knight, three children tell different Batman adventures, with one of them noting how he admires Batman for his "tight rubber armor." However, this boy is named Joel, and the entire scene is a dig on the Batman movies directed by Joel Schumacher." In other words, it's not an LGBT themed show, and it';s not an LGBT themed series (only a single episode). And it's unsourced. This is an unsourced, unverifiable, arbitrary list of arbitrary entertainment media meeting an arbitrary selection criterion interpeted arbitrarily in an apparent effort to present a particular point of view. It is also largely original research. Apart from that, and the fact that it is indiscriminate (aka listcruft), it is hardly crap at all. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all said above. Grafikm_fr 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is about LGBT references in animated series and films, even if it few themes. It would seem that their is a tad bit of homphobia here. User:Browned. Each episode or theme is referenced with a link to the original show or film.
  • Delete per JzG. That is a offensive and inflammatory suggestion, as if only a gaybasher could possibly seek to apply Wikipedia rules and guidelines. For my part, this article nukes NPOV in such a comprehensive fashion as to be worthless as genuine information. It's rife with heavily-slanted inferences that a particular character/ep/series is "LGBT-themed" because a certain character is "often played up as if he were gay" or is "likely" or "possibly" gay, characters disguise themselves in women's clothing, even down to assertions that a character's gender is "unknown." The citation of Hercules as a LGBT-themed movie on the strength that one of the Greek gods wore lavender-colored sunglasses is priceless. RGTraynor 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's fine, an accusation of homophobia helps establish that there are no better arguments in favour of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per isotope and zis guy. Unsourced, listcruft, OR, arbitrary, and some of the items (like the Batman bit mentioned above) seem a bit of a stretch. Oh, and spare us the accusations of homophobia. It's a cop-out. Fan1967 16:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of these are just one example out of many themes of the represented shows. All of them depend on speculation and interpretation. Metros232 16:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Saying all of them are speculation is a bit of a stretch. I'm pretty sure Big Gay Al from South Park is well, gay. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value even in the ones that are not flagrantly OR. Kotepho 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Isotope23. PJM 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced, and it would serve better as an article discussing the history of LGBT themes in animated series and films. And then it would require careful monitoring to prevent POV from creeping in. I'm all for having this discussed, but not in the current format.Captainktainer 19:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, someone's pet project, looks like pure original research. Slowmover 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft, some of those in the list are very far-fetched speculation. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Ardenn 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Hirudo 22:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Something in a single episode becomes a "theme"? Please. Also, no evidence cartoons intentionally avoid this; that may be true, although at least since Bugs Bunny characters have not just cross-dressed but engaged in same-sex kissing, sham marriage, etc. Шизомби 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep several other Wikipedia articles provide a list of LGBT themes in film, television and video games. The subtext provided in animated films and television is obvious if you have read anything about the history of homosexuality in Hollywood, i.e. Vito Russeo's work. To single out this aritlce for deletation, suggests that people are uncomfortable with the fact that children's cartoons are loaded with gay subtext. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.8.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per all above. Homophobia is also rampant in the article.--Jersey Devil 20:37, 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 delete. SushiGeek 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Weber

Tagged as an A7 speedy, but did appear to asser notability although the article is not written in a neutral manner. A Google check seems to indicate that this person has some real CD releases and won a Parent's Choice award. [28]. Not entirely certian over reliability of all the sources, and I'm not too inclined to research this now either. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete besides the article being terribly written, it asserts no notability whatsoever. If the notability was in the article (and the article wasn't awful), I could change my vote. But right now, I say kill it. -- Kicking222 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be notable, with multiple media mentions being cited at his website. Children's musicians are always going to be difficult because they get little press unless they're Raffi or The Wiggles, so people should keep that in mind. This guy, however, appears to be the real deal. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. to commenters above: you are talking about wrong Tom Weber. Mukadderat 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So the article should refer to the children's artist. Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect The other Tom is notable. Startup account 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; insufficiently notable. - Runcorn 22:19, 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 per CSD A7. Tawker 05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yipes

Non-notable bar band. Albums mentioned, but not seemingly available anywhere. No label information to remove doubt that these were privately produced. GWO 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I come up with only five unique G-hits (heavily directed to clear out the chaff). The lead hit [29] is from the band's front man way back when; it was around in the late Seventies/early Eighties, apparently. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
These pages suggest the records came out in 1979 and 1980. [30] [31] Caution -- contains bad album cover art. You can buy the albums, but these appear to be self-released [32] -- GWO
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. incog 02:15, 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. Tawker 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misfit Animations

vanity page --Dunstan 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity page. Grafikm_fr 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and as NN. No Alexa traffic data. Only 100 unique G-hits (and the 4th such was this article), almost all of them being selections off of deviantART and sheezy.art pages. The evidence suggests heavyweight self-promoters. RGTraynor 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A vanity and non-notable article. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MikeWazowski 16:59, 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 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Clockwork Orange (computer game)

Previously nominated for deletion here: [33] AfD resulted in no consensus. Primary problem is that this is not verifiable. Only source is for the supposed Atari 2600 version of the game and is comprised of one screenshot of a cartridge hosted on a geocities site. Even if you take that to be verifiable based on the screenshot, it can't really be considered a reliable source. The PC version information is completely unsourced. --Isotope23 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per my nomination.--Isotope23 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP, I have shown evidence of the Atari game from a source about as reliable as much things about video games. I know that I read an indepth article about the computer game in the 1990s.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Browned (talk • contribs)
    • Comment... ok, how is that evidence "as reliable as much things about video games"? where is the listing on Atari 2600 fansites? How about general videogame sites? One screenshot posted on geocities simply does not meet WP:V by a WP:RS. Furthermore, just saying that you read a indepth article on a game in the 90's doesn't meet WP:V unless you can actually cite the publication you read it in and an issue number.--Isotope23 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Verifiability is so important that there's a note about it directly below the edit window; if something can't be verified, it can't be on WP. -- Kicking222 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough nom. --Hetar 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless verified properly.--Jersey Devil 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Generally I don't like an AfD again so soon after one is closed, but the problems identified are real. Perhaps the alleged game could be mentioned on the talk page for the film version and people could continue looking for sources from there if there are any to be found. Шизомби 01:49, 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 No Consensus, Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravenet Web Services, DreamHost, EuroVPS & NexGen Internet Services

All non-notable and don't include why they merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep No Google News hits about these companies, they do not appear to satisfy WP:WEB. But, most articles in categories Internet service providers, Internet hosting and Web hosting will fail to satisfy WP:WEB for the same reason. I'm concerned it would be unfair to leave some while deleting others. If these categories are cleaned out leaving only companies that satisfy WP:WEB or WP:CORP I would change my vote to delete all of the above. Accurizer 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, that's why I've put most of them on afd. Just them existing isn't a reason to vote to keep. Ardenn 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why I voted weak keep instead of keep :) I agree with your goal, I just have concerns about deleting some and not all at the same time. Regards, Accurizer 16:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I find the argument "but other articles that fail to satisfy WP:WEB still exist!" unpersuasive. If there are indeed such articles, Prods and AfDs should be filed. RGTraynor 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {most-see note below} per nom, all of these read like advertising to me. There is nothing critical of the companies included, and probably all of the info. can be found on their own web sites and press releases. It would appear that this nomination is an effort to start clean-up of this type of page. -MrFizyx 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep DreamHost, Delete others: I realize that I'm splitting hairs here. I'm now convinced that the size and popularity of DreamHosts have given it border-line notability. Also, I'm recognizing efforts by *Dan T.* and others to provide some NPOV. I'm not yet persuaded that Bravenet Web Services is ever going to be more than an ad. -MrFizyx 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'm not sure about the others, but Dreamhost is a pretty big hosting operation, with over 200,000 domains hosted. We don't necessarily have to list every mom-and-pop hosting outfit, but one this big probably deserves inclusion. *Dan T.* 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You can vote to keep one without voting to keep all of them. Ardenn 16:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You are right about Dreamhosts size, they seem to be the largest on this list. The number I found was 253,859 domains. However, this is only 0.38% of the market and places them as 28th in the world (see [34]). Where would you suggest the line be drawn? -MrFizyx 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • They are currently 17th in the U.S. rankings. It is not just size that makes DreamHost a worthy candidate for an article, but it is certainly a significant reason. -- Scjessey 12:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per RGTraynor. -- Kicking222 16:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all but not because they fail WP:WEB, they fail WP:CORP. Bravenet and DreamHost are decently well known as cheap webhosting, but that doesn't mean they meet our guidelines. Kotepho 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's our guidelines that are flawed, if they demand the deletion of a "decently well known" entity. *Dan T.* 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I just looked for WP:RS on DreamHost. Nadda. Surprising number of newspaper mentions, but they were all from someone's URL. Reviews on some webhosting review sites, but those aren't exactly a good reference. I don't have access to a good archive of magazines though. I could see them being reviewed by one. Kotepho 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep of the DreamHost article. The company is extremely well-known in the web community, with a unique public face, an active user community, a useful community-driven knowledge base, and even the makings of a fan base. It's significant size (>200,000 customers) makes it a peculiar candidate for deletion anyway. -- Scjessey 12:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of the DreamHost article. Such a large company in the interested hosting world should have an informaiton space in the wikipedia. Matttail 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bravenet is the largest free web host in the world. Source: The Yahoo! Directory [35]. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bravenet & Dreamhost, weak delete others -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I only know about DreamHost, who seem to have lots of exposure and lots of contented customers. Having a Wikipedia page to act as a collector of unbiased information about hosting companies is a useful thing for Wikipedia to do. What in fact is the problem with every hosting company in the world having a page at Wikipedia? Why is a hosting company inferior to an obscure, defunct car company or a specific type of old steam locomotive as regards being a candidate for deletion? (Personally I think Wikipedia could have a glorious role ahead of it as the world's default "vocabulary of translatable identifiers", quite apart from any content that Wikipedia publishes about those identifiers.) Hotlorp 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep Bravenet has an Alexa rank of 452 (details). Not sure about the others. Probably should not have been listed as a group. StuffOfInterest 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a repository for advertisements and external links. Bravenet may be notable, but not the others. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Bravenet. When your site is one of the 500 most visited on the internet for a period of years, you are notable. WP:WEB is helpful but is not all-inclusive, and Bravenet meets at least one of its guidelines. WP:Notability says "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." Bravenet qualifies, as it has been around since 1997, and its software and services underpin many if not most web rings, counters, forums, and guestbooks in the English-speaking web. Furthermore, unlike most webhosts, Bravenet appears in Google News [36], as part of the Duke lacrosse players investigation as well as a portal article on creating a website. Not to mention the 14,000,000+ Google results. The lack of mention of something on Google does not indicate lack of notability, nor does a modest presence on Google... but an overwhelming presence on Google is a sign that it's notable. If anything, the article needs to be expanded to reflect Bravenet's importance to the web. By the way, in the future, please split your AfDs. These are wildly different companies with wildly different notabilities.Captainktainer 07:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bravenet. delete others. Mukadderat 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep DreamHost because I've heard of it—not because my experiences are authoritative, but because it seems to be known by a fair number of people, judging by this unscientific "survey". Abstain on others. Ardric47 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Cleanup Obvious. Needs a cleanup to more NPOV. How do you do a strikethru? This comment was edited by me. Startup account 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This user has no contributions and has only added to AFD. [37]. Ardenn 20:47, 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 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metawire

Non-notable and doesn't include why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking over the previous debate from July 2005[38], I find that the "keep" arguments no longer ring true. The company's current downed status [39], indicates some loss of what previous notability they may have had. -MrFizyx 16:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 16:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Rory096(block) 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep under WP:SOFTWARE, Metawire's woes are recounted on a number of online forums, it'd be nice if someone would pull the whole story together; that won't happen if we just remove it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering? (There have been no significant edits of the article since July '05.) -MrFizyx 19:16, 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 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob logic

Looked like nonsense, but I did find some references to this term. In which case it should probably be transwikied. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom, although it desperately needs to be cleaned up. It looked like nonsense to me too, that's why it had db tags before. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Vote changed, see below
  • Comment What wiki is it to be transwikied to? I assume Wiktionary... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And, also, why put it up on AfD? If the nomination wants it transwikied, {{Move to Wiktionary}} would be the proper template... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I almost speedied it, but as it is real but does smell of neologism I figured I'd let everyone here decide. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The article was created by a user whose only edit was the creation of an empty article. Further edits were by an anonymous user. Although there are some google hits, they do not appear related to whatever is described here. Most relate to the logic of one or another person who happens to be called Bob -- all different Bobs. How do we know this is not all made up, in which case we don't want to pollute Wiktionary, Wikisource or any Wiki* with this? Note that Bob Logic is a character in Pierce Egan's novel Life in London, or The Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorn Esq. and his Elegant Friend Corinthian Tom. For the record, for most types of lotteries buying a second ticket will double your chances of winning. LambiamTalk 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lambiam's new evidence. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sounds like another definition for "Magical Thinking".Pat Payne 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
  • Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. I also don't understand the part which says "the purchase of a second lottery ticket does not increase your chance of winning by two" because "your chance of winning only increases by a miniscule amount and so it makes sense to purchase only one ticket": buying two lottery tickets does double your chance of winning; it's just that your original chance of winning was so absurdly small that even twice that number is a waste of money. --Saforrest 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Minor quibble. I've played in lotteries when the expected net gain was positive (because of an extremely high jackpot buld-up), in which case it is supposedly rational to play. I won so much that I can now spend all my time on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I won nothing. Needless to say, that did nothing to increase my confidence in rational decisions :) —LambiamTalk 00:04, 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 speedy deleted. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiz the Wrestler

An amateur wrestler who has yet to make his debut in the ring. Non-notable. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 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 - Deckiller deleted "Freddy DeAngelis" (CSD A7/nonsense). --blue520 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy DeAngelis

Vanity; page creator removed speedy delete tag.Keppa 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7.--blue520 16:39, 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 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krstjan Klavić

No footballer with such name played for Krylya Sovetov. Claimed to be a Bosnian international, but Google gives zero hits. Article created by User:Krstjan2006. Conscious 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as quite certain vanity and hoax. -- Grafikm_fr 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Player" was also added to several team rosters by author of this article. I'll work to revert some of those roster changes. Metros232 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and could even go speedy as nonsense.--Isotope23 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and if it meets the criteria, speedy delete. Absolutely a hoax. If the guy wants to claim he's a soccer player (or god, for all I care), he can put it on his userpage. (Or can he? I don't give a darn either way.) -- Kicking222 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Krstjan2006 M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:29, 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 was speedy delete as nn bio. Wickethewok 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Turner

Vanity and non-notable article about a 13 year-old. AFDed a second time (see the noinclude section in this AFD)... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt the earth. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to the redirect to Alexander Buller Turner. Haakon 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I did first, but he reverted. Since I don't want to start an edit war, I'm seeking consensus here. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect the redirect -- that would work, wouldn't it? NawlinWiki 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordo Illuminatorum

Looks like non-notable vanity. (The bulk of the article was written by User:Gmatrius.) Also has some POV and verifiability problems; nothing that couldn't be cleaned up, but it wouldn't leave much of an article afterwards. Adam Atlas 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Also, look at lines like "This controversial act of this organisation leaves a question to why the sudden appearance, after keeping itself secret and anonymous for several years." That was written by the leader of this "organisation." Looks like an attempt to sound esoteric and mysterious, with altogether unencyclopedic results. :) Adam Atlas 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable club. Should probably afd The Norwegian Satanic Society too.--Isotope23 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)fnord
  • Delete as non-notable. Grafikm_fr 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm all for keeping as much in the encyclopedia as possible, but including every random Satanic club of this size in the world would quickly overwhelm even Wikipedia's copious servers. If they make a name for themselves, then let's go ahead.Captainktainer 19:21, 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 Moved to CSD. Kotepho 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Master Data Management (MDM)

This article dupes Master Data Management Stephenpace 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as dupe. don't think a redirect is necessary... Grafikm_fr 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This a category, not an article. so I've listed it on Categories for deletion and added a cfd tag. Recommend this AfD be closed.--Isotope23 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment you beat me to fixing my fix. Kotepho 19:05, 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 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Way

Bizzare and unencyclopedic evaluation of an appartment building, has been though afd once, but the article hasnot been touched since and is still unfit for an encyclopedia.--Peta 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dr Zak 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (where is the other AfD, anyway? Shouldn't it be here?) Hbackman 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, it sounds like an advertisement or brochure. --Starionwolf 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and cleanup) or merge with Walt Disney World College Program as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Way 1. This is an apartment complex controlled by Disney for the college program, and is "notable" given Disney's impact on the Orlando area. I would help clean it up but if it's just going to be deleted there's no point. --SPUI (T - C) 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'll try to merge the article with Walt Disney World College Program. Thanks for sharing the info SPUI. --Starionwolf 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, fits CSD A7 anyways. Tawker 05:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keiichi Nakano

Non-notable filmmaker. His only claims to faim are some unspecified awards he won in highschool, and the fact that is he is a producer of the The 1 Second Film, a film for which anyone can obtain a production credit for as little as one dollar. --Hetar 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: per my reasons above. --Hetar 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn student filmmaker. Fan1967 21:12, 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. SushiGeek 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online, distance and blended learning courses in Ireland.

I placed a prod tag on this; it was removed (with comments as detailed below on its talk page). It is is unencyclopædic and from this: Suppliers of online, distance and blended learning courses in Ireland are free to use this page to post limited information and links on their courses. is an attempt to use WP as a website. As such I'm taking this to AfD. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment as posted on the talk page: I propose that it is an appropriate use of Wikipedia to create and maintain a page on online, distance and belended learning courses in Ireland as it is a public service to have such a page, it is by definition public information, and Wikipedia is probably one of the best ways of keeping the information up-to-date. If you agree, please respond to this message. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is NOT a free website... <_< Grafikm_fr 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhosting solution.--Isotope23 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remark. I have removed the offending sentence quoted by nominator from the article. I have also posted a comment on the article's talk page, rather than here, because (I felt) it was more about the content of the article than contributing to the discussion here. LambiamTalk 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • remark. It looks like I have inapropriately placed this articele on Wikipedia. I could argue that the distinction between a directory and an encyclopedia is not significant online, but I certainly would accept that I'm wrong on this if that was the opinion of experienced editors and contributors. Because of this I will make no objection to it being deleted. However, i would ask that this be left for a short while as I have sent the URL to a significant number of people so that they could add to the entry. In the meantime I would appreciate any suggestions where I might find an open collaborative editing location that might suit a directory. --Brian 23:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia software is free... all you need to do is get some free webspace and set up your own wiki. Then you can post whatever you want there.--Isotope23 04:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Needs consideration. Startup account 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's what this discussion is. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete Wikipedia is not a free hosting site. (In fact, this page is candidate for "speedy delete"). Guliolopez 15:38, 28 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. SushiGeek 08:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Untitled Album

Title says it all. Article about upcoming Dashboard Confessional album, that is as of yet untitled. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. HarryCane 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition: User:Afraidtorejoice already created the same article under the tentative name Dusk & Summer, so this really should be deleted. --HarryCane 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if anything, the newer should be deleted as a reproduction of material here, as the information in this article is sourced, and the information in the other is not. If the name ends up being Dusk & Summer, this page can be moved there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Both articles were created by the same user (User:Afraidtorejoice), who was the sole editor on both pages (except for my Afd-tagging). As the edit histories are minimal, it doesn't matter which article is deleted, and as one of them is named properly, that should be the one we keep. If this article is kept, "Fifth Untitled Album" would in the future link to a Dashboard Confessional album, which makes no sense. --HarryCane 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the other article isn't verified as being named properly. Thus, technically speaking, the other article is a hoax, this one is the verified deal. Rgardless, ONE of the articles should stay, and be moved to its proper name when the time comes. If another "fifth untitled album" comes along, it's not hard to change redirects. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say there shouldn't be an article named Fifth Untitled Album to begin with. The title is by no means descriptive — e.g. "Upcoming Dashboard Confessional album" (or something to that effect) would be a way better choice than "Fifth Untitled Album". --HarryCane 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree. If this article is kept (which it should be), I certainly support a move to something like "Fifth Untitled Dashboard Confessional Album." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT as nom has stated.--Isotope23 18:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Album is definitely announced, has recieved Billboard coverage, has a tracklisting, and producer information. Keep and the page will be moved when a title is announced. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or at least move it to something more descriptive. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Make a page when album comes. Startup account 20:17, 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 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MHTMLRedir.Exploit

OR, unverified, nn exploit. Doesn't seem major enough to report in a WP article. Werdna648T/C\@ 13:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was orphaned. Relisting on April 21st. Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable computer virus, unsupported by references. Recipes for specific virus control don't seem to be WP material. Better left to McAfee or Symantec. Slowmover 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Slowmover M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 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 speedy deleted.--Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatefile

Previously unlisted.listing now --Melaen 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUS. This band released one CD, and "less than 100 copies were made." — TheKMantalk 19:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. I'm surprised it's been kicking around since last Oct. I was almost "tricked" by the Asylum link. PJM 19:18, 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 Speedily redirected, no further action required. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disconnection in Scientology

I mistakenly created this article in an attempt to organize the topic. It is a copy of a better established page, disconnection, and if there is ambiguity, a better page would be the existing disconnection (scientology) page. I apologize for the tedium of this request; I am a newbie and I'm just becoming familiar with the process. I think this arcticle should be a speedy deletion. Bantab 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment You could have just made it a redirect. Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been bold and redirected it to Disconnection. Go ahead and revert back if you want, but I think it might be a valid search term, and at any rate redirects are cheap. BryanG 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Put {{db-author}} in the article if you are the only one that has contributed to it and you want it speedy deleted. Redirect also seems dandy in this case. Kotepho 19:11, 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 keep. SushiGeek 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinuguan

A non-notable recipe. WP is not a cookbook. Tango 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, Wikipedia has a history of hosting cuisine-related articles; the recipie is illustrative to the description of the dish. Refer the article to an applicable WikiProject to wikify as per the January notice. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikipes or some wiki for recipes M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep > Cleanup Add cultural references. Startup account 20:19, 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 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senior_Bar_Golf

Not Notable, Drinking Game Unique To a Single University Ctsims 18:22, 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 del. `'mikka (t) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Phobias

del original research, wikipedia:verifiability, heavy POV. The Phobia and -phob- artciles cover the topic adequately. `'mikka (t) 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. PJM 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --blue520 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DemonWeb 14:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and put all this stuff on -phob- instead. NP Chilla 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.33 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- No Guru 20:06, 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 No consensus - Keep. Tawker 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Marlowe

nn and possible vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this singular example of hagiography. Singular in that I don't think I have ever seen an article with so many edits where so few of them have been by logged-in users; virtually the entire article is the work of anons. Not that it's a problem, except in as much as the lack of references makes it necessary to rely on the reputation of the editors, but pretty much the only contribs from accounts with user pages are the addition of tags. Anyway, appears to fail WP:BIO and looks very much like more Vaughancruft. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are lots of biographies on Wikipedia, that some people may consider "low value." This seems to be particularly true of the slew of American editors who have been editing/recommending the page for deletion lately. It is particularly troublesome that some of the criticism is grounded in an attitude of 'this isn't interesting to non-American readers.' That seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit. If Wikipedia is a community, then it should respect that not all content will be equally interesting to all readers (including our friends to the South), however, that does not necessarily make it worthy of deletion. If you check Keith's web site, he has been published in nearly every daily newspaper in Canada (http://www3.telus.net/keithmarlowe/media.html). I doubt any of the editors could say the same about themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.112 (talk • contribs)
  • This IP is also from U of Windor, probally Keith since he was blocked by the admins from his other IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)
  • I find it interesting that 208.181.120.222 has also been blocked. Template:Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Strong Delete I have checked some of the links, and most of the stories appear to only be on Keith's site. 71.202.41.210 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to 71.202.41.210: A lot of the Calgary Sun articles were in fact written by this Paul Jackson person, but i'm not sure how reputable the Sun is, as according to WikiPedia's article it's a tabloid. Also, no good results for Keith Marlow + Paul Jackson on Google. And what's Vaughancruft anyway? 71.131.61.196 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 71.131.61.196---You would be better served as using a Canadian news press engine rather than google for finding information on Marlowe.{Template:Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Because there is a possibility that someone from Canada (which would, of course, include people from University of Windsor and of course Keith Marlowe himself) could have been masquerading as you. Clearly, however, (according to the history) that is not the case (or at the very least you agree with User:65.94.141.187). Additionally, I like to leave others' comments alone while still keeping track of who said what. Hope this helps. BTW, in the future could you sign with four tildes? Like this: ~~~~ M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The problem is Keith is the one who created this webpage, it has nothing relevant in the article to keep it, and when Admins or even users try to add to the content, the owner removes it. Wikipedia is about adding factual information, freely, no matter what. If you want to have a article on wikipedia, you should be prepared for people to add their thoughts and not censor what people say instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed except it is quite evident from the amount of editing from moderators that much of what occured on this webpage was the work of vandalism and personal attacks (which should be expected considering its a political figure involved). 208.181.120.222 somehow equates 'thoughts' with 'factual evidence'which is not always true As well, 208.181.120.222 (and everyone else) would have to argue that somehow Marlowe's term and Presidency were not a useful tool for understanding the fusion of the Conservative movement in Canada today (which subsequently is in government).Template:Blogger82.
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
User:208.181.120.222--How exactly do you know that it was Keith Marlowe who wrote the article in the first place? (disregard the history when making your case, because I could create an account with the name Keith Marlowe). Blogger82 (if it is indeed you): The article doesn't actually say how Marlowe's term changed anything with the Conservative movement in Canada. In fact, the conservatives voted away his youth wing after they merged. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Does a person have to "change" something about a movement in order to have a Wikipedia page? I'm not sure Patrick Brown or Tasha Kherridan or any youth president really "changes" a movement per se. They are involved, and do what they can to defend the party's interests, the youth members' interests, and the conservative movement's interests. Marlowe was a vocal supporter of the merger from early on, and was a significant reason why the youth wing supported the merger in greater numbers than the party as a whole.
  • Many people have attempted to clean this article up, and add other information about the subject, however the information is prompty deleted by the owner/creater of the wiki.
  • Information such as...adding how people believe that he goes to a bad school? Trying to erase the entire wiki? I'm not sure why anyone would keep that sort of personal opinion on there, it adds nothing to the community's knowledge about this subject. If you wish to see more types of vanadlism, you're more than free to check out the comments section.Blogger82
  • Strong Keep Keith Marlowe has been published in the largest newspapers in the country (The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Calgary Herald, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Vancouver Province, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Sun, the Whitehorse Star, etc.) including several of the major university campus papers. Marlowe was the president of the PC Youth Federation, which is roughly comparable to the College Republicans or the College Democrats. If you have a problem with Keith, a young conservative leader in Canada, having a Wikipedia page, then I expect that you will all have a problem with other young conservatives, such as Paul Gourley or Eric Hoplin (both national presidents of the College Republicans) having Wikipedia pages as well. Look their pages up...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Erm...you're also from U. of Windsor. You better not be another of User:137.207.120.112's sockpuppets.M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Irregardless of whether this happens to be true or not, 137.207.120.102 makes a good point in that wikipedia would indeed have to go delete almost every single page from every single youth president that is on here in the entire world. I would consider that to be an extreme precedent set. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • No, the user does not make a good point. Most of the other articles you mention are not anywhere near the vanity as this page. And if you feel other wiki's should be deleted, please feel free to go ahead. Wikipedia is successful because of the input of our members and community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)
  • Input is one thing. I doubt Wikipedia is successful because people just go around and delete pages. If you have an edit, go for it.
  • Delete Vanity page and not notable. Sources are fairly questionable as well.--Cini 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources like, oh... the newspaper? :)
  • Strong Keep. I think to delete this page is to ignore a critical part of history with regards to the merger of the Canadian Conservative movement in Canada. For someone that is looking into information concerning the final days of the Progressive Conservative party this page would be a suitable resource in conjunction with other pages. As I added some information that I considered to be quite relevant to this page, I suppose I bear some resposability for some of the information on it. However this can all be resolved through the use of edits and not through outright deletion. That would be considered an extreme measure. 137.207.120.102 is quite correct in pointing out that there remain many cases of other youth Presidents (from other parties and from other countries) on wikipedia. I doubt very much that as much internal-party change occured while those young men were in power that occured under Marlowe's. To remain fair, wikipedia would have to delete their webpages as well. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Strong Delete Seems to be a vanity piece and not really relevant to modern canadian politics or recent political history. It also has nothing to do with any political mergers, as Keith Marlowe is not noted in any Conservative Party documents as playing a key role. Also it should be note that Blogger82 contributed to the content earlier (most of the vanity content), and the IP address 137.207.120.102 is from U of Windsor. Why does all of the supporters for this page come from this school? It is true that other "youth" leaders have wiki pages, but no where come close to the overblown content that is in this article. Delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm fully in favour of keeping the article, and I'm not from the U of Windsor... how does your point make sense? Again, edit the page, don't delete. Haven't seen you contribute, other than in a negative way.
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsigned-Bow River. I freely admitted I added content to this article (making your statement irrelevant), and I further added I would edit it out (which would be a far better solution) than deleting the whole thing.

You are also assuming that I am from the University of Windsor "All" which is not the case. Blogger82.

  • Delete Does not meet basic requirements for an article. Vanity peice. Lacks basic ciation.
  • Keep I've read the posts on this page, and as someone who was involved with the party when the merger occurred, I do find some value in the page. I think deletion would be rather extreme, given that there are biographies of most of the more recent PC Party presidents (Bruck Easton, etc.) on Wikipedia. I think the page could be perhaps made more factual, and I will attempt to do an edit on the site this evening. At any rate, I hope the edit will appease the masses, and we can move on...
  • Bruck Easton is not a PC Youth president. Also, adding {{citation needed}} everywhere is NOT helping anyone. I look forward to seeing further edits, however. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm aware that Bruck is not and was not a PC Youth president. My point is simply that Bruck and others who were involved with the PC Party have Wikipedia entries, and there isn't nearly this level of kerfuffle. Again, let's edit the page, but not delete. I think there's been enough discussion here, and it's time to move forward one way or another. I would suggest we move forward in a positive, constructive way. Let's make a decision. I say keep, and edit.
  • Too many of the owner's Sock Puppets are taking over this discussion which is against Wiki policy. Please delete this article and let's get on with it.

The article does not meet basic requirements set out by wikipedia. Why keep something that does not qualify?

  • Keep. The President of the Youth Wing of one of Canada's then leading political parties makes him notable enough for mine. Needs editing though. This was nominated for speedy deletion but doesn't meet the criteria. Capitalistroadster 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article of Keith Marlowe is pretty bad. Loged in users could do a better job. Not that they are bad. Someone needs to put more references, I will try to find some more info on him. I dont think it is necessarily worthy a deletion. FellowWikipedian (A person from Canada) 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

President of the youth wing for one of Canadas lesser powerful political parties. According to wikipedia, for a political individual to have a page they must have held office in some level of government. Marlowe fails to meet that. Also this has been up now for five days. And should be deleted soon.


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Cordova Doe

This article not only "may require cleanup", it is not fit to exist as part of wikipedia in its current state. I propose to delete the article unless somebody who knows more about the topic (not me) can make a complete rewrite and cite a source other than "America's Most Wanted Official Website" Mütze 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the relevance of this article for an encyclopedia. If we start creating articles for every dead body that is found in the US, we never finish. Maybe one could create a "WikiCrime" branch of Wikipedia exlusively for this. Delete it. --84.139.7.182 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, tragic... but ultimately I just don't see the reason for this being here. WP:NOT a memorial and she doesn't technically meet WP:BIO as the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" clause is for "persons who are still alive". There are some national news stories surrounding her, but in the end I just don't see any justification for an article. If this does get kept however, it needs a complete rewrite so that it is an actual encyclopedic article and not an "America's Most Wanted" style writeup of the case. Also should be moved to Crystal Figueroa if someone can cite a good reason for this article's existance.--Isotope23 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable, we can't have an article for every dead body (as 84.139.7.182 said). TimBentley (talk) 17:50, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tania Guerrera

Not sure if it is notable enough. 665 google hits. -- Szvest 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, NN, vanity, and spamlinking. Slowmover 20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity. Joelito 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete :This is recreation of deleted article. Also, NN. --Ragib 23:50, 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 (would fit A7 speedy). Tawker 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Tool

Seems like an advertisement NurMisur 19:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, clearly a WP:VANITY article, was created by Posttool (talk · contribs), who also wrote an article on David Karam which I have also nominated for AfD. Subject seems to fail WP:CORP, also, it has received a couple of mentions in magazines I've never heard of; I can't confirm they are independent of the company. Mangojuice 19:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP and blatent use of wikipedia for advertising purposes.--Isotope23 19:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily userfied as non-notable autobiography. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Karam

Non-notable biography. A rather unremarkable entrepreneur. He is also an instructor at the California College of the Arts, but he's an adjunct. Article appears to be vanity; it was created and edited nearly exclusively by Posttool (talk · contribs), which is the name of Karam's company. Mangojuice 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Mangojuice 19:22, 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 A7 Delete. Tawker 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Bolz

Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Switched to PROD, but tag removed without comment, so now comes here. Article is decending into madness toward the end. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: nn and vain bio. The part about saving hikers in Alaska smells strongly of a hoax. --Hetar 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'll go along with the AfD, but the three times I saw it, the details have changed. I smell a hoax (and it has been tagged as such). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My prod - if it had not professed notability, I'd have nominated it for speedy. Denni ☯ 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The AfD notification had been removed by an anon before you PRODed, Denni. Given the multiple removals of deletion notifications and the ever-changing details in the article, I now half wish I'd deleted it against the rules when I when I saw the original CSD-A7 tag! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:16, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Platon

Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Changed to PROD, but tag removed without comment, although a section has been added giving a POV on importance of the person. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Platon is the author of three books about ocean racing: “The Russians are coming”, “Formula 1 of the oceans”, “Skipper’s notes”(in Russian) published in Russia and Ukraine with an audience of 35,000.

Eugene Platon is the leader of the Russian Project for the 2009-10 Volvo Ocean Race

Platon 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eplaton (talk • contribs) .

Comment Please note that the first three "external" links provided above are to the Wikipedia article Whitbread Round the World Race, also edited by Eplaton (talk • contribs • count). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • (weak) Delete: Seems to be a bit non-notable; I'm not really sure on this one, though. _-M o P-_ 04:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Bakhteiarov (talk • contribs • count) and Eplaton (talk • contribs • count) would appear to be the same person. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Platon is a world famous sailboat racer and still very active in the sport. Boatman 10:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unusual reasons for becoming famous

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons." JeffW 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, inherently POV. "Unusual" according to whom? PJM 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. Belongs on List of usual reasons for deleting a page. Slowmover 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. Just zis Guy you know? 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Scranchuse 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. Too many people could be added to the list, and some clearly should be taken off. What's "unusual"??? Fan1967 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How long until we'll see a List of interesting lists on Wikipedia list? Hirudo 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)/
  • Should List of unusual deaths be nominated too? --JeffW 02:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I put alot of efforts into making lists to add to wikipedia. I do not like the direction wikipedia is going, towards the traditional definition of an encyclopedia, rather then something more open minded. Wikipedia should be a reposatory of information for research.
    Many people would be curious to see how someone became famous. Prehaps a change in the title of the article and removing some people would please you. Cooltobekind 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you think of a way to make membership in the list more definitive? I could contest how "famous" half the people on that list are. Katherine Harris was a Secretary of State who refused to do a recount, how unusual is that? Does it really matter that Fabio is on the cover of romance novels instead of fashion magazines? Kato Kaelin was a witness...and that unusual how? --JeffW 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Add Rosa Parks as another questionable entry. Hundreds (thousands?) of blacks chose to be arrested during that era for sitting in a whites-only section, using a whites-only pool, eating at a whites-only lunch counter, etc. Hers was just one of many similar protests. Unless you can define "unusual" the article is pointless. Fan1967 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halopedia

Non notable website, article is a dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; very obvious non-notability. Haakon 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Grafikm_fr 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Halo (video game series) as an external link only, unless such already exists. Alba 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Alba's excellent idea; delete the actual article. -- Kicking222 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Alba. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:18, 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 speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Schonberger

Non-notable Google employee; 39 Google hits. Auto-bio? Haakon 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 20:41, 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 delete. No Guru 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fool (The Fallen Angel)

I can't find confirmation that such a character exists; he's supposed to come from a footnote in the New Testament. Delete unless verified. GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There are no footnotes in the New Testament. Fan1967 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above... Grafikm_fr 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I originally put the article up for prod with the following comment "I can find no mention of a Demon or an Angel called Fool in 'The New Testament of the King James Bible'. I've also performed extensive searches on the Internet and on my angel/demon listings without luck. Unless someone can cite it I think the page should be deleted, I have already informed the author". The author seemed quite certain that a reference existed despite this, which tends to make me believe it may exists in some obscure text. I agreed it was worth keeping at least for a period of time to see if anyone expands it. It has only been up a few months so is relatively new, though I guess it would be easy enough for someone to recreate later if it was removed being only a stub. -- Shimirel (Talk) 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If some verifiable source can be found (which I doubt) then the article can be recreated with the source being cited. Without verification, it should be deleted. Fan1967 21:32, 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. No Guru 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down by the Riverside

Planned film for 2007, "the debut feature from Downending Films", article written by Downending. Director, writer, cast, pretty much unknowns. Let's at least wait for the thing to get made before we decide whether it's worth noting. Fan1967 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, crystalballism. PJM 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for not just crystal ballin', but for lack of any notability. -- Kicking222 22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the film needs to get made first. Then it will be non-notable ;-) Fan1967 22:48, 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. No Guru 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briantology

Seems made up to me Nationalparks 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. While there are some references via Google [40], it does not appear to be a very notable or specific subject. PJM 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "As of right now not anything has been published as to what exactly this religion is." Then there's no point in the article, is there? Fan1967 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "religion" sounds like something made up in school one day. --Elkman - (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 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. SushiGeek 08:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlawful enemy combatant

Originally proposed by User:Gorgonzilla; fixing headling because {{afd2}} seems to be broken Elkman - (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is simply a POV fork of Unlawful combatant. The only substantial edits come from one editor. The text here does not contribute usefully. Plurals do not get separate articles. The premise of this article is that the term is US army venacular, it is not, the use by the Bush admin is explicitly making reference to the Geneva protocols --Gorgonzilla 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I did look at the other article and it was clear that you are POV pushing. Now removing the afd tag as you did, that is bad faith --Gorgonzilla 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Mind WP:CIVIL you two. Moe ε 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep contingent upon the editors growing it from a redundant stub into a quality article, else Redirect and merge as the subject matter is well dealt with in Unlawful Combatant. --Flawiki 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Delete/Merge with Gitmo in that it's Gitmo-specific, and also because the failure on the editor's part to make any effort whatsoever to improve the stub overnight suggests that the article will never become encyclopedic. --Flawiki 11:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a crappy complaint. On one hand, people complain that I'm the only editor. On the other, they say "edit more". Flawiki, why don't you help improve the article? Merecat 22:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried asking folks at the help desk for advice? If so and you're still unable to recruit volunteers to work on the article, perhaps it's best to just let it go. Wikipedia is a big place with lots to do. I appreciate your invitation to work on the article but I don't have enough time to do a proper job on it. It'll take a substantial effort to raise from a wee stub. Factoring out the redundant bits from the other combatant articles that'll wind up here and reorganizing all of them coherently would be a sizeable task even if there were more material to discuss than just Lindsay Graham's office's press release. --Flawiki 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think it's dumb that this is being pushed for deletion. The nominator has shown aggression towards my work and frankly, I feel, nominated this to be vindictive. This term may be a baby in usage, but it's a distinct term and deleting it does not help the wiki. Likewise, leaving it to stay, does not harm the wiki. This kind of AfD mania is basically bullying. If the others here don't like this article, they don't need to edit it - let them edit elsewhere. Merecat 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit elsewhere, yes that is the point. Your creation of this fork appears to be an attempt to create a separate area where you can peddle your own opinion without the invoncenience of having others edit or dispute your work. Thats not allowed. I see no reason why this should not be a sub heading under Unlawful combatant and it is certainly easier to find. --Gorgonzilla 12:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Gorgonzilla, if you had bothered to look into it, you would see that I do not have a dog in the fight at enemy combatant or unlawful combatant and am not editing those pages. I created this page unlawful enemy combatant so as to have a page for the designation which I understand has been applied to Gitmo prisoners. My research indicates this is a currently in-use term. It's you who are over-politicizing this, not me. Merecat 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, these prisoners are never called unlawful combatant or enemy combatant. Who are those the press is talking about? Synonyms, remember!Holland Nomen Nescio 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge if there is something worthwhile not already in unlawful combatant. I don't understand the "keep" votes, as I can't see what possible justification there could be for having both this article and unlawful combatant. --Saforrest 21:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Unlawful enemy combatant is a term which is peculiar to USA activities at Gitmo. But unlawful combatant is a whole big argument about the legalities of prisoners etc, from an international law view. Plus there is already a drive on to merge unlawful combatant with enemy combatant. This article Unlawful enemy combatant is only about the term applied to Gitmo prisoners. It's an important distinction, worthy of its own page. Merecat 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My weak keep is tentative, and predicated on the hope that the proponent will use the brief amount of time and tabula rasa to fashion a useful, unique article from its current state, before the AFD discussion closes, otherwise like the carriage at midnight the "weak keep" turns pumpkin-fashion into a redirect and merge. --Flawiki 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If that does happen then I agree that keeping may be in order. My concern here was that this article only has one editor and only presents a single point of view, a classic POV fork. The terms unlawful combatant and unlawful enemy combatant are used interchangeably and none of the references made actually attempts to make a distinction. It certainly is not a vernacular term, the administration has attempted to construct a legal interpretation of it, but the administration uses the terms interchangeably. They are claiming color of the Geneva protocols. --Gorgonzilla 22:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unlawful Combatant. They are interchangeably used, and unlawful combatant sufficiently describes the recently develpoed concept. An article for every synonym is contrary to wikipedia policy.Holland Nomen Nescio 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Keeping the two articles separate is more likely to cause confusion and/or misinformation for people looking at them. Hirudo 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge and redirect to Unlawful Combatant. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is nothing more than a POV fork. --Hetar 02:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The term is in widespread use in the American military -- if you have any doubts, see the U.S. Army Field Manual on handling of EPWs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/). Morton devonshire 06:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Apart from covering only half the parties in the term unlawful combatant how does it differ in meaning? I could not find the term "Unlawful enemy combatant"on the URL you have provided, have I made a mistake or has the URL chaged since you posted it? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Look for FMs directed at Enemy Prisoner of War and non-combatant handling, and Military Police operations. Morton devonshire 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Did that but still could not find the term please provide the URL. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That does nothing to demonstrate a difference. -- Gorgonzilla 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge It's a synonym split for POV only, and they'll both feed the same POV anyway. Readers will expect to find them both at the same place. The difference is much like POW and EPW that don't merit separate articles either. -- Randy2063 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Weak Merge this seems to be covered in unlawful combtant. This seems to be rather redunant. Aeon 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to enemy combatant, and make the recent controversy about the Bush administration's use of these terms more prominent in the intro to the unlawful combatant article. -- Karada 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks like the beginning of an excellent article. The arguments for deleting it are based on air. for instance: "redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is simply a POV fork of Unlawful combatant." I don't see any POV in here at all. Also, it is well documented. Also.. Enemy combatant is the word being used by the Bush Administraiton, under Patriot Act Legislation[41] Americans may be held as 'enemy combatants,' appeals court rules. Government welcomes ruling upholding presidential power, see [42] or [43] The term enemy combatant is not used the same way now as it has historically been used. Let's not confuse the reader and hide fact. enemy combatant is the term that is being used by the Bush boys, right now, not unlawful combatant I just documented this above. Please let's not waste all our time asking me to document this again. Get the article out of this deletion process. thewolfstar 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and/or Merge - If any content can be salvaged for Unlawful Combatant or Gitmo then let it be so salvaged. Otherwise, I agree; this is a POV fork and should be deleted and redirected.Captainktainer 11:44, 28 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. SushiGeek 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smeetfrog Park

There is no Smeetfrog Park. The Smeet Frog does not exist--it's a hoax some people are trying to establish in Ypsilanti, Michigan. See here, and here for info on the project. · rodii · 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, obviously. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is poorly written and I was initially inclined to delete as well. However, this appears to have established itself as a something of minor phenomena within the community. There was a sign for Smeetfrog Park [44], which was even mentioned as an object lesson for teaching children in the Library of Michigan magazine Access [45] The local Dreamland Theater also puts on puppet productions themed around the fictitious frog.[46][47]. And, perhps the most significant factor for a hops lover like me, it provides name for a local microbrew ale [48]. I dunno if it really merits a separate article though. Deleteas discussed below, the article as it is is patent nonsense and concerns only one incident in a hoax. Even if kept it would need to be drastically rewritten. Some mention of it could made in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Still not notable. Delete. -- Kicking222 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Notable or not, there is no such park. If you think that the hoax is notable, as opposed to the nonexistent park, then we could have an article called "Smeetfrog Park Hoax," but just writing that brings home to me how foolish the idea is. And I have to note that all of Bkonrad's cites except for the first one aren't about the nonexistent park, they're about the nonexistent frog. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree the park sign was a part of the hoax and the park is not called Smeetfrog Park. I'm not especially keen on keeping the article, like I said it is very poorly written and in fact most all of the info appear to be BS. I nearly prodded it when I first came upon it, but then settled for tagging it as unsourced. When the user came back with a rather dubious source, I looked into a little more and found the Dream Theater productions, with quite a few related publicity links in area newspapers, the Access magazine article, and the beer, which are about the fictitious frog rather than the park. So, I'll shed no tears if this is deleted in its entirety. But it does seem enough of a curiousity that it might warrant at least a mention in the Ypsilanti article. older ≠ wiser 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article, but consider mentioning the Smeet Frog hoax in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article as per older ≠ wiser. -- Avenue 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per older/wiser's linkage. Something fictitious with that much attention deserves its own article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I always hate it when people argue and argue and argue in their AfDs, but I don't feel as if I've been clear, so I'll try again--forgive me for pushing. One of those links is about the park, a photograph of a homemade sign by one of the people (who I like a lot--this isn't a vendetta, it's an argument about whether information in Wikipedia whould be true) pushing the hoax. All the other links are about the nonexistent frog--this is an article about a nonexistent park. And a non-notable one as well: try this google search: smeetfrog.park--it turns up one hit (a googlewhack!). Mentioning it in the Ypsi article makes sense, but even there it has to be discussed as a hoax. Wikipedia can't be allowed to be used to propagate hoaxes without calling all the info here into doubt. · rodii · 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that you don't have a good point as to it being a hoax or not, but there's reason to keep the article as an article about the hoax and surrounding the situation.--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I could offer a guideline here, see WP:HOAX, especially the section on "Hoaxes vs. Articles about Hoaxes". Maybe that will help clarify the issue. My interpretation is that for this article to be kept, it should pass the notability criterion and then be rewritten to be clearly about the hoax, not the nonexistent bridge. If AfD thinks it's notable, so be it (though I disagree, obviously), then it's rewriting time; I can live with that. · rodii · 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, this article should go. It is nonsense. If there is to be a separate article about the hoax though, it should be at Smeet frog, as the park sign was only one incident in the hoax. But personally, I don't think it has reached a point where it really needs it's own article yet. I think a brief mention of it in the Ypsi article would suffice. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 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. SushiGeek 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Berman

I hate to seem nitpicky, but unless Wikipedia is planning to remove the articles on a bunch of other unknown/who cares? relatives of famous people who have not done anything "significant" in their lives, then I don't see any need to delete the Jack Berman article.

Otherwise, more information about Jack Berman should be included -- such as the fact he was Dianne Feinstein's first husband (they were divorced) and the father of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Katherine Feinstein, born Katherine Berman (she adopted the name Feinstein - after her father's murder, I think - so that people would make the connexion between her and her mother, and be more likely to vote for her.

In short, the problem is not necessarily that Jack Berman was a "nobody," but there's so little information about him in the article that it isn't possible to tell whether he was or was not a "somebody." For all we know, he may have been involved in arguing an important court case.

Or, he may just be a worthless nobody as one of the writers below suggests -- like *all* the rest of us, ultimately.

22 April 2006 23h50 PDT


  • First of all, I don't appreciate anybody being called a worthless nobody. You were the first user to use those offensive words. They were not used in any of the commentary below. You need to do some better research before posting on Wikipedia. My father was never married to Dianne Feinstein, and never had a daughter. I am his only child. I understand that this is an easy mistake to make, but there are many people running around with the same full names of other people. i.e. There is a Zack Berman who lives in San Francisco whom I went to school with. What I (and many others in the community) consider notable about my father is not the cases he argued, but his generosity with his time. Because of this, he had an award named after him. Lastly, I believe your logic is faulty and you were wrong in your opening sentence. There are thousands of users, such as the ones who wrote commentary below, of Wikipedia who spend enormously generous amounts of time removing articles about less notable people (outside of special interest groups and small communities). My father was a mentor to many lawyers and was known throughout the community as a mensch, but outside our community, is only known because of his death. This is why I support the deletion of this article, because I have created the stub 101 California Street Shootings. Users of wikipedia do the best that they can to govern whether an article has followed Wikipedia guidlines such as WP:NOT. --Cocopuffberman 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to seem heartless, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I don't see any indication that either Mr. Berman's death or the award named after him is notable. Even if they were, notability does not attach automatically. Daniel Case 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Article author, Cocopuffberman is "Zack Berman," [49] the son of the deceased. Notability not established in any case... -- Scientizzle 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think has been handled well. The 101 California Street Shootings page is a great start and I hope other users can fill in the blanks. I fully support the Merge & Delete. -- Scientizzle 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial. Like all encyclopedias, it is a documentation of great people and great happenings. My father was a great man. If you request that I further develop that thought I will. In the article proposed for deletion, I mentioned the many accomplishments that he had achieved, and did my best at not going on and on about what a wonderful person he was. The 101 California Street Shootings was a historical event remembered by many San Franciscans who didn't know the people involved. It made big news. I can and will cite newspaper articles on that one. If notability of that event is put into question, than I will go into further detail. As noticed by Scientizzle, I am the son of the deceased. Because it may have made my article appear to be a memorial, I have removed the line in which I mention his survivors. I will be happy to expand on any of the points if necessary. I have documentation including police reports and countless newspaper articles that I can email to you if you think you can do a better job on the article. I am in the eigth grade and am not a professional writer. As for the award named after him, this is no small deal. If you have not clicked on the link below, I recommend it. That is the primary award of achievment that has been awarded annually by the State Bar of California. Cocopuffberman 02:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I just added a few more links from reliable news sources to prove that this massacre that ended my fathers life is newsworthy and notable. Cocopuffberman 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just done a rewrite on this article to see if I could bring it up to notability. As folks might note, the incident did brush up against a lot of changes to gun control and other issues, and I've expanded on some of the memorial stuff as well. I leave it up to the other purveyors of articles from here, and give this a Keep from my neutral perspective.Tony Fox 04:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Struck my vote, change to Merge & Delete as discussed.Tony Fox 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have left a message on the creator's talk page suggesting that the article be renamed to 101 California Street shootings or something in line with our naming conventions if that isn't the consensus term for it, with something on all the victims. It seems to me the event is notable in and of itself and proof has been provided of that. I think this is the best way to handle it. Daniel Case 05:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (and support for move) Daniel Case, supra, has made the suggestion that I was going to make, viz., that Berman is likely non-notable himself (or even as a shooting victim) but that the shootings are likely notable in view, inter al., of the sundry pieces of legislation one can verifiably tie to the shootings, so I'd definitely support a move to 101 California Street shootings, with the proviso that much of the Berman information won't be relevant there (I did rewrite the article a moment ago in order that it would conform to MoS, etc., in case it should be kept). I do appreciate that the article's creator is new to Wikipedia, but I do think his imputation of bad faith on Daniel Case's talk page was was inappropriate; I certainly don't infer any malign motive from this nomination. Joe 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I personally felt the presidency of the AJC was a fairly notable thing, but if folks feel it's a better idea to shift the article to one about the shootings, I'll switch my Keep vote. (Interesting tidy job, by the way; I had to find a definition of "eleemosynary," though.) Tony Fox 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move Complete I appreciate your comments and have created the 101 California Street Shootings page. It is a work in progress, and I would appreciate it if you would help me develop it. There is a brief synopsis of what happened, and an entry for each of the victims. I know the familys of the victims, and they may act as direct sources. I also have a large collection of newspaper articles and other documents. I would like to please ask though, that it not be nominated for deletion until it is completed. It is very hard to make progress on something while having to defend its very existance. Cocopuffberman 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Cocopuffberman 01:38, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T35

Non-notable web host that doesn't explain why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:WEB and is plain adspam. Delete Ardenn 21:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, Alexa rank <6,000 [50], must have a reasonable amount of users. Kappa 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Ardenn 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It means that there are a reasonable number of people who deserve to be able to read an encylopedia article about it. Kappa 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Then put something in the article so it is actually encyclopedic. Ardenn 22:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Alexa rank alone is not enough to establish notability, and I still see no indication of this subject meeting WP:WEB. Without being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself this subject has no place here. --Hetar 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic enough to be in WP. San Saba 11:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per San Saba.--Cini 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:53, 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 keep. Shanel § 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islands of British Virgin Islands

listcruft without additional value. Perhaps it can be merged to the main British Virgin Islands article, but definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own Hirudo 21:34, 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 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Łowcy Hordy Edwarda

A Polish football firm, no signs of notability, article has more info on general crime fighting activities in Poland and England than info on the firm. There are loads of hooligan gangs larger than this one that hasn't got an article, and that shouldn't have an article either. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete All results for "Łowcy Hordy Edwarda" Wisloka on Google turn up Wiki mirrors Metros232 12:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. incog 01:52, 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 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wavedash

gamecruft. I really don't think we need a page on each move or type of move in video games Hirudo 21:39, 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 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tellos

Non notable webcomic. Rory096(block) 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Daniel Case 21:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hirudo 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't a webcomic. It looks like it's a a print comic produced by Image. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. San Saba 11:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. 65.49.176.150 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) -Kariia


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelica Bella

Subject is hardly notable. No awards to her credit. Has roughly fifty films, if we are to believe IMDB (other pornography-oriented databases such as IAFD and AFDB list far less movies). Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Isn't an IMdB listing of even one film, regardless of genre, enough to establish notability by our usual practices? Daniel Case 22:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far. We've seen a number of cases with one IMDB entry that's an unreleased student film. However, in this case, the person seems to meet the porn standards for notability, such as they are. Keep. Fan1967
  • I've personally noted that IMDB is fairly unreliable when it comes to following porn films, actors, and the like; sites dedicated to this genre tend to be better fleshed out and far more accurate. Just my view on the subject. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"Fleshed"? Good choice of words there :-) Daniel Case 01:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep — I guess she has a sufficient "body of work" to be considered "barely notable", in am manner of speaking. We need a better standard for porn star notability. Maybe some types of awards? — RJH 17:16, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Popoff

Delete Non-notable artist, no sources quoted for notability even after a Talk page discussion. This has been through an AfD before (result was a unanimous Delete). This time round was speedied twice, then prod'ed; each time the notice was removed without comment, so we're back here again. If consensus is to delete again, we may consider protected the page from re-creation Gwernol 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment original AfD discussion is here Gwernol 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as recreated article. Otherwise just delete as nn vanity, and Protect. Fan1967 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: his notability hasn't changed, and this is just a re-creation of deleted material, please protect as well. --Hetar 22:25, 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 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famine sceptics

  • del self-coined neologism, original research. A typo in the name (skeptic is the correct word). Google search gives only wikimirrorgarbage. `'mikka (t) 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, sceptic isn't a typo, it's the British spelling. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as no matter what the spelling, this is still made-up. No Google hits = no verifiability (and probably no notability) = no article. -- Kicking222 00:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. No attempt to progress since the nomination. Mukadderat 17:28, 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. SushiGeek 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleturkish

Recreated after being deleted under PROD, so essentially an ex post facto contested PROD. I don't deny the truthfulness of some of the things asserted in this article. I live in Berlin and hear people code-switching between German and Turkish all the time. However, I can find no evidence that this phenomenon is known as Aleturkish or Aletürkisch. I can find no evidence that any of the books listed under "sources" actually exist. I would fully support a verifiable article citing reputable sources (that I can actually find on the Internet or in the library) on the topic of German/Turkish code-switching, but this article isn't that. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It makes too much sense to be a hoax, except that it must be a hoax. I searched long and hard, and in spite of my diligence, like nominator could not find a shred of evidence that any of the listed sources or even their authors exist. "Özyargılı" should be "Önyargılı" ("prejudiced") and presumably be part of the title; its appearance after a semicolon as a kind of afterthought (what does it refer to?) is strange. Bulut Yayınları is an existing publisher. I could not find the book using the search function on their web site, although that does not mean much because I could not find some books that I know for certain they published either. But these did turn up in Google search. "Deutschen Verlag" is somewhat suspicious; it should be "Deutscher Verlag", and as far as I know that name was only in use during the Nazi period. Or is it "Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften"? I don't know what happened to this VEB after the unification. Or "Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt"? For a book in a major language that is even a second edition, and as recent as this, and for a relatively sexy topic, it is really really strange nothing on it can be found on the Web. The search term "McCornigal" has 0 hits. "McConigal" has some, but "George McConigal" again zilch. Ugh. LambiamTalk 23:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I also looked in the online catalog of the Staatsbibliothek Berlin for any of these books or their authors and came up empty. The basic premise is not a hoax, but the details in this article are one. Angr (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. --Snargle 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, case of getting wiki to deseminate a new idea. -- Agathoclea 06:53, 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 del. `'mikka (t) 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalinizing

del wikipedia:Verifiability problem for this particular meaning of the word ("retouching"). `'mikka (t) 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete While certainly there is currency for the phraze "Stalinize" it seems to be used in more of a political context -- something that the speaker feels has become totalitarian has become known as "Stalinized". Just not in a photographic context. Not that the practice wasn't extremely widespread in Stalin's USSR, and that the article isn't factually correct on that score. Pat Payne 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per mikka... Grafikm_fr 23:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Retouching#Historical examples, which has duplicate information (including example photos). Ewlyahoocom 11:22, 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. Shanel § 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyance cult

WP:NFT... ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • 101st annoying commandment: Create a vanity article about yourself on Wikipedia. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please annoyingly (or not) Delete it as vanity... Grafikm_fr 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and, if possible, speedily delete. How many different things can be cited here? Nonsense, vanity, no notability whatsoever... -- Kicking222 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 11:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not for things made up in...a pub one day? Metros232 12:28, 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 --lightdarkness (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schooner Jenny

Doesn't seem very notable, just 187 Ghits, not all relevant. Rory096(block) 22:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I found a reference to the tale of the Jenny (added to the article). This seems like one of those items which isn't going to turn up much on Google as its "ancient history" but is still notable enough that we should cover it in Wikipedia. Gwernol 23:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Australian poet Rosemary Dobson wrote a poem about it in The Ship of Ice and other poems published in 1948. Dobson won a Sydney Morning Herald poetry prize for her work. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I seem to remember reading about this once. Needs a source in addition to the poem, though.Thatcher131 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This source notes that a 1989 survey of Antarctic expeditions found one 1862 reference, otherwise no corroboration. The original source may have been apocryphal. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 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. SushiGeek 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Players Club

Basically advertising, and I don't think anything can be done to it that will make it look like it isn't advertising. -- Grev 23:00, 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.
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fucking giddy up

Minor fad that appears to be limited to one community, judging by the relatively large amount of editors to the article, I suspect the article has been posted on said message board for improvement by the posters. -Obli (Talk)? 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I totally agree and the links to the messageboard indicate it's filled with people who don't know how to use photoshop or be funny.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.149.39 (talk • contribs)
    • You're right, most of the photoshops in that thing are badly made or not funny at all. bigexplosions 10:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total garbage. Brian G. Crawford 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch the fad grow. I wouldn't delete it, because Cornelius will come back to haunt you again. Remember the [O Rly? owl?[51]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.132.242 (talk • contribs)
  • Worst. Fad. Ever. I spend plenty of time in the Newgrounds BBS and I can confirm that "Cornelius mania" can be described as trivial at best, propagated mainly by preteens with little in the way of photoshop skills or humor. Cornelius is a stain upon the Newgrounds community and the internet in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.38.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Too cool for the interweb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.4.194 (talk • contribs)
  • As creator of the article I was hoping to expand this fad but realise I couldn't and so very glad that the "bedn fad" that's been going on for at least dreadful two years on the Newgrounds forums hasn't progressed elsewhere and has become mandatory for every single photoshop thread on the Newgrounds BBS. I'm fairly neutral with whatever decision is made whether to keep or delete this article. I tend to wonder how fads such as the "o rly" fad became an internet phenomenon when itself became quite tedious. However I do not make the choice whether this article should stay or go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfscr (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The o rly, AWB, and the damn Chuck Norris fads were let on, so why shouldn't Cornelius stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.223.198.113 (talk • contribs) .
    • Because the article isn't actually about the meme. It's a load of bollocks. If the meme gets any bigger then it should be filed under 'Cornellious' and actually contain information about the known origins of the image and aspects of the meme, but right now it's the wrong topic for an article, and the wrong article for the topic. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --blue520 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Confined to one internet community only. Non-notable. --Doug (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Best entry I've ever seen. Honestly. This beats the artical on Quanum Bio-Physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.80.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Per nom. --DanielCD 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this should have been speedied as either nonsense or nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, forumcruft. -- The Anome 00:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The creator of the article here again, I see this article is progressing as there are people contributing to the origins of Cornellius (although it's spelt differently in different forums. It proves from the addition to the article that people would like this to stay up. Perhaps we can change this into "Cornellius" or however people want it spelt and have "Fucking Giddy Up" as a sub heading.I apologize to the original founders of the mosh guy/Cornellious for assuming the Cornellius fad started on the Newgrounds BBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfscr (talk • contribs)
  • what a bunch of completley heartless mother-fuckers, i agree that if bedn, chuck norris and other crap like that got on wikipedia, then this should stay. so consider that crap before lashing out at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.229.238 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Rory096(block) 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment i already voted, but...chuck norris facts are not limited to a forum. they are world wide, digital and non. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:49, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Young

Doesn't seem entirely notable. She may have a listing at IMDB [52], but other than that she doesn't seem to have a following that I can discern. Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disgaree --24.80.225.108 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as well --SteveHFish 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fairly well-known actress. GreatGatsby 03:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

keep her on here. theres no reason to take her off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.195.245 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete — Well-known? By whom? Successful? How? There is no documented evidence of her notability here. The bar needs to be set higher for a porn star, I think. — RJH 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Go to link farms, you'll see thumbnails of her everywhere. GreatGatsby 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid this doesn't mean anything... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
For someone who comments on porn star pages, you seem ignorant of the women involved in the industry. It certainly means something, if someone has many videos on the internet, they're worth a page. Hell, a lot of the porn stars are less famous than others who don't even have pages. GreatGatsby 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I am aware of who Christine Young is, thank you. However, just because there are thumbnails of her everywhere doesn't make her notable. The only thing it means is that porn webmasters and linkfarm maintainers view Young as a viable commodity; it doesn't make it so, however. As far as I can tell, she has been in a handful of movies and does not seem to have garnered any awards of any kind. has she been the subject of a particularly newsworthy article by a credible source. Hence my nomination for deletion. Thank you for your comments. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GreatGatsby └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the actress is well known Yuckfoo 04:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
And the proof is where? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:02, 28 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. Harro5 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pieday

Delete or Redirect to Pi Day The story on this page seems made up to me. Nationalparks 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as WP:CB. The bit about "The Da Pastry Code by Dan Brownpie" makes this patent nonsense. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:41, 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 Speedy per G1. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccine safety

  • Delete No content. Just navigational templates. Joelito 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete topic may be worthy of an article, but what is on this page is sub-stub, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 21:01, 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 speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Hollister

vanity/nn Amcfreely 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nauseating vanity. --blue520 08:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a better biography than my first entry. This should satisfy all objections. I was lazy and just copied bio from company homepage. jspugh


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google X Directory

Non-notable website which has consistently been linkspammed in other articles by article author. Haakon 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN and ad. -- Grafikm_fr 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google x directory has been created for the same purpose. Haakon 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article author removed this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 21. I reinstated it when I noticed. Haakon 10:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. - EurekaLott 14:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, an advert, and spam. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adspamcruft -- JFG 23:47, 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.