Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 22

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:22, 23 April 2006

[edit] Lugola

NN linux user group. No alexa ranking (not suprising considering the problems Alexa and linux have). A google search reveals 273 unique results, most of which are sites which simply list large numbers of linux groups. Delete. --Hetar 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. _-M ^o P-_ 04:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:01, 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 delete. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:23, 23 April 2006

[edit] Furfire

This is the second time that this webcomic has been nominated. The first nomination can be seen here and resulted in no consensus. My grounds for the nomination are similar, that this is not a notable website. You can see this furry webcomic here. If you take a look at the original nomination made last year, you'll see that it had an Alexa rank of 1.5 million, it has now fallen to nothing. A look at their forums here, which have been online for around 9 months has managed to attract 45 users. Googling "Forrest dreams studio", the website name, gives back less than 50 hits. I don't think this website is notable. - Hahnchen 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. -- Kicking222 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Dawson 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, how on Earth did this survive a nomination? -Objectivist-C 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a regularly updated webcomic. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. Refer the issue to Webcomics. --AlexWCovington (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do you think that all regularly updated websites are notable? - Hahnchen 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Do you think all failed AFDs deserve renoms? --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Obviously not. - Hahnchen 11:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only 9 site link to it. --Quiddity 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nowhere near notable enough for even a short article. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, No fame, no influence, no popularity, no point. Average Earthman 16:52, 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 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete is a Pogo Stick

A series of Macromedia flash cartoons hosted at Keen Toons. The Keen guys usually do webcomics, and have some professional flair in that area, so I don't normally nominate their comics. However, their foray into Flash cartoons is merely a sideshow distraction. In the world of Flash animation, KeenToons do not have clout. Googling "Pete is a Pogo Stick" brings back 10 unique hits, which is less than Super Monkey Poop Fight and Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks did. This really isn't Xiao Xiao. - Hahnchen 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: Xiao Xiao is awesome.)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Keen Toons, since the series is cancelled. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Crakorjack 16:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Currently NN. Startup account 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. - Runcorn 21:40, 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 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double vaginal, double anal

Impossible sex act. It's a prominent joke in the movie Orgazmo and the source of the name for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's band DVDA, but it doesn't need its own article. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep its a valid term.
• Merge into DVDA (band). --Rory096_(block) 01:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep could probably use more sources. It's probably notable enough purely for its role as the band's etymology and for its pop-culture references in addition to being notable as a sex act.Cheapestcostavoider 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Stone and Parker do not confer instant notability on every neologism / piece of sexual slang they coin. A short description on the "band" page will be just dandy. Deizio 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm pretty sure they didn't coin this. I mean, it shows up in descriptions of pornographic films all the time. A Google search yields something like 70K hits just for "double vaginal, double anal." There are a number of pornos that use DVDA in the title.[1], [2]. This is at least as widespread as a lot of the other sexual slang already here.Cheapestcostavoider 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to DVDA (band), merge as appropriate. Perhaps not physically impossible, but certainly not a sex act of any social significance and definitely uncomfortable. -- Kjkolb 02:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider.--Andrew c 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per Rory/Kjkolb. It is already mentioned on List of sex positions. -Dawson 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider.--Rpresser 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per above. Failing that, Keep. VegaDark 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. SorryGuy 05:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per above. --Quiddity 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a stupid concept but that doesn't disqualify it from staying. - Richardcavell 09:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per folks above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This sexual position may be rare or even mythological, but if the term is fairly common (see Google) and if it deserves some discussion, it belongs here, and NOT just as a South Park or band reference. Besides, I went to Wikipedia just now to look up DVDA to find out where this term came from and whether or not this act is even physically possible (results of my search: inconclusive, but articles can grow).

172.149.64.186 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Cheapestcoastavoider. --Terence Ong 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic content Maltesedog 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the band article. 23skidoo 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. dbtfz^talk 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if someone really wants to, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. Tuf-Kat 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. It may make me want to scream in pain to even think about this position, but it's worth keeping around. As for those claiming "nonencyclopedic content," I really don't think that's a good reason to delete. Delete for notability, verifiability, copyvio, or patent nonsense, but not because you don't like that it's included in the encyclopedia. There's plenty of material in Wikipedia that wouldn't belong in a traditional encyclopedia, because Wikipedia is not paper.Captainktainer 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as weird nonsense type stuff... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what you mean by "weird nonsense type stuff." It's obviously not an orthodox sex position, but it's pretty well known and featured in pop culture as well as countless pornographies. -Cheapestcostavoider 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? This sex act is not even physically possible, and I made that clear in my nomination. Double vaginal is possible. Double anal is possible. Double vaginal and double anal at the same time is impossible. It's nothing but a joke. The movies are named DVDA because they feature double vaginal and double anal, but not at the same time. Your comments in this discussion indicate that you clearly don't understand that the structure of the human body prevents anyone from actually doing this. Countless pornographies (sic)? I found only two. In pop culture? Only in Parker/Stone projects. This is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia, not a Trey Parker and Matt Stone fansite. Brian G. Crawford 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect per above.Chart123 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Reference better, though. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Merge, or Redirect this info doesn't deserve to totally deleted. if you can't find a better page to put it on then leave it be.Geedubber 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. Since it is a pop culture term, albeit perhaps in very narrow usage, and it is a distinct and known term with it's own applicable information, it should have it's own page. Although it is far from being a general interest subject, it nonetheless has information that can be written on it. Not all articles in an encyclopedia are of interest to everybody, nor should they be.-- Rayshaw 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately. Startup account 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While Wikipedia should not be censored, it should not become a repository for any smut that takes someone's fancy. - Runcorn 21:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of sex positions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 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 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friz (KeenToons)

Who is Friz? He's the guy behind Pete is a Pogo Stick, nominated above, and also the guy who tried so hard to get his neologism Knunder into Wikipedia. You can see the fruits of his Wikipedia neologoism insertion here. Although his article suggests similarities between Dave Gorman and Danny Wallace, this just isn't true. His biggest claim to fame is being covered by BBC Local News Lincolnshire, wow.[3] This man is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete BBC Lincolnshire, eh? Alan Partridge would be proud. Non-notable. Gwernol 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As an aside, how the hell did it take so long to protect "knunder" from recreation? Wouldn't it have made sense to protect it after, like, the fourth or fifth recreation? -- Kicking222 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Colonel Tom 22:55, 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 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Washington and Educational Egg

Another non notable flash cartoon. "Danny Washington" "Educational Egg" returns 30 hits. There are literally thousands of more popular and notable Flash animations out there, and having just endured one, there are thousands of better ones as well. They really are bad. no, really - Hahnchen 00:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Cheapestcostavoider 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a nn flash cartoon. --Hetar 05:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into keentoons. --Quiddity 09:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pirates! in an Adventure with Whaling

Also nominating The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists. Non notable books, about 2000 Google hits each. Rory096_(block) 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep That a legitimate UK publisher (Orion Publishing Group) has published multiple books in the series would seem to indicate that it's notable, even if this isn't exactly a best-seller. They're sold in both the US and UK, although the title for this particular book in the US substitutes "Ahab" for "Whaling."[4] In any event, the article could obviously use some cleanup.Cheapestcostavoider 01:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, actually notable books. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapeestcostavoider. --Terence Ong 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable books. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Startup account 20:25, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Bui

Asserts insufficient notability, and appears to be likely a vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Agreed. Delete Kittybrewster 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a notable scientist. 68.71.27.1 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way? If he's notable, the notability should be shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I was looking for my son's doctor and when I found him here it was very helpful. He's a gifted doctor - keep. 71.134.6.105 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a "gifted doctor," even if true, is insufficient for Wikipedia's general consensus on notability. Please explain why he should be considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created this page after hearing him talk about his research on stroke MRI because it was an important topic and he was impressive. 134.174.120.66 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And? Again, "being impressive" is not a notability criterion. He can be the most intelligent person in the world; until he does something that makes him notable, that still wouldn't warrant an article. --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

-Obli (Talk)^? 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A search for "Jonathan Bui" gets 125 Google hits none of which appear to indicate notability as a doctor see [5].Capitalistroadster 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Learn to use the right google search. Google Scholar indicates that he is a co-author or cited in about 71 papers. Peter Mansfield, who won a nobel prize for MRI, gets about 135. KWH 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article does little to assert notability, and Google definitely doesn't help his cause. -- Kicking222 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Hetar 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--Andrew c 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Dawson 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google Scholar indicates he is cited in 71 papers. I would urge that some of the other Keep votes who are familiar with his work might expand on the article to further demonstrate his notability. KWH 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of these citations to "JD Bui" are not to this person. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, "Jonathan D. Bui" leads to nine papers.[6] I am looking over them right now to see if they're the same person. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Eight of them appears to have his name on them. I was unable to verify one other since the link leads to the wrong page. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And many of the ones that the Google Scholar search comes up with the search string "JD Bui" don't seem to contain that name at all; it's not just that it's the wrong J.D. Bui, but appear to be complete false positives. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The way your search is structured, there are way too many false positives. One of them that I was finally able to track down, [7], for example, had an co-author named "JD" and an co-author named "Bui." Our hero here is definitely not involved in 71 papers. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad that my note caused you to do some actual research on the notability, but I would assert that all you've managed to confirm here is that according to limited online sources, the individual has contributed to at least 9 papers. (actually, according to this link in the article, 14 papers.) I do note the fact that this is the only article edited by the originator of this article. We're talking about a clinical fellow at Harvard who's published, I'd rather hear someone with expertise in the field say if he's made lasting contributions (as some of the above Keep votes seem to say). Why are you so eager to delete? KWH 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The way that the keep IP comments were going, one can easily draw the conclusion that this was a vanity page as well. If I were "so eager to delete" the page, I would have speedy deleted it as non-notable. As it stands, I'm looking for debate, not for unsupported and unverified claims of "but he's a great doctor!" or "he's a great scholar!" If there's verifiable information that he's notable, fine, but these comments are not verifications of his notability. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I want to give the best good faith to the article creator and other keep votes who claim to be familiar with his work, and they do need to be clearer on asserting notability... but it does seem to be a slightly different case from the average "nn-band". KWH 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Nlu's research. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Apr. 22, '06 [11:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete ccwaters 12:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with KWH. Talk:Jonathan Bui --User:ElectricEye (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, publications are to academics what speeches are to politicians. If he has written 14 articles, thats a sign of low notability. On this count, you could include most PhDs in the world. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn bio. Deizio 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, non notable biography Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being not notable. If he is, someone should provide some evidence. Tuf-Kat 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sign of notability --Ajdz 01:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. The article says "He exists. He is a doctor and a scientist." Those voting keep also note "He does good stuff." How is this person any more notable than the thousands of people you could say the same for? The article sure doesn't make a case for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom, not notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs)
• Delete Not notable and to a lesser degree, a vanity page.--Cini 09:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (almost) no sign of notability in the article, and agree that 9 (or even 71) papers would not be notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Currently NN. Startup account 20:26, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freewebs

Non-notable free web host, fails WP:WEB. Delete Ardenn 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I have been wanting to edit this article for a while since I am a user of Freewebs. I do realize that it reads like an advertisement, but if you go to Freewebs, they actually advertise for themselves on their own website. And of course, stating prices and benefits that Freewebs offers does make it read like an advertisement, but I did name some negative aspects in the article. On top of that, I felt rushed since the article got marked for deletion. Please feel free to make edits. Thanks! --EMC 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - As of April 21, 2006, it ranks as the 351st most visited website on the web according to Alexa. It's in the top 500 of all websites on the Internet, if that doesn't pass WP:WEB, what does? --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, are you kidding? Alexa ranking of 351, 22 Google News hits, and probably one of the most notable free web hosts in existence. How in any way does it fail WP:WEB? --Rory096_(block) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. Ardenn 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that only one of those gnews hits is actually about the site, rather than the hit coming from a url, but the story is decent. Kotepho 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but this article could really do with some fix-ups. Looks a bit like an advertisement for the website. But this isn't "Articles for bias discussion," so that's a whole other discussion. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Keep per above, needs cleanup - right now it's just a wikified price chart. -Obli (Talk)^? 00:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I removed the pricing info, since that's not really encyclopedic and is subject to change anyway. I think its a good start to cleaning up the article --Hetar 01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Quite a popular webhost. This is going to be speedy keeped right? - Hahnchen
• Keep and cleanup Freewebs is certainly notable and worthy of a Wikipage, but what exists currently isn't so hot. First off, it needs more info besides membership options and how to start a page. And second, I don't think the Alexa rank should be in the heading (or, perhaps, anywhere in the article). Aside from the fact that Alexa rankings change everyday (and the page won't be updated every day), an Alexa rank alone does not make a site notable no matter how high the ranking may be. -- Kicking222 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as above. It is notable and meets WP:WEB, but having said that it could use some work. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Meets pretty much any notability criteria you'd care to throw at it. A great many non-notable sites are hosted there, and way too many end up with articles here, but that in no way diminishes the significance of Freewebs itself. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Freewebs is a notable web host worldwide and meets all of WP:WEB criteria. We are talking about the Webhost having an article not about those non-notable websites. Alexa ranks do not mean anything all the time after all. --Terence Ong 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per most above. TH 21:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep somewhat nn, but at the same time it's 351 on alexa, so... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per all above keeps. Also cleanup somewhat. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 12:10, 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 Esteffect 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JIMMY

• This is just pure nonsense. I don't see any good way to make this into a real article. Strong Delete. Georgia guy 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. "it is the hope of the founding partners that JIM becomes a thorough part of the American lexicon and it is heard in multi-media use" means "We made this up one day, it's completely unsourced, and we want to use Wikipedia to promote it." --Elkman - ^(talk) 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Metamagician3000 01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's not nonsense, it's just a silly joke. Delete per User:Elkman. — Hillel 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• "A Wikipedia entry that makes no sense" should be Jimmified. Er, I mean deleted. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• After reading this, I feel that I've been jimmied(sp). Nah, I am sticking with duped. Delete junyor 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete why was this even up for deletion? I can't believe it wasn't just immediately deleted outright without a vote. Honestly, who would vote to keep this page? Even Jimmy doesn't want it to survive that much. -- Kicking222 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Kicking. Because (although it seems that User:Hahnchen below disagrees with me on that point) this article does not clearly match any speedy deletion criteria. According to guidelines, hoaxes and implausible theories (and ridiculous claims like the ones in this article) are not considered candidates for speedy deletion and have to follow the afd route. — Hillel 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy - Nonsense, rubbish, hoax. - Hahnchen 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Zaia

Non notable priest. 149 Ghits, and his only claim to fame is supporting an American Idol contestant. Rory096_(block) 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, WP:BIO.--Andrew c 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable -Jmh123 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it doesn't get expanded soon. - Richardcavell 12:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing of note here Deizio 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Guy M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Guy Sebastian M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Guy Sebastian. Startup account 20:35, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues

Prod tag removed with the explanation: "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight". I don't believe that supercedes the official policy regarding lists at WP:NOT. This needs a WP:HEY standard of improvement, right now it's listcruft. User:Kappa has been extremely busy removing prods this evening... Deizio 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw, list has now been significantly improved, hats off to Jcuk for making it happen. Deizio 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, although it has room for improvement, this list already assists with the organisation of articles, and aids the creation of new ones. Also it seems pretty rude to slap a prod tag on an article when it's a candidate for collaboration. Kappa 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The amount of listcruft that keeps appearing is discouraging. Hirudo 01:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and use a template instead, which is normal for this sort of thing. Calsicol 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that it is a candidate for collaboration does not mean it has to be kept, although I note that it has two supporters only and two others have suggested that it would not be good choice. Use a template as suggested above or put the list in a broader article. --Bduke 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, add location & team information (which cannot be sensibly included in a template). AfD is not cleanup and this does not violate any aspect of WP:NOT that I can see. However, as a believer in list-category synergy, I would prefer that this article be rebuilt into a simple List of basketball venues in Australia, a la Category:Basketball venues in Australia. -- Visviva 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NOT for "Mere collections of internal links", except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles (offical policy), with structured lists defined as "lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists". Nobody is suggesting that a list of these venues should not be maintained somewhere on WP, but it's not suitable for a stand-alone list with no context or information, which is the job of a category or template. Deizio 15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it could grow into a decent article, or eventually be merged somewhere. At the moment it should be a category or a template. But don't give up on it yet. - Richardcavell 12:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe merge into the league page. Its informative, but there are better ways to go about it... (categories, templates, etc) ccwaters 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Lists are not redundant with categories or templates; they can hold more information than either -- also, of course, lists can (and should) contain links to articles that have not yet been created, which categories cannot. -- Visviva 12:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable but needs work. -- Synapse 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transfer to a template per Calsicol. BoojiBoy 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Visviva, Wikipedia itself supports lists

(Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.) , so why do individual editors think they have to remove an article just because it IS a list?? Also there is a precedent for this sort of thing at List of Premier League stadiums, for example. Jcuk 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Premier League stadiums contains information about the home team, city, capacity and date built as well as a trivia section. It's something for this list to aspire to, sure, but by no means can that be considered to set a precedent for a list such as this simply because they are both about sports stadiums. I don't feel that we should remove lists, I feel we should adhere to the offical policy which dictates what Wikipedia is not. Deizio 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This list now contains much the same information as List of Premier League Stadiums Jcuk 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a list considered useful by a large category of users. I don't see any reason to delete useful lists of information. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done to User Kappa for removing the prod tag. This should never have been tagged as prod. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like useful information. Perhaps more info would make it better. Chart123 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and the potential to be very informative.--Cini 09:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a list of notable places which are interrelated.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep complete lists of items for which there are or should be articles. There is no way for a reader to determine whether a category is complete. Also as noted above, a list can contain more information. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:22, 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 merge to Hispanic Business Inc.. MarkGallagher performed the merging. SushiGeek 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HireDiversity

intially proposed deletion, anon user removed the {{prod}} tag. Article is a advertisement for website. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge content with Hispanic Business Inc., where it's already mentioned.Cheapestcostavoider 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Definitely does not deserve its own article. -- Kicking222 01:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's an advertisement and/or yellow pages entry, essentially. - Richardcavell 12:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP -- notable national website / employment service. Interestingstuffadder 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It would help if you could provide some reliable sources that mention the site. The only things I can find are press releases from the parent company. The site itself has an Alexa rank of 120,000, so I don't think it's notable per WP:WEB. Cheapestcostavoider 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. I generally favor keeping articles, but this is basically an advertisement and does not seem to be notable per WP:WEB. I've searched for anything to justify keeping it as an article, and have found nothing.--Wikiwriter706 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement --Ajdz 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As listed. Startup account 20:37, 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 all articles. Category and template is separately nominated. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Soccer Project Alpha

This is a multiple nomination and indeed 2nd nomination for the principle article, the original nomination resulted in delete and can be seen here There are many articles and they are listed below:

• Category:Online Soccer Project Alpha and everything within it, which include:
  • Brazil F.C.
  • Candles F.C.
  • D-League (OSPA)
  • F.C. Los Angeles
  • Markhamn S.C.
  • OSPA Premier League
  • Online Soccer Project Alpha
  • Purple United
• The group behind it all, TN Fantasy Sports Group
• And their Template:OSPALeague

Online Soccer Project Alpha is a fantasy football league, hosted on Freewebs and started by TN Fantasy Sports Group. Now, this is not a notable fantasy football league in the slightest, and even if it were, the individual teams and leagues would not merit individual articles. And if the company behind it, the TN Fantasy Sports Group, were indeed a company and not just a bunch of high schoolers, then they would have bought their own domain and managed to get more than 6 Google hits, all of them Wikipedia. Goodbye. - Hahnchen 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the lot ...and their soccer page is 404, their helmet-rugby page has 00000085 hits. --Eivind^t@c 10:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete parent article under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. Delete sub-articles as nn webstuff. Deizio 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per above. --TM 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Fails to be notable in any shape or form and has an extremely limited number of hits.--Cini 09:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable per nom. Qwghlm 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as a big bad walled garden. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 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 both as non-notable biographies, verging on attack pages. Joyous | Talk 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emza and PleaseDeleteThis

As per WP:NN and as unencyclopedic and nonsense... It is clearly a derogatory reference to *somebody* and deserves no place in Wikipedia - Delete --Valermos 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: as nonsensical vandalism. --Hetar 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: personal and irrelevant. Cyrian 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Reference does not appear derogatory and information may be relevant to some Lara 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above comment was written by Kelser and intentionally mis-signed as Lara. Kelser is the creator of the page in question [8] --Valermos 02:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• apology - thats my name, didn't actually intend to mislead. User:Kelser May I just also say that, I understand if it is deleted (on grounds of being personal and irrelecant), but that it is not at all derogatory and is infact a tribute.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Dennison

British born actor. I am nominating this on principle as vanity/self-advertisement since the only contributor so far has been user:Leedennison. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 02:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have been concerned about the verifiability of the subject from the article's creation, and I continue to be concerned. Notably, a Lee Dennison search at IMDB returns no relevant results, and the full credits for The Transporter, on which, according to the article, Dennison worked, don't list him. However, if the (perhaps tendentious) bio provided by a company with which he works is to be believed, then he has indeed been involved in the production of sundry notable films. Assuming arguendo that the bio as provided is entirely accurate, I am nevertheless convinced that Dennison is notable neither as an actor nor as a casting director. Joe 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The creator/subject has e-mailed me, taking umbrage at my questioning the veracity of the bio. I think I ought to note that my concerns were as much about verifiability as about truth. In any case, though, as I noted above and as others also seem to believe, even if the bio is wholly accurate (which is eminently possible), the subject is non-notable. Joe 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough; it appears likely that the article was created by the person himself, and that's no good. - Richardcavell 09:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wether the person himself created the article or not is immaterial-- Non-notable and fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:V. Coren 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Commnets have been emailed to both users and they are not withstanding. One does not need to be verified nor registered at IMDB to be an actor/crew member nor do the majority of films have CD listed in their crew as the CD role is required before production takes place. This is not a self advertisement (no companies details/web site information has been given) and unlike other people including one user here no vanity picture has been posted. Tendentious is the users own opinion and therefore not legally binding nor fact and the user even comments that "if" the details are fact he is still not convinced - again this is just a matter of opinion and not fact. It should be stated that other actors have placed their own bio here and have passed therefore RH and RC comments are also not valid. If I am wrong please let me know the correct page where it says actors/artistes etc cannot create their own page. I would also request they re-read the following before continuing with their comments. Thanks.

AfD etiquette

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedennison (talk • contribs) )

• Delete, unverified, non-notable autobiography. Comment to anon above - Hi, AfD etiquette does not and will never deny editors the right to nominate and vote for non-notable material to be deleted. Please check out WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:AUTO, and take some time to get a better feel of the house style and groove here at WP. It;s a great place and a fab resource, but there are rules... having one's autobiography deleted is a rite of passage for many, many editors - some go on to become dedicated Wikipedians, others never really get a handle on the project. I'm seriously glad I'm in the former group. Deizio 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, nn-bio and probaly hoax. --Terence Ong 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, self M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity? Hoax? It would suggest a little reasearch is done befoire casting doubts. The etiquette still states do not "bite" and "assume good faith" which the majority of you have not. Some of you who have commented have displayed a touch of vanity on your own pages and some are rather self indulgent to say the least. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedennison (talk • contribs) )

• Hi Lee. Do you mean information on editors "userpages"? That's a place to be creative as you like, and you are very welcome to display biographical information on your own user page, which appears when you click on your user name at the top of the screen or in your signature, which can be appended to comments on talk pages simply by typing ~~~~ before you save the page. Information stored in the main encyclopedia (often referred to as "articlespace" or "mainspace") such as the article nominated for deletion here must stand up to high levels of scrutiny per the policies and guidelines pointed out above ("WP:xx"). Many, many pages with the problems identified with this article appear on the deletion board every day, and as you can imagine many original authors contest the deletion. However, not displaying a solid grasp of wikipedia standards and practices when defending such an article is not a way to endear yourself to other editors. Again, I encourage you to stick around and get a better feel for the place. Best regards, Deizio 16:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Terence Ong. Vanity and not notable. --Cini 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as simply NN. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:V. This reminds me of the Rikkie Lee Travolta article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taunton Antique Center

Delete Prod failed. One reference has been added but I believe it still fails WP:CORP Joelito 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, appears to be one of the largest antique shops in all New England, certainly a significant part of the antiques trade in Taunton, with which it could also be merged. Kappa 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete A merge would clutter up the already large Taunton article. If someone can find a non-advertisement source for the New England claim I'd support keep, otherwise delete. Hirudo 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - let it have time to expand. - Richardcavell 10:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article was created in September 2005. Joelito 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn antiques shop. Are editors seriously claiming that notability is conferred by a claim from "villageprofile.com" that this is a particularly large antiques store? I would also be looking for something from WP:CORP, nada. Deizio 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or if it really does have local significance, then merge with Taunton. Tyrenius 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deiz. Eusebeus 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless it is merged somehow, I vote delete. Not notable enough and lack of references.--Cini 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Diez unless someone can prove this is a very prominent antique store.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete > Merge NN unless with other article. Startup account 20:38, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree completion

No sources, no references, appears to be original material, and the title doesn't seem to fit the description. Arbusto 02:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Keep per new sources and merge. Arbusto 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Jmh123 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate topic and the article appears to be a stub that does in fact describe the topic. See, for example, [9] which is a report to the board of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools on "Adult Degree Completion Programs". --Metropolitan90 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like this program exists. Borisblue 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as stub on legitimate topic per above (surely everyone's heard of degree completion programs; they're quite common and frequently advertised), but move to Degree completion program, as the article is about such programs, not the actual act or process of completing a degree. dbtfz^talk 04:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be bold and just make the move I suggested. It can't hurt. dbtfz^talk 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per recent development at the page. --Quiddity 09:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite and citing of sources. --Terence Ong 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a lot of work, references etc but is a valid subject of importance.--Cini 16:00, 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 again. SushiGeek 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Cowell

Unremarkable person, except for his work on a single film. And shouldn't someone who was "made famous over the internet" get a little bit more than 379 google hits?. Article was previously deleted for simlar reasons. The only reference is to his official site, which of course won't cut it as a sole source. Drat (Talk) 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete author of article appears to have only one interest at Wikipedia--to promote this individual and his film. -Jmh123 02:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shades of Gray (film). The film is notable, and any verifiable notability that Cowell has most likely comes from the film. — TKD::Talk 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete on-sight, per CSD G4 recreation of deleted material. Deizio 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TH 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per TKD M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know who he is. Famous enough for me. --SeizureDog 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are much more than 379 Google hits for him, search for Jeskid, you get about 31,100 hits --GrahamGRA 19:28, 25 April 2006 (GMT)
• Delete or redirect to the movie, which seems notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm working my way through the article and trying to edit it to be more encyclopedic in nature and also show that Jesse has a bigger following in his own right than was initially laid out in the entry - i.e. his fan site that has only been going since March this year has had 1.4million page views in the past month (I've included links to references) - and that Shades of Gray is just a part of his works (all be it a major one), and not just his sole achievement. Please bear with me, today is my first attempt at editing a wiki :) 81.79.54.144 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the creator and author of the Jeskid Fan Club website. Jesse brings more than the sum of his movies and online TV, obviously enough to warrant the creation and participation of a full scale fan community. I personally put hundreds of hours into the coding of the website alone, which in itself speaks to who and what Jesse stands for. There unfortunately are some somewhat disgruntled and jealous would-be writers, actors and film makers who have had little success and therefore feel the need to tear down something which is more than they could have hoped for - not to mention, we have come across some of these individuals who have made it their purpose in life to bring an end to Jesse's growing following - "just because". Since going live with the website in march, it has grown at a steady pace of 100+ members per week, and participation includes over 75% of all registered members on a daily basis - and half of that 75% participates every few hours. The fan site alone is anticipating a 2 million page view month, which includes nearly 450,000 site hits. This is, as I mentioned, only about a months time of being live. The most recent addition to JeskidTV, "SPAM" episode, sparked the same flurry of "water cooler" conversation that some better known network programming would. The idea that Jesse Coweel or his best known film Shades of Gray should be deleted in ridiculous, and I would encourage the individuals who requested such action be restricted and/or ignored for future deletion "requests". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.255.203 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. I am not a "jealous would-be writer", nor have I made it my purpose in life to make Jesse fail. I'm just another editor. Like Jmh123 said, it seems GrahamGRA registered here with the sole intent of promoting Jesse. I also took into account (but forgot to mention in the nomination) the fact that Cowell previously created an article on himself. Do you have an independant source for those pageviews? I'm not trying to say that you are lying, far from it. What I mean is, I could just write something on my own site and make a claim, you know what I mean? Oh yeah, I was just checking the fansite, and noticed this encouraging people to "GO forth to Wikkipedia and FUCK THEM UP!" (first post is at the bottom). Though one poster is thankfully encouraging reason.--Drat (Talk) 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You yourself clearly are showing prejudice, you do not check your facts before posting suggesting that Jeskid has few Google hits. When infact he has over 30 thousand. You appear to take every attempt to sabotage this article dispite the obvious fact that Jeskid has a large respectable fanbase. Pure Pwnage has a simmilar fanbase to Jeskid, but it's article is untouched. I feel you do not show considderation as to when credit is due, since Shades of Gray is only a small fraction on work that has been produced by Jesse. As far as Jesse Cowell and wikipedia themself go, he uploaded one image, there is no big deal in that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrahamGRA (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment. Please remain civil. The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — TKD::Talk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. People here are not recommending deletion because they have some vendetta against Jesse; they are doing so because they feel that the article does not or cannot meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. — TKD::Talk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not all of Jeskid's fame comes from his Shades of Gray work. JeskidTV is watched largely by his fan base as well, and his Fan Club website and chat are extremely popular. Sticking that all under SoG would be wrong, because they're not all related. He should have his own individual entry, where you can reach all of his works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.79.187 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep The only suggestion is to edit the article to make it more encyclopedic. A seperate article should be made for Jeskid TV work since his work on Shades of Gray (film) has one. There's about 15 hours of Jeskid TV content on http://www.jeskidtv.com. Q&A articles reviews and director bios found within google searches when searching Jesse Cowell and Jeskid. The Google results tally over 30,000+. The Fansite has many numerous active accounts. Seems notable enough. --Microbefox 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The difference between Shades of Gray and Jeskid TV is that the former has been reviewed by independent organizations/critics and has won some well-known awards. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeskid TV has not. Most of the third-party reliable (non-forum, non-blog) hits are about Jesse's role in Shades of Gray, right? The fact that Jesse has a fan club is great and all, but such doesn't contribute much to verifiable encyclopedic content because of the inherent bias involved. A Google search for +Jeskid -forum -wikipedia yields 517 results, which seems to indicate that most of Jesse's popularity stems from forum communities, which are not citeable as reliable sources. If someone can provide some reliable third-party sources for Jesse's popularity/notability outside of Shades of Gray, I'd happily reconsider. — TKD::Talk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Eden (band)

Band is non-notable, does not meet music notability requirements, and page reads like bad fiction. Google reports only self-submitted band info. Probably vanity as well given there is exactly one (human) editor to the page. Coren 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Jporcaro 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for official reference, meets no requirements of what makes a band. Teke 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteFails WP:MUSIC. If they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here doktorb | words 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see reports of a national tour in the United States in there, that's enough for WP:MUSIC. It's been around long enough that someone in the New York City scene can pick it out of a lineup; send the article in that direction for cleanup. In any case Clupula needs to edit other articles per WP:VANITY. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. From what I can, or rather can't, gather, the group is not significant on the New York scene aside from their own claims. Since members "leave for college" and the group has had ever a dozen members, I really don't think that this is any sort of serious band. Additionally, I don't think the national touring they've done is what MUSIC had in mind; even I could book a dozen shows around the country, rent a van, and have a national tour. Lastly, the stage name Kleibold Harris is just wrong. Teke 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One last nail in the coffin (I think the band would like that phrase), The message board has 43 members. Teke 18:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --TM 22:45, 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 redirect to Hellwars. - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And, since Hellwars was WP:PRODded for more than 5 days, delete it, and speedy delete Pkbr labs under WP:CSD R1. I'm evil. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pkbr labs

Found while working on dead-end pages. Company is the creator of the online MMPORG Hellwars. I'm not a gamer so I have no opinion on the game but is the company notable by itself if Hellwars is its only game. The article content basically describes the game, so if kept it wil have to be stubbed and started over from scratch. No opinion at this time. No one of consequence 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete creator of semi-popular game, just not notable, and I doubt their game is either. --Eivind^t@c 10:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hellwars and tag {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Simple redirect to Hellwars. Colonel Tom 22:59, 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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decomplexity

This orphan page is undisguised marketing copy serving as advertisement. Coren 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not a complex decision, that's for sure. Delete doktorb | words 08:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Marketing. Tyrenius 01:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Completely incomprehensible. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as marketing. On a side note, Ow. My brain hurts after reading that. Colonel Tom 23:01, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Device locking

Device Locking is a patented process of recognizing a devices non user configurable components for the purposes of generating a license to run software or access a system. This is not advertising, but actual fact. Pure advertising copy. Coren 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per nom and probably copyvio anyway.Cheapestcostavoider 03:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 April 2006
• Speedy Borisblue 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy --Quiddity 09:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - advertising. - Richardcavell 10:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A8 --Terence Ong 15:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio per nom. No speedy since it's been here since October. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Tyrenius 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio claimed to be fixed, but it's still advertisement for a NN corp. Coren 04:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where da moviez at

Should be reviewed for deletion, the previous deletion in 2005 was in my opinion uinfair. I, the author, am posting this page as AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted because it is a repost of an already deleted article. However i believe the original article was unfairly deleted and this should be given a second chance. It is valid information which is not false and should be given a second review perhaps.Crakorjack 03:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Even if the page wasn't drivel, it would be WP:NOR. Original deletion was justified. Coren 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This quote from the page itself says it all: Because of the nature of WDMA almost all of the soruces stating WDMA's existance cannot be verified. Okay then. Eron 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because the sources cannot be verified does not mean that people should not be able to read the arguements on both sides. Just because some sources are not verified does not mean that the verified facts about the site should not be showcased in one place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
    • Delete. Yes it does. Actually, that's exactly what it means. Content must be verifiable. Keppa 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: The article references its own deletion on Wikipedia, it has been deleted before, and to quote the article, its "existance cannot be verified." Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Hetar 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As per comments above, lack of verifiability. If it's so secret, then why is it being promoted here? --Valermos 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fairly clear from te article itself that there is no place for it here doktorb | words 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is rubbish. - Richardcavell 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• I vote to delete if a mention of it is made in the "somethingawful" article or other relevant topics. This is a relevant article, but the whole point of the page, the whole reason this website is well known, is for its secrecy. Keep it as a rumor article, a joke article, a footnote in another article, a fragemnt, a stub, anything, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere, because it is notable and because it is unresolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2006
• Speedy delete as above. A section on its original deletion? The article claiming that this topic is unverifiable? And the fact that this should have {{db-repost}} on it (the nominator would likely remove it, unfortunately)? I understand the nominator wants a "fair vote" (in quotes because AfD is not a vote -- the term "clear consensus" fits better), but it's still a G4 speedy candidate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and after taking a close read of the article, this may even be a hoax. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I have officially decided this is real, but my other reasons for deletion still apply. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I agree this should in theory be speedy deleted for repost, but because of the conditions of the original deletion, i believe it could be much more beneficial to keep this article as a hoax and have a dispute about whether it is true, it would benefit the article to see what people can dig up on the truthfulness of the site, because that is the issue truely in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
  • This article has been deemed "not a hoax", but the verifiability is still in question. --Crakorjack 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is real. It was a spinoff of a Something Awful forum, although no illegal files were shared there. The admins deleted the forum for various reasons at the beginning of 2005, leading to the setup of this site. From what I can tell, passwords to it were given out to a select few SA members. However, this is not endorsed whatsoever by the site's admins - members that join the forums to ask for the password are banned. Of course, this is all completely unverifiable (there is a section on this in the SA forums "SAclopedia", but only registered users can view it) and so this article should be deleted. --Doug (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just realized something... if he wanted to review the deletion, why couldn't this had been on deletion review? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I used to be an SA goon, so I know this isn't a hoax, but there's so much wrong here it's hard to pick where to start. I'll just mention that the article claims that the RIAA, a trade union, is a "government administration". Pugs Malone 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you know what's wrong with it why cant it just be edited? --69.105.140.52 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- article says it may be a rumor, or may be real, or something. Whatever it is, it fails WP:V. They also complain about the previous deletion a lot, but that isn't the reason to delete this page. --Elkman - ^(talk) 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question - If the article were to be shortened to simply "the illegid name of the site the BTB forum on something awful was moved to." or something of that type could it be kept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) .
  • Probably not, alas. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Violation of WP:V --Llort 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is not useful due to WP:V -- if the network really exitst at the scale claimed, it does deserve a mention but please someone, expose it first :) TH 22:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment sounds a bit like nonsense, and it's too hard to verify. It's like some joke about some invisible thing, but i can't remember what the joke was... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wishful thinking. More people have seen "space aliens". Shenme 05:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too many doubts in regards to verifiability.--Cini 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalist manifesto

This page gives no historical or social background as to the topic. Instead, it merely reproduces a document, with no information as to the author or the source, and with no assurance that the document is not, in fact, copyrighted by its (unnamed) author. In fact, it may very well be entirely fraudulent. Either way, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Manifestoes should be posted on private webpages. Charles 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Personal opinion and personal documents (whether the author of the article made it or the author copyvio from the real author of the manifesto, either way is deletable) --Crakorjack 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this should be relisted for a speedy delete? --Charles 04:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NOR. No references. No context. No nothing. Tyrenius 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a manifesto host --Ajdz 01:58, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mankind: Saving Humanity

nn self-published vanity book Amcfreely 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Probably looks like a speedy too. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not asserted. Colonel Tom 23:04, 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 Deleted by Doc glasgow. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flawless (Phife Dawg)

Non-notable song. Tagged for speedy delete; creator wiped the page. Keppa 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No page = no entry. No entry = delete.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator [10]. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Ivey

Author is not broadly notable. Not widely published. Unknown outside the small minority of law school applicants who are familiar with her work Interestingstuffadder 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Creator is active in articlespace, I'll assume good faith and trust some expansion. Give it a couple months. Teke 04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable author of mass published work, room for expansion. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above, she's also been quoted in the Washington Post (as cited in the article), New York Times ("One Good Career Deserves Another," by Lisa Belkin, section 4A on 11/6/05, also quoted on 3/16/05) and Chicago Sun-Times (9/7/2005, p. 68). Plus she was the Dean of Admissions at a major law school.Cheapestcostavoider 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment anyone got her card for me? Teke 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this may be a keep but is certainly not a speedy keep. As the article stands it points to only very limited publication history. Publishing one book and being quoted a could times is not nec sufficient for notability, at least not conclusively enough to justify a speedy. Let's see how the debate comes out and not rush this process. Interestingstuffadder 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. She's easily notable enough as an author, although you seem to be inventing new, ambiguous criteria that go well beyond the guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). If the NYT, Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times all think she's notable enough to quote as an admissions expert, and Vault thinks she's enough of an expert to have her own column on their site, I don't see why there's any need to prolong debate.Cheapestcostavoider 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: All I can base my reasoning on is what is referenced in the article -- she has put out one book, has been interviewed by a major newspaper once, she maintains a website and she used to serve as an administrator at an American law school. This infi may hint at notability (though I'd like to see more). But no, this information doe not make her such a slam dunk on notability that we should cut off the process of discussing whether she belongs on wikipedia. I just don't see anyting here that makes it clear that she meets speedy keep criteria. It is unclear to me why you are so afraid of letting this discussion run its course if you are so convinced of her notability. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I created the article. I'm not adamantly attached to it or anything, but I do think she is notable enough to merit an article. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#People_still_alive states "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" merit an article. The article as it now stands cites such a publication ("The Anna Ivey Guide to Law School Admission") and a link to the Vault.com column to which she contributes. Given the murkiness and contentiousness of "notability," I think it is best to err on the side of keeping an article. Moreover, judging from interestingstuffadder's comment on the pages's history, it seems that even the nominator for this AfD has reconsidered[11]. --Wikiwriter706 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the strong response to this AFD has prompted me to do some research (which I am not required to do -- it is up to the article to provide a basis for its notability) and I am getting to where I think it would reasonable to keep this. Also, a review of Wikiwriter706's fine contributions make me think that we can count on this article's ongoing improvement. However, I also still do not think this article reaches the criteria for wikipedia:speedy keep (though I imagine it will be kept when 5 days elapse). Interestingstuffadder 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're right that it seems likely to be kept so it doesn't matter too much whether or not it is speedily kept, but I do believe it currently meets the criteria for wikipedia:speedy keep since you, the nominator, seem to be stating you don't actually want the article deleted and there has been no other delete vote, valid or otherwise. --Wikiwriter706 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: although I am coming around, I have not yet formally withdrawn the AFD. The speedy keep guidelines indicate that in order for the article to be kept based upon my will I would need to withdraw the AFD. But I agree that you probably have nothing to worry about. Interestingstuffadder 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. The speedy keep is not binding, it's just one user's opinion. Consensus amongst the keeps and deletes will provide the concensus. As I mentioned in my weak keep, I would be hesistant on the article (in other words, I wouldn't have voted; I don't vote when I'm hesitant) had I not looked up Wikiwriter's contribution history, which I thought I linked to but appearantly I just linked to the userpage. Teke 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets notability criteria. Amcfreely 04:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. Probably bad-faith nomination; nominator AfD'd article less than a week after creation and despite obvious notability and without making any effort to discuss issues on this or the creator's talk page.Sparklemotion 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate being accused of bad faith. As the article has developed I have in fact engaged in a dialogue with the author about it and have acknowledged that it has become a solid article and I would not nominate it for deletion again. When I nominated this article it simply did not make a case for notability -- now it does. I am an experienced editor and I really resent being accused of bad faith in a public forum. Interestingstuffadder 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let things like that ride, keep cool :) After all, you get the credit of being flamed on the user's first contribution! Teke 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what else you would call a violation of AfD etiquette like this. An experienced editor really shouldn't be using AfD as a first resort without using a more appropriate tag or making a good-faith effort to discuss issues. Sparklemotion 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot seperating bad faith from poor etiquette. Look around the wiki -- plenty of articles are AFDed soon after being created, especially when created by inexperienced editors (which this page's creator was when he/she created the article). Frankly, when I first saw this it article it seemed like non-notable vanity to me. I have since been convinced otherwise. Maybe I should have waited longer before adding the AFD tag, but "bad faith" is an extremely strong accusation around these parts. Obviously I wasn't aware of the articles "obvious" notability. Bad faith implies that I AFDed this article out of some ulterior or nefarious motive -- there is absolutely no evidence of that. Thus, if you are truly interested in being part of a community that values civility perhaps you should pause before levelling such pointed accusations at other editors. Interestingstuffadder 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So can we shake hands? There are 2,000 to 3,000 articles/stubs created every day. About 500 get speedy, 300 get prod, and up to 150 on AfD. It's all in process, Sparklemotion. Interestingstuffadder, perhaps you might not want to argue your own nominations so seriously. Sometimes it's best to throw it out there and get out of the way. Teke 06:34, 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 merge with Extraterrestrial real estate. Apparently done already, I'll just place a redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon for sale

Marginally unencyclopedic, magnet for advertising sockpuppets, and generally useless even if arguendo not unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, deletion is not a cure for controversy, revert wars, linkspam, etc. This is an established article that covers a topic that requires NPOV treatment. Instead of asking for deletion, clean it up! --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. NurMisur 06:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. Arctic Gnome 09:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to Extra-terrestrial real estate. --blue520 09:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though it could use a cleanup. - Richardcavell 12:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Extra-terrestrial real estate. --Terence Ong 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. --ElKevbo 20:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep + Comment... I'm going to try to clean this article up, with a NPOV, now that my computer is working... and also, Merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate... It seems much cleaner, and more informative. Sincerely, Logical2u 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge to/with Extra-terrestrial real estate __earth ^(Talk) 06:27, 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 merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Hope

Similar to Moon for sale above, except that here, notability is a major question as well. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep erm...or maybe move to extra-terrestrial real estate. Or even move to List of wrong people =]. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Extra-terrestrial real estate, as above. Shenme 05:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Shenme. Colonel Tom 23:06, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuscarawas County Rabblerousers

The article is either a joke, or a vanity page, but it certainly is not, in any way, an article about a real Major League Baseball team. A Google search gives 0 hits. Charles 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is so obviously a hoax that it should be a speedy delete for vandalism. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to change it, if you like. This is only my 2nd listing for deletion, so I'm willing to say I listed it incorrectly.--Charles 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that my comment was intended as criticism of the article, not of your method of nominating it. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Understood.--Charles 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. The nomination is correct, although {{prod}} could have been used instead. Hoaxes are not a criterion for speedy deletion. Sandstein 04:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ...unless they're vandalism, which this very nearly is. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. (But there's no way this would have been accepted as a speedy-per-vanadalism or speedy-per-nonsense.) Angr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Colonel Tom 23:07, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit 2

Useless trivia. Could probably be merged somewhere but I don't think it's worth it Hirudo 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:BAI point five. Sandstein 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nitpick do you mean point six? Hirudo 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Fails to show any notable difference to the X number of student accommodation/residential halls around the world.--blue520 09:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd like to give it a chance to expand. Some of these student halls from top universities are worth encyclopedia articles. - Richardcavell 10:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been around since last December, and in that time not one single word has been added to it apart from vandalism. It hasn't expanded in months: there's no reason to suppose it will ever expand. It's hard to see how it could expand. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Please think twice before creating an article about any of the following: ... Your dormitory ... WP:BAI point six. This article makes no claim to notability for the building. --Metropolitan90 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A set of buildings someplace. They have rooms in them. The rooms have people in them, and some have other stuff in them. No, wait! It's a 'special' place! And 'special' people! And 'special' stuff! (Acck! Gotta stop reading these Afd's, else I'll transgress No Personal Apoplexy) Shenme 05:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. San Saba 10:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 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 and rename to List of radio stations in Spain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spanish language radio stations in Spain

Yet another useless list. At most there should be just a page with Spanish radio stations in any language instead of this Hirudo 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no idea why prod was removed with no explanation or maintanance to the page. Appropriate Username 07:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe move to List of radio stations in Spain (which should then have subsections on Catalan and Basque stations, I suppose). Just about every country has several notable radio stations, and there is nothing wrong with organizing these in a list. See List of radio stations in Greece, List of radio stations in Portugal, List of radio stations in Turkey, List of radio stations in Alabama or List of radio stations in California. David Sneek 12:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of radio stations in Spain, per David Sneek. -- Visviva 12:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of radio stations in Spain, per David Sneek. NoIdeaNick 14:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of radio stations in Spain. --Terence Ong 15:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to list of Afrikaans language radio stations in spain of course to List of radio stations in Spain, per Sneek. This article's title is even nonsense. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or failing that, rename to a less-nonsense name), wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article's name isn't that nonsensical, "Spanish language radio stations" would have to include the Americas, and in Spain several languages are spoken apart from Spanish: Basque, Occitan, Catalan, Galician. David Sneek 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but do all languages need a separate list? Hirudo 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily; I just wanted to point out that there is a rationale behind the name the article has now. David Sneek 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On further consideration, this information would be better preserved in a larger article with subsections for other languages, as above voters. Kuzaar 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing and Healthcare Management

This article is not about nursing and healthcare management in general, just a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sounds too much like an advertisement put there by the school. - Richardcavell 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft or adcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's arguments. Colonel Tom 23:09, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A3 - article's entire content is rewording of the title or links elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon world metropolitan areas

Original research/fanfiction; while these areas exist in Pokémon, they are never referred to by these names or even referred to as "regions" or "metropolitan areas". Hirudo 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Page was re-prodded by someone after Kappa de-prodded it, so I'm converting that person's prod into an Afd. Hirudo 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: List of pokemon world metropolitan areas should also be deleted (it is basically a redirect)--Zxcvbnm 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I reprodded it (and clearly I want it deleted), because I meant to fix the deletion reasoning anyway. The original prod had a lousy reason. AFDing it is fine, too, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pokecruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Pokemoncruft. --Terence Ong 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BryanG 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. San Saba 10:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and ask that de-prods are done by editors who actually know something about the subject matter and feel they can improve it, per the rational on the prod template. Deizio 11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Metropolitan areas" in Pokemon are non-canon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Listcruft article inappropriately deprodded by chronic deprodder Kappa. Kuzaar 11:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If Kappa did not want this deleted, there was nothing inappropriate in deprodding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This could possibly be the single most important entry on Wikipedia. ... Haha. Just kidding. Speedy Delete. 209.6.26.54 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly due to being a list of one item, which is a redlink. In fact, I'm going to speedy this under CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 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 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EA Web - East Anglia Forums

Article fails to meet WP:WEB and reeks of advertizing. Coren 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: only 375 Google results [12], no alexa ranking, and nothing that moves it anywhere near the vicinity of WP:WEB. --Hetar 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert, WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:03, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 06:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Eddie plugins

Merge has been done; can't prod so listing here. Hirudo 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect as merge complete. Sandstein 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question, why does it need to be deleted? And not just redirected.--blue520 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect--blue520 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect --Terence Ong 15:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete. Eusebeus 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to comply with GFDL requirements. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of national copyright laws

there's a perfectly good category for this. The list adds no value whatsoever and is likely to be missed when new articles are added Hirudo 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - should be a category. - Richardcavell 12:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if its good enough for a category it's good enough for a list too, with which you can do more than a category anyhow. Jcuk 21:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. San Saba 10:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant since covered by category (per nom). Eusebeus 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maintenance nightmare per nom. — Haeleth Talk 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists are not self-maintaining. Categories are. A category is more than sufficient here. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

non-notable fringe conspiracy theories have no place here, also they're hardly reasearchers anyway-RCT 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEPnuf said!--Sotoz
• delete blatent misuse of an encyclopedia to campaign for the DNC by pushing insane conspiracy theories, soapboxing for fringe idiots isn't the job of a wikipedia article-RCT 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't claiming that the DNC is pushing for these conspiracy theories as part of some sort of agitprop campaign count as an "Insane conspiracy theory?"--DCAnderson 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP notable people have come forth May 6th MAdison WI : W's Morgan Reynolds! (again!)
• Keep, this isn't an endorsement of their theories, merely documentation of them. There are plenty of notable alternate theories, whether they're credible or not. --W(t) 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W(t). I remember that this was AfDed already (see also article talk), but can't find a link. Anyway, I am all for deleting non-notable conspiracycruft, but we do need to have a place to merge the individual conspiracystubs to that crop up from time to time. Sandstein 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably you mean this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, researchers. The article was merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories, which now has a {{verylong}} tag, stating: "This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate." —Lambiam^Talk 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further research reveals that the present article evolved from the "September 11, researchers" article, which never got actually deleted, but only moved around. Since it was moved here, it has been edited extensively and mercilessly, so the old discussion does not mean much. Lambiam^Talk 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W -- and note that this AfD is the only contribution [13] RCT has made on Wikipedia. "We're cleaning the bias off of wikipedia, one article at a time, pass it on to your closest friends" is -- well -- kinda nonwikipedian [14]EyesAllMine 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just like things like the Moon landing hoax, these conspiracy theories are notable enough to have an article. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This AFD is ridiculous. I see over 30 relatively notable names on the list of researchers! Whoever is proposing the AFD is engaging in beligerant behavior. Kaimiddleton 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a genuine subtopic. Metamagician3000 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why isn't this a category instead of an article? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep however I'd like to rename it Researchers who question the official account of 9/11 - Richardcavell 09:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename, as per Richard. The nominator does not seem to have a complete grasp of NPOV policy ("campaign for the DNC by pushing insane conspiracy theories"). David Sneek 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful and encyclopedic list, but move to List of prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which is precisely what the article is. There is no such thing as "the official account of 9/11". dbtfz^talk 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this looks very pov... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this was already turned into its own page because there wasn't room for it on the main 9/11 CT page. It has only grown since then and DOES include notable people - researchers who work in labs, former government officials, 9/11 families organizations, etc. Bov 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per the above Badgerpatrol 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, There is enough published research online from scientists and engineers regarding the fiction of the "Official 911 Story" to move the 911 Cover-up out of the conspiracy zone. The real conspiracy theory is the 19 amateurs with box cutters attacking the most powerful country on the face of the earth. Protean7 11:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Most of the people on this list are notable published authors/researchers or former government officials. Besides that, the holes and lies of the official story that most of these people have documented are not a "theory" as they've been documented- the official "theory" needs evidence to back it up as it is generally rejected by people looking into the facts and history behind 9/11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.70.139.175 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 April 2006. (And it is the only edit from this IP-address. --Lambiam^Talk 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
• Absolutely Keep: This has nothing to do with the DNC, this research is mathematical fact. The official government theory is biased and the 9-11 commission members are full of conflict of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.134 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 April 2006.
• Absolutely Keep: why shouldn't we be informed about the people that made this kind of speculations about 9/11?--Pokipsy76 07:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEPI've had to work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and I was the one who put the very long tag up there. I personally do not support these theories, but I believe that there existence is notable. This page seems to be very good as it merely lists who the conspiracy theorists are, and what they believe, without endorsing their views. This page is necescary as it keeps 9/11 conspiracy theories from being overly long.--DCAnderson 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but please make sure to keep it verifiable and avoid original research. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP !! please make sure to keep it. no democracy and no encyclopedia is working if alternative views, especially backed by researchers, are discarded!

• Keep - possibly merge with a related article? dreddnott 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ogonek and Cooh

Relevant policy: WP:BAND

Neither the article nor the Google hits indicate that this Bulgarian band meets the notability standard WP:BAND. They are said to have released "bootleg CDs" only, which I take means self-made CD-Rs (please correct me if I am wrong), and there are no indications of mainstream media mentions or tours. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fails WP:MUSIC. Keppa 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's rough but it's fixable. The group seems to have a following in major nightclubs. Eastern European culture, keep it to fight WP:BIAS. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a following in major nightclubs is not in the list of criteria in WP:BAND. I'm all against WP:BIAS, being a Central European myself, but standards are standards. Plus, there are no sources for the supposed nightclub following (WP:V, WP:RS). Sandstein 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, well short of WP:MUSIC (aka WP:BAND), which incidentally is a guideline rather than a policy - WP:V is, however, a policy and any tenuous claims to notability which could be interpreted from the article ain't WP:V'd by a long shot. I am avowedly anti-bias, and avowedly anti-non-notable articles, which some apparently believe is an untenable position - let me assure you, it isn't. Deizio 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, San Saba 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein. Eusebeus 15:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It was I who nominated the article, not Eusebus, and I would like to know why exactly you think I was acting in bad faith. Sandstein 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. Eusebeus has made dozens of what I think are conspicuously bad faith AfD nominations, in the last few hours, and I tagged this one by accident because of the editing pattern. That said, Keep per AlexWCovington, since applying criteria intended to measure notability in American popular culture shouldn't be mechanically applied in the context of other cultures. Monicasdude 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I disagree with the keep, because WP:BAND - like all policies - isn't specific to any nationality or culture. Wikipedia is a global endeavour, not an American one, so: the same standards for everyone, please. Similarly, WP:V is both of global applicability (they have discovered writing in Bulgaria, yes? :-) and non-negotiable. Also, you do not specify what consensually accepted criteria, if any, should be applied to Bulgarian bands instead, and why. Sandstein 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. -- JamesTeterenko 22:59, 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 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Echo

nn band fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Coren 04:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable. - Richardcavell 10:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Matt Eason 10:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 15:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FalconStor

Non-notable, and fails to meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Coren 05:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. - Richardcavell 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 15:51, 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 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazard Factory

Not notable. --W(t) 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. - Richardcavell 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, interesting place but no assertion of notability, no external verification, only "participant" is owner of studio. Deizio 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(2 comments below moved from article's discussion page)

• Keep - The artists of Hazard Factory are infact notable having produced art viewed by tens of thousands at several burning man festivals. As well they are generative in the Seattle arts community hosting the production of important modern art. This group has been creating work for six years and will be seen as historically significant in fire and metal arts. Majikthys 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't understand why this is a candidate for deletion. This group is an active member in the Seattle art community and is well established. This is not a vanity page. It probably should be noted as a stub article, though. l0ne 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted a note on the talk page about general notability and WP:V Deizio 00:51, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screff, and scundered too, while I'm here

A slang term. Moved to Wiktionary (I think) Dangherous 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Screff and Delete Scundered. Screff seems a bit like bogan, which is a genuine sub-culture. - Richardcavell 12:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, WP:NOT for obscure regional slang definitions. Deizio 16:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Deizio. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD; I don't think these are good for Wiktionary either. - Liberatore(T) 17:48, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caddy whompus

We are not a slang dictionary. I've transwikied this to Wiktioanry, but chances ar it won't stay there long. Dangherous 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I searched for it at Wiktionary, but for some reason wasn't there, if it's been deleted there, it deserves a spot somewhere in the wikipedia universe. FireSpike 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. 42 unique Google hits, including this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. --Hyperbole 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - more suitable for wiktionary. - Richardcavell 10:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sort of. Deserves a spot at wiktionary, but the only large number of GHits for the word (over 100K) are for "cattywompus". All the other spellings I tried (including this one) only got a few hundred hits. Fan1967 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT for neologisms or simple slang definitions. Deizio 16:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD, but perhaps Wiktionary would want a page on cattywompus if that's a sufficiently well-known term. -- Mithent 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—I think the most common spelling might be "catawampus". OED gives also "catawampous" and "catawamptious". This is not a neologism: OED's earliest citation is from 1840, and Dickens used it in 1844. Ardric47 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If google's an indication of current usage, the hits I get are: cattywompus 108K, catawampus 42K, cattywampus 20K. Less than 100 for "caddy whompus". Fan1967 03:58, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. SushiGeek 07:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rufaro

We are not a dictionary Dangherous 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wictionary. Note also that Rufaro appears to be a common last name and that Wikipedia has an article on Rufaro Stadium. --Hyperbole 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and rd to Rufaro Stadium M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete and recreate as a redirect to Rufaro Stadium. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect; it's a non-English word with an English definition, I don't think wiktionary wants it. - Liberatore(T) 17:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross (Anglo-Cantonese slang)

We are not a slang dictionary. This isn't really formatted to Wiktionary standards Dangherous 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced, and looks non-notable even if it does exist. Herostratus 06:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable dicdef. I don't exactly know how to Google this word since Ross is such a common name, but (ross "shum shum") yields no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - suitable for a dictionary - Richardcavell 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism; not even worth for a dictionary M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 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 07:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazzcore

non-notable genre or better genrecruft. Only few bands play this style not even mentioned by most of the bands listed. Delete. Note: Extreme metal says that Mathcore/Jazzcore are closely related styles. A merger may be an option as well. Spearhead 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge I've heard the name bandied about a bit. Very close to genrecruft, but could probably just be merged ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another page from the "Ultimate sub-sub-genre-cruft" collection. The article contains nothing except a short, scattered list of bands - not one of which is described anywhere on their own article as Jazzcore, and very few seem to come close to the one line description of Jazzcore on the page. A notable genre should have at least one notable band in it and SOMETHING to say about style, origins, evolution etc. Nothing to merge. Deizio 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral The list mixes two fairly distinct genres, jazz bands heavily influenced by hardcore punk (eg. Naked City, Painkiller, Last Exit, Massacre), and hardcore punk bands heavily influenced by jazz (eg NOMEANSNO, Victim's Family). The latter have more in common with the Minutemen, Blackflag, Fugazi, Gang of Four, Wire and other jazz influenced, but (arguably) not overtly jazzy punk bands, than they do with the first group of bands. There are many very important bands on this list, certainly above the threshold of notability, but the central thesis of the article (such as it exists) is not well supported. Pete.Hurd 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even the geners templates took it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:15, 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 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nowe

Creating page, since this AfD was posted by User:84.184.119.43 who, not being logged in, did not create this. No vote. Mithent 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

The page promises further information, but has been in "hiatus" for quite some time, current information isn't very helpful at all.

The character isn't important enough to warrant his own article, integrating further information about him into the main article makes more sense. deletion--84.184.81.207 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Drakengard 2 - not worth its own article. --Hetar 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it can grow; give it time. - Richardcavell 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft. A random nobody from a game that's only notable by virtue of its publisher. Still no information nearly a month after the author promised to add more "soon" -- most likely because there isn't any information worth adding. — Haeleth Talk 18:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, minor character in minor game with minor if any notability. Merge to the game at most. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 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, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trackie.ca

Specialized webforum with no apparent notability rendering it suitable for encyclopedia inclusion. Was not able to locate statistics page in site but putatively fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 3,032,931. Prod was removed--Fuhghettaboutit 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete as a gross failure of WP:WEB. --Hetar 01:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:00, 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 content and re-direct article to History of the Americas. No Guru 18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient america

There are other articles that cover Ancient America that are more complete. This article gives no information that isn't already in Wikipedia's established history articles about the same topic. InvisibleK 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Patent floccinaucinihilipilification. -- Fuhghettaboutit 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC); changing to Delete text and make into redirect per Visviva 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Why not just redirect to History of the Americas? -- Visviva 06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to History of the Americas per Visviva. Arbusto 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Metamagician3000 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to History of the Americas. --Terence Ong 16:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Visviva. TH 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete and redirect per the previoius 6 ppl M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above Jonathan235 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The creator of this page User:Enormousdude has a history of creating pointless, redundant articles. e.g. Photon density, Quantum statistics, Emmy Noether theorem. Nonsuch 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect -- The Anome 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per above. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:32, 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 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RUOSI

This is a now dead one-man-spinoff of another Project RunUO. The wikipedia page was most likely created by the spinoff author. The RuOSI project self is also in last edits before death also violation in GPL. Not every Spinoff without any real orginiality of any GPL project, needs to mentioned on wikipedia, or? I just wand to hear, whats your opinion about this? PS: I'm neither a member of RunUO nor RUOSI, or any other projekt in this area. Jestix 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The RUOSI article could do with re-writing anyway, given that all of the versions in he history seems quite biased (be it the current version using Wyatt in speech marks, off-the-cuff reference to illegality, and another to stealing, or the older version referring to how much better it is/was than RunUO), so the deletion of this page wouldn't seem a loss of anything but opinion. Despair 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. — Haeleth Talk 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Despair's last paragraph. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:17, 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 keep. It is suggested as well that the article needs a rewrite. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The God Awfuls

AfD tag added on 29 March but AfD process not completed by nominator Kellster71 (talk • contribs). Nominator gave reason "just an advertisement for a nobody band" in edit summary. - Humansdorpie 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. They are listed at allmusic and are profiled there [15], album is being sold on amazon [16] and have a fair number of online reviews [17] [18] [19] and other listings off google.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC, but the page as written may be a copyvio, [20] so clean out the history and stub it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but someone rewrite it to remove the marketing spin. - Richardcavell 22:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment definitely needs to be rewritten or wikified or something M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, they seem to be notable. I agree with M1ss1ontomars2k4 that the article needs rewriting, there's already a cleanup tag.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:38, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Emmanuel Bachmann

The stub has been around for almost two years, with no expansion. Teke 05:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems legitimate to include[21][22][23][24]. I'll add to it. Arbusto 05:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! I withdraw my nomination. Teke 05:45, 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 (nomination withdrawn) [25]. — FireFox (υ|τ) 09:16, 23 April 2006

[edit] South Dakota abortion law controversy

This page is the result of a non-consensus, non-proposed move of the original page South Dakota reproductive rights controversy Struct 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete then redirect to South Dakota reproductive rights controversy. Arbusto 05:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Reproductive rights" is a patently POV term. Redirect that page to this one to be in alignment with the NPOV policy. --Jakes18 05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually its "abortion" that is POV. That is why we use the terms "pro-Life" and "pro-Choice." Also I see you were one of two people to edit the article. Arbusto 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with a supporter, but I don't look at the term abortion as POV per se; in fact, the original article uses that term several times. The duplicate we're discussing here still needs to be removed however. Struct 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, redirect to South Dakota reproductive rights controversy, then resolve the title dispute like civilized people instead of taking unilateral action. Struct 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this duplicate article, then settle the title and content of the original article through the normal means for resolution of content disputes. I favour "abortion" in the title myself, because that is what the law actually prohibits, but this is not the forum to settle such an issue. Metamagician3000 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a fork, but reproductive rights is POV, should be renamed. --Eivind^t@c 11:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice regarding any future move of South Dakota reproductive rights controversy. Any decision involving a name change should be made on the article's talk page. NoIdeaNick 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. --Terence Ong 16:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, as per Metamagician3000. Creating duplicates is not the right way to solve naming disputes. David Sneek 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fork. Editors should settle the naming issue, then move the page. Delete so as to make South Dakota abortion law controversy available for the move, without prejudging whether the move should be made. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fork and do not redirect, as above. -- Mithent 22:00, 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 keep as a bad nomination: gibberish on a talk page is certainly no reason to delete it. Further, deleting a talk page without deleting the article itself seems quite pointless. There are many talk pages on Wikipedia with bizzarre, irrelevant comments on them. The usual course of action is to either simply ignore them, or to be bold and archive/delete them if they add nothing to the discussion. Turnstep 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:St. Jimmy

All the text in this talk page is plain gibberish. Weirdy 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will NOT remove the text, for I will be banned for vandalism. Weirdy 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per {{db-nonsense}}. Was fooled into thinking this was an article. Of course keep--Fuhghettaboutit 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for obvious reasons. Hang on, keep this talk page, unless there is some reason to delete the main article. The discussion doesn't make sense to me, even now I have the context, but I can see that at least some of it does actually relate to a question of interpretation that arises from the article. Just delete any text on the talk page that is totally nonsensical, which is probably about the second half of the page. Metamagician3000 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Let me guess. It does not make sense because it is not signed, there is a threat on the page and bad punctuation and spelling use. Weirdy 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any threat, except a threat to change the article unless a source can be found for the claim that a character depicted in the CD is a Christ figure. Otherwise, you have given reasons to delete a lot (most?) of the text, but not to delete the page itself. Once again it is a talk page for an article that is not in itself being requested for deletion. If it is full of illiterate, unsigned discussion etc., as it indeed is, there are other and quicker ways to deal with it. It doesn't fit the criteria for deletion of a page. When I originally started to support speedy deletion I didn't realise it was a talk page. Metamagician3000 11:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This talk page sucks. 220.233.30.154 09:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Every article can have a talk page, including this one. If what's on it is gibberish, delete the text. Unsigned comments are not exactly unusual on wikipedia. David Sneek 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Sneek. NoIdeaNick 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep what? Kotepho 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I can see that you are a new user. It is Speedy Delete, not Speedy Keep. We are voting to either keep or delete Talk:St. Jimmy . Weirdy 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. And "speedy keep" is a legitimate thing for him/her to say if s/he wants an admin to close this quickly on the ground that the nomination was seriously flawed in some way. Metamagician3000 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep' per David Sneek. --Terence Ong 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, let us see the next several votes before we really decide to keep. And, I will listen to David Sneek, but, for now, let us see the next several votes (DAMN IT STUPID SPACEBAR KEY!)Weirdy 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Talk page (without endorsing anything anyone's posted on it - just delete irrelevant stuff). This should be on WP:MfD anyway? -- Mithent 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Sneek M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bizarre nom! Badgerpatrol 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, this is a talk page and therefore not a valid nomination, so no "vote". If you don't like what's on a talk page, don't read it, but unless there are real attacks or other unwelcome stuff... one "threat" and some unsigned comments is nothing to get in a twist over. Deizio 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete talk page in this instance.--Cini 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no fault in this talk page. Trapper 05:33, 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. SushiGeek 07:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DigitalAir

This article is for a fictitious company that Novell uses in their training software. Originally proded by me but removed by page creator without explanation. Do we really need articles for every fictitious item in a company's training materials? Seems like Novellcruft to me. Delete. --Hetar 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To answer the nominator's question, no.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article may include information about a fictitous company, but it does exist in a way. Novell provides trainees with self study material, that includes information of this company. If it was completely fictitous I wouldn't have spent 3 months being an administrator on this training network, and developing install solutions such as those under "network setup". I am not done with this article, I had left it incomplete because I was relativly tired seeing as it was 2:00am. Note- I had deleted the original prod, for I had changed the line from fictitous company, as that suggested this does not exist at all. I jad changed the line to "a training environment created by Novell, inc." I am sorry if this conflicts with your thoughts, but that is why this thread is here, for debate. I will expand on this article as the day goes on to help other get a complete understanding for it. Just a though- why don't we consider merging the article with ceritfied novell administratorColonelpanic89 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; this topic might deserve a paragraph or two at Certified Novell Administrator, as long as we have that article, under a "Training" section. The technical specs are worthless unless you're actually taking the course, and the level of detail is almost certainly original research. Melchoir 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Melchoir and nom. Hirudo 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - The information is important, but I'm not sure if it merits its own article. Jraynes 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete maybe it's kind of useful, but it is sorta Novellcruft and it's not that encyclopedic M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (As a former CNE, I still don't think this is appropriate here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Theological Society

Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[26] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Tyndale Theological Seminary. Arbusto 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Captainktainer 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Mboverload 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Arbustoo. Wstaffor 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not valuable enough to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 12:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong 16:32, 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 07:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aras (band)

This band does not even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC Coren 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Joe 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per assertion in article that "The band doesn't have any label and released all albums with itself." --Fuhghettaboutit 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'd imagine it would be hard for an Iranian heavy metal act to get a record deal in Iran. Keep on the basis of it's a real band and Iranian heavy metal is an obscure genre. This is unique and there won't be a flood of Iran metal acts to wikipedia any time soon. Arbusto 06:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't feel that Arbustoo's reasoning justifies keeping it. It's still non-notable, we can't give it special treatment because it's Iranian. Keppa 06:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So if I had an unsigned santur garage band with self-published albums but in America that would be encyclopedic?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If santur was considered socially unacceptable in America, and thus being signed to a label would be nearly impossible and the very existence of your music seen as social protest bordering on rebellion, then obviously we couldn't apply exactly the same notability standards to your band as we would to, say, a santur band in Iran. --Hyperbole 07:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran currently has banned all western music from that country. Heavy metal is western. They are listed on heavy metal pages[27][28][29][30][31] Arbusto 07:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If there are metal bands trying to grow in a country trying to repress them, that might make an interresting article (as I've suggested on Talk:Aras (band)), but that doesn't mean individual bands deserve their own pages. Coren 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I think heavy metal has a lower notability bar to clear in Iran. That said, there's really no assertion of notability in the article - this seems to be just one guy making some music by himself. --Hyperbole 07:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 16:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the only reason that the band doesn't have a label is because of the Islamic government in Iran. This band definitely has the ability and quality of obtaining a label but because the government is like that they can not get one. [[32]] I am sure that the members of Aras are in danger of being persecuted by the goverment because of the music they play. Joojoo 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You just posted a link to the Myspace profile of a 20 year old girl from California. --Hyperbole 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)--
• Comment sorry my bad [[33]] Joojoo 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm not sure that we can be certain that "the only reason the band doesn't have a label is because of the Islamic government in Iran"; such a claim seems, as most of the article, unverifiable. I am certain that, in the absence of verifiable outside sources, the argument may be essayed that such sources cannot exist because of the nature of the IRI, and that argument is likely altogether correct; nevertheless, notability can't be inferred simply in view of a band's having a MySpace page, and, where there are few (if any) outside sources, irrespective of the reason for that paucity, we likely shouldn't include the article. Joe 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band that as per nom doesn't meet WP:MUSIC even though I understand why there are record label issues due to oppression in Iran. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.Jcuk 21:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete probably not notable. Not particularly verifiable. Although this may be due to the country they live it. It doesn't mean that we want all the bands that released some stuff on their own to be included in WP. Spearhead 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Joojoo ra. Just because they suffer under an oppressive regime doesn't mean they are not notable, and I'm for keeping the notability bar fairly low in such a corner case. TH 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Fughettaboutit with apologies to WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 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 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming leb

nn film, but can't find anything that qualifies for speedy Will (^E_@) T 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not everything that should be deleted is speediable. Delete. --W(t) 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not listed on IMDB. NurMisur 07:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are many films not listed on IMDB (especially foreign films). That does not make them non-notable as these films cater to a niche audience. I feel that we should keep this as it provides the reader useful information on films that are not well known to the general public. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even ten relevant google hits. David Sneek 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is apparently a short film made by high school students and distributed only online. As such it would not qualify for IMDb unless it was extensively discussed in major media. As a general rule, qualifying for IMDb should be a minimum requirement for a film to have a Wikipedia entry (not all IMDb-listed films are notable enough for Wikipedia). --Metropolitan90 22:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advertising. Bearcat 00:20, 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 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cass Boxing

Not notable. --W(t) 06:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's an advertisement, though for a non-commercial product. Wikipedia shouldn't be here for that kind of thing. - Richardcavell 22:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Its homepage is on Geocities. Seeing the name weblinked on every instance sets off my WP:BALLS detector something fierce. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising copy. "... my simulator", "We have our own superstars..." etc. Colonel Tom 23:16, 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 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crush calculator

Fails WP:WEB in that the site is not the subject of any non-trivial published work, independant of the site itself. An Alexa rank does not in itself make a site notable. Kevin 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Hyperbole 07:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom --blue520 14:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and possible it is a spoof. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable. --MaNeMeBasat 14:12, 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. SushiGeek 07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow pollution

looks like a spoof - no other google links, no refs other than Dr Vlad--JBellis 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - until it's referenced. I'm assuming good faith but I want to see some science behind this. - Richardcavell 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• merge into acid snow if it exists, acid rain if it doesnt M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:00, 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 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kar-Tech, Inc.

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Prod tag removed.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable; likely to be an act of self-promotion. - Richardcavell 10:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Borisblue 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 16:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kar-Tech

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Prod tag removed - duplicate article

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, likely to be self-promotion. - Richardcavell 10:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Brocious

Cody Brocious is not a person of enough importance as to constitute an article. Manik52 08:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I wouldnt' say that Cody is not important, but I will say that he does not need an encyclopedia entry. - Richardcavell 12:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 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 16:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tips in runescape

WP:NOT a game guide ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a venue for original research. Blackcap (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- tylerwillis 09:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, ASAP. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --blue520 14:18, 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 16:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadband Elite

Promotional page for a non-notable website Chuq 11:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alexa traffic rank for this forum / website is 1,128,104 [34]. -- Longhair 12:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, WP:WEB.--blue520 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 87 registered users = non notable. --Roisterer 06:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- web vanity. - Longhair 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--cj | talk 06:44, 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 merge into Nurse. SushiGeek 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing Officer

Specific case of Nurse and Midwife. I think a Nursing Officer is broader than this Eug 12:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete or merge into nurse. kind of a whack article... M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --MaNeMeBasat 05:07, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCAF Station Saglek

Article serves no purpose except to serve as advertising for a website Request withdrawn; the changes made by AlexWCovington are more than good enough for me. ekedolphin 12:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an ad. Grafikm_fr 13:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An ad. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the station did exist, notable for historical interest. It may have started as linkspam but it's fixable; I've done some cleanup. --AlexWCovington (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per clean up. It did exist. Renata 15:05, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Breslin

Looks like just another non-notable independent professional wrestler to me. ekedolphin 13:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't seem notable, the federation where she has had titles from (ACWA) doesn't even have an article. TH 20:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 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 into Boat building. SushiGeek 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boat building process

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to boat building. Grafikm_fr 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to wikibooks M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the template already located on the article at the time it was AfDed (why do so many AfDs turn into Articles to be Merged, Retitled, or Moved?) AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• "How to build a boat" is valuable knowledge for thousands of us involved it the field. Traditionally, the process is not shared by the most knowledgeable practicioners, who compete with each other in business. Therefore, a whole bunch of us need a great encyclopedic resource like Wikipedia to get the knowledge quickly. The only other way to get boat building knowledge is to buy many books or spend many years in the industry. Please keep the article, and let it be improved and expanded. Thanks. 24.17.55.161 03:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (posted on my talk page, moving here Stifle (talk) 09:25, 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. SushiGeek 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakshya Foundation

Non notable organization. No google hits. Seems self advertisement. soUmyaSch 13:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Zaragoza

believed to be a hoax Vint 13:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because of WP:V and probable hoax. Grafikm_fr 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable WP:BIO, also unverifiable WP:V. This page should have been redirected to Alexander Zaragoza (as it is identical) and the AfD placed on that article. The nom might think about jointly nominating it for AfD with this one.--blue520 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I blanked Alexander Zaragoza and redirected to this one instead, per be bold. Since they were dupes I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. TH 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, whether hoax or not. TH 20:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Totally delete, reads like hoax or malicious gossip.Bjones 00:59, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kismet (film)

Non-notable, undistributed 4-minute animated film from Downending Films. Article created by User:Downending. Vanity. Fan1967 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. -- Grafikm_fr 15:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable --blue520 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity film. --Terence Ong 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MikeWazowski 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Grafikm.--Cini 16:10, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophomore Posse

Non-notable university athletics booster group. Prod tag was removed without comment by an anonymous contributor. - EurekaLott 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN. -- Grafikm_fr 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete uteerly NN campus cruft --Bachrach44 15:03, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downending Films

Vanity. Promotional piece for nn indy film company, created by User:Downending. Per IMDB [35] they made a 4-minute short and a 7-minute short. Oh, and they plan to make other stuff. Fan1967 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN and vanity. Grafikm_fr 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MikeWazowski 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete vanity. --Bachrach44 15:03, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votecircle

Non-notable website. 89 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation by the creator. Delete. DMG413 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not a search engine for websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesn't even qualify for an Alexa ranking. TH 21:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete fancruft, mybe? nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppy breath

nn dicdef that's not NPOV and unverifiable Amcfreely 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As a dog owner (and they haven't been puppies for a long time), I'm familiar with the phenomenon, but definitely not documented or encyclopedic. Fan1967 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, it looks like someone's attempt to be helpful and contribute, so no bad faith —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or (better) Merge to dog article. "puppy breath" gets 62,000 hits on Google, so it's not "nn", I have real trouble seeing what's POV, and it's clearly verifiable. It is pretty much just a dicdef, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Not everyone finds puppy breath nice. Usually people who don't are what is termed "animal hater."" Amcfreely 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see-- the article has changed quite a bit from when it was nominated. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:V. --Terence Ong 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with puppy or dog. I don't think it merits its own article. Mr. Lefty 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge with dog. I'm a veterinarian and I hear this term all the time, but I doubt I could find a ref to it in a textbook or journal (if I do I'll cite it). I can see why it was originally nominated, but the newer version is a lot better. --Joelmills 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a stupid thing to write an encyclopedia entry on, but there'll be enough people who want to look it up. - Richardcavell 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Tough call but I feel it is notable enough to deserve its own article. Could be useful in a constructive manner.--Cini 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've revised it substantially since the initial flag for deletion and since it was tampered with previously with the "animal haters"/vandalism comment. "Puppy breath" is a common term among people who have or breed puppies. Any vet can tell you that the condition and term exists. However, it is not a dictionary definition because it does not appear in the dictionary. (I used dictionary.com and found no entry, but have not checked the OED.) It further proposes a probable/logical explanation for the scent, which has no known (to my knowledge) scientific explanation and could be a potential research project for a vet/biologist. It's inadvisable to merge the entry into "dog" directly as it is much less relevant to "dog" and far more relevent to "puppy" or "puppies", both of which redirect to "dog" and thereby prohibit more detailed discussion about puppies. I feel that "puppy breath" is best kept as a separate entry with a hyperlink within the text discussing puppies under "dog" entry. I added a "See also: puppy breath" link under the "dog" entry and it has gone unchallenged for 24 hours despite the popularity of the "dog" entry and that entry having been edited 10 times in the last 24 hours. "Puppy breath" may currently be a "weak entry", but in time it will unquestionably be added to by the numerous dog owners/breeders out there.Rtperch 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"could be a potential research project for a vet/biologist" = WP:NOR Amcfreely 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless some citations of use are shown from non-trivial publications. Even then it's probably better in Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 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 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scooter (Mick Foley novel)

Delete, book review, nn San Saba 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, can't see how this book needs an article in an encyclopaedia. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 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 redirect into List of Pokémon characters. SushiGeek 07:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nurse Joy

Non-notable character of an anime character. Could have importance if worked on but an expansion of the entry in List of Pokémon characters would be better. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Pokémon characters. Royboycrashfan 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all the info is already there, more so even. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Pokémon characters. David Sneek 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Pokémon characters. BryanG 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Pokémon characters. Avador 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• merge into list of whatever M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - she appears in most episodes, especially in the early seasons. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Anime yes, game nooo. I would be borderline, I actually like the idea, but I think it would get deleted as nn. We'll redirect then perhaps expand later. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:KIT. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a policy, or even a guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Pokémon characters, which has just about everything you can say about this minor, background character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really but for now is a good fix. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If you think this article can be expanded, please do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you close this then? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Is there any point having an open AfD on an article we plan on expanding? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears in almost every episode of a very major long-running TV series (500+ episodes). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I expanded the stub a bit as the information on the article was a bit lacking. She features often in the anime and is in every handheld Pokémon game at the very least, so there is more to be said on this character. Hammer Raccoon 15:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I still think it isn't Nurse Joy in the games. It was only until FireRed/LeafGreen she had the pink hair like Joy, leading to believe that Nurse Joy was based on the videogame character. Nurse Joy is more important than Officer Jenny, who is slightly less frequent and has only ever featured once in the games, as a minor character presumed to be her. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:16, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fallen / L. Wells

I haven't got much too say. See Craptacular's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're My Best Friend/'39 for my reason to delete this article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Surely this is different to the You're My Best Friend/'39 debate you've pointed out? From what I've just read on it, '39 was a B-Side in that record, and was a cover/album track at that - so it shouldn't have been detailed in the main article. Here we have a double A-side with three videos. Where else could this information be put? If its Wikipedia policy to have a seperate article per song then I suppose this article should be split up, but I think it's fine, as it is an article for a double A-side CD, not a song. 81.131.121.180 16:34, 22 April 2006

• Are you sure about the A-Side thing? I see no mentioning of "L. Wells" on the album cover.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure it's a double A-side (check Franz Ferdinand's websiteif you don't believe me), and if you look on the article in question someone mentioned that, and I quote, "the single was released in an album jewelcase to enable fans to choose whether their copy displayed the sleeve artwork for "The Fallen" or "L. Wells"." Now I've no reason to doubt that, have you? 81.131.121.180 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC) EDIT: and as if this wasn't enough, I just found this picture! I think that proves that it's a double A-side...

• uhhh Keep I have no clue what you are rambling on about, but it seems like you want to split the article into two. You don't need AFD for that. Kotepho 19:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Alec McEnemin 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Cbing01 04:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. zellin t / c 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a DOUBLE A-SIDE single. This is not a new concept - many bands have released double a-sides over the years. That is why both songs have equal billing. User:Ross 10:40, 25 April 2006

• Keep Yea what Ross said 81.131.35.30 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If you had the actual CD, you'd see that L. Wells is the cover on the back of it, and like it says in the article, they can choose what side you want as the cover. This debate should be over already.--Jersey boy91 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; perfectly verifiable single, and double A-sides normally go in the same article, unless both A-sides are equally famous ("Penny Lane" & "Strawberry Fields Forever" are be separate while "Kids With Guns" & "El Mañana" are combined). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:57, 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, nomination withdrawn by nominator. -- Longhair 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Ward

This text should be deleted because it fails the Verifiability test all the way through. It could also be considered a Vanity page, written mostly by the one author at IP 210.89.145.217, which happens to be based in [36] Wollongong. I would vote it a strong delete schgooda 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the clean-up Capitalistroadster, it's certainly an improvement on the verifiability of the article. Neutral

Comment: -- Is this a withdrawal of your nomination for deletion? - Longhair 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:: On further reflection, I must admit it is a withdrawal of nomination, but does the closing admin have to make a judgement on this page, or is there somthing I must do?--schgooda 14:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: -- Nothing to do. I've closed the debate. - Longhair 14:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

schgooda 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. After a thorough exploration of references, Neutral -- Grafikm_fr 10:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten the article based on verifiable media sources. It seems that Ward has attracted a reasonable amount of coverage with 46 returns in an Australia New Zealand database. It is a matter for judgement as to whether council members meet WP:BIO but amount of verifiable material should be one of the important factors.Capitalistroadster 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC).Capitalistroadster 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. -- Synapse 06:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 12:48, 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) 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMPrint Magazine

Blatant advertisment for a non-notable magazine. Links have been spammed to other articles. Prod tag was removed. Barrylb 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete for NN and link spamming. Grafikm_fr 16:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The magazine is a legitimate, student-run, non-profit medium published from the Roy H Park School of Communications at Ithaca College in Ithaca, NY. The spamming was not spam at all, but rather linking the page to other related areas of Wikipedia. This is a strongly legitimate entry to Wikipedia. For other Ithaca College student media on Wikipedia, see Buzzsaw Haircut —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.50 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 April 2006.
  • [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] are spam. Melchoir 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep This is a notable magazine in the Ithaca, NY area. It is one of five official student media at Ithaca College. To delete this entry would be against the standards of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.225 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 April 2006.
  • Note: virtually the same IP Melchoir 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Amcfreely 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; it's hard to be any more of an advertisement, and Ithaca College already contains all the information you need about this publication. Buzzsaw Haircut shouldn't be an article either, but at least it makes a claim to notability. This article's only claim is "I exist. I'm legit!" No. Melchoir 19:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Melchoir and nom. Hirudo 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable college publication, article written as an ad and totally unencyclopedic. TH 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or reduce to a stub containing basic factual info (which does seem to be in the article) and an external link only.—mjb 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sedu hairstyles

Delete, advert trying to look like real WP entry San Saba 16:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sedu hairstyles. Sedu hairstyles are not notable. Sedu hairstyles do not belong in this encyclopedia. David Sneek 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable original research with added bacon! Stifle (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- No Guru 03:10, 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 delete. SushiGeek 07:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nagdweep

WP:FICT Non-notable fictional place This is another minor person, place, or object in the Raj Comics universe being proposed for deletion. Related deletion requests (by various editors) are Jadugar Shakoora, Saudangi, Singhnag, Nagpreti, Miss Killer, Thodanga, Nageena, and Nagpasha. --John Nagle 16:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the main article if possible, Delete otherwise. Grafikm_fr 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article if possible, Delete otherwise. Melchoir 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Eusebeus 15:29, 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 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STAR Scholar Society

Non notable society. Seems self promotiona nd advertisememt soUmyaSch 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is one of a few articles that serve as a student enrichment programs within the Saint Joseph’s University category. The category page is weak since it only features athletics and the SJU article itself. Adding enrichment programs in the SJU article page would be messy. --Zacharyleahan 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like a cut and paste from their website. Since it is of no use whatsoever unless you are at SJU, and if you were at SJU you could look it up on their website, I can't for the life of me see the point in keeping this. Average Earthman 17:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point Average Earthman. I agree with the delete but would it be appropriate to make a "List of Student Enrichment Programs (Saint Joseph's University)" that links from the SJU article itself? That page would have external links. I don't want the external links of "Saint Joseph's University" to get too big. Thanks. I would like suggestions. --Zacharyleahan 17:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Zachary, if you don't want to add it to Saint Joseph's University, how about Academics at Saint Joseph's University or Student life at Saint Joseph's University or similar? "List of Student Enrichment Programs" is too narrow. Melchoir 18:48, 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 (criteria A3) --Allen3 ^talk 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand theft auto banshee

The page is blank soUmyaSch 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to handkerchief by Mr. Lefty. Sango123 (e) 17:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handerkerchief

It's just a misspelling of the word "handkerchief." Mr. Lefty 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to handkerchief then. --Christopherlin 17:41, 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 to Delete the article.

[edit] Homochao

This page is totally pointless and innapropriate. It barely has any information anyways. It should be deleted. PokeOnic (Talk) 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I vote to either delete or merge with the Omochao page. Mr. Lefty 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; tagged as attack. Melchoir 18:41, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six Faces

Delete as Advertisement, article written by author's assistant, Amazon rank:2,123,642. Most google links are self-promotion. Author of novel does not meet WP:BIO. Prod failed, removed by new account. Joelito 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Problems with Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:V. Google search finds no obvious indication that the critical reviews, literary analysis, sales figures, or other information needed to make this anything more than an advertisement exist. --Allen3 ^talk 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also crystal balling. Melchoir 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know if I have the right to comment on this, but in the meantime I'll assume that I do. I enjoyed Six Faces, as did a couple of my friends. I have no idea how popular it is, and that doesn't matter to me. Nor do I think it should. It's a book that was written, some people have read it and liked it - that's it. Anyone who is searching for or looking up "Six Faces" is most likely looking for this book. And I doubt readers look on wikipedia to find new authors. I use the site to look up things I already know about. I don't see what the big deal is. The book exists, and (I think) the author does as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillianbrown (talk • contribs)

Of course you have a tight to comment, everyone does. That's the Wikipedia way. Joelito 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. How is one "semi-popular"? No real assertion of notability for the book (or its author - how can "unpublished" titles be "notable"?). Not every book in the world needs an article. If it weren't for the presumption of good faith, I'd have to wonder to myself whether "some circles of readers" is synonymous with "the author's buddies". Fluit 01:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I am starting to think that one of you is the same jerk who went to Amazon and posted a negative review without having read Six Faces. I wouldn't be surprised. I am a friend of Ashida Kim's, and I recently took notice of how biased your article on him was. I simply came up with this article to let Mr. Callaway's readers know little more about him, as well as his upcoming works. Semi-popular means that he is not world-famous, nor is he a Stephen King in relation to populariy, but that he is known among "some circles of readers", as I said. His website, which I created, is full of reviews by actual people, people who he nor I know in person. People who obviously enjoy his work. His website counters are "per individual hit", not just "per hit". So there is a good amount of people out there who are fans of his. Anyway, I'm not going to play this game with anyone. I have advertisements in other places, but Wiki was not intended to be one of them. I was just giving out some info to those who would like to know. I'll help you to delete the page myself if it bothers you that much, okay? -- Kana Miyoshi

• Delete per Fluit. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdop

Hoax article about secret CIA sub-organization employing teenagers in the role of US federal agents. As the article claims the documentation on the group is clasified, Delete as per WP:V. Court Jester 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly BJAODN? Melchoir 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Deleter as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sounds like a hoax, and if it's not it should be deleted because it's classified - Richardcavell 23:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Long Island New York. Recruiting for the KDOP is difficult many times a adult will approach you and attempt to recruit now more than ever" - I think they've got this confused with 'child molester'. Del per nom. Tokakeke 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, only way to go. Inherently unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 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 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMORLG

NN neologism. The article claims the term has been on a few internet forums since 2003, but it doesn't appear to have caught on beyond that. The article itself looks like an essay and appears to be mostly original research. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (36 unique Ghits for the title and no references for the body.) Melchoir 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is potentially a useful term, but one not yet in widespread use. The article itself is almost completely original research, too. Powers 18:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful term that I think I'm going to use myself in the future, but doesn't meet minimal notability guidelines.Captainktainer 22:54, 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 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praveen Tilakaratne

Non-notable, advertisement, possible vanity. Making a book is a great personal achievement, but getting it listed on a website with no evidence that anyone has read it is not encyclopedia material. "Praveen Tilakaratne" gets nothing on Google but the publisher's site. I'd wonder about language bias, but the book is in English. Melchoir 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Grafikm_fr 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 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 per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Truman (volcano victim)

Non-notable individual. Fails to fill criteria of WP:BIO. As the article states, he experience only "brief fame." Strothra 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! He's now the subject of a biography and the lead character in a movie. He's got a trail and a ridge named for him. And even without those, notability never dies. Melchoir 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I don't think being the subject of a biography or being a lead character necessarily makes one notable. However, there were not a large number of victims from that disaster. --Nlu (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He was briefly famous while he was alive. He was the media's character piece of choice prior to the eruption. After, however, he became something of an icon. You'd be hard pressed to find a St. Helen's documentary that doesn't include him. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely keep per Melchoir. Article establishes notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, encyclopedic article about a notable individual. TH 21:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Minor, but doesn't fail WP:BIO (contrary to deletion proposal), and meets most of the other criteria for Wikipedia articles. Lead characters in fiction deserve inclusion at the very least, if not their own articles (as here).Captainktainer 22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, minor but notable per Mr. Mel - heck, I still remember him more than anyone else associated with the event. Kuru ^talk 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. He symbolises the victims of the disaster. 23skidoo 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: well written article about regionally notable proprietor and disaster victim. Calwatch 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: well written article and most people who remember the eruption remember Mr. Truman. 132.241.246.111 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable victim that is usually brought up any time the eruption is discussed. youngamerican (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kuru. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he personafied the event just as much as David A. Johnston --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:36, 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 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One, Two, Three (word game)

Unverified, unverifiable. I wrote this stuff back in 2004 before I understood WP:V. This is the closest I can find to a reliable source, and speaking as a former h2g2 subeditor as well as a current Wikipedian, I don't think h2g2 counts. There's very little verifiability or notability threshhold there. Delete unless someone thinks otherwise for a good reason. GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; I'll trust your judgement. Melchoir 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, for a start. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 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 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IF function

Wikipedia isn't a reference manual for Microsoft Excel functions. Warrens 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Melchoir 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice Hirudo 19:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the F1 key works just fine. I can't imagine anyone is going to come looking to WP for excel macro help; or that the function list could expanded enough to provide this coverage. Kuru ^talk 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing wrong with it, except that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. More suited to wikibooks, but transwiki probably isn't appropriate unless there's an existing project on this topic. Andjam 01:08, 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 keep. SushiGeek 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people who were once a cheerleader List of cheerleaders

Redundant with Category:Cheerleaders. Rob 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to List of cheerleaders. Lists are not redundant with cats. Melchoir 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that it's been moved, I guess this is a keep vote. Melchoir 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move as per above. -- Grafikm_fr 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move, but needs references. George W. Bush? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • George Bush ref (note the fifth picture down), one of many. GWB was a cheerleader (literally) both at Phillips Andover and Yale. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, didn't see that one. I've removed it. My general feeling is that lists don't need references as long as their listings are confirmed by the individual articles. Technically, Bush was once a cheerleader, but his articles don't mention it. Of course, one could re-add Bush to the list with a ref... I'm going in circles. Melchoir 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment seems to have been moved/merged/redirected already. However Keep for list of cheerleaders per lists not being redundant with categories. Jcuk 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What can you do with this list, that you can't do with a category? --Rob 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Along with the usual formatting and organization replies when that question gets asked, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, one can include the place(s) where the subjects cheer...led. (There's a marvelous example of this idea in action here.) One can also include their present occupations for contrast. Melchoir 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• A simple list, no. A list with details (the sort that are, frankly, too trivial for most biographical articles), sure. I oppose making it a category, as my view is that if something is not worth mentioning (or is not stark staringly obvious), it's not important enough to note with a category. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the category is fine. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the cathegory is good enough. --MaNeMeBasat 13:45, 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 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drummoyne Presbyterian Church

Non-notable church. Prod removed by the creator: Juliangamble with comment: it is noteworthy! Now Julian, please note, the question is actually not whether the church is notable but whether you have managed to make it sound notable in your Wikipedia article. And patently you have not. -- RHaworth 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Melchoir 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hirudo 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Most individual churches are not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles anyway. --Metropolitan90 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be curious to know why individual schools are notable but individual churches are not. Thatcher131 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, anyone can set up a Church, whereas setting up a school requires government endorsement. I feel that makes the former more liable to be cruftish. Andjam 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A search of an Australian Newspaper database comes up with one hit a brief mention in the Daily Telegraph What's On column. There is a lack of verifiable information indicating notability as shown in this Google search [44].Capitalistroadster 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, article is useless (It mentions an address and pastor, but Wikipedia is not the yellow pages). Andjam 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --cj | talk 06:44, 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 00:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The launderette

Per WP:WEB. This is an article about a brand new website (started in 2006), and not assertion of notability is made in the article. I realize that's a speedy criterion, but I request that this one have its week on AfD, in the interest of WP:BITE GTBacchus^(talk) 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I would've prodded it, though. Melchoir 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, although it isn't actually a speedy, it's a website, not a person or group of people. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- No Guru 03:09, 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surfing firsts

Useless trivia/list. A mention of being a first on the individusl pages should be enough. Hirudo 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Surfing? The latter page desperately needs a History section; this could be a catalyst. Melchoir 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete changed vote from "merge" to "delete". San Saba 10:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wetsuit article already has better explanation (specifically, that there is no one specific "first"), Shapers apparently has no article to merge to in the first place, neither does US Surfboard Championships. Thus, no merges are necessary. --Icarus 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Surfing. LittleSurferBoy 19:54, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings

More listcruft; overlong title. Add an note to each of the entries' pages if needed, but there's no need for a list. Hirudo 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• weakest of keeps. Could grow into an interesting list. Needs a better title, though. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete the title says it all alleged, i.e. unverifable nonsense. How about a list of big list of alleged facts ? Megapixie 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Megapixie took the words right out of my mouth. Fluit 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Spikebrennan 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC) I created this article in the first place, so call my vote a "keep" if that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. In defense of this list, I'll point out that thus far, it consists of a summary of information taken from other Wikipedia articles: for example, the inclusion of Yucatan on the list references the Yucatan article-- in other words, to the extent that any item on the list is unverifiable, that's because the source article is unverifiable. Furthermore, the purpose of this list is to gather together instances of words sharing a particular characteristic of folk etymology. Finally, I have no problem whatsoever with changing the title of the article.

Further comment: There seems to be a consensus that this article, in this form, must go. It seems to me that the logical follow-up question is: is the information that this list presents not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at all, or should it merely be presented in another form? For example, is there a better way of presenting this information, such as in the form of a list entitled "Lists of folk etymologies"? Spikebrennan 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If the article was titled List of words and phrases derived from misunderstandings - I might change my vote to neutral. The problem is with the Alleged — it's going to attract cruft. If they are verifiably derived from misunderstandings then it's borderline wiki-worthy IMHO. Megapixie 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the intent of the list is not to list words derived from misunderstandings, but to list words that are erroneously thought to have been derived from misunderstandings. Assuming that such a list meets Wikipedia standards in and of itself, I agree that a word should be listed only if it can be verified that there exists an erroneous belief that the word was derived from a misunderstanding. For example, the article on kangaroo states in part that there is a common, but incorrect, belief that the word "kangaroo" derives from an Aboriginal word for "I don't understand". The Vauxhall addition to the list that someone recently made, however, doesn't seem to meet the standard unless someone can provide a citation to that belief being held by someone. In general, compare List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects-- that's a list of information where the common element is not that they were all Jack the Ripper, but that they were all regarded as suspects.Spikebrennan 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. In that case it's definately not wiki worthy. To take your example - all of the Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in various places before they were included on the list - and he is noteworthy. What the list would contain is a list of guide books (or some reputable source) that 'the name of the area is often said to come from the.... but in actual fact it was taken from the ....'. I'm just not sure it's noteworthy - where as Jack the Rippers possible identity is. The list you propose would be like List of people who have allegedly been mistaken for a US President (but haven't in reality). Megapixie 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. Thanks for the debate. Spikebrennan 10:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, interesting aspect of folk etymology, the fact that these terms are alleged to be derived from errors is easily verifiable from third-party sources. Kappa 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete says alleged right in its title. San Saba 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Eusebeus 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Additionally per San Saba. Kuzaar 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article name is the most convoluted, unlikely, unprofessional rubbish yet Appropriate Username 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LC and WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound so argumentative, but should we really be citing Wikipedia essays in these discussions? Ardric47 01:19, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grosse

An article for an individual level in Doom 2? Please let's not do that. If someone really sees value in the information in here, merge to an article with a short summary for each one. I'd rather just exterminate it though. Hirudo 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. No way do Doom levels get their own article. --Deville (Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This survived Speedy and prod? Woah. Delete it now. J.J.Sagnella 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Serious trim and merge. A lot of this information is superfluous, but the main Doom II article is missing some interesting and notable facts from this one (for instance, the inclusion of Commander Keen, a character from a previous id game). I would, however, agree that this doesn't deserve its own article. Give me at least fifteen minutes to do a proper merge before closing the AfD, and then no objections to delete.Captainktainer 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge complete. Delete when ready; all power to forward phaser banks and all that.Captainktainer 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. San Saba 10:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Blast it away with a BFG9000, kind of like the redirect at MAP31: Wolfenstein, for being nowhere near notable enough for its own article. I find value in this information, but that's because I still play Doom daily. ;) The levels already have their own articles at the Doom Wiki, which is more than enough. DomRem | Yeah? 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)