Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 25 April 27 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] April 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recommend merge to lolicon. The only argument advanced for deletion is "non-notability." This is the author of published lolicon. Since we have an article on that subject, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests merge. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikari Hayashibara

Prodded as article was created to fix a redlink from an image which is now broken. Not particularly notable.; deprodded on grounds appears notable as published if unsavory manga artist meeting notability standards. However, asserted notability seems questionable given 95 distinct Google hits [1] (admittedly in English, not Japanese). Could be merged to Lolicon as an example of said practice. Eusebeus 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hiraki is a "lolicon" artist, defined as: "In Japan, Lolicon means "pedophilia" or "pedophile"." I am concerned that this article exists at the moment without this being made clear, and wonder what Wiki policy is on the matter, as it could be seen to be promoting such material, not just recording the facts about it. Tyrenius 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: The social implications of "lolicon" versus "pedophilia" are somewhat different. While the terms are literally synonymous, "lolicon" in this usage means loli-manga - erotic comic books with young-appearing characters. Loli-manga is not seen on the same level as child abuse in Japan. It's legal, and it's generally accepted (and widely studied) in Japanese society that many adult men are attracted to (but not predatory of) pubescent girls. No relevant ghits for 林原光, but about 700 for 林原ひかり. Lolicon used to have a cover of one her books pictured; a merge would be appropriate. — AKADriver ☎ 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. non notable artist Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn artist. --Terence Ong 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • MergeRedirect & delete kinda per AKADriver Deizio 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to merge here. Ashibaka tock 02:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, per AKADriver. RMG 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Probably meets notability guidelines, but I don't think we are ever going to get more than this one line stub out of anything verifiable. I don't really see the point of merging to Lolicon, but I'm not going to particularly care. Kotepho 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lolicon 132.205.45.110 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, clearly notable as published comics creator. Wikipedia is not censored, etc. Until the image was deleted over legal concerns, she was cited in relevant WP articles as the representative artist in the field, legal and popular in Japan. Monicasdude 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see that someone is likely to want to find out something about her at some point, and they should be able to on Wiki. Tyrenius 19:35, 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? 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic: Isn't That a Restaurant?

NN webcomic that doesn't even orbit WP:WEB. Coren 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly off on some inter-planetary trajectory all of its own. Gwernol 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well articulated nom. Colonel Tom 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gwernol. It has reached escape velocity and is pursuing a hyperbolic trajectory. Repeat, we have escape velocity. M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable......I can see it orbiting the planet of Nonsense Aeon 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. JIP | Talk 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete porges 10:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think it's possible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject. —Encephalon 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, 0 Google hits. SCHZMO ✍ 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sonic: Isn't that a non-notable webcomic? Delete. Fagstein 04:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An animated hedgehog? Good grief, what next? Herostratus 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:WEB Beno1000 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:WEB 68.36.99.86 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UpManager Software

The article does not assert notability and does not seem to meet WP:CORP's criteria for inclusion. The author, Andrewhill (talk · contribs), has only made edits to this article and one other that added a link to this article, leading me to believe this is vanispamcruftisement that should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There aren't references that validate it. The onus is on the editor to provide these. Tyrenius 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. AndyZ t 01:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Deizio 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:CORP criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable business that does not meet WP:CORP. — TheKMantalk 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duelistgroundz

  • The article has been thoroughly edited. I believe now it meets the various criteria... Xephyrwing 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikivertizement for a NN website. WP:WEB doesn't so much as loom over the horizon on that one. Coren 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AFD was removed by User:Xephyrwing, just reinstated it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, quite obviously WP:WEB WP:VANITY. Royboycrashfan 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - while this article is obviously under construction, from the existing content I'm confident that WP:WEB will not be met in the future. Colonel Tom 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article lacking validation through references. Tyrenius 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Deizio 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. AfD notice was removed twice, that really takes away any credibility that it had.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable website. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:56, 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 Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syboard

I'm not sure whether this article fails WP:WEB more than WP:CORP or vice-versa. Coren 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unreferenced assertions and statements without any sigificance shown. Tyrenius 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the author describes the article as 'testing'... why not {{test1}}? - Richardcavell 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because that says the test was "reverted or removed," which it hasn't yet, though I would Speedy Delete anyway. Morgan Wick 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tyrenius. DarthVader 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, author would have to "add more later" with a hell of a WP:HEY Deizio 02:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite the article's claim that it is one of the most complete websites/companies on the net, does not meet WP:WEB. (Though maybe if we had a WP:Completeness criteria....) OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unreferenced nonsense - Aeon 05:50, 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 keep as the nominator has implicitly withdrawn the nomination. Turnstep 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese Registration Plates

I don't see how this subject is at all notable. I'm listing here because there have been a few editors already. Kevin 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, as we have several other similar articles, and the Maltese ones are as important as the others. Carioca 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's encyclopedic, even if it is sociological/regulatory, rather than natural/scientific. - Richardcavell 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's part of a world number plate series! Tyrenius 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it does need a lot of work. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, actually. — AKADriver ☎ 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It looks like there is a consensus to keep. Seeing as I brought it here, I'll start to wikify the article. Kevin 01:50, 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? 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Maternal Association

This article does not appear to be very notable. A google search reveals 56 hits. Delete The Genesis 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, probably passes the bar given founding of notable magazine and external ref, but would do better merged with magazine. Maybe a case for WP:BOLD rather than AfD. Lack of google hits perhaps less relevant given this was 1824. Deizio 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what relevance that has, plenty of things happened in the year 1824, and the really notable subjects have more than 56 hits. The Genesis 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not "irrelevant", but if we're serious about avoiding systemic bias then stuff from almost 200 years ago should be forgiven for not being plastered over blogs and freespace pages. Deizio 11:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mother's Magazine (which has questionable notability itself, but probably close enough). OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see how this is important. I don't think it's worth merging with Mother's Magazine, because I don't see how that magazine is notable. Brian G. Crawford 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (and also delete First maternal association). Without an explanation of why anyone should care, and with the only contributing editor inactive for over a month, I don't think this article is likely to improve. Mangojuice 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Although the suggestion of merging doesn't seem to have persuaded here, this doesn't preclude merging in the future. A discussion on the talk page would be more suitable for the purpose that another deletion nomination. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Baekje researchers

Too specialized a topic to have an article on its researchers. Perhaps merge or move to an article about researchers of Korean history in general, but I think even that's pushing it Hirudo 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge somewhere. No reason wikipedia users shouldn't be able to find examples of authorities in this field. Kappa 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge if the names are worth keeping - how about with Korean history. Tyrenius 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Baekje. It needs more sources and citations anyway. — AKADriver ☎ 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - the second link was dead, so I only merged the first one into Baekje. No need for a redirect that I can see. — AKADriver ☎ 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this somewhere in the case that it is not seriously expanded with further names and sources. If it were, I would change my vote to keep. Kuzaar 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis it has the potential to be expanded and become quite interesting. Would maybe come under systemic bias? Jcuk 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete this, and I can't think of a better place to have this information. There is also the potential for expansion. — TheKMantalk 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 1, 2003

The info on these pages is already well-suited on June 1 and 2003, and the page doesn't appear to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on dates (the only exception I've seen is for September 11, 2001, which was a much more notable event than the events listed in this page. Gadren 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Advert: If you are interested in this sort of article, please contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events to help make date-based pages work better on Wikipedia.

  • Delete unnecessary duplication. Tyrenius 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous AfD discussions. This date page's information is tied to June 2003, not a duplication of it. (Note that the AfD banner that was put on this page is visible at that page as well.) -- Grev 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you presume to delete all the other day and month articles between January 2000 and April 2006. — AKADriver ☎ 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep See July 7, 2005, May 5, 2003, November 29, 2004, etc., and above. However, I would argue for moving all to their respective articles after a certain amount of time. Morgan Wick 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though these articles could really use some categories --Astrokey44 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AKADriver. DarthVader 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect into June 2003. It appears the existence of pages like this is because this is how daily events were organized for a couple of years. If you click on June 2003 you'll notice it just includes templates for each day. This is no longer the procedure used (notice articles like January 1, 2006 and March 4, 2006 don't exist). This is a job for Wikipedia: WikiProject Current events which currently has, including myself, only 2 members. If any of you want to join that would be great as we could organize a plan for taking care of this problem. GT 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, let me clarify. As far as this AfD is concerned, my vote is Keep and let it be. In the future as part of an organized effort I would like to see it merged but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. GT 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept. It's like this for all 1096 days from January 1, 2003 up to and including December 31, 2005: all are transcluded. I've removed the AfD message from the page, which was of course also shown on January 2003 June 2003. If we want to get rid of these as separate articles, someone should do a subst on the month pages in which they are transcluded, fix any links and delete them. I don't know if it should be done (if it ain't broke ...) and if so who should decide so, but somehow I feel AfD is not the right forum. There are further January 12, 2006, which I believe should be merged, then January 24, 2006, January 25, 2006, and January 26, 2006, which are three redirects to January 2006 (why?), April 1, 2006, which is all about this year's Aprilfoolery, and finally April 20, 2006, which is a double redirect via April 2006 to Current events. That should be fixed but by someone else; I've gotta run. Someone please close. LambiamTalk 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Latest news: someone put the AfD message back. Please put it also on the 1095 other days :) LambiamTalk 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since there are articles for individual dates since 01/01/2003, we should keep it. --Terence Ong 08:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete along with all the other day month year articles (i.e. referring to one specific day) as dupes M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • To the last two voters - it has since been acknowledged that there is no duplication. Please take the time to understand what you are voting on! Pcb21 Pete 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You would like to have the explicit link, not the implicit one. But the date is nothing special to deserve a special article. Than we'll have to discuss about every date, day by day? --MaNeMeBasat 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I think this day should be the same as all the others (i.e. kept and transcluded). Pcb21 Pete 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is a legit date in history

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abe Levy

previously deleted; lack of notability Robocoder 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In the article on my school, Christian Heritage, I put in the staff list on Suzanne Levy that she is is Abe's mother, incase somebody was wondering if there was any relation between the two, or just to know as an interesting fact, so they could then come to this article to learn about him. Also, if people who read Abe's articles wanted to know about him, they could come here to do just that. (This is an encyclopedia, anyway.) Last, it's not like Wikipedia can only contain a certain amount of articles.--WatchHawk 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge put this information in the school article then, and use this page as a redirect. Tyrenius 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was previously going to vote speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, especially with the list the above tidbit was part of removed as crufty, but I think the subject comes across to me as notable, and the article just needs some work. Morgan Wick 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Originially was based on the "very popular" and "internet search" below. Actual internet searches seem to contradict it. Changing vote to neutral. Morgan Wick 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. I don't see why a merge like Tyrenius suggests will be be beneficial. DarthVader 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thivierr doesn't want the staff list to exist anyway: [2]. DarthVader 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And I'm agreement in with Thivierr as expressed [3] and [4] Metros232 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Previously deleted twice, absolutely no reason to merge Metros232 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very much non-notable, a Google search seems to give about 100 hits away from Wik mirrors, and those hits seem to be a lot of duplicates. I've gone through most of it, and as far as I can tell this guy has written three articles which can be hit by a Google search. Moreover, San Antonio Express-News doesn't link here (in fact, nothing in namespace does). --Deville (Talk) 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Right off the top, I have a problem with an article which states Abe is very popular; many of his articles and pictures about various things he has written about turn up with a simple Internet search.. That seems like a serious POV problem. Beyond that, I see no signs of notabilty at all. IrishGuy 04:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment To be fair, that line was added after the article was tagged for AfD. It seems more like it was added by someone unfamiliar with the process of AfD and the user felt it was best to assert their personal beliefs on the subject in the article. Metros232 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I removed that wording and tagged it for failing WP:V. No opinion.--Isotope23 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete db-bio, vanity. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Protect from recreation, as per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable Danaman5 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreated nn bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just put this on the school page and put a re-direct here. By the way, he has written many more than three articles.--WatchHawk 20:18, 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? 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxims on authoritarianism

While my initial feeling was that there could be a notable article written on this subject, I think this is just unsalvagable original research. Cheapestcostavoider 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Probably original research/essay. - Richardcavell 01:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would prefer to see it merged, but it's completely unreferenced. Tyrenius 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral; very weak keep pending sources. On second thought... nah, let's BJAODN it if sources aren't forthcoming.
  • Delete. Some sort of orginal research essay. Not funny enough for BJAODN. DarthVader 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to see here. Agree with nom that the idea is sound but the execution is not.--Deville (Talk) 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopædic collection of unsourced, uncited quotations. Useless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or BJAODN per User:Richardcavell. JIP | Talk 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems more like an article in sorry need of citations than original research. Also the style is not very encyclopedic, so it could use stylistic editing. But simply needing clean-up isn't grounds enough for deletion. --Ginkgo100 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. — TheKMantalk 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was AfD retracted by proposer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Ionization Detector

Duplicate. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Avatar

Fairly empty, nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 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 Merge and Redirect to Hybrid Tea. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WEKhilpurnil

First, it's fairly empty. Second of all, it's nn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Hybrid Tea where its already listed. Doesn't seem like it requires its own article. Gwernol 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Hybrid Tea, along with Mister Lincoln. How does one establish notability of a cultivar? — AKADriver ☎ 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Morgan Wick 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. DarthVader 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this hugely unlikely term and give special award to first person to actually look for it, properly spelled and capitalized. Deizio 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. SorryGuy 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per all of the above. Very nice looking rose, but not notable enough to have its own article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per above - Aeon 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hybrid Tea. --Terence Ong 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollow Flame

non-notable band. Delete.Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - they've sold 500 copies of a CD. Good luck to them, but wikipedia policy is to delete. - Richardcavell 01:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nowhere near WP:MUSIC Morgan Wick 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Morgan Wick. DarthVader 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Rcavell. GREAT hair tho. Deizio 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Cavell. Hair is notable, however, as per Deizio. --Deville (Talk) 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morgan Wick. SorryGuy 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete {{db-band}} candidates. WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete- for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 06:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, nn. --Terence Ong 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete article is not encyclopedic, band fails WP:MUSIC, and hair looks like fire hazard Pete.Hurd 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUS. — TheKMantalk 20:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges

Incorrectly renominated. Listing now. Reasoning was: "note, this is the second time this list has been put up for afd, The result of the debate was Delete all first in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_26#List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges." by User:Kintetsubuffalo here — Rebelguys2 talk 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as a recreated article. Deleted through AfD on 1 February and speedily deleted on 10 March. [5] — Rebelguys2 talk 01:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete why has this reappeared? Rlevse 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per CSD G4. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aura Reinhard

Virtually unknown actress. 13 mostly unrelated hits on Google (!). Does not satisfy criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~MDD4696 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Either eminently non-notable or total hoax. Hard to imagine a working actress with no IMDB page and no press at all. Fan1967 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable reality TV person. — AKADriver ☎ 01:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but if she did work for Clinton... Deizio 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a notable person, but since she is not an actor/entertainment industry figure, but a lawyer associated with a doctor featured on a reality TV show, the IMDB argument is particularly pointless, and raises serious questions as to how many of the participants in this discussion actually read the article. Monicasdude 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sorry for the misunderstanding. Having never seen (or heard anything about) the show, I had no idea it was a reality show. Regardless, her appearances do not seem to have generated any fame for her. Fan1967 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Gun (film)

This article was originally listed for deletion a year ago, and was kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Gun (movie)). This film is not happening, it is so not happening that both IMDB and BCDB, gossip-snatchers as they are, have removed the film from their databases. This is a perfect example of why we should not have articles on rumoured films: far more of them don't get made than actually do get made. This article should be deleted unless anyone can provide any recent evidence that it is going to be made in the immediate future. Rje 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The El Reyko 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not a film because it's not being produced. It might well be produced in the future, but it's not even in pre-production. It's a pitch, or a script, and it's not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. - Richardcavell 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, crystal ball and whatnot. — AKADriver ☎ 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - the result of the original debate was to merge and redirect to Pixar, not keep, but for some reason that didn't happen. Morgan Wick 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some reports suggest, but other reports indicate? This seems so contrived to be a crystal ball violation that it's making me think Wikihoax. --Deville (Talk) 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pixar. This movie was talked about for long enough to make it somewhat notable, just not in its own article. Arctic Gnome 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:38, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosario Isasi (renomination)

  • This article was deleted before and the current form comes from the recreated text. The person in question does not have enought publications to be notable. (I can't find the criteria at hand, please post here). I think it should be speedy deleted and protected. It is also possible vanity. Tony Bruguier 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. *sigh* I don't see why people are so obsessed with deleting this poor little article. Like I said before, beyond the fact that her bio speaks for itself in regards to how notable she is, Isasi is mentioned in the Bioconservatism and Transhumanism articles. --Loremaster 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Then maybe the article should include more of her bio. All I see is a stub that doesn't seem to assert much (if any) notability. Fan1967 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. no longer copyvio but still not notable. — AKADriver ☎ 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to be notable enough, but needs major expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here I found the criteria for people in academics. I don't think this persons passes the test. Tony Bruguier 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if this person is notable, the article should outline the reasons why. As there is nothing at this juncture, I vote delete. IrishGuy 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. With all respect, this is getting ridiculous. I totally disagree with Isasi's opinions, but she is at least a moderately notable bioconservative. This same article was voted on as keep less than two weeks ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosario_Isasi_2 It is an abuse of process to list it again so quickly. I undertake to put some more substance into what is now a stub as soon as I get a free moment. Metamagician3000 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is not a valid reason to call for a speedy keep. Please choose something else. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently, IMHO, too stubby to justify retention. Simon Cursitor 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per previous AfD. David Sneek 08:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this substub does not assert her notability and her mentions in other articles only say she's a prominent person in her field but do not provide documentation of this from outside sources. GT 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Assertion of notablility is not sufficient for an AfD keep - I think you're confusing it with CSD 7. But see below. --David.Mestel 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - she seems notable enough. But most importantly per Metamagician - unless something has materially changed, the article shouldn't be re-listed - use DRV if you think the decision was wrong. --David.Mestel 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, Speedy keep as out of process. --David.Mestel 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very few people voted in the last one and none of them supplied a particularly valid basis for keeping it. I personally have no misgivings about voting delete on its re-listing. GT 21:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    And what did the single person advocating deletion say as his comment? "nn". --David.Mestel 05:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: That is not a valid reason to call for a speedy keep. Please choose something else. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes it is. SK3 is that it "doesn't qualify for AfD".. I don't think that this does qualify for AfD, as it's out of process due to a premature renomination. --David.Mestel 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Wikipedia isn't a Who's Who. Brian G. Crawford 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? Do you think we shouldn't have any biographies at all? --David.Mestel 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominated two weeks ago, result was to keep! What the hecks it doing back here!?! I'm assuming good faith, but it COULD appear that someone just wants rid and is willing to renominate as many times as it takes. Jcuk 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jcuk. --Loremaster 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that under regular circumstances it might have been too soon to renominate, but the last listing only had six commentors -- not nearly enough to set a precedent to keep or delete an article. And of those six, five were supporters, and four of those five think that AfD is a vote and that simply saying "Keep - notable" is sufficient. The fifth attempted to demonstrate the notability but offered no support for the claims. Like I said before I have no confidence in the last AfD and have no problems with it being relisted and supporting its deletion. GT 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with the result of the AfD, you should take it to DRV. --David.Mestel 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In any event, it's not a fair account. Moreover, it is uncivil to allege that some people "think that AfD is a vote". With respect, GT has no way of knowing any such thing about those of his colleagues in this project who voted (or whatever more pedantically accurate word is preferred) last time. I respectfully request that this allegation be retracted. Metamagician3000 07:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In not just that one but most AfD's I've seen people think that they are simply there to vote "keep" or "delete", when in reality the point is to arrive at a consensus (or come as close as possible). If you do nothing but show up and say "notable" (or "not notable" for that matter), that does nothing to show a skeptical person why this person deserves an article (which, by the way, I'd still like to see happen here).

As far as me retracting my comments, I don't see why I would. Of the five supporters last time, two did nothing but say "notable", one mentioned only something about her showing up on Google (as though that proves anything), one mentioned only two references to her on Wikipedia that, if you take the time to look them up, do not demonstrate her notability in any way, and finally you started to make some vague claims that, had I been around, I would have asked you to clarify. As far as I'm concerned, the other four voters did nothing but vote and added nothing to any kind of consensus-building. GT 08:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You should always assume that fellow wikipedians are valued colleagues who are acting in good faith and with due consideration for the benefit of the project, until you see clear evidence to the contrary. That is certainly how I wish to be regarded.
Personally, I have no brief for Rosario Isasi, and I don't think she is so notable that it would have been a travesty if the last AfD had gone the other way. However, I happened to know that she is a reasonably prominent spokesperson for certain views, and so I was surprised to see the article listed here. When I checked on Google, it threw up enough information to confirm that I was not imagining things, or distorting things in my mind. Accordingly, I "voted" to keep the article and briefly stated why, without overstating the point. At least some people who followed me also obviously checked Google to see not only how many hits she had (not all that many, actually) but also their quality, which is pretty impressive. There was, indeed, a process of consensus building, which is how this place is supposed to work. From my experience, a lot of people just vote "delete per nom" - I often do this myself if the nominator has said something that I think is clearly right after I've made some quick checks. There is no need to engage in extensive explanations unless requested. Concision does not in any way demonstrate a lack of understanding of the process. Metamagician3000 09:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Okay, but I did see evidence. Actions speak louder than words, after all.
2. "Delete per nom" is, of course, completely different from "Delete, non notable", assuming the nominator made valid points.
3. Her Google results don't seem any different from what would be expected of anyone in academics who happens to advocate a position. I'd prefer to see where her advocacy has sauntered out of academia and entered into a significant public discourse or some kind of other significant show of her notability. GT 10:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the comments or otherwise of the contributors to the other AfD are irrelevant - it was closed as keep, and if you want to challenge that, take it to DRV. Secondly, at least three of the five keep-ers made points (Metamagician, Royboy and Loremaster), and thirdly the only comment of the single delete-er was "nn". QED. --David.Mestel 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The first AfD is relevant since many are using its existence to justify keeping this article. It is very common to relist articles that do not receive comments by enough people to reach consensus. Also, unsupported and/or erroneous claims are not worth much. Saying "good google hits" is kind of pointless -- you should cite one or two of them, unless it's completely self-evident upon punching her name into Google which in my experience it was not. Finally, it should go without saying that I prefer both keep and delete "votes" to be accompanied by a justification (even if it's just agreeing with someone else's). GT 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of the firt Google hits seem to come from pretty reputable sites. But that is irrelevant. You are trying to use this AfD as a kind of "Appeal" from the previous one. USe DRV for that, that's what it's there for. And anyway, six people is enough (subject to DRV), when they're 5-1 united. --David.Mestel 06:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
They're all garden-variety academic sites, typical of what a search for any college professor would yield. — GT 08:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the subject meets, as far as I can tell, criteria 1 and 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Anville 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A wacko who seems to take distopian sci-fi a bit too seriously, but a notable wacko. JeffBurdges 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • To the last two voters: Who are the independent sources per those criteria? And after this long drawn out discussion right above here, WHY would you simply write "notable"? GT 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep per Metamagician3000. Monicasdude 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete article does not assert notability, and subject does not meet WP:PROFTEST. Pete.Hurd 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is fine as-is. In my opinion, I think the subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. — TheKMantalk 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Uhh...is this a joke? — GT 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10001 (number)

Numbercruft. Wikipedia does not need an article on every number- there's nothing in the article to indicate there's anything interesting at all about 10001 The El Reyko 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not meet WP:NUM test. Morgan Wick 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morgan Wick. Gwernol 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morgan Wick. DarthVader 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, good faith numbercruft Deizio 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morgan Wick. SorryGuy 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As amusing as the concept of "numbercruft" is, we really don't need an article on this. The sidebar is very cute, though. :3 RMG 04:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NUM Arctic Gnome 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Integers: Continuous from -1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1010)." - WP:NUM.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • May I (whimsically) suggect deleting the article but keeping the sidebar -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete, article does not assert any notability. If there were even one non-obvious thing to say about this number then I would consider voting "keep". JIP | Talk 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morgan Wick. --Terence Ong 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - um, notability not really asserted. Colonel Tom 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Well it is a binary palindrome, and those are kind of rare. --Bachrach44 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, there are rather a lot of them! Robin Johnson 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • An infinite number, to be precise. —Encephalon 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's also a decimal palindrome, and there are a "smaller infinite" number of them. Barno 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Or maybe a "bigger infinite" number, depending on how you look at it. Now I've confused myself. Sigh. Barno 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Robin Johnson 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 10000 (number). Don't merge. — RJH 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Oleg & aeropagitica. —Encephalon 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 73 x 137 times, per WP:NUM. No redirect, no merge. Barno 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article (even though I cleaned it up a little). No redirect, nothing to merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall hearing about this number. Oh, and delete it. Optichan 17:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Next time please remember to sign your comments. And by the way, delete. If this exists, why don't we have an article on 348725688, or 3948064933676? Freddie 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another number. The article does not establish its notability. — TheKMantalk 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 Delete - content posted to user page. Tawker 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Robertson

This article meets WP:NN, WP:VAIN, and others. The author (the same person the article is about) has persistantly removed the deletion tag. Please make a swift decision for speedy deletion. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy post-haste. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Maybe this time it will stick. Brian G. Crawford 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:DVAIN. Morgan Wick 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, per above Badgerpatrol 02:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The page was blanked by User:Aaron 2006. Bad bombing, Aaron. Danny Lilithborne 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And blanked again. I've restored. Ziggurat 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And again. Aaron, if you continue to blank this page you will likely be blocked and unable to provide any good arguments for its inclusion. Ziggurat 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google imitation

Delete - lacks notability, importance, and appears to be original research --mtz206 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn example of phishing. — AKADriver ☎ 03:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How in the world can it be phishing when the logos outright say something different from "Google"? Do you expect people to think "Ooh, coloured letters. This must be Google!"? JIP | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absent of proof this is a phenomenon or real problem. Deizio 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are enough websites copying Google to make them as a whole notable. Arctic Gnome 05:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if this is true, the site should provide external examples other than the two redundant one's given, which I suspect are the author's. --mtz206 12:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, article asserts no notability. JIP | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable, original research. --Terence Ong 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I want to give it a weak keep, but I just can't see how Google-copying is notable or problematic. Perhaps if the article explained this. --Ginkgo100 17:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because the phenomenon is real and the article can be expanded way beyond its current content. Tyrenius 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I was on the fence until I saw that the creator's username is Piguy and one of the imitations given is pi-guy.co.nr. That pushed it over the edge for me. -- Kicking222 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, looks like spam. ergot 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, for now. If this thing becomes more widespread and problematic, an article may be fine in the future. — TheKMantalk 21:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Harris (historian)

Non-notable biography. Was tagged for speedy deletion, tag removed by page creator (who may be the subject of the page). Eron 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:DVAIN. — AKADriver ☎ 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Changing opinion to Userfy, if Jim Harris is in fact User:Historygeek2486. — AKADriver ☎ 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible, entirely nn. Deizio 03:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy --Deville (Talk) 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, if this is notable then I'm worldfamous. Maestlin 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This undergraduate history major doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. — TheKMantalk 21:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism and Gold

Attempt at an original synthesis. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Bronks
  • Delete, original research, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete but seriously, I'd love to see some more citations so I could vote keep. Good article. Sadly, does currently fail OR.Colonel Tom 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Unsourced, appears to be original research and reads partly (not wholly) like an economics essay. I will change my 'vote' if some sources are put in the artcle. Robin Johnson 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs to be worked over, but it is wrong to say that it is unsourced, there is reference to the writings of Lenin and the other guy. Skalle 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete in the style of Colonel Tom unless someone can turn it into an encyclopedia article instead of an essay. NoIdeaNick 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. --Ginkgo100 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasons as above Smilingman 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's more about public toilets than anything else --Nydas 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as above, but I did like the editorial comment about public lavatories ;-) Pete.Hurd 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denise_Batcheff

A one-sentence article about someone who married an actor. Having been married to an actor does not mean the person's notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Tyrenius has helped establish her notability, the article has been expanded, and that's good enough for me. I withdraw the nomination. ekedolphin 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. — AKADriver ☎ 03:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{db-bio}} candidate, non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 06:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think we can write an encyclopedia article on this person. —Encephalon 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She wasn't just married to an actor. See Denise Batcheff's entry in IMDb as film editor in the relatively early days of cinema in the 1930s, including, for example, sound editor on Renoir's La Chienne. Tyrenius 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tyrenius Jcuk 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand as per Tyrenius, though the article as it now stands isn't any claim of notability and could have been speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there's a bit of a problem here, because the discussion is meant to be about the subject, but actually it's about how well the article has been written, but isn't the whole collaborative thing about other editors improving articles? OK, that is now happening, because I did the search—otherwise it would have been down the pan. I find this slightly worrying. Thoughts anyone?Tyrenius 01:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's pretty much how AfD works. It's the responsibility of the original author to write an article which claims notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment article expanded somewhat. Jcuk 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find nothing that substantiates any notable role she played in these early films. Meme pas en francais. Eusebeus 08:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought that had already been established. The IMDb entry shows that her notable role was that of Editor, or in French "chef monteur", which I think would be an unusual role for a woman at the time.Tyrenius 12:28, 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 to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering; more information can be moved Broodstar to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering by recovering it from history (this is a regular editing decision) - Liberatore(T) 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broodstar (2nd nomination)

The first nomination was closed with a result of merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering...after apparently only three votes. Also, apparently, the page was never merged. I'm relisting here, and unlike the first nominator, I'm voting delete because individual CCG cards aren't notable enough for their own page. -- Grev 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. SorryGuy 03:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I just merged it, so Delete. — AKADriver ☎ 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per AKADriver. RMG 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if content has been merged the page must be made into a redirect to preserve attribution under the GFDL. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, individual MTG cards are not notable. I wouldn't even consider popular deck builds to qualify for individual articles... though it is interesting there is no mention of such seminal decks as Prosperous Bloom, red/white weenie, etc. at Magic: The Gathering.--Isotope23 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kjkolb. --Ginkgo100 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, or add more info to the section at Creatures of Magic: the Gathering. Only a small part of the article is actually in that section. VDZ 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect for GFDL compliance. Fagstein 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since it seems to me that with the thousands of creatures in the game, trying to cram them all into one article doesn't sound reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (article is kept) - Liberatore(T) 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candace Brown Candace Michelle Brown

Do we consider Miss USA runners-up to be notable? NawlinWiki 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, or we'll have to accept articles about every Miss USA entrant. — AKADriver ☎ 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO for living people. —ERcheck @ 03:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all above. PJM 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Winner of Miss Alabama USA contest. If deleted we should then review all state winner pages for notability (e.g. Tamiko Nash, Shauna Gambill, &c.). — RJH 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sources. Do we have good ones (ie. multiple independent works focused on her, in reputable publications)? If yes, keep and expand. If no, delete. If no good sources are adduced by the close of this AFD, the closing editor may consider this a 'vote' to delete. —Encephalon 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as someone who won a state title, and competed at the highest national level. Runner-up is pretty good. I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soben Huon is a fair precedent, of state title being sufficient. --Rob 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, that's a pretty bad precedent, as that AfD was an obviou bad faith nom put up by a troll who was randomly AfD'ing a lot of stuff, so the reflex reaction was a speedy keep for everything he nominated. Most of the keep votes were based on the nominator. Fan1967 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are 51 Miss USA and 51 Miss America titleists per year, as many Mrs. America, etc., etc., etc., times how many years now? By Thivierr's and RJH's reasoning, we should have articles on all of them. Unless she does something other than lost the pageant, then she is not notable. BTW, my cousin was a Miss Anaheim, can I write an article about her? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Did she appear in a nationally televised competition program seen by millions, and come in as runner-up? Did she win anything at the state level? If so, please do write about her. --Rob 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep winners of state title are notable. They are public people for at least that year. This article's problem is lack of verifiable reliable sources. If we can overcome this problem then keep. FloNight talk 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the winners of the state title are notable for that very fact. They first compete against many other delegates to win their state title, and are treated as royalty for the year of their reign. They have the responsibility of representing their state in a national competition, televised live. I agree this article has a probelm wtih verifiable and reliable sources, but I will give it some work later today and see what I can dig up. The main problem is that she was a state titleholder from 1992 - it will be practically impossible to find news sources from fourteen years ago, not least because the internet wasn't up to much back then. Not quite sure what the motive in creating this article was (I have refrained from creating articles from so far back), but really the article's only problem is that she was notable in 1992 (compared to the delegates of 2006, for whom there are numerous newspaper articles - and no, I haven't put them in yet but again, I will spend some time working on this later today). As for the attempted deletion of Soben Huon - bad faith nom or no, there are a number of responses which agreed that delegates are inherently notable. Simply because there are a number of them doesn't make them any less notable - only 51 delegates are chosen, but hundreds (if not over one thousand) of delegates who compete for state titles. PageantUpdater 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect per Thivierr (Rob). I can't find much more information and agree this would be fair option.
I have restored my Keep vote. The article now contains references and I maintain that state titleholders are notable so (in my mind) there are now now problems. PageantUpdater 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since there's a very limited amount of verifiable information on this person in the article, I suggest, that a fair option, is that if more info in the article (with sources) isn't forthcoming, we could keep, but redirect the article to the state pageant. That way, somebody could undo the redir in the future, without starting from scratch. --Rob 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Thivierr (Rob). Fagstein 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with a redirect is that there is a more notable actor named Candace Brown who is scheduled to star on a show for NBC [6]. Eusebeus 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I renamed the article, to include the middle name. When a bio for the actress is made, the redirect Candace Brown can be converted into an article. When more info for Candace Michelle Brown becomes available, that redirect can be undone (with a disambig link from the other possibly). --Rob 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Commnet I want to give the article creator a few more days to provide verifiable reliable sources. If that doesn't happen then we need to merge and redirect. I'm sure that more information is available in old local newspaper articles. It is the very recent stuff that might not be found in reliable sources. I added a source and link yesterday. FloNight talk 12:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further citations added No opinion on notability (although see the article talk page) Thatcher131 15:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please state title winners are importaint Yuckfoo 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep second in the country in a notable, national televised, long-running contest, which has a longer history than American Idol. Would you consider deleting Clay Aiken, Justin Guarini? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurogamer

Tagged for {{prod}} as a "non-notable forum", but the tag was removed by anonymous gremlins. Ashibaka tock 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, notability unclear but improbable. Way too forumcrufty. — AKADriver ☎ 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least strip to the bones. As AKADriver says, too much cruft. porges 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up Eurogamer is definitely a notable website, and an important one to the video game industry. The major US sites (IGN, Gamespot, etc.) frequently reference Eurogamer when they have a big UK scoop. An Alexa rank around 7,500 is certainly high enough for me (especially for a European site), not to mention the two million Google hits. There is a lot of crap on this page, but (while it obviously needs to be cleaned up) in this case, a lot of crap is better than nothing at all. -- Kicking222 14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 124 unique Google hits. Fagstein 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kicking222. Those are colossal numbers, and what has kept a number of editors from taking the eight seconds to delete out the plainly crufty and self-referential paragraphs I don't know. (In fact, hell, I'll do it myself.) RGTraynor 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing on the page that's not informative. (Bunda)
  • Keep and clean up The forum crap should be confined to EG's own forum, it has no place on here. JammyB 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wavescorx Independent

Also:

  • Travis Wavescorx and its redirect, Travis Lou Wavescorx,
  • Tim Fahey, and
  • Astertone.

Nn vanispam. Just the word Wavescorx alone only garners 167 non-wikipedia hits. "Wavescorx Independent" gets two. The company was founded a couple of years ago - the film hasn't been released, it's the actor's first role... These articles form a nice little walled gareden of articles - the WI one is the only one which links elsewhere (again thanks to the same editor, who added it to List of animation studios). Spam or vanity, you take your pick. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity, spam, vanispam, spamanity, etc. — AKADriver ☎ 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yes, vanityspam. - Richardcavell 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article about one unreleased animation yet to show at festivals - non-notable vanity article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I respectfully disagree. The information is completely valid and is note-worthy. Little is known about the film because of the studio's secrecy of the project. I have seen the film and it is wonderful. Because it is the studio's first, makes it all the more remarkable - - if only Pixar and Aardman's first films were so entertaining! I recently interviewed the guys at Wavescorx Independent for an up-coming article (printing to coincide with the release of the film) and I am the author of these articles. Please reconsider. Commodius Vicus
I acknowledge what you're saying, but doesn't that make it original research? - Richardcavell 09:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If little is known about the film, due to studio secrecy or not, then it's ... (wait for it) ... non-notable. Feel free to rewrite the article if that changes. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per AKADriver (bwahaha). -- Kicking222 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Animated shorts are very, very rarely notable after they've been released, since there's practically no distribution for them. Certainly not notable before its release. Fan1967 14:51, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TrenStar

Violation of WP:CORP jmd 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CORP, though you can't violate a guideline. — AKADriver ☎ 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is Orwellian corporate Newspeak and scares me. - Richardcavell 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- does not satisfy WP:CORP The El Reyko 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, plug for non-notable company, written in the kind of advert-ese that is happy to use "headquarter" as a verb but can't spell "its". Robin Johnson 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company, but I may save a copy of this ad article for my next game of buzzword bingo. Fan1967 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not quite notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:CORP. Has a few mentions here and there, but many of them were press releases that originated from TrenStar itself. — TheKMantalk 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JDoorjam as copyright violation of a commercial site. Kotepho 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heyoka magazine

Delete. Non notable, self promotion Nationalparks 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This page was speedy deleted. Nationalparks 04:14, 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 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindy Ransom

I put a {{prod}} tag on this article, but the creater, removed it. I am nominating it for deletion here. I reproduce the text that I put in the prod nomination: This person has acted in only two films that imdb.com knows about, and had very small parts in each one. That's not very notable. NatusRoma | Talk 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - quite unencyclopedic. - Richardcavell 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete can't find any of the films cited in the article on IMDB, and I think IMDB may be talking about a different Lindy Ransom [7] -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, very much non-notable. JIP | Talk 09:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. porges 10:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted. — TheKMantalk 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysian saga

Nonsensical. Teke 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed, I made it speedy now. Teke 05:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD G1 or as CSD G3 with the talk page comments.--blue520 06:07, 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 09:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Władysław Krzysztof Grabiński

Non notable person; just 29 Google hits. See also first nom Rory096(block) 05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no assertion of notability and it has not improved since the first nomination in which some editors advocated a "wait and see" approach. I would reconsider if the article is improved. -- Kjkolb 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It hasn't moved on from the last AfD. Dlyons493 Talk 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article can always be recreated if someone can make it more than a stub with no evidence of notability, but in its current state it is useless and an embaressment to the Wiki. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlaySystems

Delete - Not any more notable than any other game server. Prod removed without explanation. Also, vanity/spam (article editor is a founder). Wickethewok 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable CounterStrike server.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and POV issues ("one of the best gaming servers..."). --Ginkgo100 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, non-notable, unencyclopedic. Ed Sanville 00:00, 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 still no consensus. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wenedyk

Non notable fake language; only 518 Ghits. Rory096(block) 06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Question: What is the criteria for notable? There have (apparently) been articles published about this language, and not by the creator, and I do invite someone who speaks german and/or polish to please verify the articles Mr. van Steenbergen cited. If being published about is the criteria for notabilty, then this whole AfD is moot. Where can I find the "policy" or "convention" of Wikipedia about this? Bo-Lingua 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Here is the first nomination, which resulted in no consensus. Grandmasterka 06:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's not a fake language; it is completely real. It just happens to be a constructed language. Within the field of constructed languages, it's very well known. I don't think 500 hits for something with no false positives is half bad. Also, an article on the language is on enough Wikipedias to put it near the top of lists of articles that should be translated to English, should it be deleted.--Prosfilaes 06:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I get around 360 Ghits, do I even come close to deserving an article? --Rory096(block)
      • Comment. You can't reduce notability down to a simple counting of Ghits. Certainly the number of Ghits must be taken with an pinch of salt when we're talking about a person who communicates via the Internet.--Prosfilaes 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. While true, it's a good measure, as if it's notable enough, people will be talking about it. Also, I rarely use my full name on the internet (my screenname gets about 20,000 Google hits). --Rory096(block) 07:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge into constructed languages, if consensus satisfied as to notability. -- Simon Cursitor 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has an article on nine other wikipedias. It can be expanded using the information on grammar and phonetics from the Italian version. David Sneek 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: speaking of the length of the italian article, why must length really matter? There are how many hundred-thousand of stubs that are pointless, yet they linger around. If it needs to be expanded to somehow have merit, then by all means, let's do so. Bo-Lingua 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does not have a single speaker according to the box on the article and it has only been in existence since 2002. -- Kjkolb 10:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Brithenig to make a new article (how about Languages of Ill Bethisad for lack of a better title).--blue520 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The thought is good, but I'm not sure if it would give a workable solution. First of all, there are a lot more languages in IB than Brithenig and Wenedyk only. Even this list is far from complete! In order to be complete, I'm afraid an article like the one you're referring to would be pretty exhaustive, and it would also have to list quite a lot of languages that notability-wise would not warrant inclusion. Another thing is that not all IB language would owe their notability to Ill Bethisad only, case in point being Brithenig. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kjkolb. This isn't Esperanto.--Isotope23 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Language is wellknown in Poland and there has been at least one article about it in a magazine. Gwarnik 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Gwarnik, I know there are nitpickers out there. Can you cite the magazine that it appeared in? Bo-Lingua
    • Comment: Nope, it doesn't seem to be; there are only forty G-hits off of Polish-domain websites, most of those mirrors of the Polish Wikipedia article or links to a single Geocities webpage. I applaud the Bethisadians for their self-promotional skills, but that still doesn't constitute notability. RGTraynor 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm not voting to keep it because it's Ill Bethisad related, nor is it self-promotion. If it is deemed to be deleted, I will support it. It _is_ well known in conlanging circles, and was one of the steps that led me personally into conlanging and eventually Ill Bethisad. Bo-Lingua 17:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I suppose Gwarnik is referring to an article in the Polish monthly Wiedza i Życie. In February 2004 (IIRC) there was an article by Dorota Gut under the title "Nowa Mowa" ("New Language"), which was mostly, but not exclusively, about Wenedyk. That article, like most articles in the printed press, is not accessible online, but it dóes exist. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that was it. Gwarnik 08:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A German article about Wenedyk and other conlangs of similar vein: Tilman Berger: Vom Erfinden Slavischer Sprachen (in German, PDF) (Found on the North Slavic languages page.) Bo-Lingua 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This language is well known outside of the Ill Bethisad community due to its innovation on the theme set forth by Brithenig; for ex: My linguistics professors are aware of the language and have used class-room examples at BYU. While other related projects do not, in my opinion deserve their own article, this one and Brithenig do. Bo-Lingua 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn constructed language. I cannot find substace to the assertion that it is well known outside of the Ill Bethisad community. Eusebeus 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Sneek --Astrokey44 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Excuse me, this is an invented language not used in a major fictional work, but in an alternate history project fifty people have bought into for which a possible novel might be written? That they've managed to slip under the radar and spam a lot of Wikipedias doesn't make this notable; it's perilously close to WP:NFT. Plainly a lot of work's gone into this, but hell, I've put nearly thirty years of demographic, linguistic, economic and historical work into my RPG campaign, and I don't think that's Wiki-notable. RGTraynor 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wish people would stop making personal attacks like this. "That they've managed to [...] spam a lot of Wikipedias"? You seem to imply that all this is part of one big action for self-promotion. May I remind you that neither the article about Ill Bethisad nor the article about Wenedyk were started by me, or any other IB member? You may like it or not, but there are a lot of people interested in these things. If you're not, that's perfectly fine with me, but don't use this trollish kind of argumentation. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If neither you nor any other IB member have been doing the article writing or the spamming, may I ask upon what grounds you conceive that to be an attack upon you? That being said, I am quite happy at characterizing writing an article about a non-notable subject across several Wikipedias "spamming;" I've certainly created no article myself which in my estimation failed to pass the applicable criteria. That there is a fandom on artificial languages is irrelevant; there are fandoms based around many things which still nonetheless must past verifiability and notability musters. RGTraynor 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I consider it to be an attack upon me ánd the other fifty IB members because of the way you formulated it: "[...] an alternate history project fifty people have bought into [...] That they [i.e. those fifty people] have managed to slip under the radar and spam etc.". It may just be a matter of poor word choice, but you áre implying that all IB related stuff was produced by IB members only. That's simply not true. I also object against the term "spam", which I would define as violent, unsollicited self-promotion. None of these qualifications are true. By using the term, you implicitly attack not the article, but the people who worked on it in (presumably) good faith. Again, if you don't care for the subject, that's fine. But calling articles about subjects you don't care for "spam" is very unpleasant; there are lots of subjects I don't care for myself, but I wouldn't dream of calling them "spam". Besides, if the existence of a fandom doesn't point towards notability, then what does? As far as both Ill Bethisad and Wenedyk are concerned, verifiability doesn't seem to be the issue. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per David Sneek. Also, it has a respectable number of Wikipedia pages linking to it, not counting user pages and the AfD logs. --Ginkgo100 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article passed the previous call for deletion: this means there was not enough clear opposition. Constructed languages aren't "fake" any more than a model railway is a "fake" railroad. The usual ad hominem attacks and misinformation round out the opposition to the article. Naysayers seem to only rely on personal dislike for a subject rather than reasoned dispute. "Notability" is also a red herring: there are plenty of lesser known artists and works of art out there that are and ought to be recorded as part of the deposit of human culture. Elemtilas 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (User's sole contributions are on AfDs concerning artificial languages) I doubt anyone would call a model railroad "fake." As it happens, there is a model railroad enthusiasts' club in my area, with a large set up and about sixty-five members. Would you consider, under your stance, an article about SSRE's railroad suitable for Wikipedia? As far as notability being a "red herring," your position that lesser works of art deserve recordation notwithstanding, Wikipedia has notability guidelines to determine whether an article can be included or not. RGTraynor 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So what if my "sole contributions" are on AfDs concerning artificial languages. That doesn't make my opinion any less valid than yours. Since you understand how a model railroad isn't a "fake" railroad, you already understand how a model language isn't a "fake" langauge. I would consider an article about model railroading every bit as acceptable as an article about conlanging. A short article about a spectacular model railway (like "Roadside America", if it still exists), or a conlang, or some lesser known opus by a not-so-well-known composer are all quite valid. Notability is a red herring because there are no good objective criteria. If your whole artistic world revolves around rap, then the Seasons will hardly be "notable". Elemtilas 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If even the creator of this language is unable to provide any reliable sources beyond his own website, this simply won't pass WP:V. —Ruud 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't understand what you're saying. "unable to provide any reliable sources beyond his own website"? What do you mean? Are not the two published articles (who are not Jan van Steenbergen) "reliable sources". Please explain your objection to the article. Bo-Lingua 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Me neither. Since you are referring to the verifiability page, why do you place the burden of evidence upon the creator of the language, and not on the person who wrote the article, or on the third parties who might give their objective opinion? That seems pretty contradictory to me! But for the record, I'm the creator of the language in question, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with any information you need. So, what is it you want to see verified? My website is sufficient proof that the language exists, and is real, so that can't be the issue. Significance? Aside of the two printed sources mentioned by Bo-Lingua, the web is full of references to Wenedyk. Of course, you might argue that the web is not a reliable source, but whether you like it or not, it is a new medium, which has changed the world completely. Therefore, judging an internet-published creation by the amount of books written about it is like judging the quality of a car by the question whether a horse can pull it. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Could you add a "references" section in that case? —Ruud 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • As a matter of fact, I can't and won't, for the very reason I stated above. As the creator of the language, it's not up to me to decide what its significance is. My contribution to the article therefore has been limited to adding an interwiki link here and there, and correcting one blatant error. Anything beyond that would come dangerously close to what's described in WP:VANITY. That is also the reason why I haven't issued a vote and only given a few comments. I'll look for the Polish magazine (I should have it around somewhere) and add the data here. I know there are (or were) a few web references as well, but I have to admit that I haven't been keeping track of that for at least two years now. They might be gone. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that it is a fully (or anyway mainly) functional language, which it appears to be. Invented languages are valud article subjects. Also FWIW the article itself is in pretty good shape, which doesn't hurt the case. Herostratus 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I'm mistaken, this thing has an ISO-639 code. That to me makes it worthy of inclusion on its own. This is on nine wikipedias (most, if not all, independently created it appears) and is verifiable and other users are independently finding sources about it. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be here. Grandmasterka 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - author blanked. Tawker 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vusal Mesiyev

This has been created four times. The first two times it was created here and deleted as nn-bio (A7), the third it was created by moving it here from User:Vusal Mesiyev and was re-userfied; the fourth time it was again created by moving from User:Vusal Mesiyev and hence this Afd. Self-authored article, does not appear to be a sufficiently encyclopedic subject, and for what it's worth this user does not have any other contributions other than this article. -- Curps 06:35, 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 keep, no consensus to delete (but must be sourced to comply with Wikipedia policy). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of nicknames used in Australian rules

Some Australian rules football players and coaching staff (past and present) have interesting nicknames, but very likely almost every one in the league has one. There is also the problem of verifiability WP:V. The notable, worthy of mention and/or verifiable ones should be mentioned or included on the players page where appropriate (short explanations in some cases may be necessary). blue520 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. While I can't vouch for every nickname, many of them appear accurate from my knowledge. How useful this list is another matter? Perhaps we ought to have Wikilists for lists of information of interest to some but not of encyclopedic or almanac value. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and User:Capitalistroadster. JIP | Talk 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per aboves, serious WP:V issues and too open to slander or vanity. Jed Adcock (redlink) may indeed be referred to as "Stiffy" and "Fat", or Alan Didak as "Poof" (something not mentioned in his own article) but I'm not sure we need to know about it.Weak keep, per other lists of nicknames, and as long as the AFL team try to keep it verified and free of vanity, cruft and slander. No redlinks, and nicknames must be mentioned in players individual articles would be a consensus to start from here. Deizio 11:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undecided (yes, well ...) I like this article - I've contributed to it - but I can't really argue that it has an unalienable right to page space. I want to be convinced that it does. Colonel Tom 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Keep, and suggest a strong suggestion on the talk page that future inclusions preferably give some provenance, and that nicknames like 'Smithy' for Smith not be included. (per below suggestions). Colonel Tom 04:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable per Capitalistroadster. --Terence Ong 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. JPD (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unreferenced. however, perfect for the AFL wikia --Astrokey44 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. These nicknames may (if significant enough) appear in appropriate player articles, but I can't fathom what's encyclopedic about a generic list of sports nicknames. RGTraynor 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if they can be verified. I don't see why an encyclopaedia can't be broad enough to accommodate such things for those interested in the subject. Let's not be all puritanical. Tyrenius 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we merge with the individual players articles? That way we keep the knowledge, lose the page and everyones happy! (were it only that simple.....) Jcuk 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Agree that verifiability is a bit of a problem but nicknames in Australian sport is an integral part of its culture. A well maintained list likes this is a useful tool for readers for cross referencing. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia can do well. -- I@n ≡ talk 00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Half-hearted Keep - previous two make good cases, verifiability becomes the issue - on the other hand, if you can't verify something to do with Aussie rules, it's not worth writing about - nick names are commonly shown in the papers and footy related media. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking through this list, footy fans would recognise 80-90% of the nicknames without a problem - verifiability is probably not an issue, and it is possible that people are overeacting. It's not the most cerebral article out, but then again, you can find plenty worse examples of articles if you try hard enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Die. Ambi 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Die????ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Die? -- Synapse 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But none of them have the nickname "Die". Tyrenius 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Death threats are never appropriate on AfD. Jimpartame 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and if it is, put it in the appropriate players profile. Anubis1975 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No thanks/delete--cj | talk 06:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep + Comment The presentation of the arrticle perhaps has to change. Reasons for how the nicknames was created as well as sources may need to be added. Maybe only nicknames that are interesting and not very similar to the player's name should be kept. Btw, there are many other similar pages to this page. Here's a list

More of these can be found in the See also section of nickname. If this page were to be deleted, all of the pages should be deleted to keep consistency. GizzaChat © 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and verify - notable enough, although perhaps not the most encyclopedic thing, but this is celebrity-like material I think, and apparently celebrities are notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Why isn't List of nicknames used in cricket up for deletion as well? Alot of the nicknames like "poof" are clearly cases of vandalism. There would be an uproar if the ice hockey entries were deleted but because we don't have the manpower at WP:AFL - this article's gone :(. I agree that obvious nicknames like Mark Bolton - "Bolts", Joel Smith - "Smithy" etc should be gone. Rogerthat Talk 10:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Can A admin or some one with an idea please move the article back and restore the edit history from Rogerthat user space at least until the close of this AfD. For I do not feel that it is suitable to move to name space during a AfD, a copy should be fine but not a move and redirect.--blue520 12:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, now we're voting on a RDR to a userspace article? I don't think that was what was intended. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have restored (copied) text back to the main article, and got rid of the redirect. However, the history seems to have been lost, so an admin might need to look into that. Tyrenius 15:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The page history is now here on the user page separated from the main article. Tyrenius 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all restored and fixed now. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent set by other "nicknames in sport" articles. -- Synapse 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per precedent. Source and put a little detail on how/why for notable entries, remove nn ones. -- Saberwyn 07:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- established precedents. List is open to abuse however, so citing references would be handy. -- Longhair 08:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keepas per above. :Librarianofages 03:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting and verifiable. Jimpartame 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Collegiate Forum

I believe that this is a vanity article on a non-notable subject. There are additional factors to consider:

  1. The origional author and major contributer of this article (Vermillian21) has only made two other types of contribution to wikipedia: (1) a copyrighted image that was included on this article, and (2) copy/paist articles currently under copyvio review.
  2. The other major contributer to this article (216.15.52.242) has only otherwise added linkspam to collegiateforum.org on other articles.
  3. A third contributer (208.179.249.87) to this article has done nothing other than remove a importance tag from this article, without any comments on the talkpage or in the edit summary.

Combined this also does not seem to show a lot of good faith. Thanks, -- Argon233 T C @   06:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Argon233 T C @   06:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I have also nominated the logo image used in the article on the IfD page found here. -- Argon233 T C @   17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete of this non-notable spam. -- Kicking222 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. Doesn't even show up on Alexa. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TheKoG.--Isotope23 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - notable. Tawker 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerardo Ribeiro

Professor Gerardo Ribeiro was deleted (and restarted). This one should be deleted too. - Slo-mo 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Recognised concert violinist, and awarded Portugal's highest civil honour. That's notable in my book. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Squiddy Dlyons493 Talk 12:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep obviously notable. Care to tell us why the other article was deleted? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, it was deleted as a copyvio. What we do with notable copyvios is we rewrite them from scratch, and that is apparently what happened here? I suggest you w/d the nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Squiddy, although some specific reference to his playing career would be nice since it is presumably the crux of his accomplishments. Eusebeus 16:01, 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 Delete. Tawker 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edge hippies

The article is either a vanity page for someone's pet project, or else unverifiable OR Mgekelly - Talk 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V--blue520 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as original research. See comment of page creator: User talk:My talk page porges 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. WP:V? Google says no [8]. Deizio 11:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD/A7. I should have tagged it that way when I first saw it, instead of suggesting a merge of all thigs! -- I guess that's why I should learn not to edit when I'm dead tired. Sorry! AmiDaniel (Talk) 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as WP:NOR, thought the idea of a "straight-edge hippy" is so oxymoronic to almost be BJAODN-able.--Isotope23 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I have actually seen evidence of this movement. It should stay, but doesnt deserve an individual article. I say merge. .--HEARTBOUND64

Note: The above user is one of many suspected sockpuppets of the article's creator. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom (BTW SxE oppose Evolutionism? WTF!? ... and opposed to "Bullying in school environments"... ? ... but it's just peachy elsewhere I suppose... whatever...) Pete.Hurd 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallop

NN website. 38,528, though it did get a bit of press (but all Microsoft things do). Rory096(block) 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep — most big Microsoft systems are probably notable. Alexa ranking is not the be all and end all, Wallop meets WP:WEB inclusion criteria in my opinion, with press references (such as this from Wired, this from CNN, this from VNUnet and this from the Wall Street Journal). It's only just (the press release was today, see news on Wallop.com) properly launched as a spin-off company, Wallop Inc. following some time as a project in Microsoft Research, so is only likely to become more notable and well-known as time goes by, following the previous beta testing a proper launch is due later in 2006. I would agree that the article needs significant expansion and more of an assertion of notability, however. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I've seen vaporware from NN bankrupt companies survive AfD, and here's a Microsoft venture written up on Wired? C'mon. The article is scanty, but that's grounds for cleanup, not AfD. RGTraynor 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of above. Tangotango 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is notable per UkPaolo and the Wired article. — TheKMantalk 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanger_and_Didele

Seems like an advertisement for a non-notable band. And it doesn't give any information about the actual performers, for that matter-- just their characters. Kinda like writing a Tenacious D article by only mentioning the history of Wonder Boy and Young Nasty Man.

  • I am also nominating their album, Sanger_and_Didele_Live_at_the_Tillesquat_bowl, for deletion, as I also believe it does not meet the notablity criteria. ekedolphin 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Speedy Delete Let's see... first off, "Sanger and Didele" gets a grand total of eight Google hits. Secondly, the article could be speedily deleted as being complete nonsense. I mean, "Majoring in Mineral Husbandry (with a minor in loansharking)"? "Tillesquat Women’s College of Botany and Hairdressing"? In addition, it could also be speedily deleted for completely failing WP:BAND, as the article does not even attempt to state why these guys are notable. Get rid of this garbage, and do it now. -- Kicking222 21:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, can this be relisted so it gets more speedy deletion votes? (And BTW, I'm not being so forceful on this one out of bad faith; I just hate seeing made-up crap on such an excellent resource.) -- Kicking222 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Delete as nn, and probable hoax. --BillC 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Delete. Delete/Delete. Delete/Delete. Per Deletionista, even though he/she/it's not involved in this debate. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, for failing WP:MUSIC, and for violating Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction (covering the fictional aspects of the band without discussing their real biography). --Metropolitan90 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dideledelete. Fagstein 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Rob 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torquay Girls Grammar School Torquay Grammar School for Girls

Article about a non-notable secondary school, and a one-sentence article at that. The page has been expanded significantly, and I withdraw my request for deletion. ekedolphin 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I helped out with Ipswich Grammar School (my alma mater) and created Ipswich Girls Grammar School, and I don't see anything wrong with them. So why not Torquay Girls Grammar? - Richardcavell 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a standing policy that articles about schools should stay. I agree it needs working on. Markb 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to nitpick, but no such policy exists. The closest thing is the rejected Wikipedia:Schools attempts at a guideline. In practice of course it is obvious that 99.99% of all school articles are kept on at least a "no consensus".--Isotope23 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all schools are notable, definitely needs expansion and cleanup. --Terence Ong 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I agree that all schools are notable, is it really necessary to have a one line article telling us that the school is located in the town for which it is named? If the article cannot be expanded beyond it's current state then I would lean towards deletion. NoIdeaNick 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course it can be expanded, it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. But not everything that can and should happen will happen in the next few days. Piccadilly 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Piccadilly 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While a concensus has evolved, that we should keep all schools surely this at the moment is a speedy candidate as a restatement of the title ie Torquay Girls Grammar School is a girls grammar school in Torquay or words to that effect. Surely it could be expanded with some info on the school such as alumni. Capitalistroadster 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename Torquay Grammar School for Girls. Article expanded somewhat. Jcuk 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Correcting the spelling to avoid a mistake being made. - Richardcavell 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per clear precedent for schools. --Rob 23:28, 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 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scooplive

de-prodded Vanity/advertising -Obli (Talk)? 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity. - Richardcavell 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as adcruft. Colonel Tom 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Fagstein 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why can we talk about big companies and not small??? There is no advertising. I just want to inform the community about the company? What do I have to change then??? Thanks for your help. M.stefani (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.stefani (talk • contribs)

It is advertising and not information. The purpose of you putting that article here is to make money. A company needs to be important enough before it can be here. - Richardcavell 12:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point. but if I wanted to make money from this article I would have been much more agressive on the message. I also understand that you are facing a lot of messages like this. But you promote big companies and I think it is quite scary that you don't do the same for small ones. Scooplive is a new concept and I am sure it is good for an encyclopdy like Wikipedia to be up to date. Thanks for your answer. Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.stefani (talk • contribs)
You should consider reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not to find out why your article isn't appropriate at this time. Fagstein 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twins Community

Prodded as a nn website, although with an artificailly high Google hit result. Prod contested, so bringing it to AfD. Wrt WP:WEB, Alexa rank is 524,061. Eusebeus 10:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Richardcavell 10:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per prod nomination, non-notable community forum. Graham talk 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Site deserves at most a mention at Twins (band), which it is. Fagstein 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. A mention or link in Twins (band) seems perfectly fine with me. — TheKMantalk 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan A. Farnon

Prodded as a minor cartoonist, prod contested without explanation. Non-notable cartoonist. His webcomic site boasts an Alexa ranking of 571,917. Eusebeus 10:39, 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 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plymyard Avenue

Prodded, not astonishingly, as a non-notable road. Contested without explanation. Delete Eusebeus 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. porges 10:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd like to see an answer to the prod, but the author removed it. - Richardcavell 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My, how insignificant can an article get? RGTraynor 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, please note this prod was removed by the author - Mlovelady (talk · contribs) - and work on the article represents 4 of her 5 lifetime contributions to WP so no biting, this is not part of the current prod debate. Deizio 22:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BillC 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded -- there must be more that is notable about a suburban road of this length. -- Simon Cursitor 07:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paginas del Pasado Vol. III

Prodded as non-notable <10 non-WP Google hits; additionally, the article appears to be total fantasy with respect to the appearing artists. Here is the album's Allmusic entry [11] Eusebeus 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 03:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum GIS

Non notable. Advertisement. Biased article. soUmyaSch 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Non notable> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. It is already linked from the GIS page, and a sister page for GRASS GIS (opensource) has been on Wikipedia for some time without deletion. This page has taken some time to compose by hand - all a voluntary contribution.

Advertisement> If Soumyasch had read it properly, he/she would understand that QGIS is a free, opensource project which has been around for several years. If Soumyasch thinks this is an advertisment, then perhaps he/she would add further arrogance and consider removing the entire GIS page along with anything computer related! GRASS GIS and commercial packages already have mention/pages on Wikipedia. This is nonsense.

Bias article> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. There is no basis to judge this article as bias. It is exactly as the application is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwood (talk • contribs)

As a reply to Willwood, let me make myself clear that I have nothing against QGIS. It is only because of the ad-like nature of the article that I nominated this. Let me point out some instances.
...is an opensource GIS (mapping) application which is comparable in quality to commercial packages. It is an ideal ‘beginner’ GIS application and...
...is ideal for use on older hardware or running simultaneously with other applications where CPU power may be limited...
...the advantage of Quantum GIS over GRASS GIS is that it does not require the X11 windowing system in order to run, and all round the interface is much cleaner and faster...
How exactly do you quantify quality? And what does this line do if not promoting QGIS with vague marketing words. The entire article is such, claiming superiority over other softwares without providing concrete evidence for that, thereby making it heavily biased towards the application is trying to promote. --soUmyaSch 13:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Relatively well-known for Open Source software. About 470 Ghits. Doesn't look like Ad or bias to me. Dlyons493 Talk 12:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a useful bit of Open Source software. Nobody has any particular need to sell it. It's not an advert. Hopefully the article will improve. --Richard Clegg 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. --MaNeMeBasat 10:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I Support this. --soUmyaSch 10:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxipuss

Neither boxipuss, boxipus, or boxypuss turn up any results on Google. Delete as hoax. porges 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: creator provided a reference. It is a children's activity book.
  • Delete - poorly written hoax. - Richardcavell 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seemingly non-verifiable WP:V, likely hoax.--blue520 11:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified animal, no taxonomic or other biological information references supplied by author, who has also signed the article. {{hoax}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as attempt to gain visitors to the linked site. The article ends with "Click for more information" - not exactly what wikipedia is about, methinks. Even if not a clickthru, 'tis a myth/hoax. God bless 'em, though. Colonel Tom 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE -- Francs2000 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disagreement

Non notable band. Advertisement. POV. soUmyaSch 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, it certainly meets the criteria. -- Francs2000 11:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, I agree. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged it. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD A7.--blue520 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Winship

Prodded on grounds This article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO. Deprodded on grounds that subject teaches at Harvard so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, the criteria for academics not met. It is:
  1. The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Any Harvard or other Ivy League professor should have a large amount of published work, leading to a high hit count on Google, so a high Ghit is not in and of itself notable. San Saba 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You really should read that page more carefully. It is quite clear that meeting any one of the listed criteria is sufficient to establish notability, but that the list is not exclusive or exhaustive. The guideline also states, quite explicitly, that "Receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university" can be considered a notable award or honor. Since there is no dispute, I hope, that Harvard is generally regarded as "prestigious," it should be clear that the article clearly asserted, and gave presumptive evidence of, notability. Monicasdude 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Monicasdude is correct here, but it's totally irrelevant as this guy definitely meets the standards. 987 hits on Google scholar means that there were 987 publications that either were written by him or refer to him by name/cite his work. That is a lot. By comparison, Andrew Wiles (remember him? proved Fermat's last theorem) only gets 753 hits on Google scholar. Mangojuice 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; as above, currently fails WP:PROF. However, if the assumed 'large amount of published (academic) work' was referenced, then per above I would change my vote to keep. Colonel Tom 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per San Saba. Kuzaar 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination with dishonest rationale. Apparently Eusebeus would have us believe that identifying a subject as the chair of a major academic department at Harvard University is not providing "information on the notability of the subject." An AfD nomination which so clearly misrepresents the contents of the article in question is impossible to take in good faith. Monicasdude 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • On what basis do you allege this is a bad faith nomination? Fagstein 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Answered to Fagstein's talk page. Let's keep things calm, eh? Thatcher131 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While, unsurprisingly, Monicadude is taking the contents of the article on faith -- Winship's own bio on the Harvard website [12] doesn't reference any such chairmanship, oddly enough, and just as unsurprisingly, characterizing disagreements with his position as dishonesty and bad faith, Winship holds an academic chair at Harvard, and a cursory look at those G-hits show that he has published quite literally dozens of articles, monographs and other such works. RGTraynor 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Please read my statements a bit more carefully; the nominator stated that the article didn't include any "information on the notability of the subject"; your point is that it did include information of that sort, but that the information may not be sufficiently verified or may be inaccurate. Those are two different issues. I was quite careful to note that Eusebeus misrepresented the contents of the article, a point that you don't seem to disagree on. And, besides, the second and third Google primary entries for this search document his status as having chaired the department [13] Monicasdude 16:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I do disagree on it, strongly; I am quite capable of saying what I really mean, and am in no need of (generally inaccurate) inferences of what others think I mean. As it is, Eusebeus' views on why he does not find a department chairmanship notable in of itself are not only defensible, but not subject to a referendum; he belives what he believes, and I doubt he's asking anyone's permission to do so. RGTraynor 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    I was not the one who initially prodded the article, User:Scientizzle did; I am simply restating the reasons given by the initial prod. However, asserting that being chairman of a university department (even Harvard) is immediate and indisputable grounds for notability is simply ingenu. Chairmanships are served on a rotating basis by faculty and are often avoided assiduously as being a burdensome administrative and political position. There is a standard for inclusion of professors on WP, and while you could perhaps be excused for overlooking this, the fact that San Saba has specifically outlined it above makes your angry demand to speedy keep and your gratuitous accusation of bad faith and dishonesty seem simply absurd. Eusebeus 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    You might consider telling the truth. I did not say that chairing a Harvard department was "indisputable grounds for notability." I said it was information relating to notability. You posted a claim that the article contained no such information. Were you deliberately misprepresenting the contents of the article, or are you claiming that an obviously inaccurate claim in a prod nomination is a good faith reason to propose deleting on article on an otherwise notable subject? And, despite your snide, uncivil and almost entirely uninformed comments on the notability standards for professors, it will be clear to anyone who actually reads the page involved that San Saba's analysis was undeniably incorrect. Perhaps you should read the page before you propose any further deletions of notable academics. Monicasdude 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm sorry for all my wanton lying. Look, there are perfectly valid reasons to vote to keep. But you state that I misrepresent the article, which notes he was Chair of Harvard's sociology department and Director of the Program in Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences at Northwestern. I don't believe that presumptively confers notability, my snide, uncivil and almost entirely uninformed comments notwithstanding. You can certainly disagree with that - adamently if you like. But it is a leap to arrive at an AfD nomination which so clearly misrepresents the contents of the article in question (that) it is impossible to take in good faith. Eusebeus 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, doesn't meet the criteria therein and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is proposed, not accepted guideline. Even if you choose to apply it, he only meets "Receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university, may be considered an award or honor under criterion 8..."--Isotope23 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I have to say, I'm ashamed at the shoddiness of people's due diligence here. This guy has over 70 publications and has written/cowritten 3 books [14]. He's a full professor at Harvard with a named chair (not the same as chair of the department -- a named professorship is a professorship that comes with its own funding and is considered prestigious to get... though at a well-funded school like Harvard, it may be more the rule than the exception). He was the chair of the department from 1998-2001. He was also the chair of the Sociology department at Northwestern from 1988-1992. This guy is an accomplished academic, nowhere near run-of-the-mill. He meets criteria 3 and 4 of WP:PROFTEST easily, and arguably criteria 2 and 8 as well. Mangojuice 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is there any evidence his 3 books meet WP:BIO readership criteria? IMO, WP:PROFTEST isn't valid as it isn't an accepted guideline.--Isotope23 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Then I suppose you prefer "more well-known and more published than the average professor" from WP:BIO, which this guy still vastly surpasses. But you would do well to pay attention to WP:PROFTEST; it actually does have a lot of support, and furthermore, it's there to be informative about academia's own standards for success. It's easy for us all to understand that being in a major motion picture qualifies an actor, but similar concepts in academia are much more difficult to define. Mangojuice 22:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment "more well-known and more published than the average professor" isn't an accepted guideline either... It would be nice if there were accepted guidelines for professors, but at this time there are not... it's basically a judgement call.--Isotope23 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment From WP:BIO, "This is not meant to be an exclusionary list." Are you saying that since there isn't an "accepted guideline" for professors, we might as well just delete all of them because they're not part of the main list on WP:BIO? Mangojuice 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
            • At least two of his peer-reviewed articles have more than 100 citations from other peer-reviewed publications, which is darn impressive (IIRC the median number of citations is around 5). Tomorrow I can check the library for a count of how many academic libraries own his books. What over/under would convince you?Thatcher131 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I placed the prod tag on this and a few other similar pages because, simply, while this professor may be a fine researcher does it merit an encyclopedia article? No solid notability was claimed in this article, just a very brief biography. I don't appreciate insinuations by User:Monicasdude that any of this was "bad faith"--I used the prod tag on only a small number of these type of articles in an effort to be "good" faith. James D. Montgomery, Lucy Suchman, Christopher Winship and Scott Boorman were only a few article creations by User:TSeeker that were each simply small biographies of academics with no strong assertions of notability. In retrospect I should have contacted User:TSeeker about these edits.
I am an academic myself, so I fully recognize how these researchers may be important, but generally non-notable. I personally think WP:PROFTEST may be too lenient (8 criteria seem ~equally weighted, but I think they're inherently unequal: there are a lot of mediocre scientists with a large volume of published data, for example, and many awards sound important but mean little to anyone outside of a particular field). I gladly open this up for debate because, as a community, the larger desires of the Wikipedia community should determine academic notability. I just don't think every principal scientist at every institution ever needs an article... -- Scientizzle 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • del and average professor doing good job like many people do. `'mikka (t) 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three books and a chair at the world's most prestigious university makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Mangojuice. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is clearly more notable than the average professor, having been a department chair at both Harvard and Northwestern. In addition, he is the editor (not an editor, the editor) of a scholarly journal, Sociological Methods & Research. [15] --Metropolitan90 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm really getting sick of this. What is so all-fired urgent about deleting an article that may insufficiently assert notability that it has to be done without contacting the author, without tagging it for references or cleanup, and without giving it a little time? I'm not talking about Joe Blow's garage band or some sexual slang two ninth graders made up in study hall, but when the article says the man is a full professor and former department chairman, aren't there a few steps we could take before throwing it on the junk pile? Thatcher131 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm sure I'll regret asking but is there a policy saying that we need to contact the author before nominating for Afd? There's an etiquette line in WP:AFD saying you might want to let the author know that you have nominated their article for Afd, but I don't see one saying you should notify when you are going to nominate for Afd. While I agree that there's a difference between good articles re: academic folks and trashy articles about garage bands and vanity nonsense, I don't know that there's an official place recommending what you're suggesting. Sounds like a nice-to-have. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It is considered polite to do so but there is no requirement (see for example Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Suggestions for patrollers) Likewise there is no requirement that articles which fail to assert notability must be deleted as quickly as possible. From looking at his publications (takes 5 minutes but I can only do it at work) he has written about social inequality, the problem of getting black youth into the labor force, and the bell curve controversy; his authored books are maybe not so prominent but he has written chapters for a dozen significant books in the field. But I am not a sociologist, and the time it would take me to become familiar enough with the topic to write a decent stub that clearly meets BIO and V could be much better spent on articles that I actually know something about. Unfortunately wikipedia has many more editors who are steeped in various aspects of pop culture than it has sociologists. Here is a partial list of articles that were nominated for deletion because they didn't properly prove notability when first written; all were kept, and I'm sure there are more cases that have fallen under my radar. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] All I want to know is, why is it so urgent to delete articles of borderline notability?
Agreed. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment His books as main author, Organizations and institutions (1988) 122 libraries; Changes in the relative labor force status of Black and white youths (1980) 50 libraries; he has also contributed chapters to The Urban underclass (1991), 1222 libraries, and Securing our children's future (2002) 729 libraries and Intelligence, genes, and success (1997) 594 libraries, among other books he has written chapters for. Thatcher131 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that he holds a real professorship at a prestigious university means that academia, and more specifically academic sociologists, regard him as notable. Some random wikipedians do not, but I think I'll rather trust the people who know something about Winship and the field in which he is working. u p p l a n d 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Harvard Professors are notable. JeffBurdges 13:00, 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. An adequately sourced article. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shinko Matayoshi

Prodded on grounds No sources and no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO; deprodded as sounds notable. Bringing to AfD. Verifiability is a major issue here, although the notability raised by the original prod is certainly salient. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I find short biographies for this good man in Dutch [24], Spanish [25], German [26] and English, [27], which is pretty impressive for a Japanese guy who has been dead for nearly 60 years, I think. David Sneek 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per David Sneek; those sources would make a fine group of material for fleshing out this fellow's article. Kuzaar 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the basic problem with those links (well, the 2 I could read anyway) is that they in no way explain how he meets WP:BIO. I tagged the article for context before the AfD. He introduced Kobudo to Japan. The case for the significance of this has not been made in a way that is demonstrable to anyone not versed in martial arts history.--Isotope23 18:27, 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 expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census. The sole argument advanced for deletion is non-notability--which is difficult to sustain given the role of the company in compressing US Census data, and the subsequent headache for archivists caused by the use of their proprietary algorithm. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dualabs

Some crazed Russian prodded this on grounds fails WP:CORP; deprodded on grounds deprod company of historical interest). The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census, but the company appears to fall below notbaility standards. Eusebeus 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The crazed Russian meant to AfD this himself. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom(s). PJM 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge with Census information, easy. -- Tompsci 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Culkin

From the "write if you find work" category, we have Macaulay Culkin's little brother, who appeared in one film when he was 7. Prodded on WP:BIO grounds, and deprodded because had named role in real film we bring it to AfD. Eusebeus 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The film wasn't groundbreaking, nor was the role that Culkin originated. Non-notable as per WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. PJM 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, User:(aeropagitica) Colonel Tom 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failine the WP:BIO guideline. If verifiable, mention the brother's existence in the Macaulay Culkin article. -- Saberwyn 07:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sameer Bhat

Non-notable blogger/journalist, puff piece, only publications cited are in redlinked periodical. Delete. · rodii · 12:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will add that the reason I brought this AfD is that User:Rerere12 (contribs) has added Sameer Bhat to Blog several times as if he were an especially notable blogger, which he is not. I suspect that User:Rerere12 is in fact Sameer Bhat or an associate, and so I looked into Bhat and found very little. I thought getting an assessment of notability (or non) via AfD might be indicated. · rodii · 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; notability not asserted in article. As always, there's five days to rectify this if it can be asserted. Colonel Tom 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blogger who doesn't meet WP:BIO. All I can find is his blog and a couple of letters that may have been written by him to cnn.com. I can't verify the Periodical reference. If this is the criteria for inclusion my wikipedia article is overdue.--Isotope23 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No notability at all. -- Kicking222 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A blogger that does not meet WP:BIO. — TheKMantalk 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Farquhar

Prodded on grounds that he lost his election bid, deprodded as major party candidate for national office. Per consensus, failed candidates need to have notability other than failed bids for office and this candidate appears marginal in this regard wrt WP:BIO. Eusebeus 12:10, 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 (page will be moved) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EarthCore (Podcast novel)

Delete Unpublished "podcast-only" novel. 370 unique google hits for "earthcore and sigler". Article reads like an ad. Are readership figures verifiable? Should we evaluate this as a book or as a website? I will consider changing my vote if cogent arguments for retention are advanced. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn Isotope and I have conferred and I decided it's better to move this to Scott Sigler and defluff it, which I will do as soon as this AfD is closed. Thanks for voting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per the crazed Russian. Eusebeus 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete though actually it is not an unpublished "podcast-only" novel: [28]. Still, it is the author's first novel (he previously co-wrote some game modules for "Silent Death, the Next Millennium") and sales don't appear to be overly brisk. If someone can prove he meets WP:BIO as an author, I'd say it would be best practice to create a Scott Sigler article, merge the content there, and add a link to the main EarthCore (the AU festival) article. Basically all I see right now is that the author is releasing a podcast of his novel for download and I don't see how that qualifies an article. It could be of historical interest if "podiobooks" become a well established genre (and the claim of this being the first is actually true), but it's crystalballism to say that at this point.--Isotope23 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • BTW, most of the blatent advertisment wording seems to have been added by Sigler himself. Also, claims by original author of listenership are unsourced. If kept it needs NPOV work.--Isotope23 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • After confering with CrazyRussian, it would be best if all Sigler's edits pertaining to his work were collected at one Scott Sigler article. This can just be a redirect to the main article.Removed my opinion.--Isotope23 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Pike

Speady Delete non-notable YoungWebster 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is non-notable --YoungWebster 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. What's the speedy criteria? RGTraynor 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
comment the speedy criteria is that the article does not meet WP:BIO criteria --YoungWebster 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Not meeting WP:BIO is not, in and of itself, a criterion for speedy deletion. It's a perfectly legitimate criterion for AFD, but AFD and speedy aren't the same thing, and this article as it stands doesn't meet any criterion that would qualify it for speedy. Speedy, if you're still not clear, means an admin can zap it on sight without putting it to any kind of debate or discussion, so needless to say the criteria for that are pretty tight and even an obvious delete isn't necessarily a speedy delete. Bearcat 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and executives with a political party's youth wing don't particularly qualify as notable. Bearcat 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Ardenn 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Deet 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pike's name and title absolutely merit mention on Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, and might just on Ken Dryden. No vote on the article yet. Samaritan 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If endorsing Dryden is his biggest accomplishment then he doesn't belong. --JGGardiner 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Bearcat. HistoryBA 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. — TheKMantalk 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Anyone is free of course to create any redirect they see fit, or to add information about Mr. Diamond to his organization's article. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Diamond

Speady Delete - non-notable YoungWebster 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - definitely notable. What's your basis? He's the president of a youth wing of a major party. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is non-notable--YoungWebster 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Question If you think it is speedyable, why nominate it here? David Sneek 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though I think it should be a speedy delete, I think it is only fair to have a fair debate--YoungWebster 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Mountain of precedent: Cat:Youth wings of political parties by country. Youth wings are notable and are all over WP. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope; that being said, speedy noms are invalid without criteria listed, and "non-notable" isn't one of them. RGTraynor 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The only possible criteria for speedy that could be cited isA7 but I think president of the youth wing of a political party is at least an assertion of notability.--Isotope23 16:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm personally inclined to delete, on the basis that presidents of political parties' youth wings aren't sufficiently notable, but this most certainly does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy and AFD aren't the same thing. Bearcat 18:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Ardenn 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for same reasons as Bearcat. HistoryBA 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Crazy Russian. David Sneek 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if his youth wing is notable, that doesn't make him notable. If he gets a provincial or a national Parliament seat, then I'll change my vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, though I definitely think that AFD was the best choice since it would be a fairly questionable speedy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Richard Diamond, Private Detective since appears likely the vote is going to be for deletion. If kept, a dab statement should be added. 23skidoo 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per YoungWebster's reply to CrazyRussian M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just caise the organization is noteable doesn't mean its execs are. - pm_shef 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Richard Diamond, Private Detective per 23skidoo. Otherwise I agree with pm_shef. --Metropolitan90 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, my two cents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.250.227 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Unless there's something more important about his life, they can mention him in the Young Liberals article. Fagstein 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CrazyRussian. Samaritan 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think that the article is just here so that he can remain on the Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 article. --JGGardiner 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe. Maybe add one sentence to Young Liberals of Canada. Melchoir 07:26, 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 redirect, no consensus to delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian-Montenegrin

Delete unencyclopedic, an article about the "nationality", not clear why needed separately from the article for the country. Nothing useful to merge, useless as redirect as not a likely search term. Note: interesting article history, was my first foray into AfD, and I botched it up. Do disregard my commentary from way back when. I am no longer that uh... stupid. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro; Serbian-Montenegrin is not an unusual adjective, so it's not that unlikely a search term. David Sneek 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. RGTraynor 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Sneek. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No need for redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 12:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect; it's a plausible search term, and it's also likely that someone would try to turn "Serbian-Montenegrin" into a link, in which case the redirect would be useful to help correctly locating Serbia and Montenegro. - Liberatore(T) 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Campana

Non-notable football player for Watford. Has only played 22 minutes for the club and is still a member of the club's Academy. Furthermore, he is now covered in Current Watford F.C. players HornetMike 12:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Watford F.C. are in the Championship right? That seems notable enough for me. --Dangherous 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable DWC LR 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Most Premiership sides don't have aticles for their Academy players...HornetMike 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Premiership sides" don't choose which of their players get articles, WP editors do ;) Deizio 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, might not be Pele but WP:BIO allows for anyone who has turned out for a professional team to grab themselves a page. Should have been a bold redirect rather than the "noose or loose" strategy at AfD... Deizio 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One minute of first-team action for a English Championship side should suffice to make the player worthy of an article here. --Pkchan 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect with Current Watford F.C. players. When his entry on Current Watford F.C. players is greatly expanded, it would merrit an individual article. Poulsen 11:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as he played a match for a professional football team. Carioca 05:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Carioca. --Leidiot 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Championship players are 'good' enough to have their own articles, IMO. This is slightly off the topic, but if a team is relegated from the Premiership, does that mean we delete articles of their players as well. -Aabha (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Current Watford F.C. Players. Kingfisherswift 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How come he gets a page when more notable players like Hameur Bouazza, Jay Demerit, Ashley Young, Lloyd Doyley, Gavin Mahon and Clarke Carlisle don't? Kingfisherswift 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not understand what kicks some people get from setting ridiculously high notability criterias. Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper. Loom91 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I hardly think that deleting someone who has played a mere 22 minutes of professional football (in a first League Cup match too!) is setting a ridiculously high notability criteria. HornetMike 07:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated

Do we need a list of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated? Yeah, let's have it cremated. —Home Row Keysplurge 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note: This is just one of those completely useless lists that keep growing and growing as more stuff is added by IPs. I don't see how it belongs in an encyclopaedia. —Home Row Keysplurge 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly useless lift cruft --Bachrach44 13:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally pointless listcruft. Over the last few decades, cremation has become pretty routine in Western (sorry, "non-Dharmic") cultures. Fan1967 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to have the capacity to grow alarmingly without adding any value that I can see. If value can be asserted, I'd be prepared to reconsider my vote, although I don't expect this to occur. Obviously some work has gone into this, but I can't see why this should be in an encyclopedia. Please convince me otherwise. Colonel Tom 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Robin Johnson 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another list based on arbirtrary criteria with no encyclopedic value.--Isotope23 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cremation is certainly one way to stop them adhering to anything. And what's with the 'who were who were' - some sort of fork from List of people who were non-adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated? Dlyons493 Talk 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless lists with illegible titles make 23skidoo cry. 23skidoo 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense, listcruft. I'd suggest a space burial to get it out of Wikipedia forever, but that costs too much and should be reserved for people who meet WP:BIO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons mentioned above. DVD+ R/W 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cremate, ahem, delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and possibly WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The current article name is whacky (until recently it was simply List of people who were cremated), however the content is factual and informative. Exactly the sort of data I'd exapect to find in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and move back to List of people who were cremated. The information IS useful, but the current name of the page is just way too long and sort of silly. I have a feeling this page was moved on a whim, and now people are "voting" on this article due to its name alone. — TheKMantalk 21:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night Train Canberra

The page has been around for months, and I'm simply not seeing any claim of notability. Bachrach44 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The fact that they've "recently rocked the Canberra music scene" is notable (at least, from my memories of Canberra), but still fails WP:MUSIC. Colonel Tom 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to show notability WP:MUSIC--blue520 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even heavily directed Google searches only turn up a handful of hits, for which this article is the lead hit. The band certainly exists, but its general notability is unproven. RGTraynor 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --Astrokey44 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As a Canberran, I can verify that one of the local commercial stations FM104.7 plays at least one track and that one of the band members Scotty works there. I don't think that they get wider airplay on other Austereo stations so I don't know that they meet our music notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search of an Australian New Zealand newspaper database for "Night Train" Canberra shows no mentions so they are notable on the Canberra scene but not notable enough to meet WP:MUSIC
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a Canberran, and even in this city's tiny music scene, I still haven't heard of them. Ambi 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --cj | talk 06:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Canberrans have never heard of them, then they are nn. --Roisterer 09:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another Canberran, never heard of them before; but fails WP:MUSIC anyway. --james °o 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless notability is established. - Longhair 08:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUS at this time. — TheKMantalk 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who will miss mary...?

Non notable band, just 954 Google hits. first VfD. Rory096(block) 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article has been around since 06/05, and WP:MUSIC has not been met yet. Colonel Tom 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there was a prior deletion proposal, archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who will miss mary that ended at the status of "no consensus" GRBerry 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Makes no claim to notability in the article. Ten months is long enough to expand, if it was going to happen. Originally created by an IP that has no other edits. Band members added by an IP showing a pattern of being used by multiple real users. Two band members subsequently removed by an IP address that may have vandalized the article... All other edits are deletion nominations/removals, or changing the capitalization of the name. I'd say nobody is working on it. Delete it and let it wait until it is notable and someone has the time to write a decent article. GRBerry 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per GRBerry. RGTraynor 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. (But I want a second opinion about speedying such an old article, rather than doing it myself :)). --kingboyk 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, even if it did survive an AfD. I'm not willing at this time to catch hell for putting up a speedy delete tag, but I encourage another to do so! Brian G. Crawford 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess you did anyway. Speedy delete, though, this is clearly a CSD A7 example: no assertion of notability whatsoever. I modified the speedy tag to explain the reasoning. Mangojuice 17:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per GRBerry -- Ipstenu 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, per above, must...resist...obviou.... I WON'T MISS MARY! Damn. Deizio 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My vote depends. Will anyone really miss mary? Who is this person anyway?Delete as nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic the Hedgehog Flash Games

Do I really have to say? There are flashes created for just about every possible thing existed. This doesn't deserve an article of its own, less so one that just seems to have been created to plug one flash. --Cyberdude93 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Agreed, that article is useless, and tells nothing of use. James Kendall [talk] 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Who writes this stuff? --Dunstan talk 16:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Exactly, useless article. -- RattleMan 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Econrad 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Mhking 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All this article basically says is that "There are many Sonic the Hedgehog Flash Games". — TheKMantalk 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9121 Stefanovalentini

nn, apparently the name of an asteroid. James Kendall [talk] 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Probably should have been Speedyed. Appears to be a vanity page, or an advertisement for the software, or an autobiography, or all of the above.--WilliamThweatt 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Presuming that the asteroid is astronomically notable (it probably isn't), an article on the same should briefly mention the namesake. If he is notable in his own right, he deserves his own article. RGTraynor 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • user WilliamThweatt stated Appears to be a vanity page, or an advertisement for the software, or an autobiography, or all of the above and it seems that he doesn't believe the asteroid exists, which is why I focused on the lists. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry, Walter. As Deizio points out below, the article as presently written appears to be what I stated above. I did do the "search-enginge-research" before giving my opinion and was aware that it was a real asteroid. I'm all for an article that would describe a notable asteroid, or even a semi-notable one but with the caveats of Deizio and M1ss1ontomars2k4 below.--WilliamThweatt 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are thousands upon thousands of asteroids... this is already referenced at the List of asteroids. No logical reason for a standalone article as there is nothing especially notable about this particular asteroid.--Isotope23 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • and we can catalogue every one of them. There's no reason not to. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Unfortunately I have to agree with above. Only a few hundred asteroids are really notable (mostly the early discoveries). This one doesn't even have the mass listed. But I don't see this as a speedy. — RJH 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please give the criteria for those asteroids that are notable and those that are not. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Off the cuff, for a first pass I'd say exclude everything under a certain diameter (10 km?) unless it has some interesting information that can be added. Alternatively cut off the list at the start of the photographic discoveries, unless the asteroid is interesting. Articles primarily about the origins of an eponym should be merged somewhere. Just listing the orbital elements isn't enough. *shrug* :) — RJH 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep asteroids? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, real asteroid. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm totally ok with millions of articles on asteroids that are verifiable. Kotepho 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless totally (coherently) rewritten about the actual 'roid, and notability / importance asserted and verified. Topic might be valid but this is vanity disguised as an article about an asteroid. Deizio 22:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • true. More information must be placed on the asteroid and less on who it was named for.
  • keep. but as this article is about the asteroid, only a short mention should be made about the namesake. Also as part of WikiProject:Astronomical objects (or similar). Either that or create Stefano Valenti and mention the asteroid in that article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. real rock, real possible future holiday destination. Wikipedia is not paper - a few thousand potential asteroid articles won't cripple us. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but forgive the question: the asteroid 9007 James Bond, related to the character of a film, is it more notable than the asteroid 9121 Stefanovalentini, relative to a true scientific researcher? if so, I'm sorry for the intrusion -- WinAstrometry 15:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but wikify and cleanup. Nationalparks 06:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Asteroids are worth noting on Wikipedia. — TheKMantalk 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I totally agree, KMan, but the question is not whether an asteroid is worth noting, but whether this particular asteroid deserves its own page. --WilliamThweatt 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada Proverbs

Article was originally a PROD, but the PROD was contested. This is a list of proverbs. It would be better housed at wikisource or possibly wikiquote if any of them could be sourced.

I didn't sign the nom...--Isotope23 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, preferably to wikisource, then delete.--Isotope23 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote - Wikiquote has a q:Kannada proverbs page, with which this should be merged. Thryduulf 10:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Dullat

Deleted under A7 but re-created, which counts as contested deletion, therefore bringing to AfD. Unverifiable, uncited, probable hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Never heard of him - delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is vanity/self promotion at best. I tried to speedy it before.Bjones 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as being a hoax and nonsense, not to mention recreation of previously-deleted material. "Satvinder Dullat" gets four Google hits, and all four are from WP. -- Kicking222 21:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under {{db-repost}} Gwernol 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 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Christian Organization

prodded as nn, with only a handful of google hits. Deprodded and then an out-of-process reprod, so bringing it to AfD instead. The group is very new and its notability is as yet unestablished. Eusebeus 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Googling "Liberal Christian Organization" gets you all sorts of liberal Christian organizations, but not this specific one. Googling "Liberal Christian Organization" Brian Murphy gets you only this Wikipedia article. Therefore I can't even support a merge with Liberal Christianity. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr.--Isotope23 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr Gwernol 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SolaBeat Alliance

Created by a band member (always a bad start). The dozen or so articles with various capitalisations on the band, its predecessor, its members and even (God help us) its tour van have all now been speedied, leaving just this, which contains some assertion of notability. But without anAllmusic entry or any other sources proving WP:NMG I am not convinced. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Some assertion of notability, but not enough. -- Kicking222 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom (note main article page is signed by creator, apparent band member) Pete.Hurd 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogging

First afd resulted in a delete vote. db-repost tag was contested; talk page claims that new article is better written and sourced. I still say it merits a wiktionary entry at best. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as new article creator. Given that the term has been discussed in a scholarly journal, as well as had a rather lengthy essay included in a book on female obesity, it's more than worth keeping around as an article. It still needs expansion, but the article is very well sourced and should be kept. The previous AfD likely refers to this article, cached at Google. Big difference. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it now seems to be verifiable, and Wikipedia isn't censored. It's not a dictdef because it's a social phenomenon (an unkind and uncaring one). Note: I saw this being restored in the sysop logs, and came to investigate. That's why I have moved and edited the page, and nominated the even-more-dictdef Hogging (Naval) for deletion. That nom is certainly not to make a point and I have no interest in this practice, in fact I think it's pretty deplorable! Thank you and goodnight. --kingboyk 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - article is cited, Wiktionary inclusion criteria is very grey, so best keep here IMHO --Tawker 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As much as I hate articles on minor social phenomena, at least this one has reliable sources. It's still a neologism, though, and I have serious doubts that it will grow. For the record, I proposed speedy deletion on a version of this without sources, which was, I think, the proper thing to do, given that it failed a previous AfD. I wouldn't have proposed it for deletion if I'd seen sources. Brian G. Crawford 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. The phenomenon surely is notable. Is this term for it sufficiently established, though? Mangojuice 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, barely notable neologism. Needs more detail to distinguish it from fat fetishism (this seems to be about targeting obese women for their perceived emotional vulnerability rather than their body shape itself). — AKADriver ☎ 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not convinced we've hit enough WP:RSs to merit a repost on this neologism. Deizio 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move hogging is an engineering term, see my post on the following AfD. porges 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per Badlydrawnjeff. Pete.Hurd 04:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deleting, moving, merging, burying in soft peat and recycling as firelighters or whatever. See Wikipedia:Merge if anyone wants to pursue that option. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogging (Naval) and Sagging (Naval)

These two articles appear to be - and probably only ever will be - dictdefs. I think commentary on what might or might not have caused the Prestige oil spill belongs in that article, not in one paragraph stubs on naval terminology. kingboyk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Seems to me that quite a lot could be written about the causes and effects. Not much in the articles at present all right. Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any possible way to expand it, even if there were somebody volunteering for the job right this minute. This is just a term specific to the seafaring trade, which like any trade has its jargon. Brian G. Crawford 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Have a look at Strength of ships which could itself be expanded considerably. Anyway, if nobody wants to expand Hogging (Naval) and Sagging (Naval) right now I suggent turning them into redirects to that article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Hogging/Sagging these are engineering terms to do with the stress acting upon beams, and not specific to ships in any way. Quite a bit more could be written about them. porges 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As the original author of Strength of ships I'm sort of biased, but a Redirect there wouldn't cause any serious damage. That article could be expanded (and should be a bit if we redirect, to cover those specific terms in more detail), but is ok for a basic intro. Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Strength of Ships, which looks like a significant article. This could have sections on hogging and sagging (currently a line each I believe) before we would need separate articles. Stephen B Streater 14:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As the author of both articles, I'm definitely biased towards Keep, I did not know what the term meant when I read it in an news.com.au article, so I thought I would look it up at the wikipedia, I did and there was no entry, so I hunted around a little more and found out what it meant. That is why I believe it should be kept. Fosnez 02:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't keep an explanation of what they are in Wikipedia. They're notable aspects of how ship structures behave under loads, and something that anyone designing a ship has to take into account. I have a naval architecture degree and agree that we should have some description for sagging and hogging. The question is, in my view, should we have better sections in the Strength of ships article on sagging and hogging, or separate articles? I don't know that they really have to be separate. It won't hurt to make those two articles redirect to an improved section of the Strength of ships article, I think. For what it's worth, I also added a diagram of sagging and hogging to the Strength of ships article (and, if we keep the other articles, you can add it to those too). Georgewilliamherbert 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second German

far too minor a character to warrant his own article Dunstan talk 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. --Dunstan talk 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He's so minor he doesn't even have a name. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. Delete, per nom. — TheKMantalk 22:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gujurati Sayings

This was PROD'd but the PROD was contested. This is a list of sayings/proverbs, mostly without direct translation, but with a rough idea of the meaning, and no context. This would fall under WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of information in my opinion. Transwiki to wikisource is a viable option though. I'm tagging it for cleanup and wikification as well if the consensus is to keep.--Isotope23 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wikisource per my nom, then delete.--Isotope23 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - These sayings are from Gujarati language. Should be deleted per WP:NOT as there are potentially hundreds of other sayings which would be an indiscrimate collection of information. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to wikiquote with the other proverbs. No reason to deprive wp users of any examples of these things just because there are a lot of them. Kappa 08:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did the transwiki to Wikiquote per Kappa. -- Hirudo 18:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hirudo's transwiki to Wikiquote. San Saba 08:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete given the transwiki has been carried out. Also, that's not how you spell Gujarati. Hornplease 07:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia has a redirect from one spelling to the other for the main Gujarati article, so it's probably either a valid second spelling or a common misspelling. Hirudo 14:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XOOM

Tagged for speedy, contested. This is not about Xoom but about an Indian rip-off clone. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is a mention of the Indian site at the end of the article, but most of the article is about Xoom the former free web host. The article once contained much more mention of the Indian site, but almost all of that information has been removed. --Takeel 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
An update - I have removed all references to the Indian company from the article. After reviewing the contribution history of the editor who added that information, I learned that they have a history of referral spamming, including the XOOM article. The editor has been warned once. I warned them again. --Takeel 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's nothing deletion-worthy about this article. --phh (t/c) 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Ardenn 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go with keep on Takeel's much better version; I'm not entirely convinced it was ever notable but it's mostly harmless and a piece of history on teh Intarwebs, so what the heck. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They were notable and were bought by NBC. Mike (T C) 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A defunct notable web company in the late 1990s. Bought by a major corporation. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Who What Where Nguyen Why. davidzuccaro 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current version is acceptable. Optichan 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is notable, and I also feel the current version is perfectly fine. — TheKMantalk 22:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The company is not launched yet. Nonverifiable promo 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) `'mikka (t) 18:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vcashpay

This looks to me like an advertising piece for a micropayment service which I've never heard of and which has no Alexa rating. It has been built up by an unregistered user. Dunstan talk 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • del absolutely no traces . smells hoax `'mikka (t) 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to get the prime factors of a number

The content of this article, which is only loosely related to its title, is already covered in divisibility rule. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Not too sure about that. This article is essentially a (rather poorly written) description of an algorithm. These have a place in WP. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's written as a "how-to", which normally I would have probably said should be moved and rewritten, but since it is already covered elsewhere as you stated in your nom, deletion is the best bet.--Isotope23 18:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but as second choice redirect to Integer factorization. It's not a very likely search term which is why I didn't make the redirect first choice, but for future reference, it might have been better to skip AfD and just redirect boldly. --Trovatore 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This effectively means deleteing it. This article doesn't seem to meet CSD, so I doubt it's wise to do that without discussion. What would the author say? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Likely nothing; a lot of times these people are just playing around and don't bother to follow up. But if he objected, he could revert, and then you could put it on AfD. --Trovatore 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect. As Meni stated above, the contents are already discussed in another article with greater coverage. -- 127.*.*.1 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothig here that isn't in divisibility rule is there. --Richard Clegg 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1. Content is already elsewhere. 2. This will make a poor redirect. —Encephalon 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Encephaon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Note to the author: seventeen is prime.) Dmharvey 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poor information, poorly written, misplaced. --KSmrqT 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not transwiki. -lethe talk + 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect, do not transwiki. --Saforrest 21:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written above, Wikipedia is not a "how to". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all said above. F. Yupigo 21:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting, but Wikipedia is not suitable for how-to guides. — TheKMantalk 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 0898z

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Delete/Speedy Delete Less than 20 related Google hits, completely nn J.J.Sagnella 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all "semenal (sic) British punk bands hailing from Barnet" of whom I've never heard nor even seen advertised outside music pubs despite living in Barnet for years. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC.--blue520 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this band were proper gay and never played a single show. User:Sunday Ring|blue]]520 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Above comment with partially forged signature was by 82.45.186.29 Tonywalton  | Talk 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. `'mikka (t) 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete! 81.170.51.19 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ah yes, scions of the famous "Barnet punk scene", almost the definition of non-notable. Gwernol 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per tonywalton M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. DarthVader 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)<
  • Delete DVD+ R/W 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't part of the music scene in North London in mid 1990s, then you wouldn't have heard of The 0898z perhaps. Bet you've heard of Soul Tax though right? And Sound Garden, formally Libery Hall, and John Somerville. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moker (talk • contribs) .

I live not 300 yards from the Torrington. And one who claims to be "part of the music scene in Norh London" might well have heard of that. 86.140.102.176 Tonywalton  | Talk
You mean Starbucks right? Anyway, that's in Finchley, not Barnet. Don't delete! Muffinhead 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion page on The 0898z for further points from other Wikipedia members on why this post should be kept.—the preceding comment is by Moker - 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC): Please sign your posts!

How come everyone who wants to slag the Barnet scene and delete the 0898z is either a science geek or a trainspotter? Not exactly the kind of people to have been on any rock scene or qualified to talk about noise punk . There are far less notable / influential bands on Wikipedia—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.55.80 (talk • contribs)
First Off,aggressive remarks like those are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Secondly, don't bring other article into the matter, they are different articles and if you want to bring our attention to them, list them for afd. J.J.Sagnella 19:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I still have fond memories of being abused by the 0898z at Garystock 193.34.231.226
  • Keep: I went to Barnet college, I remember these guys! Ellie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.213.196 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2006.
  • Keep, obviously - But why is JJ Sagnella so against this reasonable post? But will happily create a post about Kung Fu Chaos an Xbox game. I'm in no way criticising this move, but surely, more people will look at the 0898z post and update / amend it than a superfluous post about a single computer game that no-one heard of? I say keep 0898z post as it is arguably more poplular / relevant than many post in Wikipedia.—the preceding comment is by Moker - 12:25, 28 April 2006: Please sign your posts!
Compare in google. My second favourite game which i made an article about-250,000+ hits, This band which is not deserving of a wikipedia article- 40, most unrelated J.J.Sagnella 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:MUSIC, NN band. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUS. — TheKMantalk 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). We have a slight majority for deletion, but not a consensus, and I find Mangojuice's and Capitalistroadster's arguments as sensible. Recommend adding info on that award to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James D. Montgomery

At the risk of incurring yet more accusations of bad faith, harming Wikipedia, wantonly dishonest nominations, vandalising, etc... we bring another contested prod to AfD for consideration. Prodded as this article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO and deprodded as article describes notable work and subject has significant Google Scholar presence. Subject receives some 56 hits on Google Scholar, although counting for the duplication from bibliography listings as well as links to extraneous material not germane to the subject (such as [29], [30]) the overall count is lower. Montgomery did, however, win the James_S._Coleman_Award which, with 30 hits on Google, is not necessarily notable, hence soliciting consensus at AfD. Eusebeus 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, prod nomination does not even present a prima facie case for deletion, putting the lie to the nominator's stated motives for his crusade to delete articles on academics. Also accessory Wikistalking and WP:BITE violation, since the original prodder has been targeting new user Tseeker's contribution for deprecation, disregarding the terms of the consensus deletion policy. Monicasdude 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yet another Speedy Keep opinion by Monicasdude that makes no coherent argument why this should be speedily kept, other than a basic attack on the nomination. Nothing you've stated comes even close to Wikipedia:Speedy keep unless you are trying to argue WP:POINT, in which case you could have just stated that. I'm not trying to be incivil here, but this is getting a bit silly.--Isotope23 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No bloody kidding. I can only hope that Monicadude's ongoing contributions to AfD discussions are given at least as much credence as those of first-time anonymous IP contributors. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, no kidding. The nominator has said over and over that he's making these nominations regardless of their merits, just because he has some undocumented, unverified, unsourced concerns that the deprodding process is somehow screwed up. He provides no evidence, and made no effort to engage in discussion on the relevant pages. That's a paradigmatic WP:POINT violation, and nominating an article for deletion without a good faith basis for believing it meets the deletion policy criteria is by definition bad faith; that the nominator's indiscriminate actions affect the good and bad alike is hardly a sign of good faith. If I nominated for deletion every article created in the one hour period that's 5-6EST/4-5CST/3-4MST/2-3 PST, claiming it was my belief that most edits during that time came from the US and came from insomniac trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers, there wouldn't be anybody defending my good faith, for good reason. Eusebeus's claims don't hold any more water. Monicasdude 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
          • And so your solution is to respond to WP:POINT violations with a slew of WP:POINT violations of your own? I'm sure you know the old saying about "two wrongs don't make a right"...--Isotope23 00:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete No notability claims. "Average professor," honestly doing his job like all of us. `'mikka (t) 18:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Subject does not meet the professor test in my opinion as exceeding the "average professor" with 15 articles, 5 working papers and 6 reviews [31].--Isotope23 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline notable academic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Batman2005 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of his papers won the James Coleman award (for an outstanding article in Sociology) in 1999. [32], which makes me think he meets the WP:PROFTEST, specifically, criterion 4. Mangojuice 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Obviously not a speedy keep. There are pros and cons and AfD is the place to discuss these. I'd have no problem with it being kept either. Dlyons493 Talk 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable enough for mine. The nomination makes an excellent case in itself for retention on the article namely the Google Scholar results and the prize. He has won a prize in sociology and has inward links from a couple of articles notably the Mathematical Sociology article. Capitalistroadster 20:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Note--The fact that this article is linked to from Mathematical Sociology or [Category:Lists of social network researchers] is not a surprise--they were created on the same day by the same user. -- Scientizzle 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I placed the prod tag on this and a few other similar pages because, simply, while this professor may be a fine researcher does it merit an encyclopedia article? No solid notability was claimed in this article, just a very brief biography. I don't appreciate insinuations by User:Monicasdude that any of this was "bad faith"--I used the prod tag on only a small number of these type of articles in an effort to be "good" faith. James D. Montgomery, Lucy Suchman, Christopher Winship and Scott Boorman were only a few article creations by User:TSeeker that were each simply small biographies of academics with no strong assertions of notability. In retrospect I should have contacted User:TSeeker about these edits.
I am an academic myself, so I fully recognize how these researchers may be important, but generally non-notable. I personally think WP:PROFTEST may be too lenient (8 criteria seem ~equally weighted, but I think they're inherently unequal: there are a lot of mediocre scientists with a large volume of published data, for example, and many awards sound important but mean little to anyone outside of a particular field). I gladly open this up for debate because, as a community, the larger desires of the Wikipedia community should determine academic notability. I just don't think every principal scientist at every institution ever needs an article... -- Scientizzle 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though every Pokemon character gets one, every musician with two albums gets one, as does every professional athlete and every freaking TV program in a major market gets one? Why not? The project, after all, has as its goal documenting the sum of human knowledge, and there's no shortage of cyberspace. If you're that concerned with mediocrity, why not start with the Jackie Collins, Kenny G, According to Jim, and Craphonso Thorpes of the world, not to mention Air Force Amy and all those Big bust models before turning your attention to people who actually make positive contributions to human knowledge and culture? Monicasdude 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a fallacy. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you feel that Wikipedia would be improved by these articels not being included, then by all means nominate them for deletion and demand consensus. A distaste for popular culture on an editor's own part does not justify applying that bias when the community's consensus has spoken otherwise. It is a vital fact to remember that at Wikipedia we must work toward consensus; doing bold things is encouraged, but that is only as long as it doesn't go against the will of the community as declared by consensus. Please consider these things in the future, and we can all keep cool about these disputes. Kuzaar 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You've missed my point entirely. I don't reject the community consensus on notability. I accept the low bar it sets. I object to the refusal of a relatively small but quite active and vocal groups of editors to accept that consensus as it applies to certain subjects, particularly knowledge workers, creative artists, and figures outside American-Western-European-based cultures. I think the extensive creation of articles relating to those subjects by a very large number of editors is a much clearer demonstration of consensus than the actions of the relatively tiny number of editors who work incessantly for deletion. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. There's a real sickness in the process, and, in terms of encyclopedic goals, it's ludicrous. It drives away new editors. It offends the subjects of articles, many of whom could be valuable contributors. And it continues to expose the project to public embarassment. Monicasdude 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think my reaction to your surprisingly vitriolic comment has been handled well by Kuzaar and Hirudo. I think you're conflating different issues here: this isn't about "mediocrity" (I doubt Montgomery is a "mediocre" scientist)--you seem to have willfully misinterpreted my statement above. I simply meant that having a large number of publications does not a good scientist make. (My arguments for and against portions of WP:PROFTEST are being crafted now & I will share them soon...) Additionally, as I tried to suggest above, you are conflating "importance" with "notability." These are often correlated, but certainly many examples exist in which one is prominent while the other is missing. Often it's difficult to define either, kind of a Potter Stewart-esque I know it when I see it, but poular culture (with its random Pokemon characters) is generally defined by its notability without importance, while scientific endeavors often suffer from a lack of notability despite their broad importance. Maybe this isn't "right," and we should inform the world of the work of good, but unknown (publicly), scientists...that's why I think this is a good thing to debate! -- Scientizzle 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you've missed my point almost entirely, and you've missed an important point on notability. As what appears to be the most broadly accepted, if not consensus, treatment of notability here says, A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important. And, given the sheer number of articles from thousands of editors which are created according to these principles, there's much stronger evidence that this represents consensus than the contrary behavior of a relative handful of editors who participate in the AfD process. "Policy is what we do" is an imperfect guide, but it's better than "Policy is decided by whoever yells the loudest." Monicasdude 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I read your point loud and clear. Montgomery is not "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency," and therefore the impetus to show that he "should be" falls upon those who would vote to keep. The strongest argument is that he won an award--one that is, clearly, also not "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency" (should it be?). His July 2005 CV shows 14 published articles (2 more in progress), 6 reviews and 5 working papers, all since '89. That's not a lot, but it's (naturally) only a single quantitative measure with no reference to quality. Low Google hits & Google Scholar results, too...I don't think a strong case exists for Montgomery's notability. -- Scientizzle 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as I believe the cited award provides notability. However the article sorely needs expanding (I'll tag as such) and the award must be listed on the article, not just the AfD discussion. Gwernol 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe that this article doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST. The award is not notable, and therefore doesn't show that this professor has high quality or well known work. DarthVader 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Vote. Will change to a keep pending the article's expansion and explanation of notability. Kuzaar 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mangojuice. The problem with the proftest is that we scientists are too self-effacing. Mostly we want to do our work, get grants, write papers, and get recognized in our field, and wikipedia doesn't fit our image of what recognition looks like. I worked with a man who was on the cover of Science with the discovery of the year one year and he's not in here, for heaven's sake. I would rather have a high citation count or a low grant score than a wikipedia article. But at the same time I think it is objectively true that an academic with one peer-reviewed publication has contributed more to human existence than any pokemon character or Gundam Wing mecha (speaking not of the overall value of the game or manga but of the desire to have separate articles for each separate morph of each monster). Maybe we scientists should start standing up for ourselves! I'm sorry for making a fuss. I'll sit down and be quiet now. Thatcher131 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because Wikipedia is already infested with over-detailed articles about transient pop culture topic doesn't mean we should lower the standard to match. Yes this article is definitely more worthy than for example Bulbasaur, but I don't think it's enough -- Hirudo 05:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as article have no sources, and does not explain why his models are important within his field of work! Bjelleklang - talk 01:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Per Mangojuice. I'm not convinced the award is notable, but a cursory examination makes it look plausibly notable and so would like to erre on the side of caution. JoshuaZ 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • abstain I can not determine anything here, which might normally lead me to vote delete, but Eusebeus has a run of very poor deletion nominations, so my vote must be abstain. JeffBurdges 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why should we be the first people to write about this guy? I've linked his vita on the article, and I don't see anything compelling. Melchoir 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment while there isn't anything here to sugges that the subject meets WP:PROFTEST some of the recent ADF noms in this category make me nervous, and so I will withhold my vote. The proftest is a very high bar. If "more important than the average actor" or "more important than the average band" were that standards for other bio-like articles then a lot of cruft would go. There are over a million schools in the US alone, if each one gets an article, then WP:PROFTEST seems an overly severe standard for scientists and other professional researchers. There is nothing wrong with PROFTEST, it's simply out of step with other WP standards of notability, where more inclusionist editors have sway over notability standards. Pete.Hurd 04:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Now if you will excuse me, I need to run very fast in order to escape the oncoming stampede of editors rushing to source and clean up this orphan article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BankID

Reads like an ad, unsourced, nn company. Werdna648T/C\@ 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs some sources but this is a notable encyclopaedic subject. [33]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone volunteers to rewrite content hasn't changed since it was written last December. porges 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the major PKI for interaction with Swedish banking and official sites. The dominant PKI for this segment in Norway is also called BankID, but has as far as I know no technical or organizational relation with the Swedish system. I do some related work in Norway and could perhaps refresh the page a little. --Jarl 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrads College Gifts

Delete An article about a gift shop

Delete. Non-notable university gift shop. Grandmasterka 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing more than an advert--Nydas 12:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another gift shop. — TheKMantalk 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop's Stortford District Netball League and Bishop's Stortford Netball Club

It seems a shame to delete this, but I've recently become aware of the fact that I've got deletionist tendencies, and the doctir said the best way to deal with this is by AFDing articles. This one deserves AFDing as it seems rather non notable. Its a shame, because it is harmless, but it is my duty as a future admin and a netball enthusiast (OK, I lie about the netball enthusiasm) to open a small discussion about the Wikipedia worthiness of this article. Dangherous 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. -- Kicking222 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So this is a municipal amateur league based around an obscure sport? Delete as NN, off the overhead stanchion, carom off the mascot's left ear, nothing but net. RGTraynor 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Non-notable is not grounds for deletion. (And the sport is obscure in America, not elsewhere.) It should probably be deleted as unverifiable, however. (Not a vote, as I haven't done the research myself :) Ziggurat 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Have you read WP:CSD? Non-notable is clearly grounds for deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Consider WP:N, specifically "There is no official policy on notability". Or WP:DP, which does not mention general notability as a grounds for deletion. Ziggurat 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • How do you go from "there is no official policy" to "you can't use that as ground for deletion"? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I should have written rather than implied "in my opinion" to my opinion. There is controversy over whether notability should be used or not (WP:N outlines the arguments well), so I'm uneasy about an AfD that uses only that argument as grounds for deletion. I think that in this case there are valid grounds for deletion, but four people's opinion that it is not notable (without reference or support for that opinion) is too subjective. I'd be much more likely to be convinced by a demonstration of non-notability than a description. Ziggurat 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Bishop's Stortford is not a large town (I grew up in the area, and my mother was born in the town), and neither of these two enterprises will be anything other than very small. --BillC 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no strong feelings either way, apart from the article in principle are harmless and Wikipedia claims to be the sum of human knowledge. However both articles are very sloppily written, suggest a complete rewrite if kept. Jcuk 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic theory and Functions

del, a chaotic essay by anon. Useless title. Topics covered elsewhere. `'mikka (t) 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research, although calling that essay "research" involves quite a leap of faith. RGTraynor 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not original in any way, it's like something copied out of an econ textbook. Surely, these ideas exist in Economics or related articles already. I'd say merge, but to where? And if the ideas are already covered, who cares? Mangojuicetalk 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete complete bollocks Pete.Hurd 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like someone's econ. notes. — TheKMantalk 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel § 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recalcitrance

Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete and sow the ashes with salt. (Hey, I might as well recycle) The article's creator has this telling quote about himself on his user page: "Jason is a powermongering megolomaniac. The spotlight was always fixated on him and we never got any exposure." Vanispamcruft, no assertion of notability, A7. RGTraynor 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unaffected

Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and sow the ashes with salt. The article's creator has this telling quote about himself on his user page: "Jason is a powermongering megolomaniac. The spotlight was always fixated on him and we never got any exposure." NN vanispamcruft. RGTraynor 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Oh my god... A song by a nn band! Amazing! Seriously, the article doesn't even attempt to assert notability. -- Kicking222 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as the band itself has just been (rightly) speedied as non-notable, I believe it makes sense to remove an article about one of their songs... Gwernol 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Econrad 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per gwernol. DarthVader 00:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable song by a non-notable band. — TheKMantalk 22:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wales; target of redirect can be later changed if needed - Liberatore(T) 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Principality of Wales

This appears to be a POV fork of Wales, edited only by User:Cardiff, who has also been making POV edits to Cardiff today. It has no links within the main namespace. The list of Princes of Wales should possibly be merged to Wales, but the commentary ("The Principality of Wales was created by the Crown in 1301 when Edward I unifyed the country as one for the first time in its history", for instance), is POV and liable to cause extreme offence. Vashti 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) more As detailed at Talk:Cardiff, this user has also been making POV changes at Saint David's Day. Vashti 19:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) His talk page history is also instructive, as he has been warned several times for this kind of behaviour, but refuses to engage in any discussion and simply blanks the page. I'm beginning to suspect a vandal at work. Vashti 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Everything useful in this article is already in Prince of Wales. I don't think that a redirect would be worthwhile unless someone thinks that "The Principality of Wales" is a likely search term for this information. Doctor Whom 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Part of apparent POV campaign, see history of Cardiff, Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day. This article was copied from Prince of Wales (notice the unnecessary disambiguation link), with the Welsh-born princes (and related Welsh references) removed. Econrad 19:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And Wales. Definitely a vandal. Vashti 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wales. --BillC 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wales. This is sort of the official title of the place, someone might search for it. Arctic Gnome 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete confusing with POV M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wales per BillC, Arctic Gnome. We must have good redirects, and this is one. Alba 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Wales is being attacked by a dragon!" / "No, no, sir, whales are being attacked by a dragon." -- Danger Mouse
  • Redirect - but not sure whether to Wales or to Principality of Wales (which is currently an unloved history stub) Telsa (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete then redirect to Wales, History of Wales or Principality of Wales. Thryduulf 10:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete contents (which duplicate information in Prince of Wales anyway). Redirect to Wales. Rhion 14:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wales. — TheKMantalk 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Liberals of Canada

Nothing in this article establishes its notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, blog, or free web space.. Delete Ardenn 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Liberal Party of Canada minus the executive list. Per Ardenn at least part of this seems to violate WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and defluff. Mountain of precedent: Cat:Youth wings of political parties by country. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DJ Clayworth 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ample precedent. Important part of national party. --Rob 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above, it is relevant. The first step should be to rewrite, not just delete! --Ckatz 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The YLC is hugely relevant to leadership contests, where up to a third of delegates are members of the youth wing. -Joshuapaquin 20:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Crazy Russian. Ground Zero | t 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge a junior wing of a party does warrent an article, it could possibly be briefly mentioned in the regular parties national article.--YoungWebster 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per crazy russian -pm_shef 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is designed for exactly this type of info. Deet 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Largest political youth org in Canada. Warrants a page. Jamescroft 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.250.227 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep. I was surprised by how poor this article is, given that it's allegedly the "largest political youth organization in Canada" (the only claim to notability I could find in the article). However, I'm with Ckatz. Hopefully an editor will tackle this one, and include things like the YLC's role in leadership selection, if that is so (per Joshuapaquin). Things like that are certainly more notable than what policy issues they've debated. If this article can't be improved, then it ought to be merged with Liberal Party of Canada. Fluit 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's definitely notable.  OZLAWYER  talk  17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Another flimsy delete request by the renegade User:Ardenn, who is lying about his Wikibreak. Please just leave and stop destroying Wikipedia.--Nick Dillinger 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The mediation isn't over, can't leave yet. WP:NPA Ardenn 03:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jamescroft. Arctic Gnome 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the information is definitely notable. --Mhking 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Highly notable and of measurable national importance. Samaritan 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per isotope23 Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but it could really use some work to justify the break from the main Liberal article. --JGGardiner 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I voted against articles on the organization's individual executive members, the organization itself is certainly notable enough. Keep. Bearcat 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable organization. --Skeezix1000 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep CJCurrie 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think notability is established, and the subject deserves a Wikipedia article. — TheKMantalk 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nix 5-6

Total of 31 hits on Google. Of the 31 hits, at least half are from encyclopedia articles such as Wikipedia, and other sources that allow self posting. Non-notable, possible vanity page. rhmoore 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as the article does not even try to assert notability and fails WP:MUSIC on every count. -- Kicking222 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. He's "underground", we might as well let him stay that way. — AKADriver ☎ 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Kicking222 -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per AKADriver (lol) M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Kicking222. DarthVader 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Execution by agitated revolutionaries per Kicking — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. — TheKMantalk 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tourist resorts in India

Delete - This list is an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). It just contains names of tourist resorts in India, which reads like an advertisement - Aksi_great (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete before the other 1500 hotels get listed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable and non-encyclopaedic. --BillC 21:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list we could live without. More suitable for a travel guide. — TheKMantalk 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers. Chick Bowen 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Anber

Not notable

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria: is not a political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office, or a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is not notable. HistoryBA 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I added David Anber after his term on the Canadian Alliance National Council had come to an end. Many Canadians were impressed with the work David did as a National Councillor.

National Council, for those of you who don't know, was the highest governing body of the party - a National board of directors of the 2nd largest political party in Canada (at the time).

Elected at age 21, David proposed the resolution, which Council approved, that gave the leader Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to move ahead with the merger process of the Conservative Party.

Not only was that merger highly newsworthy in Canada, but it led to the conditions which brought the Conservative Party to government, ironically on David's birthday this year.

Moreover, David has published many articles in the National Post (a Nationally read newspaper in Canada) as well as the Montreal Gazette. From the latter publication are quotations in this article on the subject of former prime minister Paul Martin.

I am not suggesting that he's highly renown, but in the spirit of Wikipedia, he qualifies as a young Canadian who is so immersed in politics, at such high levels, that someone may reasonably want to learn about him. That's what Wikipedia is for.

Finally, some of you might wonder why I have not submitted any other articles. Well, David was the first I had planned to submit and there were a few other names from their involvement in the Canadian Alliance who I was going to post, but I never got around to it. CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I think that we should keep this article because it meets some basic thresholds for notoriety. We have to remember that Wikipedia is not just a place for VERY famous people but also a place for people of marginal importance if they have held a major political role, published in wide circulation or taken part in noteworthy events. I know History BA has been on a recent crusade of delete-campaigns, but we need to remember the following: Wikipedia would not be where it is today if every borderline case was deleted. Thankfully, Wikipedia has this information available for people who might want to know about a few "below the surface" details about the Unite the Right process in Canada. 24.43.87.250 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete He simply isn't notable. We wouldn't include every member of the council. The accomplishments listed seem relatively slight. Two letters to the editor, a motion passed at council to support the premise that the party was built upon (and which user 24.43.87.250 noted was an ongoing process in the article). As for his age, the McGill link in the article indicates that his acclamation resulted from the party's lack of a following in Quebec, where all candidates were acclaimed. In any event his young age doesn't seem to justify inclusion. I understand that the two "keep" votes know him and I'm sure that he's a nice guy but I think that it would be unusual if this article was kept. --JGGardiner 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per JGGardiner and HistoryBA. Ardenn 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even a merge, in this case. CJCurrie 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just not notable. There are young Conservatives who have done encyclopedia-worthy things, but "proposing the resolution that gave Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to..." ain't one of them. -Joshuapaquin 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. --Skeezix1000 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very interesting that nobody is speaking to the criteria for inclusion. A person doesn't have to be very famous to remain on Wikipedia, but people of minor importance might be notable if they have met one of wikipedia's conditions. Reading from Junkie's reasons above it appears as though Mr. Anber held a Senior position, in a National party. That on it's own meets wikipedia's standards. Second, it is stated that Mr. Anber has made contributions to Canadian newspapers with wide circulation. If that is true, that also meets wikipedia's standards. Does anybody have further information on Mr. Anber's contributions? Third, the Conservative Party creation was one of the most significant political stories for years in Canada. Anybody who had some unique role (from the big players to the smaller ones) in starting, continuing, etc such an event is IMO notable. Brittania1 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable bio, WP does actually have standards, requirements, of notability, and these are not met here Pete.Hurd 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO - pm_shef 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment because I've already voted. I'm not sure if this really is the appropriate place to say this but I would take any opportunity to promote Wikipedia. I've noticed that there are a number of new users who are interested in keeping the article, particularily Canpolijunkie who created the article and user:24.43.87.250 who I know has spent a lot of effort on it. And I see that Britannia1 has taken an interest here and perhaps decided to move from a WP reader to an editor. Yet it seems as though the article is headed for deletion. All three of these users have made articulate, reasoned and detailed comments along with your votes and I really hope that this doesn't turn you off of Wikipedia. It really is a wonderful project and it truly is for everybody, just like the slogan says. Unfortunately it is the nature of Wikipedia that our first experience as editors is a often negative one. I just hope that, whatever the vote outcome, you guys can give it a chance and see the way things work around here and hopefully you will all stick around so that we can all work together at improving the project. We don't always agree but there is definitely a place for everyone here. Once you get used to the process and the other editors I'm sure that you will find many more positive than negative experiences here. If David Anber has created an interest that has created three new articulate and energetic editors, then I'd like to thank him for that. And thanks for the space to everyone else. --JGGardiner 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per junkie and britania. I actually think David Anber is a complete idiot from my few encounters with him. I also think the merger was a terrible thing and that Stephen Harper is bad for Canada -- that said it was definitely historical and people who played a role in it will be relevant and will have a certain timelessness in 10 or 100 years from now. 137.122.26.128 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that a note was left on my talk page by one of the article's proponents requesting my input since I had previously done some minor edits to this article but hadn't AFD'd it, I'm not personally convinced of notability here — but like most other Wikipedia editors, I have to admit that there are times when I couldn't always be bothered to actually do the AFDing. I've learned to be especially cautious, in fact, with detailed articles about young guys who give off the impression of thinking they're a lot more notable than they really are; I can usually hear their army of sockpuppets lining up a mile away. Bottom line, for me, is that I just don't see how he's encyclopedia material yet. He's not an elected politician, and even as a backroom boy he has yet to reach the level where the general public would recognize his name (like a Warren Kinsella or a Tom Long.) He's just your run-of-the-mill young party activist who's not really all that notable right now. If he keeps his record of achievement up, he'll probably be encyclopedic soon enough — but he's not there yet. Delete. (And this isn't a partisan concern; I voted to delete Richard Diamond and Cory Pike, too.) Bearcat 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, since I'm obviously in a conflict of interest. I'm not going to weigh in with a "vote" per-se, but I will make a few comments. Sure, as Milhouse Van Houten says, "my mom says I'm cool", but I understand how many people feel I'm not notable. I've looked at the comments and am somewhat amused that I've generated such interest though. Here are my observations: First of all, of all the submissions 4 Deletes have actually advanced an argument to Delete and 3 Keeps have made arguments to Keep. Although many people have piled on, my objective view is that - no matter what topic - the debate should be framed among the posters who advance individual arguments. IMO each "as per so-and-so" vote is really only worth 5% of an elaborated vote for the purposes of this process (and I really do mean IMO in general and not just because it's about me). My next observation is a general one about Wikipedia. This site has been fantastic for me learning anything about anything. I'm a law student and I never imagined that an "encyclopedia" would actually have the depth to point me in the right direction (i.e. on jurisprudence or theory) at some points. But Wikipedia is also more than depth; its breadth of subject matter is also impressive. Although I wouldn't lose sleep at a personal level about being deleted, more generally, I'd be a bit disappointed if fewer and fewer comparable "footnote-type-tid-bits" were weeded out of Wikipedia. I like being able to look up a topic and find little tiny facts that I can't find elsewhere. A few posters to my defense have made this point (that I'm not very relevant, but I might just scrape by). Many of the posters to the contrary never really reasoned out why this is not the case, although I respect their opinions. Best Regards to All; I particularly liked JGGardiner's comment to keep everything in perspective. Cheers. Anber 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy. -- RHaworth 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Awkward Romance

Seems to be a vanity page for a non-noteworthy band Amina skywalker 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, now tagged with {{db-band}} -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. — AKADriver ☎ 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr._Frederick_K.C._Price

seems like a vanity page - no more notable than many other preachers. Referred here after author deleted my prod w/no explanation NawlinWiki 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, tagged for cleanup, NPOV, and verification. No opinion yet.--Isotope23 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with this article that five minutes editing couldn't cure, and I've done four of those. Subject is notable. Keep. Articles shouldn't get deleted just because they are bad articles, they should be turned into good articles. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is nothing wrong with his being present; the article certainly needs to be edited, but the subject matter -- Price, himself -- is certainly (IMO) notable. --Mhking 22:16, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Imperialist Party Of Canada

There are no other mentions of this party to be found through Google. If not a hoax, then certainly non-notable.-- JoanneB 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete as NN hoax. "Then our army will invade and conquer the world?" One of the editors admitting on the talk page "This isn't a real party"? Yikes. RGTraynor 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Says it is a political party, yet it has not tried to register acordding to Elections Canada. Arctic Gnome 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I am very sorry to say I believe this article was written in my name but if you look at my contributions to wikipedia you will see this entry as out of place, for this reason, I am most certain a friend of mine accessed my account and wrote it in my name, he was banned from wikipedia ( for editing articles ) and so I never wanted this to exist and I am outraged how such a clearly flase article still remains on wikipedia. I know this cause the friend in question talked about the Social Imperialist party as his own and I've seen him on wikipedia more than a few times, and I will not bore you with more senseless details. I support the complete deletion of this article, I find it insulting as a Canadian.
  • Pillage the village, burn the fields, and salt the earth. Per A.Gnome — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pillage, burn, salt per Bottesini. Ground Zero | t 21:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a hoax, else delete. Samaritan 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've {{hoax}}-tagged it. Definitely crapola. Speedy if possible. Bearcat 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent hoax. — TheKMantalk 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bong 98

WP:NEO Neologism - almost no Google appearances other than Wikipedia mirrors. Not even listed in Urban Dictionary. John Nagle 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This may be difficult for Google, since it may have peaked prior to the Internet. But it is attested in non-Wikipedia sources here, here, here, and here (Spanish language), which show at least that the name of the game is not original to Wikipedia. This is a game that if you remember the rules, you weren't playing correctly; but the account seems close enough to my fuzzy memories of the game. Not OR or neologism at any rate. Smerdis of Tlön 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The first three references are blog entries. The last is a circular reference; it's a Spanish translation of the English Wikipedia article Bartok (game). --John Nagle 19:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the author and have already made my remarks on the article talk page.SuMadre 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Bartok (game)... Seems to fit the definition of a neologism pretty well. The 1970s is pretty recent as English language words go, and it seems to have died out since the 1980s. All those sources are forum posts, blog posts, and wikis. — AKADriver ☎ 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources, no assertion of notability. How do I know this wasn't made up in school one day? Brian G. Crawford 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per AKADriver, not notable. porges 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable as it's a real game...at least at Rutgers it is.74.32.6.78 02:23, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gigmasters.com

Notability not established. Seems to be advertising. Speedy attempted Bjones 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would have been nice to be deleted by CSD A7, but I guess it has become controversial. Certainly not notable. DarthVader 00:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Has an Alexa ranking of 31,865, and has a listing on the Forbes.com Best of the Web Directory. — TheKMantalk 22:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the information brough up by TheKMan. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial Gamers Network

Contested prod:Non-notable new web site. Alexa rank 3,000,000+, google finds few links to the site. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Appears to fail WP:WEB. Also seems to be created by someone affiliated with the site, most likely the creator of it. (WP:VAIN) --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Also note that its forums have only nine registered members. — TheKMantalk 22:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, author blanked. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitfusion

NN software, prod removed without comment. 774 Google hits. Rory096(block) 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete; no keep votes from established Wikipedians. Chick Bowen 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mule (slang)

Neologism; no verifiable usage given beyond a blog which does not meet WP:RS. --BillC 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

More like YOU'RE teribble stuff! Deletionists are not to be trusted (see Enron). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.58.251 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nomination. I was expecting an article about drug mules, and that's not what I got. --Metropolitan90 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete it! The term mule is a brilliant one and the mulish legacy will live on in New England forever. Can you not see the picture with Andrew WK Performing the mule sign? (For the record, the kid next to him can also be known as "Trudy The Mulicorn"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.230.27 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete It! The term "mule" is something very important here. The article is perfect! We love mules. YOU are a mule and if this article is deleted that's very un-mule of whoever is in charge. Another mule story is that the now deceased ska band The Eskapade used to post a picture of a mule on their mic stand and during guitar solos the crowd would all make the mule hand sign. To delete this article would be very sad, please leave it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.186.38 (talk • contribs)
  • The fact that there are several different usages of the term (as mentioned above) in no way invalidates the use of this entry. There is already an article about drug mules; I don't see that this article conflicts with that. To the contrary, it is most useful to have a comprehensive definition. Don't negate the validity of a local term just because it's not from your locality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.191.50 (talk • contribs)
    I'm sure plenty of people use it, but it's not verifiable. I could write an article just as long with just as many celebrity mentions about my local variation of the word (and with reliable sources, to boot, since it's used that way by a radio DJ who has received national press). It still wouldn't be encyclopedic, though. — AKADriver ☎ 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So go ahead and write that article and none of us will complain about it. The term MULE in the sense that we're talking about is important.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.186.38 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It's just an exceptionally long dictionary definition at best. Fluit 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE THIS - mule is in every sense a huge part of the New England youth vernacular. When I think of my high school experience in New England I think of the Red Sox, Cape Cod, Dropkick Murphys, and MULES. Please keept his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.181.114 (talk • contribs)

As the original creator of this article, I feel that given the youth culture associations of the term (the hand-sign, the particular celebrities thought to be examplary) place it beyond the purview of a dictionary. Wikipedia does have an entry on the devil horns. Admittedly, millions of people know that sign, while only hundreds know this one. Nonetheless, it's legitimate and accurate. Obscure, but legitimate. To delete it would simply be to make the Wikipedia less complete. There are two external links here. Avery Score was not a blogger for Gamespot, he was a columnist, with over 300 articles credited to him. The Eskapade page is not a blog either; it's the homepage of an established band. I understand the counterarguments, but I respectfully disagree with them. Peter Smith, 27 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbomcphazer (talk • contribs)

  • DO NOT DELETE. Seeing as Wikipedia has articles on other slang, subcultures, and symbols, I do not find a reason to exclude this. People come to Wikipedia to learn more about many things. The internet and even Wikipedia itself could be construed as a subculture with just as many slang words and symbols/icons. Why would you neglect something similar just because you haven't heard of it? If people can't learn about something new what is the use of an encyclopedia anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.142.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --phh (t/c) 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't just "made up one day." It's a term that comes from a point in history, a point in history that continues to this day. To remove this article would be not only an injustice to this mere "slang" word, but an injustice to all that is free and fun in this world. 24.60.186.38 07:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)LOVE

Good point. Unfortunately one fact shoots a hole ithrough your argument: a term such as this could not -possibly- be made up in school one day. Or made up in school over the course of several days. What muledom is and what it stands for is as organic as soy milk: hearty, earthy and completely un-squalid. Something so un-squalid, in fact, that it must be experienced to be believed. But you're all mules, we know this, and we have faith in you to do the right thing. In summary: Wikipedia -IS- for things formed -organically- through -life- over the course of -experience-! 05:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) St. Alexi the camera-man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.44.231 (talk • contribs)

  • delete round here "mule (slang)" might be an insult implying sterility and poor ancestry, or it may mean a dugrunner... this is far more made up in school one day. Pete.Hurd 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While I'm not familiar with the term the fact that Andrew W.K. is in the picture doing this so-called mule sign or salute gives some credence to the term. Bmortimer 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Do Not DeleteI first heard the term 'mule' in the greater Boston area in the late 1990s. I'm not sure that the usage can be found in any major print publication, but if you visit any Boston-area highschool, you're bound to come across some 'mules.' The same could have been said of the term 'wicked pissah' when it first appeared, perhaps as long ago as the mid-1970s. Now the term is practically a cultural phenomenon. I believe it's in Wikipedia's best interest to keep this definition available. Thanks. ~~ C. Tobajas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.91.252 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It's not even in Urban Dictionary. You can add it there if you like, though you should understand that that action would make no difference to this debate, as Wikipedia does not recognise Urban Dictionary as a reliable source. If you want to save this entry, what is required is some well-sourced usages: is a syndicated columist using it in a respected newspaper, for example? If, as someone on this page has claimed, it is a word or sign that "only hundreds know", forget it, it's neither notable, encyclopaedic nor reliably sourced. --BillC 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel § 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AppCaliber

This is an advertisement for a non-notable company. Content consisted of a copy and paste from their website. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If an article's a copyvio, and less than 48 hours old, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}}. Fan1967 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged it for Speedy Delete based on copied content from [34]. Fan1967 23:48, 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 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colored by numbers

Probably not meeting WP:BAND, but I'm not sure, so I'm bringing it here. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nope, probably not. -- Kicking222 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn band M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any criteria on WP:BAND that makes this band notable. DarthVader 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. — TheKMantalk 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn after verifiable source of notability claim. `'mikka (t) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Boorman

  • del an average professor doing their job, no special notability. `'mikka (t) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, notable as published author of title from Oxford University Press [35], so discussion of proftests isn't relevant. How about withdrawing it, mikka? Monicasdude 23:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • such garbage stubs must be deleted on spot as a punishment for lazy writers. `'mikka (t) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup - Article is written like a pamphlet write up, but he's notable enough. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:59, 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 withdrawn. Notability added. `'mikka (t) 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Suchman

  • del an average professor doing their job, no special notability. `'mikka (t) 21:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per [36] and a few thousand other references. You're just wrong on this one, mikka, how about withdrawing it ASAP? Monicasdude 23:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Benjamin Franklin Medal looks good enough to confirm a keep to me. I've added a bit to the article. Average Earthman 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where have you all been before?


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn Notability added. `'mikka (t) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Strogatz

  • del an average professor doing their job, no special notability. `'mikka (t) 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, an expert doing something useful. Delete and replace with a giant robot. Oh, no wait - one of his books is ranked #17,560 on Amazon. How about keep and expand? Which I'll do now. Average Earthman 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional notes - 3,700 on Google Scholar for "SH Strogatz". Not a very common name, so indicates a good publishing track record. Average Earthman 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and his top Nature paper (of which he is solo author) is credited with 953 citations on Google Scholar. That is a notable paper. Average Earthman 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • And I should point out the sarcasm above is intended as tongue in cheek and not aimed at mikkalai. The article as he found it was in a very poor state, anyway. Average Earthman 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

writers of such stubs (probably university website cutters-and-pasters) should be punished by deletion such articles on sight. `'mikka (t) 23:46, 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 keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UAAP Football Champions

Not even a list, just a collection of school seals. Over and over and over again. Utter violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This is most certainly a list, although the prominence of the schools' seals does make it a bit distressing to the eye. Although relatively few schools compete for the college football/soccer championship of the Philippines, the national title of a country is clearly encyclopedic. Xoloz 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. If there were something here besides just a bunch of seals, then it could be kept, but there isn't anything. Write about each championship, write how they won, anything significant about it, as it is, this could be replaced with a Category. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not an indiscriminate collection of data. It's a list of Philippine collegiate football champions. If its defect is that it lacks two sentences describing the existence of football in that country, that defect is simple to remedy. Notable "Champions' lists" are classic encyclopedic material in the coverage of sport -- arguing that they aren't seems a bit absurd to me. The argument to be made is about notability: a national collegiate title easily passes that hurdle also. Xoloz 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs some work (remove/reduce seals to increase readability, expand/explain UUAP nearer the top) but nothing unfixable. Including historical results about a national title are notable enough to me, which is basically along the same lines as the FA Cup Final article. MartinRe 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If the content of that page were only what's at FA Cup Final#FA Cup Finals, then I would object to it, too, but there's text there, as well, which the article under discussion lacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There has been text added since you put the afd notice. Needs improving/expanding, maybe, but it is there now. Regards, MartinRe 21:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, there you go. I'll retract the AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list is important to the UAAP series of articles. It is also notable. Howard the Duck | talk, 13:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Nothing but one big long leftist diatribe, should be removed and covered from scratch in a more NPOV style--Ham and jelly butter 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep--RWR8189 22:02, 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 - vanity/crystal ball. DS 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakura Skies

Appears to be a personal project/self-promotion. There are no Google hits I can find that refer to "Sakura Skies" in the context of this article. Gadren 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sam Edwine Pentateuch

This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of book reviews. There is no plot summary, information about the author, or explanation of the work's cultural significance. The only other information in the article is a link to Torah, with no explanation of any relationship between these novels and the Torah. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. porges 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. G1. DarthVader 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. — TheKMantalk 22:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitten huffing

Is this really notable enough to deserve its own page? We already have a page on Uncyclopedia which covers all the information in this page. Gadren 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Internet memes. porges 22:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a joke, and a bad one at that. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article as it stands is a link to Uncyclopedia, which is pointless. If the Uncyclopedia content was covered here instead it would also be delete-worthy. Gwernol 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but now I'll have to find something else weird to link to. Kotepho 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete would have trans'd, but it's already covered, apparently M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet phenomenon. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 04:01 UTC
  • Delete. This is now illegal in 17 US states, WP:NOT an incitement to lawbreaking. BTW the picture at right was taken at one of their underground "kitten farms" where cats are bred just for use in this horrendus practice. How can that picture not break your heart. Herostratus 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the Uncyclopedia article, maybe to the Common Themes section. Adam850 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uncyclopedia jokes don't merit Wikipedia articles. — TheKMantalk 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honduras Clausura 2005-06

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not the right venue for this information, valuable though it is in the right context. An article about the Honduras soccer league (not just stats tables) would be valuable however. Gwernol 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Pure first world prejudice toward a third world nation. Should clearly be a speedy keep. Why is it if it was American nobody woulddare put an Afd on it or we are writing the American encyclopedia of everything American? SqueakBox 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment SqueakBox, please assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. This has nothing to do with "first world prejudice". As I mentioned in my comment above, we need a good article on Honduran soccer (I couldn't find one), but we don't need a simple list of week-to-week results. We don't, for example, have a list that's just the results of all the MLB baseball games, and if we did, I'd have the same opinion about that. Thanks, Gwernol 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make a personal attck and I am right, the US similar articles get kept and this is just harrassment of Honmduran editors by US nationalists, SqueakBox 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is 2005 American League Championship Series, 2005 American League Division Series, 2005 College World Series, 2005 National League Division Series, 2005 National League Championship Series, 2005 World Series, 2005 Little League World Series etc. --Astrokey44 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why should only this be deleted if there are many other articles like this one? For example Spanish First Division season 2005/2006, FA Premier League 2005-06, Copa Libertadores 2006 & UEFA Champions League 2005-06. "An article about the Honduras soccer league (not just stats tables) would be valuable however." You can find one at Liga Nacional de Honduras Chupu 05:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. major sports such as a national league get their own articles for seasons. (the main article for the Honduras league is here by the way Liga Nacional de Honduras). there are links to other season articles from there. 'clausura' seems to mean the finals. there was an article Honduras 05-06 apertura for the 'apertura' - opening? of the season --Astrokey44 05:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and nominate the articles mentioned by Chupu for Afd -- Hirudo 05:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? Do you know how many similar season articles there are on wikipedia? --Astrokey44 14:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Too many, and I don't think any of them belong here. I do realize that I'm in the minority opinion here though, so my suggestion was more wishful thinking than anything else -- Hirudo 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as we have several similar articles like the English Premier League ones and the Italian Serie A ones. Carioca 06:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep 63.245.57.197 20:54, 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 keep (merge tag already added). --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian slang

As noted on the talk page, there has been longstanding issues with verifiability in this article. Many of the expressions are localised, and cannot be substantiated as being current anywhere and with anyone. Others are common outside Canada. The list is entertaining, but it is listcruft. And unverifiable, capricious listcruft at that Fishhead64 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into List of words mainly used in Canadian English Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I protest this deletion. I find this article useful and I recommend that it be kept on the Wikipedia system. The Coldwood 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per admrboltz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 April 2006.
  • I must once again protest the deletion of this page. The Coldwood 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need to vote twice. Fishhead64 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Admrboltz and as per User:JackLumber a month ago. SigPig 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per admrboltz Arctic Gnome 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. But while we're at it we can shuck off the unsourced nonsense and clean it up a tad (we should have a Canadian words page akin to Australian words, with possibly a different layout, as I proposed on the talk page.) As for words that are used outside of Canada: 1) Briticisms used in Canada are dealth with at Canadian English; 2) the U.S. has given many, many words to Canadian English, but many other words that have little or no currency in Britain, Australia, etc. are equally representative of both Canada and (possibly some parts of) the U.S. (e.g. sawbuck, eaves trough, and the orig. U.S. but now more Canadian-sounding washroom, to mention three words that are not even "slang"). Other words of this kind come from lumbering, farming, landscape features, etc., and many of these have other meanings also common in Britain---which is why they appear on the List of words having different meanings in British and American English. But yes, I'd try to keep all that we can; if we feel that some expressions are really, patently, unmistakably unverifiable, we can sentence them to a landfill. -- JackLumber
  • Delete as per Fishead64. HistoryBA 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, hard to verify. Stettlerj 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate, because the nature of the article is better presented on it's own. It's a little oddball, but quite entertaining and, I believe, educational. Enjoyed it. One can't easily verify slag terms, especially ones new on the scene. However, from my local standpoint (BC) I recognize dozens that are indeed in common usage here. I feel that active editing can keep the list correct, especially with the removal of some rare/taboo entries. Moving to a Canadian words page also acceptable per JackLumber's comment above. Triplight 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per adermboltz - pm_shef 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - just reformat and attempt to verify. If Australian words can have an article on its own (with localised sayings and things that can't be verified in there either) I don't see why Canadians can't. And for the record, I've read many of these words and noted them in unique parlance amongst many different people in the cities I've lived in (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Kenora) See the Aussie words article. If regionalisation is a problem, perhaps people should add where in Canada they are used. If words being used elsewhere is a problem, perhaps we should note that (just as the Aussie words notes common words used in both Aussie and NZ parlance.) fossilfang
  • Comment The unverifiability of one article isn't really a justification for keeping another article with problems of verifiability, imo. If what you say about Australian words is true, then perhaps that article, too, can be considered for deletion or at least clean-up. It may be that a merge of Canadian slang into List of words mainly used in Canadian English will accomplish the purpose of maintaining genuine, verifiably distinct Canadian expression while removing the current free-for-all. Fishhead64 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough. Perhaps we can see what the Australian words article does differently (and also other slang articles/dictionaries) and see how we can cannabalise parts of the present list, whilst keeping the concept of having some sort of list with rules (e.g., specify which locale a slang word is used in, specify if it is shared with American slang or otherwise, delete words that are voted on as being non-representative of Canadian language)? With this in my mind my vote remains the same, with the reservation that set rules be put in place on the talk page and strictly adhered to. fossilfang 06:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep definately! Probably separate due to the concerns noted in the header. It's a resource and great fun. Verifiability and currency are irrelevant because the content is intended to be local peculiarities in local usage, possibly limited to a very small region, though no less valid if they are also used in other regions. Any definate Canadian dhould be allowed to contribute what he percieves as local colour (and yes, note the Canadian spelling of that). Scare!, May 2 2006
New member, 35 edits... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Appears to be largely regional slang (and by regional, I mean small regions: towns, certain groups within cities, &c.), and therefore not notable. I'm against a merge for that same reason, as I feel far too much of this is just cruft. g026r 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge BlueGoose 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged. --Tony Sidaway 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OITC fraud

I am nominating this article on behalf of Executor-usa (talk · contribs), whom I have indefinitely blocked for legal threats relating to this article. However, he has asked admins to delete the article, and I think there needs to be some outside eyes on it. The article cites sources, but I haven't yet checked them out (some of them are in a Hispanic language) and there are some POV problems, starting with its title, which should be Office of International Treasury Control (currently a redirect, but it should be the central title). Obviously POV can be fixed, but we should start by considering whether it is worth it. I copy Executor-usa's reasoning below, and abstain for the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"This is part of a worldwide disinformation campaign against OITC. Waffelknocker is a police officer who has investigated OITC. He has posted accurate information supported by fact.OITC is a classified UN Chartered institution.The full jacket, security level 3-5, is held by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.Verification requires authorization. Chapter One on Redcat's Precious Metals Board has published a letter from the General Counsel of the US Treasury in support of OITC and its' Chairman. He has had the letter verified. The writers of this article only publish falsehoods, misinformation, and lies. They do so knowingly. They delete all writings countrary to their own misinformation campaign. They do so even when their own writings are left alone. Any lawsuit against these writers will have as witnesses the US Attorney General, as well as other such positioned officials. This is a fact based upon personal knowledge. Do not damage this site by allowing it to be used for malicious defamers. No amount of discussion on this site by the uninformed will bear any fruit. You cannot resolve this conflict."

  • Speedy delete as an attack page. Brian G. Crawford 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I never heard of OITC, but the behaviour displayed by Executor-usa is not as you would expect from a reputable institution that is "more than capable of financing the acquisition and supporting same, complete with futuristic development of the company and its products into a world class corporation", where said acquisition is of the MG Rover Group and will "inject an initial $5 bill USD ($5,000,000,000 USD) with a further $5 bill USD ($5,000,000,000 USD) to expand and develop the MG Rover Group, together with a completely new range of vehicles and a new image." [37] They would have a lawyer write a letter. Are they based in Nigeria? What is "under UN Charter Control" supposed to mean? Googling "UN Charter Control no: 10" only gives OITC-related hits; are they the only organization "under UN Charter Control"? And what is "Office of International Treasury Control" supposed to mean? Why don't they have an established web presence? Everything I see smells of a scam operation, for instance this: [38]. Google and see for yourself. LambiamTalk 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, move to NPOV title, etc. This Fiji government website states that there is an organization calling itself the OITC that is misrepresenting itself, so there is certainly something to write about here. The article at this time is written to disparage its subject, but that is not its only purpose—so we can't speedy it and should fix it instead. -- SCZenz 02:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe these press clips, available at Factiva and other databases will clarify the issue:
    • COMPANIES: UK: Nothing ventured - MUDLARK - CLAY HARRIS.
      By CLAY HARRIS 121 words23 June 2005Financial TimesLondon Ed1 Page 24
      English
      Sellers of companies don't often get paid by postal order. But the accountants running failed carmaker MG Rover are now owners of one for Pounds 1, courtesy of a group calling itself the "Office of International Treasury Control".
      The OITC paid the money as a deposit on its Pounds 10 bid for Rover, which it wants to restart with a "guaranteed" Dollars 5bn cash injection. The OITC, apparently based in Thailand, claims to be a secret part of the United Nations. The UN denies it exists and says there is no such thing as a "UN Charter Control Number", quoted by the organisation to prove its validity. [39]
      20050623L124.803 Document FTFT000020050623e16n0003g
    • City: City Diary: Is it Bangkok or bust for Rover?
      edited by Sophie Brodie 141 words 27 April 2005 The Daily Telegraph
      034 English
      A Mr David Sale and a Dr Ray Dam claim to have offered to buy MG Rover for $5billion. They say they're from a Thailand-based outfit called the Office of International Treasury Control created by ``Governments of the World of Legal Decadency. They complain that Rover's administrators PWC won't take their offer seriously but say that Tony Blair has acknowledged it in a letter. Downing St says it has no record of a letter but that it ``could still be in the system. PWC has never heard of them. Nevertheless, Dam and Sale have big plans for Rover if their offer is accepted - factories in Longbridge, Russia, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Alas, the Bangkok number on their letterhead doesn't exist. [40]
      Document DT00000020050427e14r0000u
      —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.205.163 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC), format cleaned up by Jeff Q (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC) From 24.215.205.163: Thank you for cleaning it up. I am yet to learn how to sign in the talk pages. Sorry for the inconvenience.
  • Keep but needs severe cleanup, and a move to Office of International Treasury Control instead. A quick Google of that term shows up several news articles that point to a massive fraud being perpetrated, so it's probably notable just on the sheer audacity and amount of money being involved. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Khaosworks. Keep an eye out for Executor socks. Thatcher131 03:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Khaosworks. Quasi-legal puffery sounds exactly like typical fraud perpetration, devoid of any verfiable details. But we do need to make this a clean, well written, properly referenced article. I see it this way: if this is a fraud, they won't be able to produce reliable sources and have earned this global outing; if this is really a secret U.N.-sponsored operation, its inability to defend itself with unreleasable, unprovable documents will demonstrate why such things are anathema in free societies. Either way, the article (under an NPOV title) is justified by information provided by reliable sources, per WP policy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment several people have suggested renaming, however this name is a result of an earlier vfd. Office of International Treasury Control Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD's can recommend ordinary editing decisions, like a move, but their advice is not binding. And Keep Septentrionalis 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Only one person on the AFD suggested that name as far as I can see, and their reasoning was flawed in my view: 'Advance fee fraud' is not comparable in POV terms to 'OITC fraud', because 'Advance fee' is a type of fraud and not an organisation. I strongly believe the article should be renamed back. I don't see the consensus Alf referred to when he made the move. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Alf has given his blessing to reversing the move on my talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Executor-usa has made further arguments for the article's deletion on his talk page. I am unwilling to copy and paste them here due to their lengthiness. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • While I am personally convinced that OITC is a scam, I am not comfortable, in the absence of some formal finding, to label it as such, hence my suggestion that it be moved back to the original name. But either way, I still cast my vote for keeping. Executor-usa (talk · contribs)'s reply, unfortunately, seems to contain information that is unverifiable except through original research. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My personal convictions are the same as khaosworks'. I moved the article after a complaint about this article on my talk page and reading through the article and the previous AfD, this was probably a bad move on my part - at the time I saw it the same as Internet fraud, Credit card fraud, Wire fraud, Click fraud and the like. It has now become apparent that this will be difficult to prove as fraud per se and am content to have it moved back to the original location. I see no reason to delete the article though I see immense problems in maintaining the article's neutrality but having been involved in inadvertantly clouding the waters, I refrain from voicing that opinion. --Alf melmac 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move, keep, clean with a firehose per above. JDoorjam Talk 17:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sufficiently informed on the subject to know whether this article should be deleted, but at the very least it's highly POV. Any article that's prefaced with something along the lines of "The Office of International Treasury Control, (OITC), appears to be a scam of international proportions." needs a cleanup of epic proportions. Redxiv 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have attempted to address your concern by changing the first paragraph and referrign, with links, to the OITC own account of their creation (as published in the London Daily Telegraph), and to the newspapers that have not refrained from clearly stating that the OITC is an international scam and a hoax. As I have mentioned in the discussion page, all the original information included there has been taken from governmental websites and well-known newspapers. The so called "sources" presented by the OITC people are nothing but a list of incoherences and bizarre claims, wholly unverifiable. I hope the wikipedians will be able to consider the difference and will allow this very necessary article to remain.24.215.205.163 (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Comment. This articles carries dangers that are beyond comprehension. In both cases, Ecuador and Fiji, the newspaper reports are based upon supposition, they are totally based upon flawed information and in the Ecuador case, the press is using its power to destroy a rival. The MG Rover situation stating that OITC offered $10 is nonsense. There is a great deal more to it than that. I am a retired police officer, but I spent a lot of time years ago investigating Keith Scott who is an Australian citizen. I have found that while he does engage in unusual financial dealings, as stated by Police Commissioner Hughes, he also delivers. I know of no case where Scott or OITC have ever engaged in fraud, and they have been operating for more than ten years. Yes there is a file a foot thick on Scott, but there is NO evidence that he has ever committed or intended to commit fraud. When under such surveillance, he would have been arrested and incarcerated years ago if he was a scammer. The newspapers rage in Fiji that landowners will have to mortgage their lands, which has been proven to be total nonsense.

Here is why I say this article is dangerous. 1. It definitely impairs the capacity to do correct due diligence which is available through official sources. 2. OITC will eventually sue these newspapers, of that I am sure. Sefanaia Kaumaitotoya warned the press on this. The Prime Minister in Fiji is now very careful what he says about OITC today, Andrew Hughes has gone silent, even though the government and police websites still carry these statements. Extension of these falsehoods and the perpetuating of them is not only irresponsible, for they are merely supposition born from ignorance, these attacks on OITC are criminal. I know OITC lawyers will be asking for the IP address and identity of the person posting these falsehoods. I am told that a leading law firm in Fiji will be paid by OITC in this coming week to file against the Fiji Times and FijiSun Newspapers and to file against The Commissioner of Police. Is this an empty threat. No. As will be learned this week,it is a fact. I am not certain of the legal liabilities of Wikipedia as such, but you will be hearing from OITC lawyers this coming week

The Reserve Bank of Fiji have constantly refused to denounce OITC. Why? Because they know better. Posted by Waffleknocka 28/4/2006

  • Comment: The person posting under the username Waffleknocka has appeared here before, and was one of the first vandalizing the original article to suit the views of the OITC. He uses the IP address 202.47.96.40. As any other interested person can check, such adress is one of the many proxys used to hide and to disguise their real IP online (a Google search will show it in many lists all over the net). So, as usual and working with rather rudimentary means, the OITC people are attempting to hide while menacing other users and the very Wikipedia with supposed lawsuits. 24.215.205.122
  • Comment. I, Lambiam, am the sole plenipotentiary authorized by the Intergalactic Connivance of Utterly Demoralizing Barbarities to pay 6 TRILLION (6.000.000.000.000,000) Doghdoohs to the first person to conclusively show that the OITC is not a scam. As a proof of which 3 TRILLION (3.000.000.000.000,000) Doghdoohs in bullion kryptonite are held in Escrow in an impervium vault at the First And Only Monodic Self-Storage Facility on the second moon of Endurium. This is a known fact, there is no point in "denying" it!!! My credentials under code YCFSOTPAOTT are ultra-secret and can only be viewed by anyone with Intergalactic Clearance Level (ICL) AAAAA++ or AAAAA**. LambiamTalk 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Jaren Anderson Project, Jaren Anderson, One Last Job

Group nomination - Where to begin? First item is an unnamed and non-yet made film by non-notable writer/director, the second item. Google search on Jaren Anderson brings back 88 returns, only 41 unique, and only a handful of those relating to film - and those are almost all Wikipedia links. Third item is a not yet released short film. Delete. TheRealFennShysa 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete nn. If it turns out notable we'll add it back later M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the first, definitely. It is rather easy to make a film these days, given modern technology, so the requirement should be that anyone actually is likely to go and see it. Only films with major distribution deals in advance of being filmed could possibly even begin to justify an article. As for Mr Anderson himself and One Last Job - New York Film Festival mentioned sounds impressive, yes, but it also describes itself as "the underground, low budget and non-mainstream festival", so it might be a step in the direction of success, but I'm not really convinced it's success in itself. Average Earthman 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Links for arguement:

  • Disagree

Here are my takes, from research.

Check [[41]] under short fiction I nominations and [[42]] under Jaren Anderson as director and One Last Job as film.

Googled Jaren Anderson One Last Job and it brought up, 2 counts of Wikipedia, 1 count of NY film festival and 1 count of forest film, 2 counts of filmerica festival (where it seemed he made a short film for a 72 hour contest, donation charity, etc.).

I think as a viewer of film, and independent films all, shorts including films made by people with out 20 million dollar budgets, its unfair and people independent films (expecially ones that got nominations from film festivals and what not) should be fought for by wikipedians. More power to you.

Also, I remember looking this up a while ago when it first passed and remember it was IMDB.com but im not so sure anymore. Oh well, hope you guys give it a second look.

  • delete Untitled Jaren Anderson Short film ---

I agree on this one only because its a short no credable film- I don't think this a true fact, that hes making this film... so I say delete, but one last job is indeed a film, and since I live near the west village theater in New york, I'm gonna see what its all about when it premieres.

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crook

Closer's notes
The comments of two very new users (Ebn6701 and Mbn01291) were disregarded. The comments of all anonymous users were disregarded.

  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}}

Having encountered this article for the first time today, I'm struck by an overwhelming sense that it is part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a very long-running and successful troll. There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook? This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article, but the current one is fatally compromised and should either be rebuilt from the ground up using only independently verifiable information, or deleted altogether. phh (t/c) 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete Delete not notable other than for creating controversial websites. porges 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's too much manipulation of this article for it to be reliable, and it's not verifiable. I find it strange that the article was kept after the previous AfD because Michael Crook doesn't want an article here. It seems like a lot of people were voting to keep it just to be contrary and thumb their noses at Michael Crook. I don't know the guy, and I don't want to know the guy. I don't think he's notable enough as a living person to have an article here. Brian G. Crawford 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brian G. Crawford. DarthVader 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What is verifiable shows that he more than easily meets WP:BIO. Cleanup is definitely necessary, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the references are really reliable, despite being in the correct format --Astrokey44 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The subject of the article may well attain wiki-notability; the article currently reads as a series of links promoting his sites, with satiric criticism. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite; as it stands my view is delete as, either, a vanity page or an attack page, depending on whether you think the editor is pro or anti Crook. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete it. From my POV, it looks unbiased. To the best of my knowledge, the info on the page is accurate. Hbk314 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. 216.56.61.66 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Two similarly-worded keep votes from Wisconsin within hours of each other? Hmm. --phh (t/c) 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 216.56.61.66 has been a consistent vandal on the Dale Earnhardt article, claiming that Earnhardt committed suicide. The IP is registered to the University of Wisconsin (Madison). Please take these facts into consideration. Royalbroil 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes google test - 45,000 hits. Many call him four-letter words. Apparently there's some buzz about him on the internet, which in my mind makes him notable. I learned from the article's discussion page that this article had been nominated for deletion in March. How come people can keep nominating articles for deletion over and over? Royalbroil 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I retract that last sentence for this particular AFD due to the unusual circumstances (as cited above), but I ask it in general. Royalbroil 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I question why this has been brought up AGAIN for discussion. The person in question is notable, he has been featured on FOX news, on multiple radio shows, multiple internet radio shows, has been the subject of more than one lengthy newpaper article, and one only has to Google his name to see if he is of any reputation. There are articles on people of lesser infamy/fame still on Wiki. This guy consistantly finds more things to amke websites about for the sole purpose of attacking people and staying in the limelight. There have been numerous attempts by Michael Crook himself to manipulate the article, yet there has been no reliable sources that will come forward pointing out the items in the article that are incorrect. Why must we go through this AGAIN!!! It was nominated, decided as a keep, and then appealed, and keep was the decision... how many times does this have to happen? It is just silly. Wiki is a source of information for the public, about people that are of interest to the public. Certainly this guy is a public figure. Explain to me whay he is not? I am happy to discuss the details in the discussion area of the article, I highly doubt anyone will be able to produce any real evidence other than their opinions that this guy shouldn't be in Wiki. Sorry, he is here, and he should stay, there are too many supporting reasons as to why he is notable, like him or don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.177.1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete It is obvious that the previous poster has a vendetta against the subject, else they would have felt strongly enough to sign their name. Wikipedia is not to be used as an attack tool. This subject is no longer notable, and I fail to see the relevance/purpose of this page, other than to attack. As has been said by others, many others make far worse websites, and aren't featured. Why must we go through this again? Because, again: Wikipedia is not an attack tool, and this subject is not noteable. Ebn6701
    • Comment This user's first edit. --phh (t/c) 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the poster signs his/her name or not is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that he's right. Wikipedia is a a public source of information. Michael Crook has appeared on national TV, as well as many radio shows all over the east coast. I'd say that it's you who has the vendetta. Hbk314 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, I haven't a vendetta, and another thing I don't have is an understanding as to the logic of this entry. What I see here is nothing but attack, attack, attack. Heck, Wikipedia is providing free advertising for this cat. Do you not notice that all his "controversial" sites have "For Sale" signs on it? The troops site has a home phone posted on it, whether it's his or not, who knows. So hey..if Wikipedia wants to be a walking, talking commercial that's cool, I just stand firm in my belief that this isn't wikiworthy as he currently stands. He's just one of many bloggers...and you don't give this much hate to all bloggers. Ebn6701
  • Strong keep, creator of an extremely notable website; has been on national news networks, etc. --Rory096 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, make that speedy keep. The nominator clearly says "This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article." AfD is for evaluating the potential of an article, not the current state; just because it should be rewritten doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Rory096 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you volunteering to research and rewrite this article from scratch? --phh (t/c) 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article in itself is superfluous, sketchy, and seems to be borderline violating the NPOV policy. This article is constantly vandalized, and seems to lack citations where necessary. --EMC 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Even with the cleanup, this article seems to be nothing more than harrassment. I see no profiles for numerous other bloggers. Mbn01291
    • This user's first edit. --phh (t/c) 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "His most famous public appearances were on No Holds Barred Radio in 2002 and on Hannity and Colmes in May 2005." So he's been on a "radio station" (imagine the four-fingered 'quote marks' gesture with each finger two miles high) which is actually on the Internet, and he was briefly on Fox. Self-promoters managing to get themselves fifteen minutes of fame does not meet WP:BIO. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Who's Who Of Bloggers. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Much like the Michael Crook article itself, this AfD seems to be attracting a lot of attention from anonymous contributors and editors with few if any contributions other than those to Michael Crook-related topics. Considering the nature and history of this article, I believe we should consider the possibility that some or all of these contributors, on both the Keep and Delete sides, are affiliated with Michael Crook him/her/them/itself, and are attempting to drum up more of the controversy that seems to be Crook's stock in trade. (It seems abundantly clear that this is exactly what happened in the previous AfD, leading to the article being retained, which I strongly suspect is what Crook wanted all along.) --phh (t/c) 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete individual isn't very notable. He runs a website that is minimally visited. JohnnyBGood t c 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been cleaned up a bit. It's written from an unbiased point of view in my opinion. I don't see why anyone would vote Delete for this page. 24.177.115.191 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just something to point out here: most of us have the courtesy to sign our names; this user who is forcing the "keep" issue is yet again from Wisconsin, and is likely a detractor who is not interested in POV. I must agree with the previous 'delete' comment; this subject is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a 'who's who'. Mbn01291
  • Comment I actually agree with some of what Michael Crook says. Overall, I support the fact that he says what others aren't willing to say. I believe that even though the facts may look bad to the average reader, it's doesn't make them biased.24.177.115.191 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A simple check of the log will show that this particular Wisconsin user has been a volitile detractor of the subject, thereby calling his motives into question. He has taken it upon himself to ensure that this entry stays, despite the fact the subject is not notable, or is he in any way relevant. Mbn01291
  • Comment What exactly do you have against Michael Crook. He's more notable than a lot of people who have a Wikipedia page. The fact that you disagree with his views does not mean he is not notable.216.56.61.66 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This IP address has been blocked for 2 weeks for vandalizing several pages, including this one. --phh (t/c) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, the Wisconsin user strikes with his detractor views, but this time from an IP likely belonging to his employer, the Mcfarland School District. And yet again, this subject is not notable, and I think it's high time for a decision to be made once and for all. Mbn01291
  • Comment Just as notable as Michael Crook Being Mbn01291 and making changes to his own page, like taking off references and changing the detractor site to his... Give us all a break Crook. and yes, this is my first post. I came here by way of Google. Looking over the history, Wiki has been manipulated by Crook. I seems to me, as a newcomer, that it would do the article well to have a good clean edit, and then have someone keep an eye on it to keep Crook at bay.71.227.177.1
  • Comment While I am not the subject (the subject, one can tell from the logs, has been banned), a simple Google search will show that the above user is "JoseJump", who by way of the Discussion section and previous voting round, as well as all over the Internet, is proven to have a vendetta against the subject and therefore is biased, and that should be considered in this voting round. Mbn01291


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graff-Kore

I originally prod'ed this article on April 17. User:Jordanmills removed the tag, which I erroneously replaced. However, it appears that this article was never deleted, possibly due to the toolserver being down at the time. This article describes a mod for a video game, which is not an encyclopedic topic sans additional importance or notability. The fact that there are only 288 Google hits ([43]), 113 of which are unique, shows that this mod is not notable. NatusRoma | Talk 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trey Kirk

Non-notable. Google "Trey kirk"+art gives 38 hits, some of which are blogs, some refer to work he did in high school, plus he won a poster contest. The "Dadada movement" which the article asserts he pioneered draws no hits linked to his name (perhaps another example of his being a "playful man" instanced by things "such as drawing on people's artwork in Lane Hall at Tufts University and peeing on things people don't know about"). Perhaps he is a fine artist, and perhaps he will be notable one day, but that day is not today. Mwanner | Talk 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as per nom. porges 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Undergraduate artist, no external links provided for verification, google finds other people of the same name and a high school competition win. Can't see people across the world caring about this one. Average Earthman 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only contributor is Kirk6701, probably Trey Kirk himself. Also, the article tinges of a personal website. "peeing on things people don't know about" "He is advised by...a book of quotes by Marcel Duchamp at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts." Evan Seeds (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Econrad 00:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator and Evan Seeds, and per WP:VAIN, and lacking encyclopedic significance. Also WP:NFT. Barno 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libby Hoeller

Fails WP:BIO and it's probably not advisable to have an article about her according to WP:LIVING. There's already been a decision not to publish the real name of an internet pornography personality, Jordan Capri and furthermore, Libby Hoeller never intended to become famous for internet pornography. Also, reliable sources are absent, and verifiablility is a serious problem, as shown on the talk page. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The talk page has a proposed move tag on it. What is the story with the progress of that proposed move? I don't think that anything has happened to the talk page since Vossman actually put ([44]) the tag there. DarthVader 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Where are you going to get sources? This isn't the one that actually commited suicide, right? Kotepho 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible keep There is a paragraph about her in A NATION OF VOYEURS - HOW THE INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE GOOGLE IS CHANGING WHAT WE CAN FIND OUT ABOUT ONE ANOTHER - AND RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD, The Boston Globe, 2003-02-02, Neil Swidey; basically says striptease, videos to boyfriend, boyfriend puts them on the internet, and what college she dropped out of, and going through the old AFDs mentions on the Jimmy Kimmel show and Howard Stern. Kotepho 02:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, arguably the most notable of unwitting internet porn stars. Her videos were mentioned on Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel. Stop AfDing this, please. Also, "Libby Hoeller" is not her real name, so the nom has no reason to be concerned about this one in that aspect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you no sense of decency, sir? Brian G. Crawford 04:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Indecency would be plastering her real name in this AfD. Still, the answer? Nah. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • From what I've read it's pretty much her real name ("Libby" being an informal version) and that her aunt of the same surname who is a lawyer has issued cease and desist letters to some websites publishing the videos. Of course, that's just from a quick survey of the internet in the last few minutes, and the info is probably far from reliable... so...
          • Indecency is not very relevant. She was stupid. That's life. You live with it. If she were (for example) a rape victim one might have a good argument, but it really was her own stupidity and her jerk of a boyfriend that brought this about. (Note, I'm saying that and still voting delete below) JoshuaZ 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Her name is similar, but this is not it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I have concerns about verifiability and notability. --kingboyk 04:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Verifiability seems easy from things like the Boston Globe article and others. However, this seems not notable to me. Ok, so she did something dumb, her boyfriend was an ass, and then she got 15 minutes of unfortunate fame. That doesn't make her notable. Everyone gets their 15 minutes whether they enjoy it or not. Her 15 minutes are up. JoshuaZ 05:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Changing my deletion to weak per Jeff's argument that she meet WP:WEB (still going with delete because WP:WEB is a guideline). JoshuaZ 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not really an internet celebrity with only 3,000 Ghits [45] --Astrokey44 06:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nominating something for deletion without discussing your concerns with the editors of the page first is easy, but in my book, it's mean. Look at Talk:Libby Hoeller, there is a discussion going on there on how to make an appropriate article on this subject. Mangojuicetalk 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're calling me "mean" while voting to keep this article? That's completely laughable. This article is predicated on meanness. Brian G. Crawford 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete virtually empty article about a person whose sole claim to fame was that someone exploited her. Honestly, there is so little verifiable information about this person that the article doesn't even make stub status. Just zis Guy you know? 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Who are you to decide whats notable and whats not. I know this is an age old debate but theres articles about her and plenty of web pages (search google). I know google isn't the 'end all' decider of things but I still think that makes it notable enough to keep. If you are going to remove this you may as well remove all the other internet celebritys. PrettyMuchBryce 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not speedy delete. Being humiliated on the internet doesn't inherently make someone notable. Fails WP:BIO, and has no possible avenues for meaningful expansion. JDoorjam Talk 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is a complex subject and I don't know if this is the proper place to fight it out. Eventually, I suppose, this particular page should be turned into a rd to Internet embarrassments or some such. I'm not sure that there's anything particularly notable about one otherwise-average person whose personal indiscretions have earned her her 15 minutes. Indeed, given the general stupidity and carelessness of the human race we may find that this kind of story will become depressingly common (if it does not already threaten to do so). An article may well be appropriate about the general subject of indiscreet images circulated on the net by false friends. If and when such an article is written, this material should be available to editors. My preference now is to Move to workpage until such time as sources can be tracked down and the article fleshed out. It's just foolish to bury the content in the deleted tables. John Reid 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is currently uncited and has been for quite a while now under its various forms. Until such a piece can be cited correctly, the article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is notoriously and verifiably notable, with mentions on Jimmy Kimmel Live and the Howard Stern Show as well as The Boston Globe. Silensor 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. And change to Libby Hoeller Videos because the person is NOT significant but the videos ARE. --vossman 13:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Myles Long 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for Wikipedia. bbx 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, fairly well known on the internet, it is likely this is just another page that someone on Wikipedia wants to delete because it's "mean."--Josh 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-per Josh The Republican 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 31, 2005

In the same vein as January 12, 2006 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. It looks like we'll need some sort of policy made in terms of articles of dates, etc. DarthVader 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are interested in contributing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events. LambiamTalk 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Please note that this page is one of 31 included by transclusion into December 2005, whhere your afd template is also visible. Grutness...wha? 07:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. It's like this for all 1096 days from January 1, 2003 up to and including December 31, 2005: all are transcluded. So unlike for January 12, 2006 the information is not duplicated and deleting this will leave a gaping hole in the article December 2005. See also Articles for deletion/June 1, 2003, where unfortunately some contributors and at least one admin did not get the point. I hope some admin will close this (and the other) pointless discussion. LambiamTalk 08:35, 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 Withdrawn. --Rory096 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Sincerity

Non notable encyclopaedia. Just 11 Google hits! Rory096 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; unreferenced, poorly-written, non-notable philosophy- and encyclopedia-cruft. --maru (talk) contribs 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this nom, as it has an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (though at a different name; it needs to be moved). --Rory096 00:03, 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 Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shut down period

Non-notable, well-written nonsense; also seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. Argon233 T C @   00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research. DarthVader 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. porges 00:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT --Astrokey44 06:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality Article - DO NOT DELETE
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.186.167 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 00:29:01.

This page is 100% real and has infact reveived cult status at Bayside Secondary school
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logom29 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 02:17:21.

The basis for the deletion of this page is the true nonsense—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.189.28 (talk • contribs) .

Discounting two obvious sock votes, mostly based on the lack of proper signing / content of the vote -- Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smibble's Truancy

Non-notable; nonsense article paired with Shut down period; seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. -- Argon233 T C @   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. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCI Fencing Club

It's a non-notable sports team/club, and there's only one major information contributor, who is a student at the school. Evan Seeds (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. Evan Seeds (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN and vanity. Mystache 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If all such clubs were given articles in Wikipedia we will hit the 2 million article in no time at all! Alan Liefting 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable club. — TheKMantalk 22:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete, despite merge votes. This is an article about a youth orchestra, the supposed target is a festival. I don't see compatibility between the articles except to insert a sentence 'AIYF manages GYO', and if you want to insert that sentence, well, I just gave it to you, you don't need the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grampian Youth Orchestra

It's a non-notable youth group, and may qualify for db-band. Precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Orchestra of Greater Columbus. Evan Seeds (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. Evan Seeds (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Aberdeen International Youth Festival. — TheKMantalk 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per TheKMan. Kevin 11:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should not be merged with Aberdeen International Youth Festival. Grampian Youth Orchestra is a distinct entity, seperate from, although co-ordinated by, the Aberdeen International Youth Festival. The article should not be deleted because the orchestra is an important orchestra for all young musicians in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Moray, being set up by the education local authorities of these counties. It is a notable youth orchestra and important venture in music education, with celebrated conductors such as Julian Clayton being involved.
Re precedent, GYO is not a schools orchestra or club and accepts professional members provided they are under 26 years of age. There are many other articles on youth orchestras, for exmaple: Maryland Classic Youth Orchestras,American Youth Philharmonic Orchestras,Adelaide Youth Orchestra, Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestras, Queensland Youth Orchestras, Australian Youth Orchestra, Florida Symphony Youth Orchestra, Colne Valley Youth Orchestra, Somerset County Youth Orchestra, Mankato Area Youth Symphony Orchestra, Greater Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras, Hamilton Philharmonic Youth Orchestra. GYO is certainly comparable to all of the above in terms of standard and size. Talullah77
  • Comment That's bull. Even the least notable of those orchestra gets over 150 google hits. The precedent cited, The Youth Orchestra of Greater Columbus, gets 133 hits and WAS DELETED. On the other hand, Grampian Youth Orchestra gets a grand total of 3 distinct google hits, one of which is wikipedia. Also, it should be noted that Talullah is the article creator. Evan Seeds (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment Actually, Evan Seeds, it is not bull. Grampian Youth Orchestra is comparable to other orchestra in terms of artistic quality and musical importance. Surely the point of Wikipedia is to provide information such as this, which is of importance to at least 700,000 in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Moray, Scotland and of a wider imporrance to the musical community worldwide. Talullah77
  • Comment If you believe that they are so notable, and so important, then can you please prove that GYO meets WP:MUSIC? Evan Seeds (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Grampian Youth Orchestra is notable for 2 reasons 1. Annie Lennox played flute for GYO when she was at school. 2. GYO was shut down in 1995 after the reorganisation of local authorities in scotland, much to the disgust of local people. it has now been re-established in a joint project by Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council, Moray Council, Aberdeen City Music School, North East of Scotland Music school, and has the support of the National Youth Orchestra of Scotland under its new Regional Youth Orchestras programme. Allydross
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CoolCamels

I Highly doubt a MySpace game passes WP:WEB. Dspserpico 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. porges 00:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.nn.Mystache 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletenn, also seems like an advert. (Johnny Copper 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC))


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